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


                        H.R. 1820, ``THE FEDERAL LANDS 
                         AMPLIFIED SECURITY FOR THE
                        HOMELAND ACT'' OR ``FLASH ACT''

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

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        Tuesday, March 11, 2025

                               __________

                           Serial No. 119-13

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
59-734 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

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

Robert J. Wittman, VA,			Raul M. Grijalva, AZ,   		  
Tom McClintock, CA			Joe Neguse, CO
Paul A. Gosar, AZ			Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Melanie Stansbury, NM					 
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Val Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL			Seth Magaziner, RI
Russ Fulcher, ID			Jared Golden, ME
Pete Stauber, MN			Dave Min, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI				Maxine Dexter, OR			
Lauren Boebert, CO			Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Cliff Bentz, OR				Emily Randall, WA
Jen Kiggans, VA				Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Sarah Elfreth, MD
Mike Collins, GA			Adam Gray, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY			Luz Rivas, CA
Mark Amodei, NV				Nydia Velazquez, NY
Tim Walberg, MI				Debbie Dingell, MI
Mike Ezell, MS				Darren Soto, FL
Celest Maloy, Utah			Julia Brownley, CA
Addison McDowell, NC			
Jeff Crank, CO		
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT                              
                                    
                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      William David, Chief Counsel
               Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                       TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
                      MIKE KENNEDY, UT, Vice Chair
                     JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member

Tom McClintock, CA                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Pete Stauber, MN                     Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Jared Golden, ME
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Maxine Dexter, OR
Mark Amodei, NV                      Emily Randall, WA
Celeste Maloy, UT                    Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
Mike Kennedy, UT
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                              -----------
                              
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing Memo.....................................................     v
Hearing held on Tuesday, March 11, 2025..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     2
    Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................     4
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     5
    Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     6
    Ciscomani, Hon. Juan, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     8
        Prepared Statement of....................................    44

Statement of Witnesses:

    Cleveland, Thaddeus C., Sheriff, Terrell County, Sanderson, 
      Texas......................................................     9
        Prepared statement of....................................    11
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    13
    Perez, Paul, President, National Border Patrol Council, 
      Edinburg, TX...............................................    14
        Prepared statement of....................................    15
    Krumenaker, Bob, Retired National Park Service 
      Superintendent, Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande Wild 
      and Scenic River, Carlsbad, NM.............................    17
        Prepared statement of....................................    18
    Lopez, Larry, Lieutenant, San Bernardino County Sheriff's 
      Department, San Bernardino, CA.............................    22
        Prepared statement of....................................    24

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        U.S. Department of the Interior, Statement for the Record 
          on H.R. 1820...........................................    44

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Leger Fernandez

        Fired U.S. Forest Service worker at Coronado National 
          Forest speaks out......................................    33

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


To:        Subcommittee on Federal Lands Republican Members

From:     Subcommittee on Federal Lands; Aniela Butler and Jason 
        Blore--Aniela@mail.house.gov, Jason.Blore@mail.house.gov; x6-
        7736

Date:     March 10, 2025

Subject:   Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1820 (Rep. Ciscomani), the 
        ``Federal Lands Amplified Security for the Homeland Act'' or 
        ``FLASH Act''.
________________________________________________________________________
        _______

    The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold a legislative hearing 
on H.R. 1820 (Rep. Ciscomani), the ``Federal Lands Amplified Security 
for the Homeland Act'' or ``FLASH Act.'' The hearing will take place on 
Tuesday, March 11, 2025, at 10:15 a.m. in room 1324 Longworth House 
Office Building.

    Member offices are requested to notify Will Rodriguez 
(Will.Rodriguez@mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, March 10, 2025, 
if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.

I. KEY MESSAGES

     During its four years in office, the Biden administration 
            subjected our country to a series of disastrous immigration 
            policies. These reckless measures flung open the southern 
            border, prompting record numbers of illegal crossings and 
            drug seizures.

     Much of the predictable harm that followed these actions 
            occurred along the roughly 35 percent of the U.S.-Mexico 
            border that is administered by federal land management 
            agencies. Even during periods of strong enforcement, 
            federal border lands are targeted by criminals, drug 
            smugglers, and human traffickers because they are remote, 
            largely uninhabited, and less frequently patrolled.

     Throughout the Biden border crisis, however, our nation's 
            national parks and public lands were left especially 
            vulnerable. As surges in illegal immigration were 
            accompanied by enormous trash piles, unauthorized trails, 
            countless wildfires, and illegal marijuana cultivation in 
            public areas, federal land managers did little to stop the 
            damage. Instead, the Biden administration was busy turning 
            national parks into migrant shelters.

     With the return of President Trump and Republican 
            majorities in Congress, however, relief is finally at hand. 
            The ``FLASH Act'' offers comprehensive solutions that will 
            complement the Trump administration's executive actions to 
            ensure that our federal lands can now be protected from 
            environmental harm, opened to the public for safe 
            enjoyment, and made accessible to law enforcement officials 
            to provide improved border security.

     These provisions will also serve as vital safeguards 
            against any future presidential administration that may 
            again seek to disregard the public interest and plunge the 
            nation into the chaos that results from an open-border 
            ideology.

II. WITNESSES

Panel I (Members of Congress):

     The Honorable Juan Ciscomani, Member of Congress, 
            Arizona's 6th Congressional District

Panel II (Outside Experts):

     The Honorable Thaddeus C. Cleveland, Sheriff, Terrell 
            County, Sanderson, Texas

     Mr. Paul A. Perez, President, National Border Patrol 
            Council, Edinburg, Texas

     Mr. Larry Lopez, Lieutenant, San Bernardino County 
            Sheriff's Department, San Bernardino, California

     Mr. Bob Krumenaker, Former Superintendent of Big Bend 
            National Park (Retired), Coalition to Protect America's 
            National Parks and the Association of National Park 
            Rangers, Carlsbad, New Mexico [Minority witness]

III. BACKGROUND

H.R. 1820 (Rep. Ciscomani), the ``Federal Lands Amplified Security for 
        the Homeland Act'' or ``FLASH Act''

Overview of the Biden Administration's Border Crisis

    The FLASH Act is the next step in the Committee on Natural 
Resources' legislative work addressing the Biden administration's 
border crisis. This legislation will restore the health of our national 
parks and public lands and shield them from abuse under a future open-
borders administration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9734.004


    For information on the Committee's previous legislative and 
oversight hearings related to former President Biden's crisis at the 
border, please see:

     The Subcommittee on Federal Lands' legislative hearings on 
            federal border lands security bills on March 23, 2023 and 
            October 19, 2023.

     The Subcommittee on Federal Lands' oversight field hearing 
            in Sierra Vista, Arizona, entitled ``Biden's Border Crisis: 
            The Consequences of Failing to Secure Federal Border 
            Lands.''

     The Natural Resources Committee's hearing entitled 
            ``Destroying America's Best Idea: Examining the Biden 
            Administration's Use of National Park Service Lands for 
            Migrant Camps.''

     The Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigation's hearing 
            entitled ``Securing Our Border, Saving Our National 
            Parks.''

    The Biden administration's complete failure to secure the southern 
border created a confluence of security, environmental, and 
humanitarian crises. Our country is still reeling from those upheavals, 
with various metrics registering the troubling extent of the damage. 
Under President Biden, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
reported approximately 10.8 million illegal-entry encounters across the 
U.S.1 For comparison, that was more than triple the number 
of encounters reported during the period roughly covering President 
Trump's first term.2 Under President Biden, 8.7 million of 
the encounters occurred along the southern border, illustrating the 
extreme stress placed upon that region.3 Concerningly, 392 
illegal aliens on the terrorist watchlist were apprehended between 
ports of entry along the southern border during this time.4 
Given that an estimated two million ``got-aways'' evaded capture under 
Biden's watch, it is very likely that far greater numbers of 
potentially dangerous persons illegally entered the 
country.5 Drug trafficking also surged alongside rising 
border crossings. In July 2024, for instance, CBP reported the largest 
fentanyl seizure in the agency's history, confiscating over four 
million blue fentanyl pills.6 Unfortunately, this event was 
not atypical; CBP seized approximately 21,100 pounds of fentanyl along 
the southern border in fiscal year (FY) 2024.7 This is 
enough fentanyl to kill approximately 4.1 billion people, or enough 
fatal doses to kill the entire U.S. population 14 times 
over.8 Against this backdrop of widespread harm, it is 
unsurprising that President Trump declared a national emergency at the 
southern border immediately upon returning to office.9
    Some of the most dangerous areas along the southern border are the 
estimated 693 miles of federal land, representing approximately 35 
percent of the total 1,965 miles of the southern border.10 
Federal land management agencies including the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and the U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS) all manage lands along the southern border.11 Many of 
these lands have restrictive land designations, including national 
parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, and national wildlife 
refuges. Federal lands along the border are often targeted by 
criminals, drug smugglers, and human traffickers because they are 
remote, largely uninhabited, and less frequently 
patrolled.12 Even in periods of strong enforcement, CBP 
agents face difficulties patrolling federal border lands due to the 
patchwork of ``environmental laws, regulations and memos'' drafted by 
faraway supervisors and managers.13 According to Brandon 
Judd, a former president of the National Border Patrol Council, these 
regulations undermine CBP's ``ability to effectively and efficiently 
secure our borders and put the lives of [CBP's] agents and the public 
at greater risk.'' 14
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    To help our federal border lands recover from this crisis and 
gain the protections afforded by adequate enforcement, Representative 
Ciscomani (R-AZ) introduced the ``Federal Lands Amplified Security for 
the Homeland Act'', or ``FLASH Act'', on March 4, 2025.
H.R. 1820, the FLASH Act
Title I--Securing Federal Border Lands
The Pressing Need for Navigable Roads
    One of the primary issues CBP officers face when operating on 
federal lands is the lack of accessible, navigable roads. Accessible 
roads, paired with physical barriers such as fences or walls in 
strategic locations, are pivotal to securing our southern border. Fully 
accessible and well-maintained roads help CBP agents ``interdict and 
apprehend illegal entrants'' and support the construction and 
maintenance of other tactical infrastructure.15 They also 
enable CBP personnel to ``efficiently traverse their areas of 
responsibility,'' thus improving the agency's overall operational 
effectiveness and mobility.16 Poorly maintained roads, by 
contrast, have been reported to have ``negatively affected agents' 
ability to respond and resolve illicit activity.'' 17
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Despite its central importance, much of the road network in the 
southern border region falls far below what is necessary for effective 
border security. In fact, as of 2019, only 29 percent of the 
approximately 4,900 miles of roads CBP uses for operational patrols 
were owned by CBP or subject to CBP's rights to conduct maintenance and 
repair.18 Worse still, only 146 miles of those roads were in 
all-weather condition.19 CBP's lack of access to navigable 
roads is especially pronounced on federal lands, which often comprise 
rugged and sparsely populated terrain.20 In Arizona's 
Coronado National Forest, for example, ``the inability to build proper 
access roads along and near the [border] line, including secondary 
roads, diminished agent mobility while patrolling and ultimately 
prevented agents from being as effective as they could otherwise be.'' 
21
    There is therefore an immediate need to build accessible patrol 
roads along our southern border. While President Trump requested 
significant funding for road maintenance during his first term, 
President Biden largely neglected this situation.22 This 
lack of action persisted despite a 2023 acknowledgment by the 
Department of Homeland Security of ``an acute and immediate need to 
construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of 
the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United 
States . . . '' 23 Back in office, President Trump has 
directed the Secretary of Homeland Security ``to supplement available 
personnel to secure the southern border.'' 24 The 
construction of additional roads could greatly enhance the operational 
effectiveness of this planned influx of enforcement personnel to the 
region.
    Title I of the FLASH Act seeks to offset the road shortages that 
prevailed under the Biden administration. Effective border security 
requires that roads and physical barriers be constructed along the full 
length of federal border lands so that all illegal access points can be 
monitored. Otherwise, illegal migrants will shift their entry patterns 
to less-defended portions of the southern border, as has occurred in 
the past.25 Adopting a comprehensive approach, Title I would 
direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to install 
navigable roads on all federal lands along the southern border. Title I 
requires at least 584 miles of road, the most conservative estimate of 
federal land along the border.26 This includes roughly 61 
miles in California, 190 miles in Arizona, 81 miles in New Mexico, and 
251 miles in Texas.27 Additionally, these roads must be 
completed within five years. The roads will be accessible to the 
Department of Defense (DOD), CBP, local law enforcement, emergency 
response personnel, and others the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 
Interior deem necessary. Title I also requires those Secretaries to 
work with the Secretary of Homeland Security to deploy fencing, 
surveillance, and related technology along these roads. Taken together, 
these provisions are crucial to secure our border, stop the smuggling 
of narcotics and weapons into our country, and halt environmental 
damage associated with illegal border crossers.
    This section of Title 1 reflects an updated version of draft 
legislation from the 118th Congress sponsored by Chairman Bruce 
Westerman (R-AR), entitled ``Ensuring Border Access and Protection on 
Federal Land Act.'' Hearing information on the legislation, including 
testimony, can be found here:

https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=414965

and the hearing memo can be found here:

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_--
_sub_on_fl_leg_hrg_on_4_border_bills_10.19.23.pdf

Increasing CBP's Operational Capabilities on Public Lands
    CBP's enforcement efforts along the southern border are also 
hampered by restrictive land use designations and limitations that 
federal land managers impose on CBP's access. Among land use 
designations, wilderness areas pose especially serious challenges. For 
example, since mechanized and motorized vehicles are prohibited within 
wilderness areas, CBP agents must rely on horses to engage in or 
continue their pursuits.28 This switch from vehicle to 
horseback squanders valuable time and jeopardizes officer 
safety.29 With approximately 1.1 million acres of land along 
the southern border designated as wilderness, such challenges cannot be 
avoided without altering the status quo.30 Even the Obama 
administration acknowledged that wilderness areas and their associated 
restrictions ``can be detrimental to the most effective accomplishment 
of [CBP's] missions'' and can even serve as ``a hindrance to the 
maintenance of officer safety.'' 31 This lack of 
accessibility also hampers CBP rescue operations, which were conducted 
5,420 times along the southern border in FY 2024.32 Without 
the ability to use mechanized equipment, these rescue operations become 
more dangerous, costly, and time-consuming.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Title I incorporates provisions from the ``Securing Our Borders 
and Wilderness Act,'' a bill sponsored by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) 
in the 118th Congress, to address the unique challenges posed by 
wilderness areas.33 Title I amends the Wilderness Act of 
1964 to ensure CBP can conduct specified activities within wilderness 
areas to secure the southern border.34 These permitted 
activities include building access structures, installations, and 
roads; executing search and rescue operations; using motor vehicles, 
motorboats, or motorized equipment; conducting foot and horseback 
patrols; using aircraft (consistent with other applicable laws) ; 
deploying tactical infrastructure and technology; and constructing and 
maintaining physical roads and barriers. When performing these 
activities, CBP is required to protect, to the extent possible, the 
wilderness character of the area.
    In addition to statutory land use designations, federal land 
managers impose various restrictions on CBP activity. For example, when 
CBP requested permission to move surveillance equipment, federal land 
managers took ``more than 4 months to conduct the required historic 
property assessment and grant permission, but by then illegal traffic 
had shifted to other areas.'' 35 To counter this problem, 
Title I prohibits the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) from restricting CBP actions within 
100 miles of the southern border that involve search and rescue 
operations, apprehensions, and preventing unlawful entries into the 
United States.
    Previously, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and 
federal land management agencies had signaled their mutual intent to 
work together to ensure border security. Specifically, DHS, DOI, and 
USDA entered into a March 2006 agreement entitled, ``Memorandum of 
Understanding Among U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. 
Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture Regarding 
Cooperative National Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal 
Lands along the United States' Borders,'' (2006 MOU).36 The 
2006 MOU provides specific guidance on cooperation related to border 
security, committing the signatories ``to preventing illegal entry into 
the United States, protecting Federal lands and natural and cultural 
resources, and--where possible--preventing adverse impacts associated 
with illegal entry.'' 37 As noted by the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO), however, ``such cooperation has not always 
occurred,'' as CBP officials report excessive delays in trying to 
coordinate with federal land managers.38 Accordingly, Title 
I directs DOI, USDA, and DHS to fulfill the commitments made in the 
2006 MOU, or any succeeding memorandum of understanding. With greater 
cooperation among federal agencies, better enforcement outcomes are 
more likely to occur.
Empowering Border States to Protect Their Communities
    The Biden administration also worsened the border crisis by 
repeatedly obstructing state-led enforcement measures. Having borne the 
brunt of mass-scale illegal migration, several states attempted to 
erect their own barriers along the southern border. In 2022, for 
example, Arizona, under then Governor Doug Ducey, ``set up hundreds of 
double-stacked shipping containers'' along the state's border with 
Mexico to stem the surge of illegal immigrants arriving amidst the 
Biden administration's border crisis.39 Similarly, in 2022 
and 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott placed shipping containers along 
Texas's portion of the southern border and ``installed wrecking-ball-
sized buoys and razor wire along the Rio Grande'' to achieve the same 
purpose.40 However, after legal challenges from the Biden 
administration, the Supreme Court eventually ruled to allow CBP to 
remove some of these barriers.41
    Through Congressional action, states may be authorized to act 
without upsetting the federal supremacy issues the Supreme Court was 
determined to uphold. Title I, therefore, empowers states to secure the 
southern border so they are never again rendered powerless in the face 
of an open-border presidency. Reflecting solutions put forward in H.R. 
534, sponsored by Representative David Rouzer (R-NC), Title I grants 
border states the explicit authority to place temporary barriers on 
federal land to prevent illegal immigration and protect their 
communities.42 Title I accomplishes this by prohibiting DOI 
and USDA from requiring southern border states to obtain a special use 
authorization for placing movable, temporary structures on federal land 
if the state notifies the federal land management agency not later than 
45 days before placement. These structures may be put in place for one 
year or less, but the states can apply for 90-day extensions from USDA 
or DOI, subject to CBP overview.
Title II--Ending Environmental Destruction on Public Lands
Subtitle A--Trash Reduction And Suppressing Harm from Environmental 
        Degradation at the Border (TRASHED Border) Act
    There are devastating environmental consequences of illegal 
immigration. Illegal immigrants leave behind trash, including human 
waste, medical products, abandoned vehicles, and plastic. Illegal trash 
dumping along the border threatens wildlife, destroys habitat, and 
attracts disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes and flies. Human 
waste is a growing problem that contaminates the drinking water of 
nearby residents. This trash puts an incredible strain on federal, 
state, Tribal, local, and private land managers and owners. In FY 2021, 
BLM district offices cleaned up 235 sites, collecting over 193 tons of 
garbage.43 The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
estimates that more than 2,000 tons of trash are discarded annually 
along Arizona's border.44
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Subtitle A of Title II reflects legislation sponsored by 
Federal Lands Subcommittee Chairman Tom Tiffany (R-WI) in the 118th 
Congress.45 The ``Trash Reduction And Suppressing Harm from 
Environmental Degradation at the Border (TRASHED Border) Act'' 
addresses environmental damage on federal border lands caused by 
illegal immigration. This includes areas where aliens are being housed 
or camping on federal land and areas where there is damage to sensitive 
natural and archaeological resources and destruction of wildlife 
habitat. This subtitle would require federal land management agencies 
to develop policies and protocols to prevent and mitigate environmental 
damage from illegal immigrants. In addition, to bring greater 
transparency, federal land management agencies must report the amount 
of waste collected on southern border lands, sites housing migrants, 
and sites used to cultivate illegal marijuana. Having greater 
transparency will show the true extent of the environmental impacts 
illegal immigration has on federal lands. To deter future harmful 
activities, this subtitle increases the fines and penalties imposed on 
those aliens without legal status who are engaged in illegal trash--or 
fire-related activities on federal land.
    Hearing information on Chairman Tiffany's legislation, including 
testimony, can be found here:

https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=414965

and the hearing memo can be found here:

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_--
_sub_on_fl_leg_hrg_on_4_border_bills_10.19.23.pdf

Subtitle B--Targeting and Offsetting Existing Illegal Contaminants 
        (TOXIC) Act
    Trash accumulation from illegal immigration is not limited solely 
to federal border lands. Illegal cannabis cultivation, which produces 
enormous quantities of waste, occurs on federal land throughout the 
country. These illicit cultivation activities are often performed by 
illegal immigrants or those connected to a drug cartel. USFS law 
enforcement officials estimated the arrests they make for illegal 
cannabis cultivation are ``almost all drug cartel-related.'' 
46 USFS also reported that 5,801 illegal cannabis 
cultivation sites were detected on National Forest System lands over 
the 2011-2022 period.47 While data is limited, USFS 
estimated that they removed 381,510 pounds of trash, 479 miles of 
plastic irrigation lines, and 228 containers of banned and illegal 
pesticides from illegal cultivation sites over a roughly 20-year 
period.48 USFS estimated illegal marijuana cultivation on 
National Forest System lands earns cartels an estimated $56 to $91 
million annually.49 The cost of cleaning up these sites has 
been roughly $40,000 per site.50 At one illegal site, an 
environmental assessment ``concluded that more than 14.25 million 
gallons of water were illegally diverted.'' 51
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Subtitle B of Title II reflects an updated version of 
legislation from the 118th Congress, the ``Targeting and Offsetting 
Existing Illegal Contaminants (TOXIC) Act.'' 52 The TOXIC 
Act would seek to address the environmental damage caused by toxic 
chemicals associated with illegal marijuana cultivation and subject 
those illegally cultivating and harvesting marijuana on federal lands 
to stricter criminal penalties. Specifically, this bill creates a 
Trespass Cannabis Cultivation Site Response Initiative for the land 
management agencies. The TOXIC Act also raises the criminal penalties 
for using banned pesticides in illegal cannabis cultivation to a 
maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, which would create 
parity with the existing penalties for smuggling banned chemicals into 
the country. During the legislative hearing on H.R. 1473, DOI advised 
that similar authority for federal land under the management of DOI 
would be beneficial.53 The updated language incorporated in 
the FLASH Act includes DOI-managed land and reflects technical 
assistance from USFS, DOI, and the Environmental Protection 
Agency.54
    Hearing information on the TOXIC Act from the last Congress, 
including testimony, can be found here:

https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=412935

and the hearing memo can be found here:

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_--
_sub_on_fl_leg_hrg_on_4_forestry_bills_03.23.23_final.pdf

Subtitle C--Ending Major Border Land Environmental Ruin From Wildfires
    Additionally, wildfires sparked by cross-border violators' (CBVs) 
campfires contribute to the destruction of natural resources and 
wildlife habitat throughout federal border lands.55 In 2011, 
GAO produced a report to analyze the wildfires along the southern 
border in Arizona.56 At least 2,467 wildfires occurred in 
the Arizona border region during a four-year span, resulting in over 
$35 million in fire suppression costs.57 Fighting fire along 
the border is more difficult due to safety concerns. Nighttime 
operations and aerial firefighting methods are limited due to the 
presence of CBVs.58 USFS can directly link illegal 
cultivation of marijuana on federal lands as the primary culprit behind 
wildfires that ultimately burned 265,00 acres.59 Illegal 
cannabis sites in national forests exacerbate the dual threats of 
catastrophic wildfire and severe drought. Recently, in 2020, an illegal 
cannabis grower started the 125,000-acre Dolan Fire in the Los Padres 
National Forest, which killed 11 endangered condors.60
    Subtitle C of Title II codifies the Southern Border Fuels 
Management Initiative, which requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
prioritize fuels management on federal land along the southern border. 
This Initiative was started under President Trump's first term to 
``increase safety and visibility for our border patrol agents, improve 
national security, and increase landscape resilience through vegetation 
management'' along the U.S.-Mexico border.'' 61 This 
important Initiative allowed DOI to install 30 miles of fuel breaks in 
FY 2019 and treat nearly 80,000 acres of land to reduce hazardous 
fuels.62 Among its litany of border-related failures, 
however, the Biden administration allowed this crucial program to go 
dormant. By codifying this Initiative in federal statute, this subtitle 
of the FLASH Act will prevent such a lapse from recurring, improve 
operational efficiencies along the border, and reduce the risk of 
future catastrophic wildfires. Further, this subtitle would direct GAO 
to update, within two years of enactment, its November 2011 report 
entitled ``Federal Agencies Could Better Utilize Law Enforcement 
Resources in Support of Wildland Fire Management Activities.'' 
63 Representative Ken Calvert (R-CA) introduced this 
subtitle as standalone legislation, the ``Ending Major Borderland 
Environmental Ruin from Wildfires (EMBER) Act,'' during the 118th 
Congress.64
Title III--Protecting Our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border
    The widespread effects of President Biden's border crisis turned 
every American community into a border community. His administration's 
unprecedented decision to lease National Park System land to New York 
City (NYC) to relieve pressure on their migrant housing crisis was a 
dangerous and failed experiment. After signing a lease with NYC in the 
summer of 2023, the Biden administration established a migrant 
encampment at Floyd Bennett Field (FBF), part of the Gateway National 
Recreation Area in NYC. House Committee on Natural Resources 
Republicans repeatedly conducted oversight on this abuse of power, 
including the misuse and denial of access to America's federal lands. 
Virtually every major concern the Committee raised ultimately came to 
fruition. The migrant crisis in NYC and the existence of the encampment 
at FBF led to increased crime targeting local NYC community 
residents.65 Numerous reports of criminality in and around 
the FBF migrant camp included allegations of domestic violence, 
assault, shoplifting, prostitution, and panhandling scams.66 
Before the FBF Lease expired on September 14, 2024, NPS renewed the 
lease for another year.67 Shortly thereafter, the City of 
New York announced it would be terminating its lease with the site and 
ending the migrant encampment on March 10, 2025.68
    Biden administration officials responsible for deliberately 
transforming FBF into a migrant camp sought to evade congressional 
oversight and accountability. The Committee launched a thorough 
investigation into the FBF lease, which involved requests for document 
productions, briefings, and interviews with several federal agencies, 
including NPS, DHS, Council on Environmental Quality, and White House 
officials. On August 9, 2024, Chairman Westerman issued a subpoena to 
DHS for documents related to the lease agreement.69 The 
Committee plans to continue working with the Trump administration to 
finally get answers to outstanding questions from the previous 
administration and bring accountability to this ill-conceived lease.
    In addition to restricting public access to national park lands, 
the FBF lease sets a terrible precedent by transforming America's best 
idea--our national parks--into inaccessible migrant encampments. To 
ensure this blatant misuse of public lands never recurs, Title III of 
the FLASH Act reflects legislation sponsored by Representative Nicole 
Malliotakis (R-NY) in the 118th Congress, which passed the House of 
Representatives with a bipartisan vote of 224-203 on November 30, 
2024.70 Title III would prohibit federal funding from being 
used to house illegal immigrants on federal land for reasons unrelated 
to DHS and DOD border enforcement operations. It would also cancel the 
renewed FBF lease to ensure this harmful precedent cannot be used as a 
justification by future administrations to turn national parks into 
migrant shelters.
    Hearing information on Representative Nicole Malliotakis's 
legislation from the last Congress, including testimony, can be found 
here:

https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=414965

and the hearing memo can be found here:

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_--
_sub_on_fl_leg_hrg_on_4_border_bills_10.19.23.pdf
V. MAJOR PROVISIONS & SECTION-BY-SECTION
    FLASH Act Section-by-Section
V. COST
    A formal cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
is not yet available. CBO previously scored Title III of the 
legislation and determined the ``net effect on direct spending would be 
negligible.'' 71
VI. ADMINISTRATION POSITION
    The administration's position is unknown at this time.
VII. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW (RAMSEYER)
H.R. 1820
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                 

 
 LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1820, TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES 
 AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION CURRENTLY IMPACTING FEDERAL LANDS ALONG 
 THE SOUTHERN BORDER, ENHANCE BORDER SECURITY THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION 
OF NAVIGABLE ROADS ON FEDERAL LANDS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER, PROVIDE 
 U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ACCESS TO FEDERAL LANDS TO IMPROVE 
THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, ALLOW STATES TO 
PLACE TEMPORARY BARRIERS ON FEDERAL LAND TO SECURE THE SOUTHERN BORDER, 
 REDUCE THE MASSIVE TRASH ACCUMULATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION 
ALONG THE SOUTHERRI BORDER, REDUCE THE CULTIVATION OF ILLEGAL CANNABIS 
      ON FEDERAL LANDS, MITIGATE WILDLAND FIRES CAUSED BY ILLEGAL 
   IMMIGRATION, AND PROHIBIT MIGRANT HOUSING ON FEDERAL LANDS, ``THE 
  FEDERAL LANDS AMPLIFIED SECURITY FOR THE HOMELAND ACT'' OR ``FLASH 
                                 ACT''

                              ----------                              


                        Tuesday, March 11, 2025

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                            Washington, D.C.

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Tiffany, McClintock, Fulcher, 
Stauber, Bentz, Maloy, Kennedy; Neguse, Leger Fernandez, and 
Dexter.
    Also present: Representatives Westerman, Hageman, 
Ciscomani, and Huffman.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to 
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to consider H.R. 1820 
sponsored by Representative Ciscomani, the Federal Lands 
Amplified Security for the Homeland Act, or the FLASH Act. This 
bill represents comprehensive solutions to secure our Federal 
border lands and protect them from environmental damage.
    I ask unanimous consent that the following members be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the 
gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, and the gentleman from 
Arizona, Mr. Ciscomani.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Mr. Tiffany. First of all, I want to begin by commending 
Representative Ciscomani for both the timeliness and the 
importance of the legislation he has brought before us today. 
As has been widely reported, the Biden-Harris Administration 
has compiled the most incompetent and disgraceful record 
imaginable when it comes to the protection of our southern 
border. Although President Biden is no longer in office, the 
country is still reeling from his damaging and disgraceful open 
border policies.
    Under the former President's watch, immigration authorities 
recorded more than 8.7 million encounters with illegal 
immigrants crossing into the United States from Mexico. This 
unprecedented surge overwhelmed America's response capabilities 
and created a confluence of security, environmental, and 
humanitarian crises.
    Thankfully, President Trump is taking strong and decisive 
action to end this crisis. But Congress must also do its part. 
We must create robust safeguards to ensure that this kind of 
reckless damage can never again be inflicted by an 
irresponsible president.
    Recognizing this duty, my colleague from Arizona, 
Representative Ciscomani, has presented the thoughtful 
legislative package before us today. His bill empowers Border 
Patrol and local law enforcement to protect those areas that 
were left especially exposed and vulnerable by the Biden 
administration, our southern Federal border lands.
    Approximately 35 percent of the southern border is 
federally owned, so the conditions that prevail in those areas 
have a significant influence on overall border security. And 
the large-scale illegal migration that has occurred in those 
regions has also destroyed fragile ecosystems.
    The facts are unambiguous. State governments, and we must 
rely on state estimates since Federal agencies refused to 
gather meaningful data, have calculated that each illegal 
migrant leaves behind an estimated six to eight pounds of trash 
during their journey across the border. With more than 2.1 
million encounters with illegal entrants last year, it is 
likely that illegal immigrants left a minimum of 12 million 
pounds of trash in 2024 alone. Worse still, this environmental 
degradation is happening in our most sensitive landscapes, 
national parks, national monuments, and wilderness areas.
    Last February, I witnessed some of this ecological 
devastation firsthand, when this Subcommittee held a field 
oversight hearing on the border in Sierra Vista, Arizona. I 
visited the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in the 
Coronado National Forest. While there, I was dismayed to see 
trash-strewn landscapes, illegal campfires, and decaying food 
piles.
    If we truly care about conserving our Federal lands and 
leaving them in better state for future generations, we cannot 
ignore this crisis. And by the way, you can see a picture of 
that right behind me here.
    It is with this realization that prompted me to sponsor the 
TRASHED Border Act last Congress. That bill requires Federal 
land managers to develop policies and protocols for addressing 
the massive trash accumulations that have piled up along the 
southern border. It also requires those agencies to provide 
current data on the amount of waste collected on Federal lands 
along the southern border. Finally, that legislation would 
increase penalties and fines for illegal immigrants who 
desecrate our public lands. Key provisions of that bill are 
incorporated in today's legislative package.
    The border crisis's impact on public lands was not limited 
solely to environmental damage. Under the Biden administration, 
Federal border lands became increasingly dangerous. Even in 
strong enforcement years, Federal border lands are often 
targeted by criminals, drug smugglers, and human traffickers 
because they are remote, largely uninhabited, and less 
frequently patrolled. Under President Biden's shameful neglect, 
certain sectors resembled all-out war zones.
    Federal border lands have also become a haven for organized 
crime. Drug smugglers and human traffickers have directed 
illegal border crossers toward sparsely populated portions of 
the border to enter the U.S. with a lower chance of detection. 
Border Patrol agents have reported being fired upon in rugged 
terrain when attempting to arrest suspected illegal migrants.
    Given the unprecedented numbers of known gang members and 
suspected terrorists who have crossed the border, this 
mismanagement has made America's public lands alarmingly 
unsafe. The issue is even more pronounced in wilderness areas, 
which comprise over a million acres along the southern border. 
In these areas, Federal land managers impose severe limitations 
on Border Patrol's accessibility. For example, since mechanized 
and motorized vehicles are prohibited within wilderness areas, 
Border Patrol agents must rely on horses to pursue fleeing 
suspects in cars or off-highway vehicles. These nonsensical 
restrictions hamper operational effectiveness and needlessly 
jeopardize officer safety.
    Despite their dismal track record, I still hope that my 
Democrat colleagues will join us in protecting our Federal 
border lands and the safety of all who find themselves there. 
Everything in today's featured legislation deserves strong 
bipartisan support.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today, and 
I look forward to the insights that each of you will bring to 
this important discussion.
    With that, I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 
Neguse.

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

    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to read just two brief excerpts from two different 
articles in the last 2 weeks. One is from the Star Tribune: 
Superior National Forest Staff Deficit Worsens. An agency 
employee in Minnesota, who requested anonymity out of fear of 
retribution, said the cuts and fallout have SNF, Superior 
National Forest, staff in crisis mode. Other forest colleagues 
are worried that they will lose their jobs, and some career 
employees feel pressured to resign or risk losing benefits, the 
worker added. We were already hanging on by a thread, the 
person added. Now, Musk, Trump, and DOGE are thinning us even 
further. This is huge for the Boundary Waters recreation and 
timber and fire management.
    Another article headline: ` There is Literally No One': The 
fallout coming to Lake Tahoe after Forest Service gutted. This 
is from the San Francisco Gate newspaper.
    Mr. Chairman, across the country, Forest Service employees, 
Department of the Interior employees, civil servants at the 
Bureau of Land Management are losing their jobs, they are being 
purged from the Federal Government, in many of your districts, 
as is the case in mine. Timber management, wildfire management, 
wildfire mitigation, watershed protection, all of it put at 
risk. And while I have a great respect for my colleague from 
Arizona and we work closely together on a number of different 
matters, I have to be candid that I am disappointed that this 
Subcommittee has not even entertained the idea of convening on 
any of the matters that I just described.
    I understand this is a priority for my Republican 
colleagues. I understand this bill that you have proposed that 
directs, I guess, my sense is it essentially tells the Forest 
Service and the Department of the Interior that they cannot 
impede any efforts of DHS. Of course, it seems like that could 
be achieved by a phone call. Right? I mean, you could call 
Secretary Burgum at the Department of the Interior and say to 
him, hey, it would be helpful if you did not impede any of the 
efforts of Secretary Noem at the Department of Homeland 
Security. I am not really understanding why it requires a 
Federal law and the expenditure of our time here today when in 
every single one of your districts, Forest Service employees 
are being fired as we speak. Does not make sense to me.
    The priorities of this Committee, as is the case with the 
priorities of the Majority, are out of step with the facts on 
the ground. And, you know, Chairman, you know me to not be, I 
think at least, a particularly partisan person. We have worked 
together for years on this particular Subcommittee considering 
bipartisan legislation. It is the most productive subcommittee, 
at least it was, in the U.S. Congress. Hundreds of bills by 
members on both sides of the aisle that are largely supported 
on a unanimous basis.
    So it pains me to lay bare my fears in this regard. But I 
have to do that, because when I go back home to my district at 
the end of the week, I can promise you they are not going to 
ask me about this bill. What they are going to ask me about are 
the wildfire mitigation projects in the national forests that I 
have the privilege of representing that are now in jeopardy 
because the Trump administration has decided to gut the Federal 
workforce. And they will ask why, as the Ranking Member of the 
Federal Lands Subcommittee, we have not taken that up. And I 
will tell them, well, it is because this week Republicans 
decided that rather than telling Secretary Burgum to work with 
the Department of Homeland Security, they passed a Federal law 
to force him to do it. That is your prerogative, you choose the 
agenda here. But make no mistake, I do not think the American 
people are going to be supportive.
    And with that, I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member. And I do 
truly enjoy working with you here and look forward to 
continuing to do that.
    And I will recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, 
Mr. Westerman, for an opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, for holding 
this hearing today. I also want to thank Representative 
Ciscomani for compiling this crucial legislation.
    The Committee traveled to Representative Ciscomani's 
district last year to see firsthand the environmental 
destruction happening on southern Federal border lands. We went 
to the border with Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels. Sheriff 
Dannels told us something I would like everyone to remember as 
we listen to today's hearing. ``We do not have a border 
security problem in this country; we have an organized crime 
problem,'' is what the sheriff told us at that field hearing.
    Nowhere is this issue more pronounced than on Federal 
lands. People often do not realize just how much of our 
southern border is comprised of Federal land. In Arizona, for 
example, 80 percent of the border is federally owned.
    On this Committee, we have often highlighted the serious 
problems that result from excessive Federal landownership. But 
these issues take on an even greater significance along the 
southern border, where America's safety and sovereignty are on 
the line.
    Whenever I meet with CBP officials, they reiterate how 
difficult it is to patrol the Federal portions of the border. 
These agents, who are just trying to do their jobs, frequently 
lack accessible roads to conduct effective controls and must 
contend with the head-scratching absence of physical barriers 
that are proven to reduce illegal immigration. In some areas, 
restrictive land use designations, such as wilderness areas, 
mean agents must stop active pursuit of dangerous criminals 
because they cannot use mechanized or motorized equipment. 
Instead, they have to wait for horses to arrive while dangerous 
illegal immigrants get further and further away. This just is 
not common sense.
    These restrictions come with considerable cost. When we 
fail to secure our Federal lands, we fail to secure our border. 
This lesson was revealed in painful clarity during the recent 
chaos of the Biden administration when more than eight million 
illegal entry attempts occurred along the southern border. This 
surge in illegal crossings pushed law enforcement to the brink 
and imperiled the well-being of large swaths of our public 
lands.
    Drug and human traffickers seek out remote areas to access 
the country and evade detection. Illegal immigrants cut trails 
through sensitive wildlife habitat, start wildfires, and leave 
behind an estimated six to eight pounds of trash per person.
    Illegal immigration also deters members of the public from 
visiting these areas, effectively nullifying their right to 
safe access. The effects of illegal immigration extend far 
beyond the southern border. In California, dangerous cartels 
grow illegal marijuana on Federal forest lands and use the 
proceeds to fund gang wars, human trafficking, and other 
illicit activities. In New York, an overwhelming crush of 
migrants prompted the Biden administration to turn National 
Park Service land into an illegal immigrant tent city against 
the sustained outrage of local residents.
    Action is long overdue, and the FLASH Act will tackle some 
of the most urgent issues facing Federal border lands. It will 
demand better coordination between Federal land managers and 
Border Patrol agents to improve enforcement in remote areas. 
The legislation requires Federal agencies to meaningfully 
address trash accumulations, marijuana cultivation, and other 
environmental hazards on our public landscapes. The bill also 
guarantees appalling abuses of national park lands, like what 
happened at Floyd Bennett Field, will never happen again.
    Finally, the FLASH Act includes my legislation that would 
build new roads along the southern border to increase the 
operational effectiveness of Border Patrol operations. I first 
learned about the lack of accessible roads from Border Patrol 
agents on a tour in the Coronado National Forest, and it 
overwhelmingly remains the No. 1 security concern I hear about 
on our Federal lands.
    Taken together, these statutory authorities will complement 
the work President Trump is doing to secure our border and keep 
our nation safer and more prosperous for generations to come. 
Again, I am grateful for Representative Ciscomani's leadership 
on the issue, and I especially appreciate all the witnesses who 
have traveled to be here.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you Chairman Westerman.
    I now turn to the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Huffman.

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

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    There is a real crisis unfolding on our public lands that 
we really should be talking about today, but we are not. In 
just 2 months, President Trump and an unelected billionaire 
crony of his, Elon Musk, have upended every Federal agency, 
recklessly laying off thousands of public servants, blocking 
critical funding for grants and critical projects, closing and 
attempting to sell key office buildings throughout the country. 
And the result is chaos and dysfunction across the government.
    The damage to our public lands is significant. Stop work 
orders are stalling or canceling wildfire mitigation projects. 
We may lose an entire season of wildfire preparation. Partner 
organizations are halting maintenance work that ensures safe 
public access to our public lands. Scientific research that 
informs how we manage habitat, how we adapt to climate change, 
which is a real thing, is being shelved. And now, we are just 3 
days away from a Federal Government shutdown.
    And despite all of this, Republicans on this Committee have 
shown no interest in actual real oversight. They even refuse to 
question the so-called Department of Government Efficiency or 
any of its reckless, half-baked schemes that are coming out of 
this administration. And in fact, to make it worse, they are 
getting ready to vote on what they call a C.R., which is 
actually a partisan, full-year funding bill, that surrenders 
all Article 1 authority to Donald Trump and Elon Musk, provides 
a rubber stamp for them to do even more of these reckless, 
destructive actions without any concern from our friends across 
the aisle.
    Meanwhile, the data continues to disappear from Mr. Musk's 
error-filled, quote, ``wall of receipts,'' which is really a 
wall of errors. Each new revelation exposes this initiative as 
arbitrary, haphazard, destructive. And from the other side, we 
hear deafening silence.
    The Federal Government is not a startup business. This is 
not a place to go fast and break things. And if you think that 
is a good idea, you are going to own the stuff that they break. 
When it fails, real people get hurt. And yet there is this 
strange infatuation with this Silicon Valley style experiment. 
They are breaking things. And anyone who is complicit in that 
owns the consequences.
    To be clear, Democrats do support rooting out waste, fraud, 
and abuse. We would love to work with you on bipartisan 
approaches to this. We welcome serious discussions on that 
front. That is not what is happening today. The Trump 
administration's goal is not efficiency, it is destruction. And 
the American people did not vote to destroy government or to 
crash the economy.
    As bad as it already is, it is about to get worse. They 
have signaled an intention just last week to add an additional 
7,000 layoffs from the Forest Service. We can debate policy 
differences all day, but the reality is that these agencies 
cannot function without staff. The writing is on the wall. 
Trump and Musk are not trying to streamline government, they 
are trying to dismantle it, and they are hurting all of our 
constituents.
    Instead of convening a hearing on that, which is the real 
crisis facing public lands, we have a flashy messaging bill 
before us. This is obviously a misdirection. No one seriously 
believes the FLASH Act will somehow safeguard our public lands. 
And to the extent they need safeguarding, the Ranking Member is 
exactly right, they can make one phone call to the Department 
of the Interior and get everything that they would hope to 
achieve through this bill. This bill does nothing to address 
the real threats facing our land management agencies. It does 
nothing about chronic underfunding, about staffing shortages or 
forced attrition that are hollowing these agencies out. That is 
the real crisis. Our public lands are being turned into a 
sacrifice zone for Elon Musk and Donald Trump to cook up some 
cuts to provide billionaire tax cuts.
    So I could say a lot about the legislation before us. But 
the bottom line is this Committee is not Judiciary; this 
Committee is not Homeland Security. We are torturing the 
jurisdictional limits of this Committee so that we can have a 
conversation about Republicans' favorite subject. And because 
our jurisdiction is public lands, right now the greatest 
threats to our land is not at the border. It is what we should 
be talking about, but we are not, Elon Musk and the White House 
doing all the damage they are with a chain saw.
    I hope we can get back to some serious oversight. I hope we 
can stop torturing the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. And I 
yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    We will now move on to our first panel, which consists of 
the Member who is sponsoring today's legislation.
    I now recognize Representative Ciscomani for 5 minutes on 
H.R. 1820. The floor is yours, sir.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JUAN CISCOMANI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and 
thank you, Ranking Member Neguse, and the Subcommittee members 
for coming together today for this important hearing on my 
legislation, H.R. 1820, the Federal Lands Amplified Security 
for Homeland Act, or FLASH Act for short.
    I first introduced this legislation following the field 
hearing this Committee did in my district in Sierra Vista, 
Arizona, last year. So thank you to the Chairman for coming 
down for that, and my Republican colleagues that made the trip 
with enough interest to see what was going on on the ground. 
During this hearing, we heard from local stakeholders and 
ranchers about the border crisis that has impacted border 
communities and beyond during the Biden-Harris Administration. 
I was proud to reintroduce it again this Congress, as the 
problem still persists.
    So to my good friend of a Ranking Member, when the question 
is asked why do this bill and not just a phone call, because 
passing legislation and bills is our job, my friend. This is 
what we do. And we have to prevent any future administration 
like the Biden-Harris Administration to be able to shelter in 
this disastrous situation once again.
    Now, maybe not every constituent out there is hearing or 
talking about this issue. But my constituents are telling me 
this every single day. And if you wonder why, you just have to 
look at that picture. If that was in anyone's backyard 24/7, 
you would be hearing from your constituents as well. So, yes, I 
hear from my constituents this almost on daily basis, and I see 
it as well, as the vast majority of my district is a rural part 
of the district, much of it border. And that is what is seen 
there every single day. So this is important for this part of 
the country, for sure, and for the entire nation, I would 
argue.
    So my bill would strengthen border security by providing 
for the construction of navigable roads along the border on 
Federal lands, allow states to place temporary barriers on 
Federal lands, and directs Federal managers to develop a 
strategy to address hazardous trash piles which harm the 
environment. This is about the environment.
    Federal lands comprise an estimated 693 miles, or 35 
percent of the southern border, many of which are in Arizona. 
This bill proposes comprehensive solutions for public safety 
issues and environmental destruction impacting Federal lands 
along the border. In Tucson Sector, much of which I represent, 
we saw over the past 4 years trash piles and camps popping up 
where smugglers had no regard, just like that one right there 
on the image, for the land or the environment. And this bill 
would solve that problem by requiring land managers to reduce 
the trash.
    Moreover, in areas where it is very hard for agents to 
navigate, this would allow our agents to have roads even on 
Federal lands. This is a game changer for many areas. Even when 
our CBP agents and officers are fully empowered to do their 
enforcement duties, as they are now, we must change our laws to 
ensure that burdensome regulations do not stand in the way of 
agents and public safety. Federal lands need to be protected 
from environmental degradation and our borders need to be 
secured. Those go hand in hand.
    The fact is, we can do both. And I believe this bill is a 
huge step in that direction. I hope that we can have a 
conversation about how do we continue to protect our border and 
protect our environment all at once.
    Thank you for your consideration of this critical 
legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I want to thank you for 
your testimony.
    We are going to go on to our second panel now. Thank you 
for your patience and thank you for making the trip here to our 
nation's capital.
    I want to remind the witnesses that, under Committee Rules, 
you must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on 
the microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light 
will turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
    First, I would like to introduce the Honorable Thaddeus 
Cleveland, Sheriff of Terrell County, Texas. Sheriff Cleveland, 
you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THADDEUS C. CLEVELAND, SHERIFF, TERRELL COUNTY, 
                             TEXAS

    Sheriff Cleveland. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman 
Tiffany, for having me today, and other distinguished members 
of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to 
come here and show support of our border and how Federal lands 
and the U.S. border and border security intersect.
    Other than my time here in Washington, D.C., serving at 
U.S. Border Patrol Headquarters, and my time in the United 
States Air Force, I have lived a lifetime on the U.S.-Mexico 
border, both as a resident, as well as a U.S. Border Patrol 
agent. I spent the last 11 years of my Border Patrol career in 
Terrell County, Sanderson, Texas, my home town, where I grew up 
and graduated high school. And where I would still be a Border 
Patrol agent. But unfortunately, God had different plans. Our 
sheriff passed away and I had the opportunity to take care of 
the community that took care of me and become the sheriff.
    When we talk about Terrell County, we are the tenth largest 
county in the state of Texas. We have 54 miles of river with 
Mexico. And it is about 2,300 square miles in total. Next to us 
is Brewster County, where we have the nation's fourteenth 
largest national park, Big Bend National Park. And through our 
portion of Texas, we have what is called the Wild and Scenic 
Rio Grande River, that also is part of the National Park 
Service.
    The activity we have in Terrell County is very similar to 
what you have seen over the last 4 years under the President 
Biden administration, the increases that we have seen. We have 
nowhere near the amount of activity that you see on television 
with Eagle Pass, El Paso, Lukeville, Arizona, or San Diego, 
California. And we have a different type of activity. We do not 
have people coming to our portion of the border to surrender 
and seek some sort of political relief or political asylum. 
What we have are people that still want to cross the border 
illegally, they want to cross the border undetected. When we 
encounter them in the brush, they still run. When we encounter 
them on the highway, they lead us in the high-speed pursuits 
that you see often televised.
    You may ask why am I telling you a little bit about the 
activity we have in Terrell County. And it is because of the 
portion that I mentioned, the Wild and Scenic Rio Grande River. 
We have several locations where people utilize to cross. One 
specifically that I like to talk about is called Paso Colorado, 
and it is an area that only people crossing the border 
illegally get into this portion of the river. American citizens 
do not go into this portion of the river. It is very hard to 
get to. It is on private property. But this portion of the 
river is about 170 miles northwest of Eagle Pass, Texas. And we 
all recall Eagle Pass, Texas, talking about Governor Abbott's 
buoys that he deployed in the river that the Administration 
said were harming the environment. Well, I can tell you, those 
buoys, I have been to them, I have touched them, and they are 
not harming the environment there in the Rio Grande River.
    Go back to the area that I spoke of, Paso Colorado, where 
illegal aliens cross in my county. I can show you what are 
called Salina mussels as well as the Mexican Fawnsfoot mussel 
and show you the remains of those that have died. And the only 
thing again that crosses that portion of the river enters the 
river at that portion are people that are crossing our border 
illegally. Whether it is human waste, trash left behind, or 
even what they carry in what we call their mochilas, their 
backpacks, the chemicals, whether it is pain pills or it is 
salves for their feet, whatever they carry that is leaked into 
the river, that is what is having an impact on our environment 
in that area.
    I must also comment I spent 10 years of my Border Patrol 
career out in Congressman Ciscomani's district in Sierra Vista, 
and I spent some time over in Nogales, Arizona, which was my 
first duty station. And I can tell you firsthand, I have seen 
the amounts of trash not only in my county but that part of 
Arizona, the parts that the pictures there depict, and I can 
tell you that there could be much more collaboration being done 
along the border between departments within the Federal 
Government.
    And when we talk about wildfires, when we talk about the 
necessity of roadways for Border Patrol to use, there is not a 
better way to create a firebreak than if we do it in a 
proactive, mitigating manner, rather than waiting for a 
wildfire to break out, which I experienced in Nogales, Arizona, 
back in one of our deep canyons that is on part of the Coronado 
National Forest, where the fire broke out and Forest Service 
had to go in and just create these firebreaks.
    If we would go in and plan, between Border Patrol, the 
Department of the Interior, and have a way to mitigate 
crossings but also work together on the deployment of 
technologies, I can tell you we would all benefit from it.
    In closing, I would just like to say that, of course, what 
we saw in the last 4 years is unlike what we have ever seen 
before. And our country will continue to pay for that for 
decades to come. And we will also pay for decades to come the 
abuses that happened on our Federal lands, as well as our 
private landowners. They are just as important, equally as 
important.
    So I would like to just again, if we do not solve this now, 
we are going to pay for it for years to come.
    And I support the FLASH Act. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Sheriff Cleveland follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Thaddeus C. Cleveland, Sheriff, 
                         Terrell County, Texas

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, Distinguished Members of 
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the 
discussion on the protection of federal lands along the United States 
and Mexico border. I am honored to represent the citizens of Terrell 
County and describe to you my experiences as a Texas Border Sheriff and 
United States Border Patrol Agent.
    Other than my time in the United States Air Force and in 
Washington, D.C., while assigned to U.S. Border Patrol Headquarters, 
I've spent my entire life as both a resident and a U.S. Border Patrol 
Agent along the U.S./Mexico border. The last 11 years of my 26-year 
Border Patrol career were spent as the Patrol Agent in Charge of the 
Sanderson Border Patrol Station, which is also my hometown and where I 
am Sheriff.
    Terrell County is located in the rugged, unforgiving, vast Big Bend 
Region of Texas and shares 54 miles of international border with 
Mexico. Terrell County is the 10th largest county in the State of Texas 
and encompasses almost 2,400 square miles. The Border Patrol Station 
there is responsible for 91 miles of border, this being the third 
largest portion of border by a Border Patrol Station along the entire 
U.S./Mexico border.
    The Wild and Scenic Rio Grande River is 196 miles in length and 
runs the entire distance of Terrell County's southern boundary with 
Mexico. Big Bend National Park is located in Brewster County, which 
neighbors Terrell County to the west and is the 14th largest National 
Park in the United States.
    Terrell County, does not have a crime problem, what we have is a 
Border Security problem. During the Presidency of Joe Biden, Terrell 
County like much of the Southwest Border, experienced a significant 
increase in illegal alien apprehensions; however, what occurred in 
Eagle Pass, Del Rio, El Paso, Lukeville and San Diego with masses of 
people crossing the border, did not happen in Terrell County. We 
experience illegal aliens who do not want to be apprehended nor give-
up. When we encounter illegal aliens in the desert, they run. When we 
encounter illegal aliens smuggling loads on the highways, they lead us 
in high-speed pursuits before bailing out and absconding. High-speed 
pursuits occur with almost every illegal alien smuggling load we 
encounter and it places both my team and American citizens, which I'm 
responsible for, in harm's way.
    The next set of statistics I am going to share with you are the 
Sanderson Border Patrol Station fiscal year apprehension and gotaway 
percentages compared to fiscal year 2020. In fiscal year 2021 there was 
a 289% increase in illegal alien arrests and a 323% increase in 
gotaways. In fiscal year 2022, there was a 417% increase in illegal 
alien arrests and a 467% increase in gotaways. Fiscal year 2023, there 
was a decrease in apprehensions and gotaways, but it was still higher 
than the historical numbers with 189% increase in illegal alien arrests 
and 203% gotaways. Last fiscal year, we experienced activity in line 
with historical trends.
    Citizens of Terrell County paid the price daily for the out-of-
control Southwest Border. We do not have the financial, medical or 
emergency resources as many of the other larger communities affected by 
the activity along the border. Yet, the negative and detrimental 
results are the same. Valuable and costly emergency and medical 
resources are too often diverted to border security. In my county, 
landowners have to repair waterlines, fences and structures destroyed 
by illegal aliens crossing their properties, as well as the significant 
trash, human biohazard waste and erosion. Emergency medical services 
and law enforcement services have at times been unavailable due to 
responding to illegal aliens that are crossing the border.
    There has been a total of 43 known deaths of illegal aliens 
attempting to cross my portion of the border over the last the four (4) 
years. Prior to the last four years, there was approximately one death 
a year of someone attempting to cross illegally. All but four of those 
deaths were from exposure due to the hot summer months as well as the 
cold winter fronts that come through Terrell County. Two others died in 
a vehicle pursuit, which resulted from a head-on collision.
    Due to the amount of illegal alien smuggling activity coupled with 
the amount of vehicle pursuits we experienced since I took over as 
Sheriff, I wrote a letter to Governor Abbott of the State of Texas and 
requested additional resources to assist my office. Governor Abbott and 
I discussed the situation, and within a week, the additional resources 
I requested were deployed to Terrell County. With assistance from the 
Operation Lone Star personnel and the U.S. Border Patrol, together we 
seized over 100 vehicles from illegal alien smugglers during the months 
of November and December 2022. Since then, we have observed a shift in 
tactics by smugglers and are not having the same level of activity in 
Terrell County.
    You may be asking yourself, why is this information important to 
your committee? It's important because the first steps illegal aliens 
take entering the United States into my county is through the Wild and 
Scenic Rio Grande River. My county is approximately 175 miles upriver 
from Eagle Pass, Texas, a location where a string of buoys deployed by 
Governor Abbott was described as destroying the habitat for two rare 
species of freshwater mussels. I've been to those buoys, I've put my 
hands on them, and I can tell you they are not destroying the habitat. 
I can take you to an area in my county, one of the most remote 
locations on the U.S./Mexico border and show you remains of the Salina 
Mucket and Fawnsfoot freshwater mussels, the Biden Administration said 
were being destroyed. These mussels can be found along the edge of the 
Wild and Scenic Rio Grande River in a location where only illegal 
aliens wade or float across the border. The illegal aliens have a 
greater impact on the ecosystem than the buoys utilized by the State of 
Texas.
    During my time as a U.S. Border Patrol Agent, I worked 
approximately 10 years in both Cochise and Santa Cruz Counties in 
Southern Arizona. These areas are rich in natural resources on federal 
lands within and around the Coronado National Forest. I have walked 
many trails tracking illegal aliens and drug smugglers in the Pajarita 
Wilderness, Miller Peak Wilderness, San Pedro Riparian National 
Conservation Area and Chiricahua Wilderness. In Texas, where I raised 
and finished my Border Patrol career, I have conducted river patrols by 
canoe along 83 miles of the Wild and Scenic Rio Grande River. Thoughts 
of these areas still bring back great memories and interest. I am 
personally attached to these areas, but if we don't secure our borders, 
we stand the chance to not just lose these areas, but we stand a chance 
to continue to lose innocent American lives.
    I know from experience and it is well documented that illegal alien 
crossings and smuggling bring trash, human waste, trails, illegal roads 
and wildfires to private lands as well as federal lands. Many federal 
lands are remote and difficult to get to and provide the perfect haven 
for illicit activity. Utilizing technology and partnerships can be 
increased to mitigate and minimize impacts to federal lands.
    What is needed to secure our border is the right combination of 
manpower, technology, and infrastructure. If you take my county for 
instance and almost 517 miles of border between Terrell to Hudspeth 
Counties, there isn't a need for a border wall. In much of this area, 
we have a God made barrier, but what we do need is manpower, technology 
and infrastructure projects such as roads. There isn't a one size fits 
all solution when it comes to the various regions along the U.S./Mexico 
border.
    Collaboration on infrastructure and technology deployments on 
federal lands will strengthen the preservation of our natural 
resources. An example of infrastructure needed may be negotiating a new 
road with a landowner that would allot Border Patrol access to the Wild 
and Scenic Rio Grande River or it may be working with the U.S. Forest 
Service to create a preplaced firebreak or brush removal of invasive 
and non-native in a remote border region within the Coronado National 
Forest. Coordinated efforts for technology deployments would also 
lessen the impact on federal lands. Increased access to federal lands 
increases border security and the mission of the U.S. Border Patrol as 
well as the mission of the Department of the Interior, allowing them to 
protect America, and increase the protection of federal lands along the 
border.
    The U.S. Border Patrol's mission was once illegal immigration, but 
after September 11, 2001, that mission was no longer our mission. Our 
mission became protecting the homeland by keeping bad people and bad 
things from crossing America's borders.
    In closing, the chaos we experienced along the Southwest Border 
over the last four years was preventable. The border was open, overrun, 
and the criminal organizations took full advantage of our political 
gridlock. Americans were impacted, those crossing our border illegally 
were impacted, communities were impacted, and lastly, federal lands 
were impacted.

                                 ______
                                 

      Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Thaddeus Cleveland

             Questions Submitted by Representative Hageman

    Sheriff Cleveland, the Tohono O'odham Nation reservation covers a 
large stretch of land along the U.S.-Mexico border in southern Arizona, 
and it's been well-documented that the cartel regularly uses this land 
as a corridor for smuggling people, drugs, and weapons into the 
country. In fact, the Nation's tribal elder acknowledged in 2019 that 
``it's no secret that a lot of our tribal members are involved in the 
smuggling of migrants and drugs'' through the reservation, which spans 
62 miles of the international border (ABC News).

    Question 1. Based on your experience in southern Arizona and West 
Texas, how significant a role does the lack of federal enforcement or 
tribal cooperation in areas like the Tohono O'odham reservation play in 
enabling cartel activity?

    Answer. I left southern Arizona approximately 25 years ago; 
however, I believe coordinated and collaborative efforts between the 
Tohono O'odham Nation and U.S. Border Patrol have increased 
significantly since then. Working together on tribal lands is a key 
part of Border Security in southern Arizona.

    Question 2. What lessons should Congress take from these gaps in 
enforcement when considering federal land policy reforms under the 
FLASH Act?

    Answer. I'd recommend bringing all stake holders to include the 
Tohono O'odham Nation into legislative efforts such as the FLASH Act 
and any other legislation impacting tribal lands. I'd also recommend 
engaging the U.S. Border Patrol to inquire about their perspective on 
the relationship between the Tohono O'odham Nation and current border 
security enforcement efforts on tribal lands.

    Question 3. Should the FLASH Act or related legislation address 
tribal coordination and accountability, particularly when tribal lands 
are being exploited for transnational criminal operations?

    Answer. Yes, I believe this would be prudent.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Sheriff Cleveland.
    I now would like to introduce Mr. Paul Perez, President of 
the National Border Patrol Council. Mr. Perez, you have 5 
minutes.

   STATEMENT OF PAUL PEREZ, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL BORDER 
                         PATROL COUNCIL

    Mr. Perez. Thank you, sir. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse, members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for 
adding me to testify this morning in support of Congressman 
Ciscomani's FLASH Act.
    My name is Paul Perez. I am the President of the National 
Border Patrol Council. The council is the union that represents 
over 16,000 frontline Border Patrol agents protecting our 
country.
    After serving in the U.S. military, I joined the Border 
Patrol in 1997 and, for the last 28 years, have been an active 
duty Border Patrol agent assigned to the Kingsville Station in 
the Rio Grande Valley Sector, which is in south Texas.
    Border Patrol agents need three things to patrol our 
border, manpower, access, and situational awareness. Although 
the first on this list, manpower, is outside of your 
jurisdiction, I would like to spend a moment educating you on 
the challenges we are facing.
    We currently have 19,500 Border Patrol agents on duty to 
protect our border. Of this number, more than 2,500 are 
eligible to retire today. These agents could literally put in 
their retirement papers and be gone tomorrow. Another 4,000 
agents will be eligible to retire in the next 4 years. In 
total, we are looking at nearly one third of our manpower 
potentially leaving in the next 4 years.
    Why this matters is because, under the last Administration, 
we had approximately two million illegal aliens observed on 
Border Patrol surveillance platforms walk right into this 
country without being arrested. We saw them but we literally 
did not have enough agents to arrest them. That is what happens 
when you do not have enough manpower to meet the mission.
    President Trump recognizes this challenge. He has proposed 
increasing Border Patrol agent pay and offering retention 
bonuses to keep the agents we already have. In addition, he has 
proposed recruitment bonuses to add an additional 10,000 agents 
above our current staffing level. I hope that you all will 
support these initiatives as they are brought forward in 
reconciliation and through the Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations 
process.
    The second thing that you need to secure the border is 
access. And that is why the FLASH Act is so important. Let me 
give you examples. When we detect drug cartel members or a 
group of illegal aliens crossing our border, we will dispatch 
agents to intercept them. Ideally, we will have agents close by 
and in sufficient numbers to apprehend the group without 
incident. However, if it takes a long time to physically get 
agents on the scene, we have a problem.
    In some cases, we have agents in a foot chase, often at 
night, across difficult terrain, with a motivated adversary 
that has a 30 to 45-minute head start. To be candid, that is 
not the situation we want to be in. The longer it takes to get 
on scene, the higher the likelihood the cartel smugglers and 
illegal immigrants will evade capture.
    Where I am stationed in south Texas, much of the land north 
of the border is privately held. We have partnerships with 
local farmers and ranchers to access their land and, in some 
cases, install temporary surveillance assets that increase our 
situational awareness. I cannot tell you how important these 
partnerships are to securing our border. These farmers and 
ranchers do not just allow us to access their land, but they 
are another set of eyes and ears and will call us if they see 
anything suspicious.
    Approximately one third of our border with Mexico abuts 
U.S. Federal lands, nearly 600 miles. It is ironic that Border 
Patrol has, in some instances, better access to private land 
than we do with Federal land held by the Departments of 
Interior and Agriculture. Our ability to access Federal land 
now is largely at the discretion of individual Federal land 
managers. To be clear, many of the Federal land managers are 
terrific partners and support our mission. However, there are 
others who are more reticent to cooperate with Border Patrol.
    The FLASH Act addresses this very issue and provides for 
the construction and maintenance of nearly 600 miles of roads 
across these Federal lands. These roads will be all constructed 
within 10 miles of the border and will allow us the access we 
need to apprehend cartel smugglers and illegal immigrants.
    Finally, the third thing you need to patrol the border is 
situational awareness, and the FLASH Act has the potential to 
increase that in two important ways. First, there are over one 
million acres of designated wilderness along our area. The 
FLASH Act guarantees Border Patrol access to these areas and 
specifically allows us to install tactical infrastructure such 
as radio repeater towers and surveillance equipment.
    Second, it allows our border states to install temporary 
infrastructure on Federal lands to support border security. In 
Texas where I am stationed, Operation Lone Star has been wildly 
effective and dramatically drove down the rate of illegal 
immigration.
    I want to thank your Committee again for their 
consideration of the FLASH Act and I looked forward to 
answering any questions that you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Paul Perez, President of the National 
                         Border Patrol Council

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, I want to thank you for asking me to testify this morning 
in support of Congressman Ciscomani's FLASH Act.
    My name is Paul Perez, and I am the President of the National 
Border Patrol Council. The Council is the union that represents over 
16,000 frontline Border Patrol agents protecting our country. After 
serving in the U.S. military, I joined the Border Patrol in 1997 and I 
am an active-duty Border Patrol Agent assigned to the Kingsville 
Station in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, located in South Texas.
    Border Patrol agents need three things to patrol our border--
manpower, access, and situational awareness. Although the first on this 
list, manpower, is outside of your jurisdiction, I would like to spend 
a moment educating you on the challenges we are facing.
    We currently have 19,500 Border Patrol Agents on duty to protect 
our border. Of this number, more than 2,500 are eligible to retire--
today. These agents could literally put in their retirement papers and 
be gone tomorrow. Another 4,000 agents will be eligible to retire in 
the next 4 years.
    In total, we are looking at nearly one third of our manpower 
potentially leaving in the next 4 years.
    Why this matters is because under the last administration we had 
approximately 2 million illegal aliens observed on Border Patrol 
surveillance platforms walk right into this country without being 
arrested. We saw them, but we literally did not have enough agents to 
arrest them. That is what happens when you do not have enough manpower 
to meet the mission.
    President Trump recognizes this challenge. He has proposed 
increasing Border Patrol agent pay and offering retention bonuses to 
keep the agents we already have. In addition, he has proposed 
recruitment bonuses to add an additional 10,000 agents above our 
current staffing level. I hope that all of you will support these 
initiatives as they are brought forward in reconciliation and through 
the FY 2026 appropriations process.
    The second thing that you need to secure our border is access and 
that is why the FLASH Act is so important. Let me give you an example. 
When we detect drug cartel members or a group of illegal aliens 
crossing our border, we will dispatch agents to intercept them. 
Ideally, we will have agents close by and in sufficient numbers to 
apprehend the group without incident.
    However, if it takes a long time to physically get agents on the 
scene, we have a problem. In some cases, we have agents in a foot 
chase, often at night, across difficult terrain with a motivated 
adversary that has a 30-45-minute head start. To be candid, that is not 
the situation we want to be in. The longer it takes us to get on scene, 
the higher the likelihood the cartel smugglers and illegal immigrants 
will evade capture.
    Where I am stationed in South Texas, much of the land north of the 
border is privately held. We have partnerships with local farmers and 
ranchers to access their land and in some cases install temporary 
surveillance assets that increase our situational awareness. I cannot 
tell you how important these partnerships are to securing our border. 
These farmers and ranchers don't just allow us to access their land, 
but they are another set of eyes and ears and will call us if they see 
anything suspicious.
    Approximately one third of our border with Mexico abuts U.S. 
federal lands--nearly 600 miles. It's ironic that Border Patrol has, in 
some instances, better access to private land than we do with federal 
land held by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Our ability 
to access federal land now is largely at the discretion of individual 
federal land managers. To be clear, many of the federal land managers 
are terrific partners and support our mission. However, there are 
others who are more reticent to cooperate with Border Patrol.
    The FLASH Act addresses this very issue and provides for the 
construction and maintenance of nearly 600 miles of roads across these 
federal lands. These roads will all be constructed within 10 miles of 
the border and will allow us the access we need to apprehend cartel 
smugglers and illegal immigrants.
    Finally, the third thing you need to patrol the border is 
situational awareness, and the FLASH Act has the potential to increase 
that in two important ways. First, there are over one million acres of 
designated wildness areas along our border. The FLASH Act guarantees 
Border Patrol access to these areas and specifically allows us to 
install tactical infrastructure such as radio repeater towers and 
surveillance equipment.
    Second, it allows for border states to install temporary 
infrastructure on federal lands to support border security. In Texas, 
where I am stationed, Operation Lone Star has been wildly effective and 
dramatically drove down the rate of illegal immigration.
    I want to thank your committee again for their consideration of the 
FLASH Act and I look forward to answering any questions that you may 
have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Perez.
    I would now like to introduce Mr. Bob Krumenaker, a retired 
superintendent of Big Bend National Park. Mr. Krumenaker, you 
have 5 minutes.
    Did I say your name correctly?
    Mr. Krumenaker. You were very close. Krumenaker.
    Mr. Tiffany. Krumenaker.
    You have 5 minutes, sir.

  STATEMENT OF BOB KRUMENAKER, RETIRED NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 
SUPERINTENDENT, BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK AND RIO GRANDE WILD AND 
                          SCENIC RIVER

    Mr. Krumenaker. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Tiffany 
and distinguished members of this panel. I appreciate the 
opportunity to be here. And Chairman Tiffany, it is good to see 
you again. You may recall when I testified before the Wisconsin 
legislature in favor of a bill you sponsored to amend the 
hunting regulations in the Apostle Isles National Lakeshore 
when I was the superintendent there.
    My name is Bob Krumenaker. I worked for the National Park 
Service for over 41 years as a biologist and a park 
superintendent in national parks all over the country. I 
retired in 2023 after almost 5 years as the superintendent of 
Big Bend National Park and the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 
River. I am here representing myself, as well as the Coalition 
to Protect America's National Parks and the Association of 
National Park Rangers. These nonpartisan organizations have 
over 4,000 members. Coalition members collectively bring over 
50,000 years of National Park Service management experience. 
And the association is committed to the protection of the 
national parks system and to the persons who shoulder that 
responsibility.
    Big Bend National Park includes almost 800,000 acres of 
federally owned public land. The 118 miles of the Rio Grande 
that bound the park on the south comprise the longest 
contiguous stretch of land under one management authority along 
that border. While the United States owns no land or water in 
the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River downstream of the national 
park, the Park Service has some management authority on the 
Wild and Scenic River for an additional 127 miles. I therefore 
had considerable stewardship responsibility for about 12.5 
percent of the border, a total of 245 miles.
    During my tenure as the superintendent, I supervised law 
enforcement operations conducted by commissioned National Park 
Rangers. And while their authority did not include enforcement 
of immigration laws, we worked very closely with the U.S. 
Border Patrol, which had a base of operations in the park. NPS 
and Border Patrol staff at every level cooperated to protect 
multiple national interests at Big Bend, conservation, 
including the protection of wilderness character, public 
enjoyment, visitor and employee safety, and security of the 
nation's borders. These missions are not incompatible when 
there is a mutual respect for the other agency's important 
role.
    Aside from their small substation, the Border Patrol has no 
other tactical infrastructure in Big Bend National Park. The 
deep canyons and flash floods of the Rio Grande and its 
tributaries make a physical border barrier infeasible. And most 
people in the area share that view regardless of where they 
stand on other issues.
    In my experience, the 2006 memorandum of understanding 
between Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Interior regarding 
cooperative national security on Federal lands works and works 
well. The MOU specifies that it is not intended to prevent the 
Border Patrol from exercising emergency authorities to access 
lands, including motorized offroad pursuit of suspected cross-
border violators. That said, the MOU clearly requires that the 
Border Patrol respect wilderness constraints, except in cases 
of emergency. And even then, they need to report back to the 
Land Management Agency what happened and why.
    The MOU also requires that the Land Management Agency 
respond expeditiously to the Border Patrol request for 
infrastructure or operations that would normally be prohibited 
and not use wilderness as an excuse to automatically say no.
    Most importantly, MOU directs the Border Patrol and the 
Land Management Agency to work together at the lowest possible 
level to resolve differences. It further directs the agencies 
respect and, to the degree possible, honor each other's 
mission.
    This worked at Big Bend. Park rangers and Border Patrol 
agents coordinated operations on an almost daily basis. We 
conducted shared trainings so we understood the other's 
mission, operations, and needs. We collaboratively resolved the 
issues that inevitably arose. And when we had conflicts, we did 
joint after action reviews to learn from the experience and 
make sure we did better the next time.
    In my professional judgment, Title I of the FLASH Act, 
while attempting to resolve legitimate border security 
challenges on Federal lands takes a blunt approach that is 
neither needed nor cost effective. It has the potential to 
irreparably harm some of this nation's most spectacular and 
most loved landscapes. It would gut the protections of the 
Wilderness Act in Federal border lands, legislating a solution 
that simply is not needed.
    Coupled with the drastic reductions being made to Federal 
budgets and the staffing of the land management agencies, the 
bill's unspecified but undoubtedly high cost for construction 
and maintenance of high-standard border roads is both 
infeasible and inefficient.
    Thank you again for the invitation. I look forward to 
answering any questions members may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Krumenaker follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Bob Krumenaker, Retired National Park Service 
  Superintendent, Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande Wild & Scenic 
                                 River

INTRODUCTION
    Good morning Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members 
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before 
you today. Chairman Tiffany, it's good to see you again; you may recall 
when I testified before the Wisconsin legislature in favor of a bill 
you sponsored to amend the hunting regulations for the Apostle Islands 
National Lakeshore, when I was the superintendent there.
    My name is Bob Krumenaker. I worked for the National Park Service 
(NPS) for over 41 years as a biologist and a park superintendent in 
national park units all over the country, retiring in 2023 after almost 
5 years as the Superintendent of Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande 
Wild & Scenic River. I am proud of my public service. Upon accepting 
every assignment, I signed an oath \1\ to support the U.S. Constitution 
and faithfully discharge the duties of the offices I held, which I 
never violated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdfimage/sf61.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am here representing myself, as well as the Coalition to Protect 
America's National Parks and the Association of National Park Rangers. 
These non-partisan organizations have over 4000 members, including 
current NPS employees, NPS retirees, and volunteers. Coalition members 
collectively bring over 50,000 years of national park experience. The 
Association is committed to the protection of the natural, cultural, 
and recreational resources of the National Park System, and to the 
persons who shoulder that responsibility.
    It is my professional judgment that Title I of the FLASH Act, while 
attempting to resolve legitimate border security challenges on covered 
Federal lands, takes a blunt approach that is neither needed nor cost-
effective. It has the potential to irreparably harm some of this 
nation's most spectacular and loved landscapes.
BACKGROUND
    Big Bend National Park is larger than the state of Rhode Island, 
and includes almost 800,000 acres of federally-owned public land. This 
is the second largest contiguous block of publicly-accessible federal 
land along the U.S.-Mexican border.\2\ The 118 miles of the Rio Grande 
that bound the park on the south comprise the longest contiguous 
stretch of federally-owned land under one management authority along 
that border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The largest is Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in 
Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the United States owns no land or water in the Rio Grande 
Wild & Scenic River downstream of Big Bend National Park, there are an 
additional 127 miles of river and shoreline where the National Park 
Service manages recreation and to some degree, natural and cultural 
resources. Between the national park and the wild & scenic river, I 
therefore had some stewardship responsibility for about 12.5% of the 
border, a total of 245 miles.
    583,000 acres of Big Bend National Park were recommended by both 
Republican and Democratic administrations in the 1970s for wilderness 
designation. Congress has never acted on that recommendation, but these 
lands still retain their wilderness character almost 50 years later. 
The mountains, desert, and riparian corridor of Big Bend make up the 
largest block of undeveloped open space in Texas, and provide habitat 
for mountain lions, black bears, and many endemic species. Interest in 
seeing the park's wilderness-eligible lands formally designated as 
wilderness is strong, and supported by a wide and growing coalition.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See www.keepbigbendwild.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Big Bend welcomes over 500,000 visitors a year, people seeking 
respite and recreation in one of the most rugged, wildest, and 
biodiverse regions of the American southwest. The park's limited 
development footprint and the undeveloped wilderness that surround it 
provide opportunity for both windshield touring on paved roads and wild 
river excursions, as well as solitary backcountry experiences. It is 
truly one of America's ``Crown Jewels.''
    The combined impact of NPS and visitor spending contributes over 
$56 million annually to the regional economy and support over 650 jobs 
for hardworking Americans.\4\ As the state of Texas purchased the land 
and donated it to the federal government to establish the national 
park, Big Bend is often referred to as `` Texas' Gift to the Nation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Flyr, M., and L. Koontz. 2024. 2023 national park visitor 
spending effects: Economic contributions to local communities, states, 
and the nation. Science Report NPS/SR--2024/174. National Park Service, 
Fort Collins, Colorado. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/
707832
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a 2021 survey conducted by the Big Bend Conservancy, the park's 
non-profit philanthropic partner, 85% of respondents did not want to 
see any more roads or other development inside park boundaries.
    During my tenure as the national park superintendent, I supervised 
law enforcement operations conducted by commissioned National Park 
Rangers. While their authority did not include enforcement of 
immigration or customs laws, we had close working relationships with 
both the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), which staffed a field station 
inside the national park; and U.S. Customs, with which we had shared 
responsibility for the only port of entry in any U.S. national park 
area. Both, as you know, are units of Customs & Border Protection, 
their parent agency.
    NPS and USBP staff at every level cooperated on a daily basis to 
protect multiple national interests at Big Bend--which include 
conservation (including protection of wilderness character), public 
enjoyment, visitor and employee safety, and security of the nation's 
borders. The missions are not incompatible when there is mutual respect 
for the other agency's important role to the American people.
    The USBP agents stationed in Big Bend patrol the 122 miles of paved 
roads and 217 miles of unpaved roads in the park. Park Rangers do as 
well but the vast area precludes intensive monitoring by law 
enforcement staff of either agency. Most illegal border activity is 
detected, however, as both agencies conduct aerial patrols, and there 
is substantial electronic surveillance of the border in the park. When 
migrants are encountered, both agencies work as a team to facilitate 
the Border Patrol processing them and removing them from the park.
    If a migrant does make it through the park without being 
apprehended, they're almost always detected and taken into custody 
along one of the major highways north of the national park.
    Aside from the small Border Patrol substation, they have no other 
tactical infrastructure in the national park. The deep canyons that 
line most of the border in this area, and the flash floods on 
tributaries of the Rio Grande, make any physical border barrier 
infeasible. Most people in the area share that view, regardless of 
where they stand on other issues.
    In my experience, the 2006 Memorandum of Understanding \5\ between 
Homeland Security, Agriculture and Interior Regarding Cooperative 
National Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal Lands along 
the United States' Borders works well. The MOU specifies that it is not 
``intended to prevent'' USBP from exercising emergency authorities to 
access lands including motorized off-road pursuit of suspected cross-
border violators at any time, including in wilderness and wilderness 
study areas, based on the professional judgment of USBP personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://winapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/wilderness/NWPS/
documents/Border%20Patrol%20 MOU.pdf,hereafter ``the MOU''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The MOU requires that the Border Patrol respect wilderness 
constraints, except in cases of emergency, and even then they need to 
report back to the land management agency what happened and why. The 
MOU also requires that the land management agency respond expeditiously 
to USBP requests for infrastructure or operations that would normally 
be prohibited, and not use wilderness as an excuse to automatically say 
no.
    Most importantly, the MOU directs that the Border Patrol and the 
land management agency work together at the lowest level possible to 
resolve differences. It further directs that the agencies respect, and 
to the maximum degree possible, honor each other's mission.
    This worked at Big Bend. Interagency communication and coordination 
was ongoing and constant. Park Rangers and USBP Agents coordinated 
operations on an almost-daily basis. We conducted shared training so we 
understood the other's mission, operations, and needs, and fleshed out 
where there may be conflicts to try to prevent them before they 
occurred. When we were asked to consider rescue beacons or radio 
installations in remote areas, we listened and asked questions to make 
sure we all had the same understanding of the real purpose behind the 
request as well as what other alternatives were being considered. We 
worked together and we collaboratively resolved the issues that arose. 
And when we had conflicts, we did joint after-action reviews to ensure 
everybody learned from experience so that we didn't repeat any mistakes 
that were made.
ANALYSIS
    Title I of the FLASH Act provides an overly simplistic, one-size-
fits-all approach that is neither needed nor cost-effective at Big Bend 
and would potentially do lasting damage to one of this nation's most 
spectacular and loved landscapes. I cannot speak with authority about 
other sectors of the border, but I would urge the committee to consider 
a different approach. I am particularly concerned with sections 
101,102, and 104.
    Section 101 requires at least 584 miles of roads capable of being 
traveled by ``standard vehicles'' already exist, or be newly 
``installed'' on Federal lands along the border. The Border Patrol, in 
my experience, utilizes 4 wheel drive trucks and high clearance SUVs in 
remote areas and the rough, unpaved, backcountry roads of Big Bend 
National Park meet their needs, to the best of my knowledge. NPS and 
the USBP even have an agreement whereby USBP annually transfers money 
to the park to assist the NPS in maintaining those roads, but not to 
the unnecessary standard that appears to be mandated in the bill. Where 
there are no roads within 10 miles of the border, I never once heard 
any Border Patrol agent or supervisor express that need.
    The 1916 National Park Service Organic Act \6\ mandates that the 
National Park Service manage national parks and their resources ``in 
such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the 
enjoyment of future generations.'' It's hard to imagine that 
constructing new roads in some of the wildest areas of Big Bend would 
not violate this bedrock law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 54 US Code 100101(a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Congressional Research Service estimates that there are 584 
miles of what this bill calls ``covered federal lands'' along the 
southern border. Section 101(c)(3) of the FLASH Act mandates ``at 
least'' 584 miles of road. Without explicitly saying so, the bill 
appears to require a road suitable for ``standard vehicles'' within 10 
miles of every mile of borderland owned by covered federal agencies.
    Perhaps Big Bend National Park is not intended to be included? If 
that's the case, I urge language in the bill stating as much. But I 
will submit that new roads are not necessarily the answer in all other 
federal borderlands; there needs to be site-specific analyses in these 
complex landscapes. Customs & Border Protection already has the 
authority to request this type of development where needed to fulfill 
their mission, and the MOU requires that the land management promptly 
review it, and approve it if the analysis supports it.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ MOU, section III.B.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Electronic surveillance and other proven technological solutions 
(such as the tethered blimp deployed on US 90 near Marfa, TX) should be 
considered prior to construction of new roads through wild country 
where those roads, notwithstanding their impact on the landscape, will 
be difficult and expensive to maintain.
    Section 101(b) requires the land management agency to build the 
roads; and (d)(2) requires the land management agency to maintain them. 
I can say with conviction that there has never been enough money 
allocated to the agency budgets to maintain the current inventory of 
roads in national parks (and presumably other federal lands); and with 
the administration's intent to significantly reduce federal budgets, 
this looks like it would be a significant unfunded mandate. To put this 
in real terms, Big Bend National Park alone had a Deferred Maintenance 
and Repair backlog of $192 million \8\ in FY23, the largest component 
of which was road maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-
maintenance.htm--search for Big Bend
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 101(d)(1)(B) requires the land management agency to allow 
unfettered access for local law enforcement officials carrying their 
official duties; and Section 103 authorizes the temporary placement of 
infrastructure on all covered Federal lands by the states without the 
opportunity for review by the land management agency \9\ or the need 
for a federal permit. Some border areas, including most of Big Bend 
National Park, have exclusive federal jurisdiction. Neither the local 
law enforcement nor the state have either legal jurisdiction or 
authority to enforce laws on these federal lands. I am concerned that 
this section creates ambiguities regarding both jurisdiction and 
authority for the federal land manager, and the presumption of approval 
by the land management agency, regardless of the potential impact or 
compatibility with other agency responsibilities, is troubling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Section 103 does require that the state submit notice of its 
intent to the Secretary of the land managementagency 45 days in 
advance, but gives the Secretary no authority to disapprove or request 
modification of the proposal if it is deemed necessary by the 
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 101(f) requires compliance with NEPA and all other 
applicable laws and regulations, but it appears to be a foregone 
conclusion that many miles of new, high--standard roads are mandated by 
this bill. I have written environmental documents and recommended or 
approved many others in my career. While NEPA does not mandate the most 
environmentally sensitive outcome, it does require a fair, objective 
analysis and full disclosure of impacts. Federal land managers would 
find it virtually impossible to fully comply with the intent of NEPA, 
and their analysis, most likely, would have to be perfunctory at best.
    Section 102 would amend the Wilderness Act, frankly, by 
eviscerating it. Subsection (A) would allow the Border Patrol to 
construct and maintain a variety of permanent installations, land 
aircraft, and use motor vehicles and other motorized equipment without 
so much as an analysis of their necessity or consultation with the land 
management agency. While these activities are normally prohibited by 
the terms of section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, that same section 
allows for exceptions provided they can be shown to be ``necessary to 
meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the 
purpose of [the] Act.''
    The Minimum Requirement Analysis, very importantly, fosters 
collaboration between the proposing entity (in this case the Border 
Patrol) and the land manager. My experience, again, suggests this 
works. USBP proposed the deployment of several tactical radio 
installations in Big Bend's recommended wilderness. NPS recognized that 
improving radio communications--provided the proposed technology would 
do what they hoped it would--would reduce migrant impacts on the 
national park, and would improve officer safety. I felt comfortable 
characterizing this as a ``minimum requirement'' for administration of 
the area. But my staff and I also viewed it as entirely appropriate to 
seek review of the proposed locations and technology by our agency's 
electronic communications experts, who raised important questions about 
the efficacy of the proposed equipment to accomplish the USBP's stated 
goals for the system. Questions the Border Patrol could not answer.
    Would it have been better to override the input of the NPS and 
allow the Border Patrol to install radio systems on remote mountaintops 
that analysis suggests would not work as intended? Would it have been 
better for the Border Patrol to install towers much taller than their 
own experts deemed essential, marring the distant Big Bend views so 
valued by the American people, rather than work with them to redesign 
their equipment configurations so they had minimum footprint and visual 
impact without compromising effectiveness?
    I submit the system works as intended; perhaps both agencies simply 
need a prod to take it seriously and, of course, to work cooperatively 
and expeditiously to resolve legitimate questions. This is exactly what 
the 2006 MOU requires. The system would work even better if the land 
management agencies were fully staffed.
    Subsection (B) directs that the Commissioner of the U.S. Border 
Patrol assure that any installation newly authorized under subsection 
(A) be carried out ``in a manner that, to the extent possible, protects 
the wilderness character of the area.'' With no required oversight or 
coordination with the land management agency that actually has 
expertise in wilderness character, I cannot see how this would be 
effective.
    Section 104 prohibits the Secretary of the land management agency 
from impeding activities of the Border Patrol within 100 miles of the 
Border to execute Search and Rescue (SAR) operations. In my experience, 
there is no problem that requires a legislative solution. We welcomed 
the Border Patrol doing SAR in the national park, and they were a force 
multiplier for my own staff. Any legislative language mandating access 
should restrict such SAR activities to those associated with Border 
Security or the safety of their own personnel, require timely 
consultation and coordination with the land management agency, and that 
the methods employed be guided by the 2006 MOU.
CONCLUSION
    Title I of the proposed FLASH Act, in my professional opinion and 
that of the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks and the 
Association of National Park Rangers, takes a blunt, one-size-fits-all 
approach to border security that has the potential to irreparably 
degrade some of the most iconic, wild, and adored landscapes of the 
American Southwest borderlands. It would unnecessarily gut the 
protections of the Wilderness Act in federal borderlands. There's no 
evidence that this approach would provide additional border security. 
Coupled with the drastic reductions being made to federal budgets and 
the staffing of the land management agencies, the bill's unspecified 
but undoubtedly high cost for construction and maintenance of high-
standard border roads is both infeasible and inefficient.
    Thank you for your time and consideration of my remarks.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Krumenaker.
    I would now like to introduce Mr. Larry Lopez, a lieutenant 
at the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. Lieutenant 
Lopez, you have 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT LARRY LOPEZ, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 
                      SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

    Mr. Lopez. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Tiffany and 
members of the Committee. I am Lieutenant Larry Lopez, and I am 
honored to testify today on behalf of San Bernardino County 
Sheriff Shannon Dicus and our department.
    We urgently need Federal support to combat the illegal 
activities plaguing our Federal lands, activities that endanger 
public safety, devastate our environment, and violate human 
rights. I strongly support H.R. 1820, the Federal Lands 
Amplified Security for Homeland Act, FLASH Act, which directly 
addresses the public safety crisis and environmental 
destruction caused by illegal operations on Federal lands, 
particularly in San Bernardino County, home to some of the 
largest and most vulnerable Federal lands in the country.
    This legislation provides critical enforcement tools, 
stronger penalties, and enhanced collaboration between Federal 
and local agencies to dismantle organized criminal operations, 
prevent environmental destruction, and protect our communities.
    Sheriff Dicus is a member of the Major County Sheriffs of 
America, which represent sheriffs of the most populous counties 
in the United States from both political parties. The threat 
from illicit cannabis operations on public lands is one of the 
major drug-related threats that law enforcement, public health, 
and families are facing every day.
    To address these threats, MCSA has encouraged Congress to 
pass HALT Fentanyl Act to ensure law enforcement has 
investigative tools to deter fentanyl trafficking as much as 
possible. MCSA has also worked closely with Members of Congress 
on both sides of the aisle to push for the reauthorization of 
the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program at the ONDCP. 
HIDTA provides resources that enable close collaboration among 
local, state, and Federal law enforcement to combat the most 
significant drug trafficking organizations, including the 
cartels that are linked to cannabis operations in our public 
lands.
    I have been honored to serve in the San Bernardino County 
Sheriff's Department for 25 years, with assignments including 
corrections and patrol in rural communities within the Morongo 
Basin and Joshua Tree area. In addition to patrol, I have 
served multiple ranks in specialized capacities, including our 
specialized enforcement division, or SWAT, and our gangs and 
narcotics division. I am proud to be the recipient of the San 
Bernardino County's Frank Bland Medal of Valor, the California 
Peace Officers' Association Medal of Valor, the Governor's 
Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor, and the Congressional 
Badge of Bravery for my involvement in the Christopher Dorner 
Manhunt in 2013.
    In 2022, I was promoted to the rank of lieutenant, and I am 
currently assigned to the Gangs Narcotics Division. In this 
position, I oversee the daily operations of Inland Regional 
Narcotics Task Force, the Overdose Response Team, the 
Electronic Surveillance Unit, the Marijuana Enforcement Team, 
and the High-Tech Detail.
    Given my role in law enforcement and my knowledge with San 
Bernardino County's Federal lands, I can speak to the unique 
challenge we face in enforcing the laws across such a vast and 
remote region.
    For context, the San Bernardino County is the largest 
county in the continental United States, with a land mass of 
over 20,000 square miles, larger than New Jersey, Connecticut, 
Delaware, and Rhode Island put together. San Bernardino County 
is a diverse geographical region with large valleys, 
mountainous terrain, and expansive desert regions. We are also 
home to two of the most populated national forests, the Angeles 
National Forest and the San Bernardino County National Forest, 
approximately 80 percent of the land mass of San Bernardino 
County is made up of Federal lands, the 2.2 million citizens we 
serve and 66 communities in collaboration with our municipal 
police departments. Our residents are primarily isolated and 
surrounded by Federal lands in mountain regions and desert 
areas. This means that San Bernardino County is often impacted 
by law enforcement activities and federally mandated search and 
rescue activities that the Sheriff's Department responds to 
with assistance from our fire district.
    As it relates to the FLASH Act, I want to bring up a 
significant issue associated with San Bernardino County's rural 
desert regions, which encompasses Federal lands like the Mojave 
National Preserve, Joshua Tree National Park, and areas near 
the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms. 
This base is currently home to one of the largest military 
training areas in the nation. The Mojave Viper program has 
become the pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom deployment training 
model at the base. The majority of the units in the Marine 
Corps deploying to Iraq were trained at Mojave Viper or mixed 
venue using the Mountain Warfare Training Center for 
Afghanistan.
    In recent years, we have seen an increase of illegal 
cannabis cultivation in these regions. The FLASH Act includes 
provisions in Section 211 establishing robust response 
initiatives with local jurisdictions, law enforcement, and fire 
agencies to increase fines and penalties.
    Section 211 would also establish the Trespass Cannabis 
Cultivation Site Response Initiative, under which the Secretary 
concerned must conduct an environmental response on land under 
jurisdiction in response to illegal cultivation of cannabis.
    Mr. Tiffany. Sir, could you wrap up your testimony, please?
    Mr. Lopez. Yes, sir.
    In conclusion, our challenges in San Bernardino County, 
particularly on our Federal lands, are urgent and complex. 
Illegal cannabis cultivation driven by organized crime is 
wreaking havoc on our environment and our communities. These 
operations threaten public safety, fuel human trafficking, and 
introduce toxic chemicals into our ecosystem, putting both 
local wildlife and consumers across the nation at risk.
    While committed to addressing these issues, local law 
enforcement is stretched too thin and lacks the legal authority 
to combat this problem entirely.
    The FLASH Act offers a vital solution by providing more 
substantial penalties, Federal resources, and better 
coordination between Federal and local agencies. This 
legislation will empower us to dismantle these criminal 
enterprises and protect our national lands.
    I urge this Committee to support the FLASH Act and give law 
enforcement the tools we need to secure our borders, safeguard 
our environment, and restore our safety to our communities. 
Thank you for having me.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Lieutenant Larry Lopez, San Bernardino 
                      County Sheriff's Department

    Good morning, Chair Tiffany (R-Wis.), Ranking Member Neguse (D-CO), 
and members of the committee:
    My name is Lieutenant Larry Lopez, and I am honored to testify 
today on behalf of San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus and our 
department. We urgently need federal support to combat the illegal 
activities plaguing our federal lands--activities that endanger public 
safety, devastate our environment, and violate human rights.
    I strongly support H.R. 1820, the Federal Lands Amplified Security 
for the Homeland Act (FLASH Act), which directly addresses the public 
safety crisis and environmental destruction caused by illegal 
operations on federal lands--particularly in San Bernardino County, 
home to some of the largest and most vulnerable federal lands in the 
country.
    This legislation provides critical enforcement tools, stronger 
penalties, and enhanced collaboration between federal and local 
agencies to dismantle organized criminal operations, prevent 
environmental destruction, and protect our communities.
    Sheriff Dicus is a member of the Major County Sheriffs of America 
(MCSA), which represents sheriffs of the most populous counties in the 
United States from both political parties. The threat from illicit 
cannabis operations on public lands is one of many drug-related threats 
that law enforcement, public health, and families are facing every day. 
To address these threats, MCSA has encouraged Congress to pass the HALT 
Fentanyl Act to ensure law enforcement has investigative tools to deter 
fentanyl trafficking as much as possible. MCSA has also worked closely 
with many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to push for 
the reauthorization of the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
(HIDTA) Program at the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). 
HIDTA provides resources that enable close collaboration among local, 
state, and federal law enforcement to combat the most significant drug 
trafficking organizations, including the cartels that are linked to 
cannabis operations on our public lands
LT. LOPEZ BACKGROUND
    I have been honored to serve in the San Bernardino County Sheriff's 
Department for 25 years with assignments including corrections and 
patrol in rural communities within the Morongo Basin and Joshua Tree 
area. In addition to patrol, I have served multiple ranks in 
specialized capacities, including our Specialized Enforcement Division 
or SWAT team and our narcotics division. I'm proud to be the recipient 
of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Frank Bland Medal of 
Valor, the California Peace Officers' Association Medal of Valor, the 
Governor's Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor, and the Congressional 
Badge of Bravery for my involvement with the ``Christopher Dorner 
Manhunt in 2013.
    In 2022, I was promoted to Lieutenant and am currently assigned to 
the Gangs and Narcotics Division. In this position, I oversee the daily 
operations of the Inland Regional Narcotics Task Force, the Overdose 
Response Team, the Electronic Surveillance Unit, the Marijuana 
Enforcement Team, and the High-Tech Detail.
    Given my role in law enforcement and my deep familiarity with San 
Bernardino County's federal lands, I can speak to the unique challenges 
we face in enforcing the law across such a vast and remote region.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BACKGROUND
    For context, San Bernardino County is the largest County in the 
continental United States, with a land mass of over 20,000 square 
miles--larger than New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island 
put together.
    San Bernardino County is a diverse geographical region with large 
valleys, mountainous terrain, and expansive desert regions. We are also 
home to two of the most populated national forests--the Angeles 
National Forest and the San Bernardino County Forest. Approximately 80 
percent of the land mass of San Bernardino County is made up of federal 
lands--the 2.2 million citizens we serve in sixty-six communities in 
collaboration with our municipal police departments. Our residents are 
primarily isolated and surrounded by federal lands in mountain regions 
and desert areas. This means that San Bernardino County is often 
impacted by law enforcement activities and federally mandated search 
and rescue activities that the Sheriff's Department responds to with 
assistance from our fire district.
ILLEGAL CANNABIS CULTIVATION IN DESERT REGIONS
    As it relates to the FLASH Act, I want to bring up a significant 
issue associated with San Bernardino County's rural desert regions, 
which encompass federal lands like the Mojave National Preserve, Joshua 
Tree National Park, and areas near the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat 
Center and Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command located in 
Twentynine Palms. This base is currently home to one of the largest 
military training areas in the nation. The Mojave Viper program has 
become the pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom deployment training model at the 
base. The majority of units in the Marine Corps deploying to Iraq were 
trained at Mojave Viper or a mixed venue using the Mountain Warfare 
Training Center for Afghanistan.
    In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of illegal cannabis 
cultivation in this region. The FLASH Act includes provisions in 
Section 211 establishing robust response initiatives with local 
jurisdictions, law enforcement, and fire agencies to increase fines and 
penalties.
    Section 211 would also establish the Trespass Cannabis Cultivation 
Site Response Initiative, under which the Secretary concerned must 
conduct an environmental response on lands under their jurisdiction in 
response to the illegal cultivation of cannabis.
    With a region as vast as San Bernardino County, we have found that 
National Forest land cannabis grows are extremely labor-intensive for 
our Deputy Sheriffs.
    This is critically important because the laws in California as they 
relate to cannabis are governed by the 2016 ballot measure called 
Proposition 64. Proposition 64 downgraded the illegal cultivation of 
cannabis from a felony to a misdemeanor, reducing deterrence and 
stripping local law enforcement of the ability to impose severe 
penalties. Without federal statutes like those proposed in the FLASH 
Act, we lack the authority to prosecute cartel-linked operations 
effectively. This Act would give us the tools to impose real 
consequences on those destroying our lands and exploiting vulnerable 
individuals.
    These illicit grows are nothing like what you might be expecting--
an episode of Breaking Bad--they are full-grade industrial operations 
with links to cartel organizations and human trafficking operations. As 
publicized in the news in recent months, cartel operations millions of 
dollars on illicit cannabis as well as utilizing slave labor for 
subjects from Mexico coming to the United States and seeking assistance 
to cross the border from cartel organizations--if these subjects cannot 
pay the cartels to go to the U.S., we believe they are being subjected 
to slave labor at illegal cannabis operations in regions like ours to 
pay off a debt to the cartel. This is a travesty to human rights and 
basic dignity.
ILLEGAL CANNABIS IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
    These illegal cannabis operations are not interested in protecting 
our unique desert environment; they are only motivated by profit from 
slave labor but also utilizing chemicals that are not legal--including 
compounds of carbofuran that have a level of toxicity that has the 
potential to harm consumers of cannabis. Carbofuran is considered one 
of the most toxic pesticides. It is classified as a highly hazardous 
substance in the United States as defined in Section 302 of the United 
States Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act. This has 
effectively banned the use of the toxic substance in the U.S., which 
indicates that cartels are smuggling this pesticide across the U.S.-
Mexico Border.
    Research conducted by the Integral Ecology Research Center\1\ has 
found traces of carbofuran in streams, rivers, and animals, including 
at-risk species such as Pacific fish. 1/4 of a teaspoon of carbofuran 
can be fatal to humans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-28/cannabis-
california-national-forests-environment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Illegal cannabis operations on federal lands don't just harm our 
local environment; the contaminated cannabis they produce often ends up 
in states where marijuana is still illegal, endangering consumers 
nationwide. The toxic chemicals in these operations flow through our 
rivers and streams, impacting species far beyond our county. The FLASH 
Act addresses these issues nationally, making it a critical legislation 
for every American.
    One of the most important portions of the FLASH Act is the 
provisions located in Section 212--which creates additional federal 
criminal penalties that we don't have under California statute for the 
use of banned pesticides and rodenticides during the commission of a 
federal offense, with a maximum sentence of 10 years in addition to the 
punishment for the original offense.
CARBOFURAN AND PUBLIC HEALTH FOR CANNABIS CONSUMERS
    According to research from the LA Times \2\, illegally smuggled 
carbofuran from Mexico to the U.S. is used on 90% of marijuana grown on 
public land in California. Illicit cannabis contaminated with 
carbofuran from California is a significant source of marijuana in 
states where it remains illegal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-28/cannabis-
california-national-forests-environment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As this problem proliferated throughout our region in San 
Bernardino County, some of our northern counties in California, like 
Siskiyou and Humboldt County, also saw the same thing because there 
were virtually no consequences in California law under Proposition 64.
    Recently, the Los Angeles Times \3\ tested twenty-five cannabis 
products that were purchased from California-legal retail stores and 
had tested at private labs, which showed concentrations of pesticides 
above levels that the state allows or at levels that exceed federal 
standards for tobacco. The contaminants (Chlorfenapyr, Pymetrozine, 
Trifloxystrobin, Bifenazate, and Chlorpyrifos) include chemicals tied 
to cancer, liver failure, thyroid disease, and genetic and neurological 
harm to users and unborn children. These harmful pesticides, many of 
which originate from China, are being smuggled into the United States 
and used in illegal cannabis cultivation on public lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-14/the-dirty-
secret-of-californias-legal-weed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Seized cannabis from illegal grows in San Bernardino and Siskiyou 
counties has been traced to licensed facilities in Oregon and 
California, revealing a dangerous contamination risk. Many of these 
samples are coming back with these harmful pesticides that are 
originating on our public lands and inundated the legal market, 
creating a public health situation where users of cannabis believe that 
their cannabis is ``legal'' and safe, but it is not safe. These 
pesticides are avoided detection by labs because states like California 
do not require labs to test foreign--labeled pesticides. After all, we 
shouldn't be using them. This poses a severe public health threat and 
contributes to environmental degradation.
OPERATION HAMMER STRIKE
    As this problem became more prevalent in our County, with over 
1,400 reports from residents of cannabis cultivations, Sheriff Dicus 
established Operation Hammer Strike with support from the San 
Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in August of 2021.
    Operation Hammer Strike is a years-long operation targeting illegal 
marijuana cultivation and yielded the following results:

     1,496,906 marijuana plants eradicated

     194,821 pounds of processed marijuana seized

     $3,631,667.00 U.S. Currency seized

     33 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) labs mitigated

     363 firearms seized

     1,379 arrests made

     1,087 search warrants served

     8,771 greenhouses cleared

    As of September 2024, we have two Marijuana Enforcement Teams, and 
we estimate we still have approximately 100 illegal cannabis 
cultivation sites in San Bernardino County.
CONCLUSION
    In conclusion, our challenges in San Bernardino County--
particularly on our federal lands--are urgent and complex. Illegal 
cannabis cultivation, driven by organized crime, is wreaking havoc on 
our environment and our communities. These operations threaten public 
safety, fuel human trafficking, and introduce toxic chemicals into our 
ecosystems, putting both local wildlife and consumers across the nation 
at risk. While committed to addressing these issues, local law 
enforcement is stretched too thin and lacks the legal authority to 
combat this problem entirely.
    The Federal Lands Amplified Security for the Homeland (FLASH) Act 
offers a vital solution. By providing more substantial penalties, 
federal resources, and better coordination between federal and local 
agencies, this legislation will empower us to dismantle these criminal 
enterprises and protect our national lands. I urge this Committee to 
support the FLASH Act and give law enforcement the tools we need to 
secure our borders, safeguard our environment, and restore safety to 
our communities. Thank you for your time and consideration.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Lieutenant Lopez.
    Now we will take Members' questions. I am going to start 
out with my 5 minutes of questioning here.
    First of all, though, I want to recount the visit a year 
ago that I made down to the Tucson region and south of Tucson, 
where we had the hearing in Sierra Vista. And as you can see in 
the picture to my right here, we found all kinds of trash, 
human waste. It is the reason, the genesis, of the TRASHED Act 
that you see in this legislation that we are considering today.
    I find it amazing that we have allowed millions of pounds 
of trash to be spread across these areas like the Coronado 
National Forest. I believe, Sheriff Cleveland, you commented 
about you perhaps worked in that sector. And I find it amazing 
that this was simply allowed to happen under the Biden 
administration.
    My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk 
consistently about protecting the environment. And if there is 
as much as a capful of oil that is spilled on a drilling site, 
there is an immediate reaction. Yet we see this degradation 
that is going on on some of our public lands and not a peep was 
said. Because it stood in the way of the narrative of the Holy 
Grail, which was to import as many people illegally into this 
country as possible, even at the cost to our environment. I 
find it amazing.
    But I would point out one other thing on that trip. We 
happened to stop at a hotel that had been turned into a halfway 
house in Tucson by one of the NGOs that were profiting from 
illegal immigration. One of the NGOs that was one of the vital 
links in the chain, as well as the cartels, the International 
Organization for Migration, other entities that made illegal 
immigration a big business on both sides of the border.
    We found in that Tucson hotel exactly what was happening in 
Arizona. And we exposed it to the world. And it was amazing how 
the footage that we shot at that hotel in Tucson went viral 
showing how many people were profiting off of illegal 
immigration, including some who claimed to be doing it for 
charitable purposes. Hopefully, that day is gone now forever.
    To that point, are things changing? Sheriff Cleveland, we 
have seen a new administration since January 20. Tell us, are 
things changing on the southern border?
    Sheriff Cleveland. One hundred percent. It is night and 
day. It has been a complete 180.
    I have anticipated activity in our county to start picking 
up. I am not sure that I mentioned but again the activity we 
have in our area pales in comparison to many parts of the U.S.-
Mexico border. But between Del Rio, Texas, to El Paso, Texas, 
we are the busiest county and the busiest Border Patrol 
station. And I anticipated with the plus up of Department of 
Defense personnel on our side as well as the Mexican National 
Guard on the south side, it would push activity to our area, 
because we are a more rural area. But we have seen very few 
groups.
    We have seen the numbers, less than 300 apprehensions made 
across the Southwest border. What it shows, I know I have said 
before in interviews, a lot of times we say, what a difference 
a year can make. But I will tell you what a difference one 
person has made with President Trump's voice that has 
completely changed the dynamics on the Southwest border.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, yes or no, things have completely changed 
on the southern border since 2024?
    Sheriff Cleveland. Yes, completely changed.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Perez, has Border Patrol seen a change 
since January 20?
    Mr. Perez. One hundred percent, sir. Our posture has 
completely changed from a processing and facilitating workforce 
to a detecting and deterring workforce, where we are out there 
doing the job that we wanted to do by protecting the border, 
having all of our agents out on the lane, forward deployed. 
Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. Border Patrol currently has to respect legal 
restrictions associated like with wilderness areas; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Perez. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do illegal immigrants also respect those rules 
and regulations that are supposed to be down on the southern 
border?
    Mr. Perez. Not at all. They actually take advantage of it.
    Mr. Tiffany. My final question I am going to save for 
Lieutenant Lopez. So has legalization of marijuana made it less 
likely for the cartels to be growing marijuana in your state of 
California?
    Mr. Lopez. It is not less likely; it is more likely.
    Mr. Tiffany. And do you find a significant number of 
chemicals with marijuana grows? I think about it. It was 
happening in my state, in Wisconsin, northern Wisconsin a 
number of years ago, and they found these very dangerous 
chemicals that were out in the environment. Do you find the 
same thing in California?
    Mr. Lopez. Yes, sir, we do.
    Mr. Tiffany. With that, my 5 minutes are up. And I want to 
thank all of you for joining us.
    Next, I turn to Dr. Dexter for her questioning for 5 
minutes.
    Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for 
coming today.
    As a physician and mother, I think every day about the 
world we are leaving behind for our children, and I sit here on 
this Committee because I care deeply about public lands. We 
should be working together, as many of us have talked about 
today, to protect our public lands. I would argue it is not the 
place to pushing a cruel and unnecessary immigration agenda 
that is minimally relevant to the work of this Committee.
    Instead of addressing environmental challenges or actually 
staffing our parks and forests to keep them safe and clean, 
this Administration is using funds and resources to fuel anti-
immigration policies. Just look at Guantanamo Bay, where over a 
thousand security forces and civilians are assigned to ongoing 
operations. This is a clear pattern.
    My Republican colleagues are diverting resources away from 
urgent priorities like delivering the services and benefits our 
veterans bled for, while putting them toward an agenda that 
puts our most vulnerable at risk and ignores civil rights and 
gives billionaires tax cuts.
    That is why I am looking for answers. I am demanding to 
know why Donald Trump is detaining immigrants with no criminal 
record in a maximum-security prison. I am demanding to know why 
Trump is refusing to give those detained due process. And I am 
demanding to know why, in a committee that is tasked with 
protecting our public lands, this is the focus of today's 
hearing.
    To add insult to injury, we are holding this hearing while 
the Trump-Musk administration continues to fire thousands of 
workers at the Department of the Interior, Forest Service, and 
national parks. And will we hear from those agencies about what 
that is doing to their ability to carry out their missions? No. 
Because my Republican colleagues have declined to invite them.
    It is my understanding that last Congress, the U.S. Forest 
Service testified before this Committee that implementing the 
legislation before us today would require an up-front 
investment of $40 million to $60 million, plus annual 
maintenance costs of up to $280,000.
    Mr. Krumenaker, with 1,000 job cuts at the National Park 
Service and 3,400 at the U.S. Forest Service, do these agencies 
have the capacity to implement a project of this scale?
    Mr. Krumenaker. We do not have capacity. We are down staff 
even before the Trump administration began.
    Dr. Dexter. OK. And this bill before us today would also 
allow border states to place temporary, movable structures such 
as shipping containers along the southern border, without 
requiring a special use permit. We have already seen the 
devastating consequences of this approach. Between 2017 and 
2021, Arizona stacked 922 shipping containers along three and a 
half miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in the Coronado National 
Forest, deep in the Huachuca Mountains. A GAO report later 
found that this project caused irreparable harm, damaged 
cultural sites, contaminated water sources, and endangered 
wildlife.
    Mr. Krumenaker, if this bill were to become law, how would 
the fragile habitats and ecosystems protected by our public 
lands be impacted?
    Mr. Krumenaker. I will speak primarily to what I know of 
Big Bend National Park. The bigger concern that I have, 
frankly, in addition to the environmental issues that you just 
mentioned, is the fact that Big Bend National Park and many 
other old line national parks have exclusive Federal 
jurisdiction. So right now, neither the state of Texas nor 
local law enforcement, both of whom we cooperate with very 
well, have the authority to actually enforce laws within the 
national park. And so I think this law would create huge 
ambiguity in terms of who has the authority and responsibility 
for that.
    In addition, placing barriers without any input from the 
National Park Service, there is no expertise in environmental 
issues, in wildlife, in watersheds, or in public use. And so 
Big Bend National Park, the border is part of the visitor 
experience. It is also a major factor for wildlife crossings. 
And so indiscriminate placement of infrastructure that may or 
may not be helpful to the border issue and, like Sheriff 
Cleveland said, we do not have that many immigrants that go 
across through there because of the terrain in Mexico, which is 
frankly unyielding, I think it would be mostly a show, as 
opposed to something that would be effective. And it would do 
all sorts of harm to the national park and to the American 
people's experience in that national park.
    Dr. Dexter. Excellent. And I appreciate my colleague, Mr. 
Westerman's, points and concerns about the protection of 
sensitive lands. Is it your opinion that cutting staff will 
help improve fragile land protection and cleaning up of garbage 
and other things along our borders?
    Mr. Krumenaker. Trash is not merely an immigrant problem. 
It is a problem whenever there are people on the border. So Big 
Bend National Park and other public lands have trash 
challenges. And we do not have enough people.
    And so I know at least within the area that I was 
responsible for, we did not see large piles of immigrant trash. 
We had trouble collecting the trash that the visiting public 
generated. And Big Bend National Park had a landfill inside the 
national park, one of only two that does.
    So lowering the amount of trash is an excellent idea. I do 
not see how creating more penalties on those who already are 
violating the law by dropping trash in national parks, whether 
they are American citizens, visitors, or the immigrants, I do 
not see how that will make a difference. Having enough people 
to actually collect the trash and to enforce the existing laws, 
that would make a huge difference.
    Dr. Dexter. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. McClintock [presiding]. Thank you.
    I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    I am shocked by the testimony we just heard. I have 
personally seen this enormous garbage patch that stretches 
across the southern border. The problem is illegal aliens do 
not only disobey our immigration laws, they also disobey our 
environmental laws with impunity. The piles of garbage that 
have been left behind are a major blight and a monument to the 
hypocrisy of the left. And to posture as a guardian of our 
Federal lands and not recognize that is appalling to me. It 
leads me to believe the Democratic witness has either not been 
there or just does not care.
    But that is the least of the damage of deliberately 
trafficking eight million unvetted and impoverished illegal 
aliens into this country. The mass migration has overwhelmed 
our public schools, our public hospitals, our food pantries, 
our homeless shelters. They forced down wages for working 
American families. Supporting this impoverished population 
costs American taxpayers about $160 billion a year. Think of 
that as about $1,300 of your taxes, as an average household, 
every year. Worst of all, it has introduced into our cities the 
most violent criminal gangs and cartels on the planet, often 
shielded from deportation by the Democrat sanctuary laws. And 
yet it appears from what we just heard the Democrats are still 
supporting these policies.
    One of the most appalling obstacles to enforcing our 
immigration laws has been the restrictions and the obstacles 
placed in the way of the Border Patrol by environmental 
regulations that hamper their operations along the border.
    Mr. Perez, has the environment on our Federal border lands 
improved over the last 4 years, now that eight million illegal 
aliens were allowed to cross into our country and leave their 
garbage behind them?
    Mr. Perez. Not at all, sir.
    Mr. McClintock. What have you observed?
    Mr. Perez. Well, in a lot of these areas, these 
restrictions, they do not allow us free reign to patrol those 
areas, so the cartels take advantage of our inability to go in 
and patrol. We can only enter a lot of these under emergency 
situations. And because of that, we are not able to go out 
there and detect or deter.
    Mr. McClintock. I made probably 10 trips to the border over 
the last 4 years. And the amount of garbage that has piled up 
is just appalling. Have you seen the same thing?
    Mr. Perez. Yes, sir, everywhere I have worked I have seen 
the same thing.
    Mr. McClintock. And that is not American tourists; those 
are illegal migrants who are not only thumbing their noses at 
our immigration laws but also our environmental laws.
    So the Democratic policies have not only harmed the 
environment. Let's talk about our immigration laws. Without 
enforcing those laws, we have no immigration laws. Without 
immigration laws, we have no border. And without a border, we 
have no country.
    So, Mr. Perez, could you elaborate on the impediments that 
these environmental regulations have imposed on your agency's 
ability to enforce our immigration laws?
    Mr. Perez. Yes, sir. Like I said, we are not able to get in 
and access all of this land. We are not able to put the 
tactical infrastructure such as portable radio repeaters, 
cameras, anything that would allow us to better secure the 
border and detect anybody coming across. So the cartels, they 
take advantage of that. They are able to cross people, they are 
able to cross drugs, and they are also able to cross southbound 
money and weapons as well. So they do not follow the laws, they 
do not follow the regulations that our agents have to follow. 
So it is an impediment.
    Mr. McClintock. Sheriff Cleveland, the sheriff of Tulare 
County testified before the Immigration Subcommittee recently 
and estimated that about half of the crime that he is now 
dealing with in Tulare County, California, is generated by 
migrants, including the notorious Sinaloa Cartel, which 
actually has assassination teams that go after the enemies of 
their gang.
    This comports with NYPD that was estimating that about two 
thirds of the crime that they are dealing with in Manhattan is 
migrant related. I think half or so in Queens.
    What are you seeing in your county?
    Sheriff Cleveland. As I mentioned, I retired as a Border 
Patrol agent in my county. I spent the last 11 years there. And 
I can tell you I have arrested more illegal aliens, not only as 
a border patrol agent, but as a sheriff, that have criminal 
records. Do they all have criminal records? No. But many of 
them do.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, the Democrats, as the President 
pointed out, told us there is nothing they can do about that, 
as they deliberately trafficked eight million illegal aliens 
into our country. I think the President was right, we did not 
need new laws, we needed a new President. We got one, and we 
have seen a decrease of 95 to 97 percent of illegal border 
crossings, thank God.
    I am out of time. Who do we have next?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And 
thank you, witnesses, for coming today. And I must say that I 
agree that we have a crisis on our public lands, but it is a 
crisis that President Trump and Elon Musk are causing, through 
their actions to dismantle our Federal land management agencies 
like the Forest Service, the National Park Service.
    You know, the Forest Service was already understaffed and 
underfunded before Trump and Musk, that unelected billionaire, 
fired 3,400 of their workers across the country. You know USDA 
has not released the exact numbers, and I would note that there 
is no Trump administration official here, right? No, none at 
all. So we cannot ask them exact questions. Right? The same way 
Republicans are refusing to do town halls because their voters 
will start asking them questions, we cannot ask the Trump 
administration these questions. But we think it is about 30 
percent of the workers in the Santa Fe National Forest, who I 
represent, have been terminated.
    Representative Ciscomani, who introduced the FLASH Act, is 
not a stranger to these firings. His district is home to nearly 
15,000 Federal workers. And the Trump cuts are hurting the 
Coronado National Forest. In fact, Trump fired the only 
hydrologist in the whole forest. The only hydrologist in the 
whole forest. And for those of us who live in the Southwest and 
enjoy our mountains and our forests and know the problem with 
drought and the importance of water, to fire the only 
hydrologist is irresponsible.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record an article titled Fired U.S. Forest 
Service Worker at Coronado National Forest Speaks Out.
    Mr. McClintock. Without objection.

    [The article follows:]
Fired U.S. Forest Service worker at Coronado National Forest speaks out
    Danelle Scott is one of 2,000 probationary employees fired to 
eliminate wasteful spending, according to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.

    By: Maria Staubs

    Posted 10:55 PM, Feb 28, 2025 and last updated 6:26 PM, Mar 04, 
2025

    * Editor's note: This article has been updated since the video 
originally aired. New information from the USDA on prescribed burns is 
not reflected in the video above.

    TUCSON, Ariz. (KGUN)--Thousands of probationary U.S. Forest Service 
workers across the country are navigating life after being fired as the 
Trump administration continues cutting federal jobs.
    One of those employees is Danelle Scott, who said she was the only 
hydrologist working for the entire Coronado National Forest. Now, she 
has concerns about forest maintenance and wildfire control.
    ``My first thought was how does a mom support two kids without an 
income? '' Scott said.
    After years of wildland firefighting, Scott moved from Michigan to 
Tucson in January 2024 to begin working full-time as a hydrologist for 
the Coronado National Forest, which spans 1.78 million acres.
    ``I fell in love with the area, fell in love with the job,'' Scott 
said.
    She secured water rights for the forest for wildlife and recreation 
purposes.
    ``Here we don't have a lot of water, so it's really important that 
we manage the waters that we have,'' Scott said.
    Last summer, she served as the Burned Area Emergency Response 
Specialist, collecting data on three active fires and running models to 
identify areas at risk for potentially deadly flooding.
    But after more than a year in her role, a phone call on a Sunday 
ended her career.
    ``They said you're fired. And my 11-year-old ran off crying,'' 
Scott recalled. ``Then they called 30 minutes later and said, `Wait, 
no, never mind. We refreshed the list, and now you're not on it.' Then 
they called Monday morning and said, `Wait, no, never mind. You are 
fired. Come in on Tuesday and turn in all your stuff.' ''
    When she arrived at work, she saw an email firing her for her 
performance. But, less than a month before, she said she had received a 
fully successful performance appraisal.
    Scott is one of 2,000 probationary employees fired to eliminate 
wasteful spending, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. She 
said she knows of three others also fired from Coronado National 
Forest.
    A USDA spokesperson said in a statement:
    ``Secretary Rollins fully supports the President's directive to 
improve government, eliminate inefficiencies, and strengthen USDA's 
many services to the American people. We have a solemn responsibility 
to be good stewards of the American people's hard-earned taxpayer 
dollars and to ensure that every dollar spent goes to serve the people, 
not the bureaucracy.
    As part of this effort, USDA has made the difficult decision to 
release about 2,000 probationary, non-firefighting employees from the 
Forest Service. To be clear, none of these individuals were operational 
firefighters. Released employees were probationary in status, many of 
whom were compensated by temporary IRA funding. It's unfortunate that 
the Biden administration hired thousands of people with no plan in 
place to pay them long term. Secretary Rollins is committed to 
preserving essential safety positions and will ensure that critical 
services remain uninterrupted.''
    But Scott is concerned the job cuts could increase the chances of 
wildfires.
    ``We had funding that was appropriated by Congress to do prescribed 
burning to reduce fuels ahead of the fire season, and those monies were 
seized and we were given directives not to do any prescribed burning,'' 
Scott said.
    A USDA spokesperson said there has been no order to stop prescribed 
fires on the Coronado National Forest.
    ``In the last two weeks, the Coronado National Forest has completed 
more than 1,000 acres of prescribed fire with more active management 
activities planned as conditions allow,'' the spokesperson said. 
``Active management continues across all national forests and 
grasslands, including hazardous fuels reduction projects and prescribed 
fires. Protecting the people and communities we serve, as well as the 
infrastructure, businesses, and resources they depend on to grow and 
thrive, remains a top priority for the USDA and the Forest Service.''
    In the meantime, Scott is searching for her next job.
    ``It's been really stressful, very anxious. Just appealing and 
applying,'' Scott said. ``A lot of people have really rallied, but it 
would be better if I just didn't lose my job.''

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. How can we expect agencies to manage 
our Federal lands in the wake of these cuts alone, and then add 
more unfunded work to their plate as this bill would do? The 
bill we are considering today would add nearly 600 more miles 
of new roads for Federal land management agencies to maintain. 
And guess how much money it provides for the maintenance of 
those new roads? Nada, zero. So you are adding roads. Who is 
going to build those roads? How are you going to maintain those 
roads? Because there is no more new money.
    In fiscal year 2023, the National Park Service reported 
over $8 billion in deferred maintenance on its roads alone.
    Mr. Krumenaker, as a longtime leader in the National Park 
Service, how do you see the unfunded projects in this bill 
impacting the Agency's ability to maintain its current 
services?
    Mr. Krumenaker. The Park Service cannot maintain its 
current services now with the existing staff. And in fact, it 
is not just the recent cuts, which are estimated at about 9 
percent of the staff. Since 2010, the Park Service is down 
about 16 percent in staff, and visitation has skyrocketed. So 
the ratios are going in exactly the wrong direction.
    So Big Bend National Park lost about nine people, which is 
about 10 percent of its workforce, since January 20, and right 
now has no maintenance supervisors at all. So still has to deal 
with spring break and visitors, half a million visitors a year. 
And then you are looking at a deferred maintenance workload in 
Big Bend alone of $192 million. And so the park is falling 
behind now.
    And then to add additional roads, construction and 
maintenance in a desert environment where it is subject to 
flash floods and unstable soils, it just does not seem possible 
to me.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. And I think that we all agree 
that we need to address the fentanyl issues, right? But we also 
know that fentanyl is coming in in the ports of entry. Smuggled 
in by American citizens for the most part. So we need to invest 
in the technology in the places where we will be able to 
capture that fentanyl and not put this undue burden in order to 
just make a big to-do, when we are not actually funding the 
work that will solve the problem. And that is what I have with 
this bill, is it is not the solution that we need. And there is 
no money that goes along with it.
    And they are going to vote on a funding bill, the 
Republicans are, that gives Musk and Trump the ability to cut 
whatever they want. And I think that is a problem.
    Mr. McClintock. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Fulcher.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, I just cannot help but comment to my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, the Trump administration has been 
in place about 6 weeks. We have had an open border for 4 years. 
And so to try to hang this on the Trump administration or Elon 
Musk, that is beyond a stretch, Mr. Chairman. And I would think 
that would be obvious to most people, but apparently not. So I 
just needed to add that to the record.
    I have a question for Mr. Perez. But I just wanted to point 
out there is a personal connection all over the country for 
this. And with the FLASH Act, we are attempting to ensure 
Border Patrol has full access to Federal lands. And even in my 
home state of Idaho, which is not a southern border, we are 
actually a northern border state, but we have had the impacts 
of this substantially. We have, in 2023 alone, 264 deaths 
related to fentanyl. And we have had 568 emergency department 
visits due to opioid overdose. And there were some deaths that 
occurred as a result of that, too. So this is impacting all of 
us in a very significant way.
    And in your written testimony, Mr. Perez, you mentioned 
that you have greater access to privately held border lands 
through partnerships, which is understandably frustrating. 
Could you just expand on that? And then what do you mean by 
that? And forgive some of us, by the way, because we have 
dueling committees. So if this is a repeat, forgive me for 
that. But please talk about that, through these partnerships.
    And then also, have there been cases where these 
restrictions to Federal land have led to known escapes or the 
inability to apprehend?
    Mr. Perez. Yes, sir. And thank you for the question.
    So the partnerships that we have developed with ranchers 
that have privately owned land, they will allow us to patrol 
their ranches. You know, they benefit from it as well. They 
allow us to patrol the ranches, place infrastructure such as 
sensors, cameras. They allow us to go in and actually interdict 
groups of aliens that are coming across with smugglers and also 
interrupt cartel activity.
    What we encounter on Federal lands is we have to get 
permission to actually patrol. They will allow us in an 
emergency situation to get onto the land and go across country 
if we have to, either with ATVs or vehicles, but that is only 
in an emergency situation. So what happens is the cartels take 
advantage of that fact and they are able to operate in those 
areas without us being able to interdict them, because we do 
not have the ability to go on there without an emergency being 
present.
    Mr. Fulcher. So if I understand correctly, there is at 
least a time delay? There might be an emergency access 
provision, but there is a time delay that could be harmful?
    Mr. Perez. Absolutely. It does not allow us to effectively 
patrol those areas.
    Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Perez, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle are arguing as well that the increasing Border Patrol 
access to Federal lands could harm the environment. Now I 
picked up on some of the conversations about the environment 
and the environmental concerns. But what is your perspective on 
how we should prioritize this argument of environmental 
concerns over security?
    Mr. Perez. Well, the priority should always be security. 
The amount of people that have been let into this country 
unvetted is a very scary notion for anybody in the country to 
understand, that we had no way to vet the millions of people 
that we let in. And so as you well know, there are criminals 
out there, there are gang members. The Administration right now 
is doing everything they can to apprehend and remove them. But 
because we were not allowed to do the job for the last 4 years, 
it has become a critical situation.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
    A quick question for the sheriff. Sheriff, you mentioned in 
your testimony that the smugglers frequently change their 
tactics. What we are trying to do with this FLASH Act is to 
increase access so that we can get access to Federal lands. Do 
you anticipate as a function of this cartels shifting their 
routes deeper into private lands or possibly into more urban 
areas?
    Sheriff Cleveland. No, sir, I perceive them going to the 
remote areas. As a matter of fact, down in Big Bend National 
Park, where we spoke of, just a few days ago there was another 
group apprehended out in that way. We do not see a lot of 
activity in that specific area. But we do anticipate more 
activity in more of those rural areas versus those more urban-
to-urban environments on both sides of the border.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. Thank you for your service 
collectively.
    Mr. McClintock. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Fulcher. The gentleman will yield.
    Mr. McClintock. I just wanted to point out regarding the 
staffing levels that in 2023, 34 percent of the National Park 
Service employees were still working from home.
    Mr. Fulcher. I guess that substantiates my point, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Bentz.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all for 
being here.
    Sheriff Cleveland, I would like to talk about your space. I 
think you note that the size of your county is large. I am 
familiar with large spaces. My district, I think, is the second 
largest congressional district in the United States that is not 
a full state. So I understand broad, huge, open space. I think 
mine is 72,000 square miles.
    I notice that you have about 54 miles of international 
border with Mexico. And then it takes care of about 91 miles. 
The bill suggests that we need a road or a barrier even in 
these remote areas. And when I was going through the materials, 
I noticed that your testimony mentions that 43 people have 
passed away trying to cross those huge, wide open, empty, 
usually with no water, spaces. Am I getting the numbers 
correct? This is over the past 4 years; is that right?
    Sheriff Cleveland. Yes, sir. Prior to the Biden 
administration, we would have approximately one death in our 
county, not very many. But over the past 4 years, during the 
Biden administration, we actually had 43 people die trying to 
cross our portion of the U.S.-Mexico border.
    Mr. Bentz. The idea of having a road and a barrier would at 
least, we hope, start preventing some of those deaths. Is that 
your thought?
    Sheriff Cleveland. It definitely could. In Border Patrol, 
we have a sensor package, where if someone is in need, they can 
push a button, a rescue beacon is what they are actually 
referred to, to receive help. Just due to the limited access in 
a lot of our area, we do not have very many of those deployed. 
I think we may have three or four.
    Mr. Bentz. Part of the problem appears to be access. I 
think you mentioned that. So with a road, you could at least be 
down there and try to provide that kind of help. And the border 
is a lot longer than the miles that you patrol, and there is an 
awful lot of open, difficult terrain. What about the local 
private landowners? Are they supportive of a road or some sort 
of a barrier? What do the local ranchers think?
    Sheriff Cleveland. Most definitely. So our portion, talking 
about barriers, we do not need a barrier. In much of the Big 
Bend region, the Big Bend Border Patrol Sector makes up 517 
miles of the entire U.S.-Mexico border, that is one quarter of 
it. What we have out there is what I call a God-made barrier. 
We have anywhere from 500 to 1,500 to 2,000-foot cliffs. The 
right deployment of technology and personnel is something that 
would benefit us. And then, of course, some of those access 
roads.
    And I was talking with Mr. Krumenaker earlier about our 
access roads. And, to be honest with you, a lot is to give our 
landowners something back, if you will. Because we trespass on 
their land. Like Mr. Perez said, our relationships are superb 
with our landowners. They support us, they support the U.S. 
Border Patrol. And we are often trespassing on their lands. And 
there is a lack of access into some of those border areas.
    Mr. Bentz. This is not a problem, I do not think, in Texas. 
But in California, the penalty for growing marijuana was 
dramatically reduced, down to a misdemeanor. And thus, there is 
not much enthusiasm for apprehending folks that are growing 
marijuana because who cares, right? They are going to be 
probably turned loose.
    But this bill contains increased penalties, consequences 
actually, for cartel members that are growing marijuana. And 
thus, at least in states like California, there would be a 
penalty. You are a sheriff. You have to understand the value of 
having consequences when you go to the D.A. and say, hey, we 
apprehended, what do you think of that part of the bill?
    Sheriff Cleveland. And I am smiling because it really 
coincides with the border security portion of it. If we do not 
have a consequence, which we did not have over the past 4 
years, people are going to continue to come. Same thing with 
the growing of marijuana. And I made the same analogy earlier. 
We used to catch tons of marijuana on the U.S.-Mexico border 
when I first came to the Border Patrol in 1996. That was the 
primary narcotic that we caught. We do not catch as much 
anymore because so much of it is being grown here in the United 
States, because it has been legalized. So if you do not have a 
consequence, yes. Yes.
    Mr. Bentz. We could talk for quite a while, sadly, about 
the negative impacts of legalization of hard drugs up in 
Oregon, and the incredibly horrid consequences when it comes to 
fentanyl death and poisoning. And again, it is because the 
consequences of such practices were reduced down to basically 
nothing. I really appreciate your testimony.
    And with that, I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Dr. Kennedy for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the 
opportunity to have this hearing. I was just in Nogales, 
Arizona, to witness the border for myself. And I will say, 
there has been, as I am a freshman, and as an outsider, there 
was a lot of talk about how we need to pass legislation to 
control the border. And in fact, there is order at the border 
now because we have the right President.
    We need legislation as well, and I do thank, and I will 
compliment Congressman Ciscomani for this legislation. I think 
it is a step in the right direction for us. And I am a big fan 
of passing legislation. But it takes a president with the will 
to control our border. And we actually do have a president with 
that will.
    When I went to the border this weekend and witnessed what 
was there, there was essentially nothing there. Nothing was 
happening. Now, there is always something happening, and I was 
there for 48 hours. But it is impressive to see the order that 
has been brought. And I appreciate all of you for being here 
and being our witnesses to help us.
    I will start with Sheriff Cleveland. Thanks for your 
testimony. And actually I will also point out to Mr. Lopez that 
if you have any follow-up from your presentation, I understand 
you were cut short. So with my residual time that I hope to 
have, I would like to turn that over to you, so if you prepare 
any comments you might have.
    But I am a family practice doctor professionally, and I am 
sensitive to the challenges that people can face when seeking 
medical care. And Mr. Cleveland, Sheriff Cleveland, in your 
testimony you said Terrell County saw strains on the medical 
emergency resources as a result of the surge in border 
crossings.
    Has there been a rise in emergency room visits? And has it 
been to the detriment of your population? Can you tell me more 
about that?
    Sheriff Cleveland. Since the new administration came in, we 
have had very little activity, and we have had only one 
deceased illegal alien we assisted with the neighboring county 
with. But we have had no emergency medical calls that I can 
recall since this new administration.
    Dr. Kennedy. Congratulations. Previous to this new 
administration, what was that like for you?
    Sheriff Cleveland. So again, we are a very large county. We 
are a very poor county and there is a not a lot of revenue 
coming in. So our sheriff's office, it is myself and two 
deputies. Fortunately, through Operation Lone Star, we have 
been able to hire an additional two, and Operation Lone Star is 
Governor Abbott's response to the border.
    Like the sheriff's office, our emergency medical services 
only has one crew on at a time, which is made up of two people. 
So at times, if they are responding to border situations, it 
takes them out of service to respond to possibly situations 
that may be needed there in our county.
    Dr. Kennedy. You told us there were how many deaths in the 
past?
    Sheriff Cleveland. The last 4 years, we had a total of 43 
deaths of people trying to cross our portion of the border 
illegally.
    Dr. Kennedy. Forty-three deaths. Tragic. Every one is 
tragic. But 43 of those is extremely tragic.
    But, Mr. Lopez, did you have any further comments that you 
would like to make that you did not get to make earlier?
    Mr. Lopez. I do thank you for yielding your time to me. I 
would like to point out that part of my testimony would include 
Carbofuran, which is a highly toxic chemical.
    Dr. Kennedy. Used in marijuana cultivation, right?
    Mr. Lopez. Correct. And I would just like to point out how 
that affects my county going forward. So according to research 
from the LA Times, illegally smuggled Carbofuran from Mexico to 
the U.S. is used on 90 percent of marijuana grows on public 
land in California. Illicit cannabis contaminated with 
Carbofuran from California is a significant source of marijuana 
in states where it remains illegal.
    As this problem proliferated throughout our region in San 
Bernardino County, some of our northern counties in California 
like Siskiyou and Humboldt County also saw the same thing 
because there were virtually no consequences in California 
under Proposition 64. Recently, Los Angeles Times tested 25 
cannabis products that were purchased from California legal 
retail stores and had them tested at private labs, which showed 
concentrations of pesticides above levels that the state allows 
or at levels that exceed Federal standards for tobacco.
    The contaminants include chemicals tied to cancer, liver 
failure, thyroid disease, and genetic and neurological harm to 
users and unborn children. These harmful pesticides, many of 
which originated from China, are being smuggled into the United 
States and used in illegal cannabis cultivation on public 
lands.
    Seized cannabis from illegal grows in San Bernardino County 
and Siskiyou Counties have been traced to licensed facilities 
in Oregon and California, revealing a dangerous contamination 
risk. Many of these samples are coming back with these harmful 
pesticides that are originating on our public lands and 
inundating the legal market, creating a public health situation 
where users of cannabis believe that their cannabis is legal 
and safe, but it is not safe. These pesticides have avoided 
detection by labs because states like California do not require 
labs to test foreign-labeled pesticides. After all, we should 
not be using them. This poses a severe public health threat and 
contributes to environmental degradation.
    Thank you. I yield back the time.
    Dr. Kennedy. Thank you very much. And I will just conclude. 
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity. But we are allowing 
this Carbofuran to toxify our citizens while we claim that 
floating barriers are creating a muscle concern at the border. 
And I will just point out that we want to keep poisons out of 
our citizens' lives. And thank you for bringing up that 
testimony.
    I yield the remainder of my time, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Stauber, do you mind if I go to Representative Hageman 
next? Is that OK?
    I recognize Representative Hageman for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And thank you for being here today.
    The Biden administration's open border policies have fueled 
a historic crisis of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and 
environmental degradation along the U.S.-Mexico border, 
especially on Federal lands. Roughly 35 percent of the southern 
border is comprised of Federal land, which has been exploited 
by human traffickers, drug cartels, and illegal immigrants, due 
to its remote and uncontrolled nature. Federal land management 
agencies have failed to provide Border Patrol with timely 
access and adequate infrastructure, allowing criminal activity 
to flourish and damaging public lands. H.R. 1820, the FLASH 
Act, restores control by authorizing road construction, 
reducing environmental restrictions on border enforcement, 
increasing law enforcement access, and holding Federal agencies 
accountable for securing our public lands.
    Our witnesses' testimony highlights the FLASH Act's 
necessity to defend national security, preserve environmental 
resources, and empower local and Federal law enforcement to 
combat illegal activity on our public lands.
    Sheriff Cleveland, Wyoming may be more than 1,000 miles 
from the southern border, but the consequences of failed border 
security have reached every single community. Fentanyl and 
other narcotics are flowing into Wyoming through illegal border 
crossings, and the cost to public safety and human life has 
been enormous.
    You have described the severe environmental damage in 
Terrell County caused by illegal crossings, including trash, 
human waste, erosion, and destroyed property. Have you seen 
evidence of long-term degradation of Federal lands like 
national parks and wilderness areas in your region?
    Sheriff Cleveland. I would say yes, ma'am. And again, based 
on trash that is left behind. Again, being a native of that 
area, having worked out in Arizona in the Coronado National 
Forest, you know, a career in the U.S. Border Patrol, and 
seeing the amounts of trash that is left behind. I also spoke 
to the buoys down in Eagle Pass, and how the administration 
targeted our governor about the deployment of those. And yet I 
can take you to a portion of my border in my county and show 
you where those mussels, although they are not a human life, 
but where they are still, we are making a point that those 
buoys are poisoning them or killing them, then I can show you 
where humans crossing the border are definitely having an 
impact on those.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Wyoming is home to millions of acres of 
Federal land, and we know firsthand how restrictive management 
practices can hinder law enforcement. How have road access 
limitations and Federal permitting delays impacted Border 
Patrol's ability to secure terrain like in the Big Bend region?
    Sheriff Cleveland. So in my county, there is no Federal 
land other than on the Wild and Scenic Rio Grande River that we 
spoke of that is part of the National Park System and the Big 
Bend National Park. All of our roads are personally owned, 
privately owned by landowners.
    In the Big Bend, I am not aware of any problems. Again, 
great working relationship between the National Park Service, 
U.S. Border Patrol, and then our local law enforcement, 
speaking about Sheriff Dodson there, who we are both very 
familiar with.
    We do a great job, meaning all of us working together to 
protect our portion of the border out in that area.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, Mr. Perez, I am going to turn to you 
then. Border Patrol's ability to access and patrol Federal 
lands is not just a border issue, and it is in fact a national 
one. In Wyoming, 48 percent of our surface estate is owned by 
the Federal Government, and we know the challenges of dealing 
with land management agencies that prioritize paperwork over 
safety.
    You testified that Border Patrol has better access to 
private lands than to Federal lands in some instances. Can you 
provide specific examples of how these access limitations have 
delayed apprehensions or prevented effective surveillance?
    Mr. Perez. Yes, ma'am, thank you. So I can point to deaths 
that occur because we are not able to patrol those lands unless 
there is an emergency. And we do not have the tactical 
infrastructure set up so we cannot monitor that area. So we 
have essentially blind spots along the border. And the cartels 
take advantage of that, because they do not adhere to the 
regulations we have to adhere to. And so it is very detrimental 
for us.
    Ms. Hageman. So under the FLASH Act, the Department of the 
Interior and Agriculture would be required to install at least 
584 miles of navigable roads within 10 miles of the border. 
From a national perspective, including in states like Wyoming, 
how would improving access infrastructure on public lands 
affect our ability to intercept drugs and human trafficking 
operations before they reach interior states?
    Mr. Perez. This would essentially end what we call the no-
go zones. We would be able to actually go and patrol and have 
eyes along the border and take back the areas that we have 
ceded to the cartels because of the previous administration's 
policies.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, I think that is all a very good thing 
for us to do. I appreciate your testimony.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. I now recognize 
Representative Stauber to bat cleanup here.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Krumenaker, thanks for your service to the National 
Parks. I want to just ask you this question. When in your mind 
did you feel the Park Service was fully staffed?
    Mr. Krumenaker. I do not think it has ever been fully 
staffed, sir, in my experience.
    Mr. Stauber. OK, so it was not staffed under Bush properly, 
was not staffed under Obama; is that correct? It was not 
staffed under Trump 45 in your opinion. And it was not staffed 
properly under Biden.
    So as we move forward, I think we have to look at making 
sure that, No. 1, the staffing is there. And No. 2, the parks 
remain open and accessible to all people, including those with 
disabilities. My wife and I are blessed with a child who is 
disabled. And so what we are seeing as we are working that 
angle, I think it is important that we keep that perspective.
    Mr. Perez, I have to tell you that I really appreciate what 
you do. I was in Yuma, Arizona, and then we went down to the 
Eagle Pass, Texas. I was speaking to some Border Patrol agents. 
And to my left was a young border patrol agent. I was talking 
about what they see as agents: dead bodies, murders, victims of 
rape, babies floating in the Rio Grande. And I saw this young 
agent just well up with tears, well up with tears.
    When I was done, I went over, and I shook her hand and I 
thanked her for her service. And she says, thank you for 
mentioning that. What we have gone through these last 4 years, 
what you in law enforcement have seen, what the two other law 
enforcement professionals here today have seen, I am sorry that 
you had to go through that. It is going to be different now. 
The border is going to be secure. You do not have to see babies 
floating in the Rio Grande. You do not have to see murder 
victims or rape victims, or people who died along the way.
    I just want to say thank you for your service.
    I went down there more than the border czar did. It was 
devastating.
    Mr. Perez. Thank you for that, sir.
    Mr. Stauber. I just cannot say it enough. And I will never 
forget that young agent crying because of what she saw, and she 
knew that I knew.
    As a law enforcement officer myself, there are only a few 
of us in Congress that have ever worn the local uniform, and I 
am one of them. I knew exactly what she was feeling.
    So with that being said, it is going to be different now. I 
do want to say that we have a northern border, too. Right? We 
have a northern border. When that influx was coming through the 
Southwest border, you were bringing agents from the north to 
help, to give you some relief and help with the number of 
illegals that were crossing, which left our northern border 
wide open; 5,000 percent increase in crossings. The higher 
propensity of terrorists coming through our northern border. It 
is unconscionable.
    I am part of the Grand Forks Sector, northern Minnesota. 
That is 600 miles. At times, there were two agents, only two, 
on that whole 600-mile stretch. Because of the Biden 
administration's policies, they were bringing everybody down or 
making them work during the day to in-process them via 
computer.
    People say, Pete, what keeps you up at night? Terrorism to 
our people and our food supply. We know because of the Biden 
policies this country now has to be on red alert because of 
what may happen. You all know. As law enforcement officers, you 
know, you have seen it. I have been down there. You as leading 
law enforcement professionals, your councilmen, your township 
supervisors, your county boards were begging us to shut down 
the border. They could not handle it. The schools, the 
hospitals, the social services could not handle it. The farmers 
could not handle it.
    The farmers, one of the farmers lost hundreds of thousands 
of dollars of crops because when there is fecal matter or urine 
around a certain part, you have to remove the crop within a 
distance of that. Hundreds of thousands of dollars because of 
the policies of the Biden administration.
    It stops under this Administration. In just 6 weeks, a 97 
percent reduction in illegal crossings.
    Mr. Perez and the others, thank you for your professional 
service. You have no idea how much we, as an American people, 
support you, and we will always defend you. God bless you all.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields and sums up the hearing 
quite well.
    I would like to thank all the witnesses for their valuable 
testimony, and Members for your questions. Members of the 
Subcommittee may have some additional questions for our 
witnesses, and we will ask that they respond to those in 
writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Subcommittee must 
submit questions to the Subcommittee clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, 
March 14, 2025. The hearing record will be held open for 10 
business days for those responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

  Prepared Statement of the Hon. Juan Ciscomani, a Representative in 
                   Congress from the State of Arizona

    Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and 
subcommittee members for coming together today for this important 
hearing on my legislation, H.R. 1820, the Federal Lands Amplified 
Security for the Homeland Act, or the FLASH Act for short.
    I first introduced this legislation following the field hearing 
this committee did in my district in Sierra Vista, Arizona last year. 
During this hearing we heard from local stakeholders and ranchers about 
the border crisis that has impacted border communities and beyond 
during the Biden-Harris Administration. I was proud to reintroduce it 
again this Congress, as the problems it addresses still exist.
    My bill would strengthen border security by providing for the 
construction of navigable roads along the border on federal lands, 
allow states to place temporary barriers on federal lands, and directs 
federal managers to develop a strategy to address hazardous trash piles 
which harm the environment?
    Federal lands compromise an estimate 693 miles, or 35% of the 
southern border. Many of which are in AZ. This bill proposes 
comprehensive solutions for public safety issues and environmental 
destruction impacting federal lands along the border.
    In Tucson Sector much of which I represent, we saw over the past 
four years trash piles and `camps' popping up where smugglers had no 
regard for the land or the environment, and this bill would solve that 
problem by requiring land managers to reduce the trash.
    Moreover, in areas where it is VERY hard for agents to navigate, 
this would allow our agents to have roads, even on federal lands. This 
is a game changer for many areas. Even when our CBP agents and officers 
are fully empowered to do their enforcement duties, as they are now, we 
must change our laws to ensure that burdensome regulations do not stand 
in the way of agents and the public safety.
    Federal lands need to be protected from environmental degradation 
and our borders need to be secured. The fact is, we can do both. And I 
believe this bill is a huge step in that direction.
    Thank you for your consideration of this crucial legislation, I 
yield my time.

                                 ______
                                 

                        Statement for the Record
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
        H.R. 1820, the Federal Lands Amplified Security for the 
                          Homeland (FLASH) Act

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, this statement provides the Department of the Interior's 
(Department) views on H.R. 1820, the Federal Lands Amplified Security 
for the Homeland (FLASH) Act, a multi-title bill that addresses the 
public safety issues and environmental destruction currently impacting 
Federal lands along the southern border.
    On January 20, 2025, President Trump declared a national emergency 
at the southern border of the United States. The situation at the 
southern border is a long-standing humanitarian crisis that threatens 
American sovereignty, core security interests of the United States, and 
public health and safety. Unlawful border crossings have caused a 
widespread proliferation of drug trafficking, human trafficking and 
other criminal activity harming and imposing costs on American citizens 
in states and local communities along the border and across the 
country. Such large-scale illegal activity is also an environmental 
crisis ravaging our treasured landscapes and resources. Along the 
southern border, cultural resources, Tribal lands, wilderness areas, 
national parks, wildlife refuges and the species they protect are 
adversely impacted by land degradation and destruction from trail 
cutting, trash accumulation, invasive species introductions, fires, 
property destruction and other illicit activities.
    The President has made clear, a nation without borders is not a 
nation, and the Federal government must act with urgency and strength 
to end the threats posed by an unsecured border. In carrying out our 
mission as steward of the Nation's public lands and resources on behalf 
of the American people, the Department is fully committed to delivering 
on the President's vision.
    The Department manages lands that cover 40 percent of the southern 
border, including national parks, wildlife refuges, historic sites, 
public lands, and wilderness areas as well as infrastructure including 
water delivery structures. The impacts of this crisis on the health, 
security and productivity of America's lands are evident.
    The FLASH Act directs the Secretaries of the Interior and 
Agriculture (Secretaries), in consultation with the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), to install navigable roads of at least 584 
miles in length along portions of the southern border that abut covered 
Federal lands to gain operational control of the southern border and 
deter border crossings. It further directs the Secretaries to enter 
into cooperative agreements to allow DHS to deploy fencing, 
surveillance, and related technology along the roads installed under 
the bill, allows states to place temporary barriers on Federal border 
lands and authorizes the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
conduct various activities to ensure border security in wilderness 
areas.
    The bill also includes provisions directing the Secretaries to 
promulgate rules and implement policies to address environmental 
destruction on public lands including initiatives to reduce trash 
accumulation, wildfire risk, and cultivation of cannabis on Federal 
lands. Among these provisions, the bill directs the Secretary of the 
Interior to establish a ``Southern Border Fuels Management Initiative'' 
to carry out vegetation management activities along the southern border 
within one year of enactment. The Department notes this provision 
codifies the Department's Southern Border Fuels Initiative. This 
program, launched in 2018, has not only helped to reduce the risk of 
wildfire, but has also helped protect natural and cultural resources on 
Federal and Tribal lands, while supporting national security operations 
carried out by DHS by clearing areas for enhanced border patrol 
visibility and protecting DHS infrastructure.
    Finally, the FLASH Act prohibits the use of Federal funds to 
provide housing, including temporary housing, to specified aliens on 
any land under the administrative jurisdiction of the National Park 
Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service or U.S. Forest Service and revokes and prohibits any lease 
between the NPS and the City of New York for portions of Floyd Bennet 
Field in Gateway National Recreation Area.
    While the President has taken bold, immediate executive action that 
has already significantly addressed the crisis at our border, the FLASH 
Act would complement the President's actions to secure the border and 
keep Americans safe, while allowing the Department to effectively 
maintain the character of the lands and resources Congress entrusted it 
to protect. The Department strongly supports these efforts. The 
Department has a longstanding, cooperative working relationship with 
CBP, and will continue to work collaboratively to carry out the 
Administration's priorities. We defer to the Department of Agriculture 
and DHS for their views on the elements of this draft related to their 
areas of responsibility.
    The Department looks forward to working with the subcommittee on 
this important legislation to advance the critical goal of securing the 
southern border.

                                 [all]