Occupation of a wild life refuge in oregon and standoffs with armed protesters in montana and nevada. The house resources subcommittee is looking into how to better protect workers on federal forests, parks, wild life refuges and other open spaces. Subcommittee on ports the unsubcommittee National Parks and public landless now come to order. We will hear testimony of antipublic lands extremism. Any oral Opening Statements are limited to the chair and the ranking minority member. Therefore, i ask unanimous consent that all other members Opening Statements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the clerk by 5 00 p. M. Today. Hearing no objections, so ordered. Thank you all for being here today for the subcommittee on National Parks, forests and public lands hearings on combatting antipublic lands extremism. We are here today in part to review the results of a recent Government AccountabilityOffice Report detailing the impacts of antigovernment extremism on public land managers and federal facilities. As well hear that report found some shocking details about the threats these federal employees faced just doing their jobs. Federal land managers and Law Enforcement personnel have been followed around in stores, had their homes staked out and have even faced attempted murder at the hands of those who promote antigovernment ideologies. I hope that we can all agree that this is unacceptable. These people are hardworking Public Servants employed by the federal government. No one should face fear and harassment in their place of work or in their communities. I also think its important that we keep the larger context of these incidents in mind because these extremist ideologies did not develop in a vacuum. Antigovernment rhetoric more frequently being adopted by officials in positions of power is being used against our public lands and the Public Servants who punish them. It has a very real impact on peoples lives. As gao found, quote, some failed unit employee said in certain circumstances they consider receiving threats a normal part of their job. Officials describe being threatened while offduty such as being harassed in local stores or being monitored at their home which Officials Say in some cases they did not report because it was a common occurrence. If we can turn to the screen well see a handful of statements Public Officials have made in recent years. What senator harry reid may call patriots i call terrorists on the 2014 armed bundy militia standoff in bunkerville, nevada. The blm has become a Bureaucratic Agency of basically terrorism. So at what point do we band together as elected officials and say enough is enough of the blm and that was from state representative Michelle Fiore of nevada. The federal government, the blm, the forest s the fbi, the dea and any of those guys, theyre not elected. Those other entities, they answer to me. Beaver county, utah sheriff, cameron noe knoll. You, the people of nevada, not washington bureaucrat, should be in charge of your own land. I will fight day and fight to return full control of nevadas lands to its rightful own e its citizens and that was from senator ted cruz. This rhetoric often turns into violence. In 2012 utah governor gary herbert signed the utah transfer of public lands act which required federal agencies to seat ownership of most federal land to state control after 2014. A researcher at the university of california san diego found that in the year after utah and other Western State legislatures made their Land Transfer demands, those states saw nearly an 11 increase in violence directed at lans employees. In that context it is particularly disappointing to see my republican colleagues invite a witness today with little experience on the issues we are here to discuss and who has written favorably about giving away federal land to state and private control. Former blm director bob abby said in 2014, quote, the political rhetoric today does lead to animosity and increased tension and there is a belief because of that rhetoric that its okay to do certain things outside the law and some people believe that theyre going to get away with it. Today i hope we can, we can promote collaboration and end the culture of threats and violence. With that, id like to recognize Ranking Member curtis with his opening remarks. Thank you, madam chair. Absolutely no one in this room on either side of the aisle condones violence or threats against federal employees. Its unfortunate that i feel that i need to make that statement. Our boots on the ground are often in difficult positions. They may have to enforce on popular laws and regulations that have great impact on local communities and peoples livelihoods. Their safety should be and is of the utmost importance. While im supportive of the practical recommendations made in the gaos report we are looking at today i am concerned that the title and the focus of this hearing may be misleading. I take issue with the assertion made that theres a widespread problem of antigovernment threats and abuse occurring in the west. Being from the west and representing a state with a High Percentage of public lands, i would like to set the record straight. Calling for local ownership and control of public lands does not embody an attack on the federal government. As a matter of fact, me and my constituents feel just the opposite. The vast majority of my constituents impacted by the federal governments public land positions are Hardworking Taxpayers raising families and contributing to their communities. They love the beautiful public lands that surround them and want to be good stewards of them and part of the Decision Making process. This does not make them bad people. Theyre not dangerous or threatening to federal land managers in the field. In fact, i frequently hear how much they appreciate and work well with the local agent of these federal agencies. Land owners and users who disagree with specific management decisions should not be made to feel that somehow they will be placed on a Government Watch list of potential threats villainizing westerners does nothing to build the bridge of trust and cooperation that is vital to proper stewardship of the land and as is the case with most of our politics, fingerpointing and divisiveness is counterproductive in the long run. We will hear from gao witnesses regarding the report that the Committee Chairman asked them to compile which looks at the progress that the fish and Wild Life Service and National Park service have all made in recent years to bring their human, occupied facilities with post9 11 security standards. This important, while important to consider only took into account four years worth of data of recorded threats among the four Land Management agencies which each had different and often inconsistent methods of recording and there does not appear to be a way to differentiate the threats of violence and incidents as minor as a parking ticket. I believe they largely support the recommendations made in the gao report and they take common sense efforts to secure federal facilities. However, nothing in the report makes any mention of this existence of a culture of antigovernment attack and abuse which is the title of this hearing. My hope is that through the testimony of the witnesses here today we can all learn the powerful lesson that the vast majority of citizens are not like those in the rare, highprofile headlinegrabbing incidences that should be here today. My constituents do not wish to have conflict and seek compromise ask cooperation from their government. I hope to hear examples today on how federal lands and local citizens have worked to seek Mutual Understanding and come up with collaborative on the Ground Solutions which net the most positive outcome for all concerned. We should be promoting and fostering more of the collaborative and cooperative effort which is will do far more to facilitate safety than even spending tens of millions of dollars to create hardened, secure fortresses. With that, madam chair, ooird like to thank the witnesses for being here today and i look forward to their testimony and i yield my time. Thank you, mr. Curtis. I would like to turn to our witness panel. Under our Committee Rule, oral statements are limited to five minutes and you may submit a longer statement for the record if you choose. The lights in front of you will turn yellow when there is one minute left and red when time has expired. After the witnesses have testified members will be given the opportunity to ask questions. The chair now recognizes mr. Dan nichols, rancher and former Harney County supervisor. Mr. Nichols, you have five minutes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is dan nichols, and im a selfemployed rancher of 41 years and the past committee on the National Wild life refuge. A retired county commissioner and as a Partnership Board member and three of the five ongoing collaborative number tiffs in our community. The economy of the county is a Natural Resource based with the reliance on the multiple use concept by the u. S. Forest service and the blm and the wild life refuge. It lies in the southeast corner of oregon and the 75 federally and state owned and it has a land mass of 10,120 square miles larger than six west coast states and has a population of 7,380 people of which 5200 are registered to vote. A quick look at an oregon state map and one would incorrectly assume that the area is basically uninhabited. My comments today to you come from this perspective. Rural americans especially in a large federally owned and managed states are not being listened to, much less heard. Opinions and desires residing outside of communities are politically driving issues that result in legitimate grievances with federal Land Management policies. Much of what is often described as antigovernment is really coming fray place of feeling excluded or being on the losing end of unbalanced Natural Resource knowledge inment. In the course of doing their job, federal employees become the local messengers of new approximately sees and regulations resulting in them becoming the recipients of the frustration and anger of the people that are not being listened to. Our community has issues of concern with federal Land Management. We are not unique in that regard. What does mach us unique is the issues of potential ascension and polarization are resolved. The culture of collaboration has been established in Harney County that enabls tes the diversity of opinions that need to be collectively considered any the positive attribute to the process has been working directly with the federal employees in our community. Through that interaction, the community has gained an appreciation for them as professional, individuals and contributing members of our community. Collaboration also provides a venue for a discussion of issues with the Broader Community beyond Harney County. For us, the Term Community includes those with an interest and a commitment to participate including stakeholders from outside the local area who care about issues in ways that we may not always appreciate. Its necessary to have them at the table, as well, because it gives everyone an opportunity to speak and listen, we learn and better understand each others views. It is a setting where rural voices are heard and understood by those in areas that are the source of many of the problematic issues. Collectively through collaborative efforts we have found an ability to meet our interests. The cop rattive management and protection act of 2000 which was sponsored and written by congressman greg walden and the National Wild life refuge, comprehensive plan and the wildfire dlwild life collaborative, and it has changed with the ways we deal with complex and controversial issues of Harney County. Real benefits have been achieved for the local uneconomity, the federal agencies and the Natural Resources we all care about, urban and rural alike. We can all learn from lessons of people that are successfully bridging divides. Our experience can provide the opportunity for congress to develop a tomorrow at for a muchneeded larger discussion. I ask for your support of a larger collaborative in addressing legitimate grievances and concerns of the american public. Collaboration is recognized as the successful approach to issue resolution in Harney County, the state of oregon needs to be implemented on the national level, as well. Thank you, and i look forward to any questions you may have. Thank you very much, mr. Nichols. The chair now recognizes professor peter a. Walk e professor of geography at university of oregon. You have five minute, sir. My name is peter walker. Im a professor of geography and environmental studies at the university of oregon. I personally observed the 2016 armed occupation of the wild life refuge in Harney County, oregon. After the occupation, i conducted research in Harney County for more than two years including the indepth interviews with individuals representing all parts of the community. My observations are recorded in my book sagebrush collaboration, how Harney County defeated the takeover of the wild life refuge. A lot can be learned from the refuge occupation for preventing such incidents and for safeguarding federal employees and enabling them to work constructively in Rural Communities. The great majority in Harney County opposed the occupation and rejected the militants plan to launch an antifederal government revolution from ha n Harney County. I use the word militants because they used armed force and tactics to achieve a radical political goal. The situation was explosive. Almost certainly if the community had heeded the calls of the militant, lives would have been lost. Harney county rejected it in large part because the community had invested for decades in building collaborative approaches to solving precisely the kind of Resource Management issues the militants said could only be resolved through armed force. In the past, there had been a lot of hostility between the community and federal agencies and theyre the end of the 1990s, Harney County was tired of fighting and especially tired of litigation. The existing system was failing to produce outcomes that almost anyone wanted and when people knew that regulations would be coming they wanted to get ahead of the process and make sure local voices would be heard. Farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, tribes and federal, state and county workers intentionally built a culture of collaboration. The community bet that Better Solutions could be found by building relationships and really listening to each other. Humanize those with whom they might see things differently. For decades, over oneonone phone calls and cups of coffee at kitchen table, the Community Created their own ways to solve problems. When outside militants had a violent confrontation, the community had a better way. Federal employees were central to this history. Ironically, the outside militants had no idea that Harney County was recognized nationally as something of a poster child for collaborative approaches including building positive relationships with federal workers. The militants believed by vilifying and harassing federal employees they would rally support for their cause. The militants leader later said that he never met a bureau of Land Management or by implication, any federal employee who is a, quote, good person, end quote. By 2016 post people in Harney County just didnt see it that way. Through collaboration, federal employees were contributing to better problem solving in large part by making themselves more integral parts of the community and above all, by listening. No longer just uniforms and badges, federal employees were friends and members of the community and Harney County does not like members of the community being harassed. When the occupation ended, ranches with allotments helped at din tore honor the National Fish and wild life employees to reaffirm that the federal workers are valued members of the community. As a nation, were enormously fortunate that by chance the militants chose Harney County, the community told militants to go home. We should see the relatively peaceful outcome of the occupation as hopeful evidence that conflicts between Rural Communities and federal agencies can be minimized and in at least some cases Winwin Solutions can be found with the culter that afflicts our nation today. The experience of collaboration demonstrates things that be applied. Thats my most important message. In Harney County i saw that conflict do not need to define who we are as a nation and how federal employees work in our communities. There are better ways. America can do better and Harney County proved it. Thank you. Thank you, professor walker. The chair now recognizes miss an marie thennel, director of at the u. S. Could ability office. Sure, chair bm holland, Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee and thank you for the opportunity to discuss our report on how the service of fish and Wild Life Service and National Park service protect their employees and secure their facilities across 700 million acres of lands that they manage. My Statement Today summarizes our findings. For the four federal Land Management agencies i will discuss one, what is known about the number of threats and assaults against their employees. Two, approaches agencies take to protect their employees and three, the extent to which the agencies met federal Facility Security requirements. First, available federal Law Enforcement data show a range of threats and assaults against the four federal Land ManagementAgency Employees in fiscal years 2013 through 17. The severity of these incidents range from phone threats to the stabbing of an employee outside of a federal building. Number of incidents varied by agency. For the fiveyear period there were 88 incidents for blm, 66 for fish and wild life, 177 for Forest Service and 29 for park service. Fbi data for this time period showed the fbi initiated under 100 domestic terrorism investigations into potential threats to these four agencies. The majority of these investigations involved blm as well as individuals motivated by antigovernment ideologies. For instance, the fbi investigated a case where a blm officer received over 500 harassing phone calls and several Death Threats once the officers personal information of the posted on twitter. However, the number of actual threats and assaults is unclear because not all incidents are captured in the agencys databases for various reasons. For example, some incidents are investigated by local and state Law Enforcement and may not be included in federal databases. In addition, Land ManagementAgency Employees do not always report all threats. Some said that in certain circumstances they consider receiving threats as a normal part of their job. Second, federal agencies building federal Law Enforcement entities. For instance, Las Vegas Police kept a patrol car outside a field unit in nevada during a highprofile court case. Agency officials noted factors that can affect their ability to protect employees such as those in remote locations. Also, the number of field Law Enforcement officers at the four agencies has declined for fiscal years 2013 to 18 with Forest Service experiencing the largest decrease of 22 . Third, the four Land Management agencies have not completed all Facility Security assessments required by federal standards developed by the Interagency Security Committee or isc. Agency officials cited various reasons for not doing so including a lack of resources, training and expertise. Not complying with the requirements, to complete these assessments could leave agencies exposed to risk to protecting their employees and facilities. While the fish and Wild Life Authority has the blm and the Forest Service and park service do not. The standard also requires that agencies conduct assessments using a methodology serving key requirements. The Service Partially meets these key requirements. Blm and fish and Wild Life Service have not yet established methodologies. Without compliant methodologies, agencies may not identify the risks their facilities risk or the countermeasures to mitigate those risks. Weve made recommendations to conduct assessments with isc requirements. The agencies agreed and noted they were going to take steps to prevent the recommendations. This completes my prepared statement. I am pleased to respond to questions. . Thank you very much, the chair recognizes miss tubbs from the heritage foundation. You have five minutes . Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today and for the interest in examining federal lands issues. Decision making on federal lands has been contentious for many years, decades, if not longer. In some respect, thats not surprising given that theres potential for conflict when federal lands consume large parts of the west. This is not this has major implications for states and individuals as their ability to foster promising a place to live with economic diversity, property and other tax revenue for Services Like education and public safety, physical space and access to lands for a variety of cultural and recreational activities. Further, management on these lands is diverse and spread across multiple agencies and bureaus and governed by complex and overlapping, con flickinfli laws and in drastically different ways. A litigation culture all, but n invited by bribe and unclear and outdated lies have led to incentives and when people feel theyre not being listened to, tensions spill over. Undoubtedly, Civil Servants are also in a difficult place navigating these laws. When it comes to conflict, federal district, and unit offices should ensure their staff are adequately equipped for theiron safety. Staff should be trained to handle conflict toward solutions and federal actions can wittingly or unwittingly create unnecessary tension. Federal action, real or perceived to slow walk leases and permit being able to unseat compromise ask failing to be present and available to the community or escalating the severity of charges can create or exacerbate conflict. Ultimately, i believe Congress Needs to do a wholesale of state and the laws governing it, however, even in thisec broken system there are levels of collaboration that have yielded good results. I think those boil down to some basic principles of cooperative federalism. The first being that solutions are situation specific. Specific decisions reflect the unique circumstances, histories and priorities of communities and land users. Americans can and do successfully pursue competing interests with creative nuance com fr compromises. This requires relying on people who directly benefit or are harmed by those decisions. Second, solutions rely and respect the role of private Property Owners. Rather than being irrelevant or a barrier to public Land Management solutions, private Property Owners can be great assets and in fact, ownership is a powerful incentive for stewardship. Third, solutions empower states and communities, and while there are many degrees of and ways to accomplish this, empowering states and communities to drive Decision Making has proved effective. States and communities already share the cost of maintaining federal lands whether by the liability of long management and the infrastructure needed to support management. My written testimony offers examples of how each of these have resolved conflict and among those the Utah Grazing Improvement Program and the apache tribe successful Forest Management program. The Forest Service use of Good Neighbor authority and under the Antiquities Act and the federal lands freedom act in the congress. I would like to draw from one example that the Foreign Service in arizona. Within the broader, Protracted National debate over wilderness area designation, a coalition of interests came together to seek resolution in a more timely fashion. I think its very interesting who formed this coalition, it was a mix of various fwraups with the Conservation Association and the cedar club, local chambers of commerce and the board and local, state and federal politicians. The discussions resulted in an all, but universally satisfying compromise, they created the blms first can we pane stagingly solutions and it is hart work and complicated work and its easy in an be ones have outcome and they initiate collaborative approaches the better we are at reaching conflict through solutions. Thank you very much. Thank you, miss tub. Thank you for that valuable testimony. The chair will recognize members for their questions and under Committee Rule 3d, each member will be recognized for five minutes and i will start with mr. Tonko. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you and thank you for bringing this hearing together and thank you to the witnesses for your input. The unfair and negative treatment of employees harms our nation and threatens the laws of Institutional Knowledge and undermines the performance of the agency and service to the American People. Elected officials and others in positions of power and public trust should not be able to use these employees as political pawns. Even the way we talk about them can have a personally dangerous and devastating consequence on these individuals to say nothing of undermining the serious and important work that they did. No one, no matter where they work, should feel like theyre being held hostage in their own home or had shots fired over their heads while working. Surely we can hand them minimum amount of humanity for our employees. In this time, our words matter more than ever. Theyre sometimes attacked and we have a duty to rise above this toxic Political Climate in our words and in our action. So my first questions are those to miss fennel. Your report says federal Land Management experts experienced threats and intimidation including being monitored at home and harassed at the Grocery Store as part of the daily lives. It is so common that some dont report it to colleagues anymore. That sounds like more than a difference of a opinion for Land Management. Can you tell us about some of the experiences that have been reported . Some employees have not reported various incidents because they informed us that under certain circumstances they may consider that just a part of their regular job duties. Some, however, indicated that it depends on the particular circumstances, so what may a pare to be a threat for one employee may not be perceived as that for another so there is jungment judgment in terms of whether they come forward and reporting potential threats . In your testimony you mentioned that many employees were traumatized by the takeover with some never returning to work or transferred to other agency field unit, can you briefly elaborate on the impact that threats and literal assaults on federal employees have had on retention and Institutional Knowledge at our federal Land Management agencies . Some of the employees informed us that that was indeed the situation from the experience that they were traumatized by the event and chose to ask for a transfer and not return immediately to work. That was an illustrative example of the situation that occurred there, but we did not hear consistent examples throughout in terms of how many transfers had been requested and we did not have specific information to respond to that question. Do you expect that you will get Additional Information or it was not part of our particular scope for our review, but that is something that we can follow up with the agencies and get back to your staff. Thank you. Mr. Nichols, how has hardy county changed as a result of the takeover and what are the social consequences perpetrated in the name of taking back the land . The county was elated it was over with. Things havent changed dramatically within the community other than there is division to some degree where there wasnt before over several things. Basically, the community got back on its feet, ruling and doing what its always done and trying to survive all of the things that weve had to survive in our community and its been a positive reaction to the situation and were moving ahead and moving forward. Thank you. Profess professor walker, you spent a considerable amount of time researching, what kind of longterm social damage did it inflict upon there . As commissioner nichols said, i think generally the community has bounced back. Its still a community that works very well together. I think there has been a lot of longterm damage to individual relationships and there are still people who say they will not patronize businesses of people who are on the other side of the issue and there is a general sense of wariness of concern about suspicion about others and the community that there was not before the occupation. On the other side, if anything, the damage to some of those relationship, some individual relationships has actually been countered by a reinforcement of a commitment to working together through the collaborative model and i attended the very first, to my knowledge, the very first collaborative meeting in an initiative of the High Desert Partnership known as the collaborative forest in march 2016 right after the occupation ended and the facilitator of that group told me that the attendance at that particular meeting was higher than he had ever seen before. There is a mixed bag and theres been a reaffirmed commitment to the model. I think i have well exceeded my time and i apologize, madam. Thank you. The chair recognizes Ranking Member curtis. Thank you, immediate am chair. Dr. Walker, on page 24 of the gao report it reads agencyfilled o firms said building relationships with the public both visitors and local citizens can keep them safe and reducing potential tension. After hearing your testimony it sounds like that could have been written based on a case study in your area. Would you agree with that . Im sorry. Can you say that again . In the report says the best way to keep employees safe is to build relationships with trust. It sounds to me like yes, i would generally agree with that. I think that really you should be asking mr. Nichols ranch is in that community, but my quick understanding is that relationships in that Community Prior to the establishment of the Collaborative Culture that commissioner nichols refers to was quite bad and since then that trust has been built in ways that serve the Community Well under pressure. Yes. And maybe to both of you. As the world looks back on your community and this incident. This seems to me like a rhetorical question, but maybe its not. Would you both rather be remembered for the Relationship Building with the federal employees or this one incident . The relationship with the employees or what, sir . My point is that, and my fear of this topic, of this is focusing on all thats bad. What im hearing from your community is theres a lot thats good. The question is im assuming youd rather be employed for the Relationship Building that you all have done and not this one incident. Yes, sir, like i referred to earlier. The bundy occupation is over and done. We have moved on. Yes, there are differences of opinion about things. There always is, there always will be, but there isnt the hostility or aggression toward one another or anyone else that was evident during that time. Basically, it was total anarchy in our community for a month, six weeks. That is not a good place to be. Not a good place at all. Its my sense that its also not a reflection on who you are as a community. No. It is i think all of you have spoken today about the importance of building relationships to solve problems without creating more divisiveness and i was lucky to be part of a package that was signed into law and that was a perfect example of how locals were working together with the federal agencies to find harmony and peace in these difficult public land conflicts. My county worked daily with blm officials and because of that they came to better decisions and when i go down in that county i hear great things when i hear from the local representation down there, and i feel like it was a winwin. Im curious, the antigovernment attacks and abuse. Let me just read that again. A widespread culture of antigovernment attacks and abuse. First of all, do you agree with this characterization of an epidemiclevel threat of antigovernment activist . No, i dont, and i think its not characteristic to label all conflict as antigovernment and as i think weve said across the panel, these are passionate issues because they affect peoples lives. That doesnt mean theyre antigovernment. Thank you. In your testimony you argue that its important for a federal Land Management agency not to create unnecessary tension. What are some ways agencies can diffuse tension and encourage better relationships . I think its the Relationship Building. Its seeking compromise. Granted, i think land managers have a very difficult position to play because of the underlying law and regulation. Nevertheless, i think theres enough tools to give and take among land managers and the people affected by their decisions. Weve heard and i want to endorse that we need to keep our federal employees safe and i wouldnt want people that i felt otherwise and i would like to take the opportunity to feel that this is a concern for Law Enforcement. I would hate to compare the statistics for federal Law Enforcement threats and local law and enforcement and i believe the number of lives lost would far exceed this. So i would like to end my time by a plea for care and concern for all federal employees, all Law Enforcement and weve not even talked about those at the border and i know theyre receiving threats on a consistent basis and i want to make sure that we keep all of them in mind as we work to make the environment safer. Thank you, i yield my time. The chair recognizes mr. Loewen that will for five minutes. Thank you, madam chair and thank you to all of the panelists. I want to start with miss fennel. In your testimony, you stated, as i read, that as the close of fiscal year 2018 the number of field Law Enforcement officers at each of the four Land Management agencies has declined since fiscal year 213, and can you describe the impact that this has had on employee safety . It is one of a number of factors that have impacted the federal Land Management agencys efforts to protect federal employees. The Law Enforcement officer decline range from 7 for the park service to 22 for the Forest Service from 2013 to 2018. The officers have a vast amount of land in which to survey, as well and so the number of Law Enforcement officers per millions of acres of land is a fairly small ratio. There are various efforts that are under way to try to address that particular issue. We heard from the federal Land Management agencies including the spirit of sharing Law Enforcement officers to address various events that may be occurring as a way to address the decline and a number of Law Enforcement officers in the field. Can you help me understand why there was the decline . Was it fiscal . Why was there a decline in Law Enforcement from 2013 . It was not a time of great reductions in the u. S. Economy. In fact, we were beginning the recovery by then. It was not the focus of our line of questioning because we were looking at the various factors and what Law Enforcement officer his indicated was the office of resource constraints contributing to the decline. Mr. Nichols, you know that President Trump pardoned the Hammond Family in 2013. I know that. Yes. Im just asking you. Can you tell me how that family is perceived in Harney County . Well, sir, youre asking my my perception. There are two ways of looking at it. Theyre outstanding people and Good Community member, but apparently something was out of sync with the department of justice and that course of action took place. Other than that, i dont believe its my place to be answering that type of a question. I was just asking what the Community Felt about this or perceived, not about, you know, was it much of a reaction . Was there you indicated your reaction and that you thought they were excellent people. Im just wondering whether there was Much Community reaction when this took place. The Community Reaction the community is made up of people with differing opinions that went a variety of different ways. Im going to yield back. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you. The chair recogni. Grijalva. Thank you very much, madam chair. Mr. Fennel, in preparing the report, how often did land managers describe the public misconceptions about land use law or what federal agencies really do . As you were doing in your report . In terms of the federal Land Management agencies and their efforts to protect their employees, they noted a number of different factors that can impact their ability to protect their employees, including the need to ensure that they have opportunities to inform the public and visitors about the land that they are managing and any particular incidents that might arise, so it is part of an opportunity for dialog with the public, whove been visiting their land if that would arise. On the little bit of professor walker, you are a scholar on land use in political history and land use laws. Could you explain a bit more about this representation of the constitution, the anti public, land Anti Government activists rely on, and more pointedly, how courts have ruled on this issue throughout our history . Im sorry, sir i could not quite follow the question. The misrepresentation, so, the constitution that a lot of the Anti Government, anti public land activists on this issue rely on, and how the courts have ruled unconstitutional issues regarding public land in particular. How did misrepresentations of the constitution yes. I actually think that is a very important question. The militants at the refuge, i have a very idiosyncratic interpretation of the constitution. To put it mildly. Their interpretation is that the federal government has no jurisdiction outside overland or really over almost any other issues outside of washington, d. C. And my belief is that that has given a lot of sense of legitimacy to a broader Anti Government movement out there, and it is expressed in particular through social media, where people seem to express opinions that Anti Government activities, political activities, up to it including violence, is justified because the government has overstepped its constitutional authority. That constitutional interpretation is not supported by any legal scholars or historians or the United States supreme court, but when the militant spread that kind of mythology, it gives legitimacy to Anti Government movement, including violent ones. I appreciate that, and appreciate but it is about the health and safety of the Agency Employees of Land Management, and i think, lets not minimize what happened in oregon and what happens in arizona, these, folks Public Servants, do come under a great deal of not only political but personal attacks, threats, harassment and that their wellbeing should be a priority and this hearing is a step in that direction. Just, how things get misrepresented, lets take one example. You mentioned a witness it was important state of arizona. The important thing to note here was that it was a wilderness bill and not a resource conservation bill so to appoint it with anything else that is going on is i think a mistake. That did not consider threats to clean water. It did not consider how to protect a colorado watershed. It did not consider the impacts of the key to the future discussion. The majority of the land considered and drawn under obama were never reviewed during the drafting of the wilderness bill and the staffers who helped track the wilderness act testified on the record that conflating the bill and the withdrawal is simply incorrect, yet somehow we hear these arguments making this false conspiracy between the arizona wilderness act and the withdrawal act, and i dont see how many of this justifies, that line of thinking justifies extremist attacks of employees. It is insulting i think the federal land managers were being harassed, followed home, get defeated painted on their houses and, cars get attacked at work, to be told that the arizona wilderness act is just too much for reasonable people to handle, i think we could make bipartisan progress on this, but we are here because Anti Government rhetoric dehumanizes government employees, and those employees are being threatened and harassed because they are doing their jobs and we need to discuss how we improve their living and working conditions, and how they are being treated and what protections we extend to them. I think the gao report is pretty clear i think we have an obligation to do something about it, madam chair. I yield back. Thank you mr. Grijalva, i will recognize myself for five minutes. Professor walker, you spent time with the bungee militia at malheur National Wildlife refuge in 2016. Did the views they shared with you sound anything like what you have heard elsewhere . In your, opinion was the militia expressing commonly held sentiments about how the American People want their public lands managed. Commonly held opinions within a hearty county or generally . Anywhere that you have been. Short answer is no, this was a very Small Community of Anti Government activists that belong to that particular group that is centered on the bundy family, is really a very small group of individuals, but what i am concerned about is that they get a sense of legitimacy to wider spread Anti Government groups, what happened here at the malheur National Wildlife refuge was that the bundles came to the wildlife refuge, and they began from a particular ideological perspective having to do with religious interpretations of the constitution, but what they were advocating for was essentially an overthrow of the federal government, the replacement of the existing federal government. I asked the leader of the Group Directly whether he was really advocating for an overthrow or a replacement of the existing federal government, and he said yes, they made that message very clear. And other groups who have also advocated for the replacement of the existing federal government heard that message and they heard the message that the federal government is broken, it is broken beyond repair, and needs to be replaced and it is the duty of patriots through armed forces to reestablish a constitutional government. My concern is that some of those groups outside this is nationwide, some of those groups have latched onto the bundy family as giving a feeling, and impression, an image of legitimacy to the movement. Their movement, to a large degree, has a history tied to racism, xenophobia, anti immigrant policy and those sorts of ideologies, and the bundy family has given a more appealing public face to those movements and in that sense i think even though the sizes the group is small, theyve given legitimacy to widespread movements. Thank you for that answer. Mr. , nichols in your testimony you stated that honey county is almost like a poster child for collaborative approaches. I was wondering if you could briefly explain how high Ernie Kennedy residents work with federal land managers to collectively solve problems rather than arguing, getting frustrated taking it out on federal land managers. Do you have any suggestions of ways this committee can encourage the use of approaches like this more widely . Yes, i do. We have proved over and over in several different, cases sitting down, talking things through with everyone that has invested interest in an issue has been official to the cause, beneficial to the result, the community and especially the federal land agencies involved. I dont over the course of years, things have changed dramatically. We never were an Anti Government, quote, unquote but there have been and still are things that need to be discussed and looked at. And that goes everywhere, like i, said well across america. During the occupation i got calls, literally, from california and no matter how small the federal land mass was in the state, there were still issues with it. That is not to say its all bad. It is not something that can be overcome, but again, the people need to be listened to and that is quite a broad question. You people are listening today. We appreciate that, but the time needs to be spent, like we do in a collaborative process, it takes a long, long time to get a truly know the other people and their ideas and their values and what weve come to learn is, everybodys values are about the same thing, its just how you come to the end results that are different and i cant express enough how we need to start communicating people to people, not an idea or an agenda or an organizational affiliation, but people to people and until that happens, we all want protection of our federal employees. That is paramount to them doing their job, but that is not looking at the causes of the problem. The cause of the problem is something going on in our society. Protection is necessary, but quite honestly we should not have to be protecting our federal employees. That should be something ingrained in the people themselves. It is a societal problem. It is a lack of communication and again, things are not as horrific in the western United States as some of the things i have heard today. There are places, undoubtedly. My son works for the federal government and he has for 16 or 17 years. When he works right now, he loves it and the people that they are serving love their services that they provide. It is basically a recreational type of a Service Within a forest in central oregon. Where the rub comes in, quite, often is land masses that people are trying to make a living. People are paying, taxes raising, children generationally, theyre taking care of the land and there is always a threat of summit coming down the pike and disturbing that, and again, it is not Anti Government. It is a fact of frustration, and wondering what the future holds, so thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your insight. Its been very helpful today. I think the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for the questions. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to respond to these and writing. Under Committee Rule three oh, members of the committees must submit witness questions within three days following the hearing, and a hearing record will be open for ten Business Days for these responses. Again, we are very appreciative that you all took the time to come here. Thank you so very much. If there is no further business without objection, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you