Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing On Protecting Federal Employees From Anti-Government Attacks 20240713

Increase of federal workers overseeing protected lands in nevada and montana. And a house subcommittee is looking to protect federal workers on federal parks and wildlife refuges and other open spaces spaces. The subcommittee on National Parks and for ests will come to order. We are meeting to hear about antipublic lands extremism. Under Committee Rule 4f, any oral statements are limited to the chair and the ranking minority member. And therefore i ask unanimous consent that all other members Opening Statements be made part of the hearing rect if they are submitted to the clerk by 5 00 p. M. Today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. Thank you all for being here on the subcommittee of National Parks and forests public hearing on combatting the antipublic lands extremism. We are here in part to review the results of a recent Government Accountability Office Report detailing the impacts of government extreermtism on the Government Land managers and facilities. As we will hear the report found some shocking details about the threats that these federal employees have faced just doing their jobs. Federal land managers and Law Enforcement personnel have been followed around in stores, had their homes staked out and even have faced attempted murder at the hands of those who promote antigovernment idlingologies. I hope that we can agree that this is unacceptable. These people are hard working Public Servants employed by the federal government. And no one should face fear and harassment in the place of work or in their communities. I also think it is important that we are doing a larger context of these incidents in mind, because these extremist ideologies do not develop in a vac um youu vacuum, and antigovernment rhetoric being adopted by officials in places of power is being used by the public lands and the servants who manage them. The attempts to push this ideology into the political mainstream has a real impact on peoples lives. As gao found, quote, some field unit employees said that in certain circumstances they consider receiving threats a normal part of the job. Officials describe being threatened while off duty such as being harassed in local stores or monitored at their home which officials said in some cases they did not report, because it was a common occurrence. If we could turn on, turn to the screen, and we will see a handful of statements that Public Officials have made in recent years. What senator harry reid may call domestic terrorist, i call patriots. Former senator dean heller from nevada on the 2014 armed Bundy Standoff in bunker hill, nevada. The blm has become a Bureaucratic Agency of basically terrorism, and so at what point do we band together as elected officials and say enough is enough of the blm and that is from the state official Michelle Fiore of nevada. The federal government, and the blm and the Forest Service and the dea and those other people are not elected. The other entities, they answer to me, beaver county, utah sheriff, cameron newell. You people of nevada and not the washington bureaucrats should be in charge of your own land and i will fight day and night to return full control of the nevada lands to the rightful owners, the citizens. And that is from senator ted cruz. This rhetoric often turns into violence. In 2012, utah governor gary herbert signed the utah transfer of the public lands act which required federal land agencies to cede 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 the Land Transfer demands, the states saw an 11 increase in violence directed at federal lands employees, and in that context, it is particularly disappointing to see my republican colleagues invite a witness today with little experience on the issues that we are here to discuss and who has written favorly to give away federal land to private and state control. Bob abby said in 2014, quote, the political rhetoric today does lead to animosity and increase tension, and there is a belief because of the rhetoric, it is okay to do certain things outside of the law and some people believe that they are going to get away with it. Today, i hope that we can examine this rhetoric and the danger that it creates so that we can consider how to protect the public employees, and promote collaboration, and end the culture of the threats and violence. With that, id like to recognize Ranking Member curtis with the opening remarks. Thank you, madam chair. Absolutely nobody in this room condones violence or threats against federal employees. It is unfortunate that i even have to make that statement. Our boots on the ground are often in difficult position, and have to enforce unpopular laws or regulations that have impact on peoples communities and livelihoods and the safety should be and it is of the utmost importance. While i am supportive of the practical recommendations in gao report, i am concerned about the title and the narrow focus of the hearing may be misleading. I take issue with the assertion made that there is a widespread problem of widespread government threats occurring in the west. Being from the west and representing a state with the 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, many of my constituents feel just the opposite. The vast majority of the constituents impacted by the federal governments and public lands decisions are hard working taxpayers raising families and contributing to the communities and they love the beautiful public lands that surround them, and they want to be good stewards of them and part of the decisionmaking process. This does not make them bad people. They are not dangerous or threatening to the federal Land Managements in the field. In fact, i frequently feel how they appreciate and work well with the local agents of these federal agencies. Land owners and users who disagree with the specific Land Management decisions should not be able to feel that somehow they are going to be placed on the Government Watch list of the potential threats and villain nizing westerners does nothing to build the bridge of trust and cooperation that is vital for the proper stewardship of the land and as is the case with most of the politics, finger pointing and divisiveness is counter productive in the long run. We will hear from the gao Witnesses Today regarding the report that the full Committee Chairman asked them to compile which is looking at the progress of the bla and the National Fish and wildlife and Park Services which has forced them to come into compliance with the post 9 11 security standards. This report while important the consider only took into account four years worth of recorded data and threats of the four Land Management agencies which had different and inconsistent methods of recording. There is not a way to differentiate between the most Serious Violence and incidents as minor as a parking ticket. I believe that the republicans on the Committee Support the recommendations made in the gao report for the agencies to continue to make progress and common sense efforts to secure the facilities and nothing in the report makes mention of the existence of the 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 the citizens are not like those in the rare high profile headline grabbing incidents that le be sh s thas d today. My colleagues do not naturally seek cooperation of the government, and so i want to know how the Land Management officials have been working together and seek Mutual Understanding and come with collaborate on the Ground Solutions which have netted the most positive outcome for all concerned. As a committee we should be promoting and fostering more of the cooperative and collaborate efforts which are going to do more of safety than spending tens of millions of dollars to create hardened secured fortresses. With that, madam chairman, i thank the witnesses for being here and i look forward to the testimony and i yield my time. Thank you, mr. Curtis. I would like to turn to the witness panel, and under our Committee Rules, the oral statements are committed to five statements and you may submit a longer statement if you choose. The lights will turn yellow when there is one minute left and red when the time has expired. After the witnesses have testified, members will be given the opportunity to ask questions. The chair now recognizes mr. Dan nickels, rancher, and former harny county supervisor, and mr. Nickels, you have five minutes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is dan nickels, and im a selfemployed rancher of 41 years of a blm permitee on the National Wildlife refuge, and fiveterm retired county commissioner, and High Desert Partnership board member and participant in three of the five ongoing collaborate initiatives in the community. The economy of the county is Natural Resource based with the reliance of the multiple use concepts administered by the u. S. Forest service, the blm and the National Wildlife refuge. Harny county lies in the southeast county of oregon and 75 federally and state owned and it has a land mass of 10,120 square miles, and larger than six west coast states, has only population of 7,380 people of which 5,200 are registered to vote. A quick look at the oregon state map and one would incorrectly assume that the area is basically uninhabited. My comments today to you come from this perspective, and rural americans especially in the largely federally owned and managed 11 Western States are not being listened to, and much less heard. The opinions and the desires of the populous residingout si outf the Rural Communities result in legitimate grievances with the federal Land Management policies. What is often described as antigovernment is coming from a place of feeling excluded or being on the losing end of the unbalanced Resource Management. In the course of doing their jobs, federal employees become the local messengers of the new policies and regulations resulting in them becoming the recipients of the frustration and anger of the people who are not being listened to. Our community has issues of concern with federal Land Management. We are not unique in that regard. What does make us unique is the manner which the potential dissension and the polarization are resulting. The culture of collaboration has been established in Harney County to show that the diversity of the opinions are respectively and collectively considered. The positive attribute to the process is working directly with the federal employees in the community. Through that interaction, the community has gained an appreciation for them as professionals and individuals and contributing members of our community. Collaboration also provides a venue for discussion of issues with the Broader Community beyond Harney County. For us the Term Community includes those with an interest and commitment to participate, including the stake hoemders from stakeholders from outside of the community with views that we may not always appreciate. It is necessary to have them at the table as well, because of the collaborate process gives everyone an opportunity to speak and listen, we learn and better understand each others views. It is a setting where the rural voices are heard and understood by those member areas that are the source of many of the problematic issues. Collectively, through the collaborate issues the Harney County residents have found the ability to meet our interests as following examples. The mountains quality protection act of 2000 which is sponsored and written by congressman greg walden, and the mountain National Wildlife refuge comprehensive plan, and the Harney County wildfire initiative. The culture of collaboration has changed the ways that we deal with complex real benefits have been achieved for the local community, 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 format 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. Walker, 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 over 100 in depth 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 Harney County. I use the word militants because they used armed force and military style 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 tables, the Community Created their own ways to solve problems. When outside militants proposed 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, most people in h arney 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 a dinner to honor the fish and Wildlife Service employees who had borne much of the harassment from the outside militants 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 that defy the i did vi divisive culture 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 endless division and 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 fennel, director of u. S. Accountability office. You have five minutes. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our report on how the Forest Service bureau of Land Management, fish and Wildlife Service and National Park service protect their employees and secure their facilities across nearly 700 million acres of land 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 Management Agency 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 Management Agency 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 develop a plan to conduct assessments and methodologies to comply with isc requirements. The agencies agreed and noted they were going to take steps to implement the recommendations. This completes my prepared statement. I am pleased to respond to questions. Thank you very much, miss fennel. The chair now recognizes miss katie tubbs, senior policy analyst at the heritage foundation. Miss tubbs, 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 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 and economic activities. Management is diverse and spread across multiple agencies and bureaus, governed by a complex of overlapping and on conflicting laws, missions and regulations which different administrations have implemented in drastically different ways. A litigation culture all, but invited by bribe and unclear and outdated lies have led to incentives and when people feel theyre not being listened to, our levers of power are out of reach, 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 their own safety. Just as important, staff should be trained to handle and diffuse conflict toward solutions. To go overboard is to miss the point 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 do a wholesale review of the state and laws governing it. I think those boil down to some basic principles of cooperative federalism. The first being that solutions are site and 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 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 115th 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 Energy Companies and groups like the National Parks conservation association, sierra club, National Wildlife federation, local chambers of commerce and the grazing Advisory Board and variety of local, state and federal politicians. The discussions resulted in an all, but universally satisfying compromise, they created the blms first. It also helped with timber production in painstaking boundaries. Coming to solutions is hard work, complicated work. The way forward is rarely clear cut and easy in an obvious outcome. But i think the more congress can encourage and agencies pursue and states and private individuals initiate collaborative approaches the better chances we have of reaching through conflict to 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 do. 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 appear to be a threat for one employee may not be per received as that for another. So there is judgment in terms of whether they come forward and reporting ponlt threat potential threats. And 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 units, 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. 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 . The report says the best way to keep federal employees safe is to build relationships of 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 fortunate 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. Lowenthal 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 elaborate on the impact these declines 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 2018. 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 members, 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 recognizes mr. Graholva. Thank you very much, madam chair. Miss 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 their the land that they are managing, and any particular incidents that might arise. So it was part of an opportunity for dialogue with the public who would be visiting their lands that that topic would arise. And little bit of a followup, professor walker, youre a scholar and land use and political history behind land use laws. Explain could you explanpla bit more about the misrepresentations of the constitution that antipublic land, antigovernment activists rely on and more pointedly how courts have ruled on this issue throughout our history. Im sorry, sir, i couldnt quite follow the question. The misrepresentations of the constitution that a lot of antigovernment, antipublic land activists on this issue rely on, and how the courts have ruled on constitutional issues regarding public land in particular. How did the misrepresentations of the constitution yeah. Yes. I actually think thats a very important question. The militants of the refuge have a very idiosyncratic interpretation of the constitution, to put it mildly. Their interpretation is that the federal government has no jurisdiction outside over land 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 Antigovernment Movement out there and it is expressed in particular through social media, where people seem to express opinions that antigovernment activities, political activities, but up to and 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 militants spread that kind of mythmythology, it s spread to movements, including violent ones. Appreciate that. Appreciate the chair holding this hearing because it is about the health and safety of the Agency Employees, the Land Management, and i think it is lets not minimize it, you know, what happened in oregon and happens in arizona. These folks, Public Servants do come under a great deal not only political but personal attacks, threats, harassment, and that, you know, their wellbeing should be a priority. And this hearing is a step in that direction. Just how things get misrepresented, lets take one example as mentioned the witness, arizona wilderness act was important to the state of arizona. Important thing to note here was a wilderness bill and not a resource concentration bill. Equate it with anything else going on, i think it is a mistake. That did not consider threats to clean water, it did not consider how to protect the Colorado River water shed, it did not consider the impacts of uranium mining key it the future discussion. The majority of the lands that considered in the grand canyon mineral under obama were never reviewed during the drafting of the wilderness bill and staffers who helped draft the wilderness act testified on record that conflating the bill with the withdrawal is simply incorrect. Yet somehow we hear these arguments making this false comparison between the arizona wilderness act and the mineral withdrawal act. I dont see how any of this justifies that line of thinking justifies extremist attacks on federal employees. It is insulting to federal land managers to get harassed in the supermarket, followed home out of their cars, in their cars, get graffiti painting on their houses, get attacked at work to be told the arizona wilderness act is just too much for reasonable people to handle. I think we can make bipartisan progress on this. But were here because antigovernment rhetoric dehumanizes government employees, period. Those employees are being threatened and harassed because theyre doing their jobs. We need to discuss how we improve living and working conditions as we speak and how theyre being and what protections we extend to them. Were not here to, i dont think, any misinformation. I think the gao report is pretty clear. And i think we have an obligation to do something about it, madam chair and i yield back. Thank you, mr. Graholva. I would recognize myself for five minutes. Professor walker, you spent time with the bundy militia in 2016. Did the views they shared with you sound anything like what you heard elsewhere . And in your opinion was the militia expressing commonly held sentiments about how the American People want their public lands managed . Commonly held opinions in Harney County or generally . Really anywhere youve been where yeah. Short answer is no. This is a very Small Community of antigovernment activists. They belong to that particular group that is centered on the bundy family is really a very small group of individuals, but what i im concerned about is that they give a sense of legitimacy to wider spread antigovernment groups. What happened at the National Wildlife refuge is the bundys came to the wildlife refuge and they began from a particular ideological perspective having to do with religious interpretations of the constitution. But that they were advocating for was essentially a overthrow of the federal government. That the replacement of the existing federal government. I asked the leader of the Group Directly if he was 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, it needs to be replaced, and thats the duty of patriots through armed force to reestablish constitutional government. My concern is that some of those groups outside nationwide, some of those groups have latched on to the bundy family as giving a feeling, an impression, an image of legitimacy to their movement. Their movement to a large degree has a history tied to racism, xenophobia, antiimmigrant policy and those sorts of ideologies. And the bundy family has given a sort of more appealing public face to those movements. And that sounds, i think, that even though their size as a group is very small, they have given legitimacy to wider spread movements. Thank you for that answer. Mr. Nichols, in your testimony, you stated that Harney County is almost like a poster child for collaborative approaches. I was wondering if you could briefly explain how Harney County residents worked with federal land managers to collectively solve problems rather than arguing getting frustrated and 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 and talking things through with everyone that has a vested interest in an issue is beneficial 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 in Harney County. We never were an antigovernment, quote, unquote, but there are 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 me to california and no matter how small the federal end mass was in a state, there was still issues with it. Thats not to say it is all bad. It isnt something that cant be overcome. But, again, the people need to be listened to. And that is quite a broad question. You people are listening today. I 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 to truly know the other people and their ideas and their values. And what we have come to learn is everybodys values are about the same thing, it is just how you come to the end result that is different. I cant express enough how we need to start communicating people to people, not an idea, nor an agenda, nor an organizational affiliation, but people to people. And until that happens, we all want protection of our federal employees. Thats paramount to them doing their job. But that is not looking at the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem is something going on in our society. Protection is necessary, but quite honestly we shouldnt have to be protecting our federal employees. That should be something engrained in the people themselves. It is a societal problem, a lack of communication and, again, things arent as horrific in the western United States as some of the things ive heard today are. There are places undoubtedly. My son works with the federal government, he has for 16, 17 years. Where he works right now he loves it, and the people that theyre serving love their services that they provide. It is basically a recreational type of Service Within a forest in central oregon. Where the rub comes in quite often is in landmasses that people are trying to make a living, theyre paying taxes, raising children, generational, taking care of the land. And there is always a threat of something coming down the pike and disturbing that. And, again, it isnt an antigovernment, it is the fact of frustration and wondering where what the future holds. So thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your insight, it has been very helpful today. I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for their questions. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. Under Committee Rule 30, members of the committee must submit witness questions within three Business Days following the hearing, and the hearing record will be open for ten Business Days for these responses. Again, were 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. I wanted to tell you, i hang my head in shame, what i would say very unfair personalized reporting of these fellows and i think that you ought to know that opinion, because youre going to be disappointed in me down the road if i didnt tell you that. Im just telling you frankly that i think your industry is webbing a in wrecking all of us. Thats pretty help hand eavy handed. Theyre wrecking the country, very disturbing, very disturbing. Were hearing that today. And that the press is the enemy of the American People, according to President Trump. The press is not the enemy of the American People. The press is doing work for the American People. Sunday night on q a, patty rule, the museums Vice President of content and Exhibit Development talks about the tension between american president s and the press. Watch cspans q a, sunday night at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. The impeachment inquiry hearings continue next week when house judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler holds the committees first impeachment inquiry hearing into President Trump, focusing on the constitution and the history of impeachment. Watch our live coverage wednesday december 4th at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan3. Chairman nadler extended an invitation for the president and his counsel to appear before the committee. Read the letter to the president on our website, cspan. Org impeachment. And follow the impeachment inquiry live on cspan3, online at cspan. Org, or listen live on the free cspan radio app. The house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country. So you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan has brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. U. S. Senators wanted to know if the