Transcripts For CSPAN3 Bureau 20240703

Go office. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversatns] [inaudible conversations] the committee will come back to order. The gentleman from montana. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us and i hope you didnt sever too much anxiety taking that Community Back to washington. A little bit of ptsd with the. One of the things i like to paraphrase is dwight eisenhower, listen from disinformation of information from of my colleagues on the other side. Dwight eisenhower said it looks easy when you live 1000 miles away from a cornfield that is exactly the problem in this body on a daily basis. Too many people are making decisions about Land Management in our part of the world they are not familiar with at all and unfortunately we have people making those decisions such as a director who was a known collaborator with ecoterrorist and secretary of interior who will provide documents and lobbying efforts that certainly doesnt help matters. Sadly to hold his hearing so that we, the people impacted the most by it can get Accurate Information about the impact on the people hit by it the most as we discussed several times this morning, blm is not going toward these hearings in areas that are going to be hit. It just to have a hearing in the state we have nearly 40 of our state and federal public land and we can accomplish that. We watched the Administration Time and again try to pass or get around laws and passing rules that completely contradicts that. As their extension and public close currently. Outside of their pound. So government, did the blm ever consult with you, your office or impacted agencies in your state before the promulgation of this rule . Mr. Chairman, no. There was some indication you could have information only kind of opportunity, i think the hearing was held information only breathing held in denver, you could only cut if you couldnt participate, you couldnt have hearing or talk about the rule and the good governor mentioned it, the fact that they are ignoring these normal processes is complete. To the administration be with you before they promulgated this . There is no input or consideration for the office or notification or consultation. Do either of you believe this can this act or law which prioritizes production for our nation how does this conservation and management currently factor in factor in your operations torino and everybody seems the same way and how does this impact the typical operations, conservation or local branch. They look at every analysis and it maintains the land because they recognize to be utilized in the future and permits and they want to continue to give them, a shortterm engagement of partnership with blm and they want to be good stewards so they are good leads in the future. They looked at my land and utilized this because the most leaves it in the best shape at all times and to go forward with proposed rule like this and say what we are doing isnt working and ignoring what is happening on the ground is extremely arrogant and you look at the rule and read it and the more times i read it, the more offended i was and lacks Scientific Data or analysis what we are doing is not providing conservation and efforts and isnt being stewards of the land but doesnt give a basis for why they are proposing changes and it will better leave us in better shape. And when you dont use any kind of data to back up the need for changes in no analysis for the Economic Impact and ignore and what youre proposing and it should be given to congress. I want to remind all of you in this committee and protect the United States of america and what they are undermining was a simple rule and blm undermines all the president in this country so this is quite literally and i have seen different rolls in my life now. Im a business person, farmer, rancher, i served in the legislature and have been hearing as governor. I never in my life in the short period of time where they have destroyed the foundation of the country and its not just the big things you see and hear about, it is rules like this where they are overstepping authority to a powerful federal government and undermining the Governors State authority we fight for our people and their way of life. There will be Business Owners in my state that will be bankrupt if the rule goes into place. They will have no land for their cattle, out of business and their manufacturing plants and it will be gone. We have one of the last examples still functioning in the black hills because of the federal government. Each of us and all we have anymore and we will fight tooth and nail and this would destroy our industry as well. Thank you for your information and passion. The chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, you recognize for five minutes. This is an important hearing, thank you for having me. I enjoyed filling in congress and you are on the same committee for a time and you did such an expert time. Last month director tracy testified before this committee and i asked if the new proposed conservation rule would allow simultaneous land use notice should you should quote the conservation would preclude in the underlying conservation lease. A lot of people here in washington against the west proposing it is there anything you would like to add that this rule shouldnt take affect what have on blm land and the people and economy . Lets remember blm was established to produce sustained yield and Management Practices out there for conservation efforts and everything will practice utilizing his builtin the mandate to utilize conservation. What they are doing is putting conservation efforts based on no definition of what the conservation efforts are when they should be placing them above every other use so that in itself serves the entire mission and when you have federal land in your district and your state, it impacts your economy and the roof will affect his tens of thousands of people and it takes their ability to be producers away from them great for me is not just the economic side, it is their ability to want to get up everyday and go to work. We have lost our nations work ethic and we need to remember why we have one. We have a work ethic because we were created to serve, to serve other people to get up everyday physically, mentally, spiritually and having the ability to go out and work on the land and help it produce and provide for your family and help our nation as a whole be unified and accomplish something that keeps our economy stable. Weve talked for years about the need for not just one part of the country to be successful, not just one part where people can do well or where they can be more productive. When you have tough economic recession on the east coast or west coast, often it is the middle of the country that stabilizes the country. Governor gordon, you are in the great state of wyoming and i admire how it is run, i have a daughter and family who lived there and ive seen firsthand the wellrun state during covid, it was to lead washington d. C. Where things are locked up so tightly, see where things are at least halfway normal such as wyoming, a breath of fresh air. One thing about the Current Administration is another reason. Gas cooktop stoves is one example. They say it is to protect people with asthma. They are just trying to shut down fossil fuel and not admitting it and being honest. Taking helium of the critical mineral list when it comes to natural gas extraction is another example. Do you have suspicion or thoughts or concerns about the real purpose of blm conservation rule and the effect of Resource Based Industries including conventional. Congressman, yes. Absolutely. Very concerned about the ulterior motives to shut down fossil fuel development and one thing is also fuel industry is invested in conservation. Segued a little bit to congressman, very specifically, our ranch in the area, people with minerals do so with intent in our case, it was the nrcs that came back and said we can provide you with any more resource, you are already doing it. This conservation will certainly has somebody in washington say we are going to put this conservation, you cant do this anymore when the role played in making the range better would be devastating. This rule and everything, you cut this same issue in colorado, everything this administration does is about climate and so you have tremendous regulation in place that are going back our fossil fuel industry costing americans dearly. We had unprecedented rises in the price of oil and gas and now we are talking about going on to natural gas will be cant get the lease out of this administration. We cant get a permit out of this administration. For those who arent familiar, there is a surface statement minimalist date. The way the federal government shuts down anything that goes anywhere near federal mineral lease shuts down private industries, shuts down private property. It is devastating. Time is expired, the chair recognizes mr. Huffman who wasnt overlooked, your recognize for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I hate to interrupt this performance masquerading as a legislating hearing but on the off chance there may be a few people watching at home who dont get all their news and information through the rightwing media, i would like them to know not every Western State is hyped up on antigovernment conspiracy politics. In fact, california opposes 3397 and thinks its a good idea to proceed with the public lands. I would like to enter into the record of i could, this letter from the california natural resource. Not Western State believes it would be the end of the world to elevate conservation with grazing and Timber Harvesting and mining and other extractive uses. A lot of folks think it is just good plain common sense and sensible policy. Well talk a little bit more when we get to the next panel but for now, i will look back and proceed with regulation schedule. The gentleman he is back and its an open hearing and im glad came to represent here. Minority views and appreciate our witness for being here today. I now recognize the dental lady for five minutes. Its so good to see both of you. This has been ignored on this topic so im grateful for their sentiment concerns and outrage over the proposed rule. According to Public Comment by the United States Business Administration office and advocacy, this proposed rule has unintended consequences contrary to the statutory permission and factual basis does not adequately consider the Economic Impact of the rule on Small Businesses. Thats how bad proposed rule is. The fda under the Biden Administration is literally calling out blm on how bad the proposal is. I would like to submit, for the record. American economies can only get a return on federal lands and much of the west. The first is grazing in the second extraction. The lifestyle of Rural Communities for relation and businesses the low things to flourish. Reminding agricultural essential for our lives and economy and this revenue funds in healthcare and other essential services. Wyoming is a strong leader in energy. In his testimony. Basically, everything proposed rule touches is what we in wyoming are good at so hard not to take this personally to make it worse, it comes to wyoming to talk about proposed rule. Governor gordon, considering this is live and die in the industries by this rule, what you think it is blm new mexico but not wyoming . Are they avoiding something . It is clear youre having real testimony on the ground across the nation and for communities where they can find a favorable audience and move things forward. The testimony of the gentleman from california typically do. [laughter] has governor and i have worked with folks across the aisle, this is about conservation and Good Development and management and stewardship of Natural Resources. Its not hyper partisan issue. Last year has signed an agreement with secretary vilsack that recognized private property is a little healthy wildlife population should so i take that suggestion. A states ability to make money for education is tied to the health and productivity of state lands. What i dont understand is what revenue you would generate for your state or federal conservation. Governor, will conservation leases money to the state in general . Mr. Chairman madam congresswoman know. That money goes to the government and is sort of a joke to think we will make up more productive by taking it out of play. We as you know and governor lujan and gershon and i have addressed congress on this our schools are funded by education is funded by Mineral Development. The leases and the ancillary pieces of the economy are funded by activities on federal lands and taking taking them out of play would be devastating to our economy. That one of the things that people people understand is her Water Development and resources in the west even on federal land is done by private individuals. That benefits our wildlife. If you take cattle off of our federal lands in the west youre going to have a substantial impact on the wildlife. We wont be developing the resources they need to survive practices when you have incredibly negative unintended consequences that the people of washington d. C. Dont understand and they should not make policies like this sitting in Airconditioned Office and without i yield back. The gentlelady yields back in the chair recognizes gentleman from california mr. Duarte for five minutes. I would seek to understand what you do but i think its underappreciated the 245 million acres in the bureau of Land Management. It looks good to me from here and i dont see any inch of it by any means mind and develop with gas and not that those things bother me much when done properly and effectively by operators that know what they are doing. What does bother me a lot are some of the mismanaged land in california reportedly because of Climate Change. My angle on the kaleidoscope is to turn those over to the prior is the conservation groups. They are burning out of control we are getting no value of them. Graze it logged or watch it burn and we should be gracing it and logging it in california much like we should be doing in south dakota and wyoming. I would invite you governor noem give us some details and talk to us about the things you think about the effect of Resource Managers on your ranches and how those lead to not only the conservation of the resources on your ranches at how instead of government coming out with conservation monies and paying billions of dollars to have somebody do it for them, for us you guys do a lot of environmental services. God prevent you make a few nickels once in while doing it. Can you explain the business of being a ranch owner to us . For most ranchers and thank you congressman for the question. For most ranchers its not a business model. Its their family legacy. Its what their father did in their grandfathers and grandmothers did something they take a lot of pride in. Probably one of the most devastating things ive ever seen in my entire life was when the winter storm hit south dakota fordyce served in congress intensive, hundreds of thousands of cattle for dead because of something out of ranchers control. It paints a picture that they only care about dollars and cents in the make management decisions how best to support that heard but also how to support that land and how to protect it and putting in investments to access water and they are putting in different resources in order to manage. You can gogo anywhere in south dakota and see the private lands into operation with ranchers that are cared for in the land that would be under government jurisdiction or at the federal level. Whats interesting to me to look at the mission and it specifically is to use the land. Its a land Engagement Agency and considers conservation in every activity. When you start prioritizing one over the other the entire mission of the agency fails. The way that they are putting us bye bye declaring the sonata major rule completely eliminates any of the facts they would need to know if the rule is going to work. We are chatting about conspiracy theories in this whole proposed rule is a conspiracy theory. They are avoiding federal law and they may not even under the processes they have they established in this rule even require to be under the federal register anymore under the process. They are taking away all public input potentially and how they will create impact landscape which means the public will have no input inputted and implemented overnight which is not under their authority. Im incredibly surprised at how this board came forward because of how it established ignoring the log set precedent that ranchers take to manage land. Thank you. Its a great answer. No one understands ranting and government together then the two of you. Whats left in the last minute thank you very much. On a personal level when i get up on the ranch i look at how the grass is growing we measured on a monthly basis. You can go for your web site and see our ranchland over the last several years. We take our conservation very seriously but more importantly wherever you go and wyoming and congresswoman hageman knows it very well secretary perdue came out into the ride through the National Grassland and visited with ranchers and they wanted to see on the ground what was going on. You can do when chilled management. You have to look at the ground and you know that is the primary yourself and whats frustrating about this rule is a will put in place all of these constrictions on management and as i mentioned before it would inhibit our ability to be able to improve the ranch and to be a will to sustain the ranch so it could happen. You know from being from california that dead and dying material oxidizes. Doesnt anything except co2 and that either happens over time or it happens in a fire. We all learn from each other in farming and Natural Resources you categorically dismiss this because the particle actual Party Affiliation . Absolutely not. We do whats best for people and we work on a bipartisan basis every single day. Do you feel you are able to listen to an idea thats perspective thing give it married on that space . When we hear those different opinions we make better policy decisions. There may be things that govern i dont agree on and there may be things that the governor in colorado and i dont agree but we find a way forward. You are in the same political party. Moving onto the next question the gentleman from arizona mr. Go start for five minutes. Its good to see you again. Im the lost from wyoming. First i want to start with comments from my colleague from new mexico. She said this rule will not stop oil and gas leases and wont change a thing. Tell that to do as other livelihoods and Financial Wellbeing dragged from them from their own indigenous secretary of state the secretary of the interior. Once again the old adage im here from the federal government and im here to help. Run, run. I want to get back to a little different tack. You are very aware of the multiple use doctrine. Yesterday in a hearing and oversight we had the character and we had an individual talking about mercury toxicity. Little did she know the number one adage for him or. Toxicity is catastrophic wildfires. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. The dog chases its tail around and around and never catches it. We are looking at those aspects so lets get back to arizona. Arizona is a unique state because we were rejected are states that the first time in the present at the time president taft who was the only president to serve in the Supreme Court actually force it on arizona. He also said the commitment was the multiple use doctrine could be added advantage is not only for the state of arizona but for the government. We have the same gas and energy that you guys have. We are loaded with energy. We are loaded so this is about victimizing the west not to empower it but i keep coming back to that equal footing clause that states that what put Eastern States got we were entitled to without this federal federal i want to ask you if you were to return that equal footing clause how would that affect your state and how would they run your governor noem . It would be a gamechanger press. It would right the ship and give us an opportunity to lease be treated in a manner which gave us equal opportunity. Its not the federal governments job to come in and make sure that we succeed or to put their thumb on the scale that would give us an opportunity to produce as every other state gets the opportunity. Thank you mr. Chairman and congressman i knew your dad and i know many of your siblings. Dont hold it against me. I wont and i know your county very well. The example you give where you were raised is absolutely critical as you know. Former commissioner joel bauserman has worked on trying to get primacy for that area which has a National Forest and bom and federal leashing involved and it would be to the good governor south dakotas, the gamechanger. You really states know how to do this. We have done it better than anyone else. Your home county is really thanks to State Government not the federal government a recipe that protects and allows for Energy Development and make sure communities of pinedale and big piney and others have families that can live there and make a reasonable living. Im one of these people. Gets tired of playing defense of politics. And so im going to highlight a program, the Southern Nevada land process. Las vegas was surrounded by bom. He founded in the inventory of federal laws and the government had to get rid of the land they had no use for or didnt have direct asset for an wolof vagus grew. Dom sold land right in left. Maybe we have to look at that love. Mr. Chairman i yield back and i think the witness for her testimony. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from puerto rico representative gonzalezcolon. Im listening to you both in your experience and my main concern would be how, if in any way the management engagement through blm was in your state. Is there any engagement before the rule . Not with our officer with our state. There was an opportunity to gather information at one time. I would say its a very well its happened in the waters of the u. S. Propose much the same way a 30 by 30 rule which is a land grab by the federal government is being brought forward. Were starting to see this as a pattern coming out this administration. You say in your testimony and your statement the proposed rule would impact in a negative way Public Safety in your state. Can you elaborate on that . Its going to risk peoples lives because it won us allow us to manage the hills National Forests hills National Forests and Forest Service land throughout that area in a way that protects our community and homes that are there. We have seen devastating fires in the area and because its such a populated forest if we do not manage it will increase the risk of wildfire. The rule completely ignores that aspect and to do no analysis on the web Public Safety ramifications may happen if they follow through on it. We dont have Land Management back home. I think its important to know what kind of repercussions there would be if we dont Pay Attention so why is the general public nationwide should be concerned about the way this rule is being imposed . The longlasting effect as far as precedent and how every of other rule is done. Thats what i think is coming from the government government. Once you allow them to overstep federal law or to trample on their states rights they will continue to do so. And they reference back to what we have used in this mechanism before the rosa bom and they will continue to push it. Specifically on this rule there is Scientific Data and no analysis. They perfectly declared it not a major role so they dont have to provide what the Economic Impact would be on the country. For us specifically it is our way of life. Its the people that live there and make a living there. Let me also if i may eschew chairman and congresswoman, heres the direct impact. Governor noem talk about forests and we have seen that in california and we have seen that in california and montana really everywhere. The other thing we have seen and ill point to colorado a few years ago where a massive grass fire over wound communities. If we arent able to treat Invasive Species on their federal estate theres a grass and both of them grow under really rapid conditions. Their annual grasses and they are like gasoline. They characterize it as being able to change the ecology of an area. If we arent able to treat that kids that land and a wind comes up you will have devastation that can wipe out communities. We have seen it in colorado. Governor noem rapid city on the western edge had yearold problems and none of that was taken into account. Earlier today said one of the things that this administration could do to get off of their and do something about conservation is make sure we get it okay. Ag Department Says its its okay and the epa says its okay, its okay. The bureau of Land Management cant figure this out. That is one of the most important things we can do for conservation. He said a few minutes ago that secretary perdue visited wyoming to see whats going on in yearold life there. Thats what we should be pushing i want to say thank you to both of you and thank you for the work you do and your people too and i yield back. The gentlelady of and i now recognize and i want to thank both of you for coming today and spending your valuable time and governor noem in your testimony you talked about how this rule has no time basis. You talked about how the administration is classifying it as a moderate rule in the health of the 88 page moderate rule that they are proposing and i know a few years ago i was out in wyoming and south dakota and in the hills area. I was there on a very sad day. It was the day that one of the mills and south dakota close, one of the few mills remaining out there and i wasnt planning to meet with you governor noem that there was a forest fire that very day and you had to fly over and be there with a forest fire. I will say some things do change and on this committee we passed two bipartisan pieces of forestry legislation this week. One of them was a 390 vote and i know you worked on it when you were in congress and that bill passed the Egg Committee 510 so we are starting to wake up the need for force management and this would allow counties to do the same work the states are willing to do that when i was there i reviewed a report and you have forestry background. Was written not about bureaucrats but on how the force should be managed and it was offensive to me from a scientific standpoint or there was no knowledge that went into it. It was truly a biased report. He didnt appear to be a great day in the hills with the mill closing down and a forest fire and withdraw from if you will do the Forest Service on lands that you mentioned the Good Neighbor authorities working. I know both of you are part of the Good Neighbor authority picking Good Neighbor authority picking you tell us about that another programs in the state that may conservation better and make our federal lands better . In the hills we cooperate with other layers of government with states and counties with outside associations and run incredible projects that of the loudest to manage the force to make sure we consider all aspects of what the task force looks like. Thats the kind of rules and suggestions and regulations that i believe we should be focusing on in Congress Rather than to try more onto it to allow us the freedom to look at what specifically is happen in each situation and adapt to that. That was used successfully for us to push back on the pine beetle epidemic that we were dealing with that was so dangerous and it worked overwhelmingly. Since then we have seen more regulations coming in specifically to teach here that was put forward by the Forest Service. It was devastating for us to see everything on the ground and thats another aspect impacting the hills right now and why we are seeing are mills being threatened. I know governor gordon has been deeply involved in this and we have been trying to brainstorm and how we can keep the economy going. Its so interesting we import a lot of our lumber from canada while we have excess lumber here and we dont allow ourselves to utilize it for our country. Now we have lumber from california is being shipped all the way south. It doesnt make any sense. I heard the solution was to ship in lumber. They are actually doing this. And all that afraid and think of the Carbon Emissions on that. Mr. Chairman the lesson is wellearned in that particular instance. If we put it out of business in order to take care of those laws we had to figure out a way at enormous cost to the carbon and the taxpayer to get those logs to south dakota. The Good Neighbor authority has worked and its incredibly valuable. We are working on it obviously in the hills but also the western part of our state and there will point out one other thing thats very critical about this. If you look at the Colorado River and the challenges its had over the last several years if we dont manage our watershed as well we will compound compound their programs and compound or water shortage issues and mr. Chairman is a forest or you know very well when somebody says we are going to take this offline and they are going to manage the forest, the succession doesnt stop. You end up with posts of sessional forest better tinderboxes and all kinds of strange things happen. Management happens when we have the ability to do something. The point i would like to make is when they choose to manage we make a management decision and the federal government and a purpose in the federal government is truly concerned about conservation than let the people who know how to do conservation actually do conservation. The federal government of conservation is really poor and if you look at the government in the State Government and the private you are looking at two different areas and two different universes. Thank you to the witnesses are being here today and governor gordon you mentioned something that was a great point. When these trees burned and released Carbon Dioxide and when they down and deteriorate over time its actually methane they release from the digestion of what they are eating. You can burn up the co2 and let it rot or you can utilize it. Again thank you both for being here today and thats the last question we have before panel 2. Members of the committee may have additional questions for witnesses and we will ask you to respond in writing. We will now move on to our third panel and ill remind the witnesses under Committee Rules you must limit your statements to five minutes in your entire statement will appear in the hearing record and id like to remind her witnesses timing wise please remember to turn on your microphone and as with the second panel i will allow what mrs. To testify before questions. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] at this point id like to introduce bigger of Land Management director. We have Principle Deputy director deputy wolf cold rain you are now recognized for five minutes. Saying thank you. Chairman westerman claimed the bureau of Land Management director. Appreciate the opportunity to address concerns regarding h. R. H. R. 3397 which would deprive the bom of critical tools necessary to manage challenges facing public lands today. Blm opposes the bill and i appreciate the opportunity to be here on a panel with my colorado residents im thankful to get to speak at this hearing today to get a chance to reiterate the content of the rule and how it works consistent with the daytoday management of our public lamp and a half of the American People to blm manages approximately 245 million acres of public land and 700 Million Congress provided clear direction to the blm and the federal lands policy Management Act to manage public lands for local use specifically to manage uses such as renewable and conventional energy timber production fish and Wildlife Habitat recreation and conservation including protecting Cultural Resources watershed and scenery. It directs that the him to take into account the longterm needs for future generations. Today public lands are stressed increasingly frequent and intense wildfires historic drought and an influx in the Invasive Species and changing conditions on the ground. Simultaneously public lands are under pressure from everincreasing types and amounts of use. Simply put the blms ability to continue to manage the multiple uses outlined are of vital economic driver for communities depending on the resilience and the health of americas public lands. The proposed rule would help provide necessary direction to public land managers to work towards resilience landscapes and to support multiple use now and at the future. Recognizing not ever use can always occur on every acre the blm is working to ensure the appropriate balance within the multiple use framework. Conservation defined in the proposed rule as protection and restoration and is a part of this balance is one type of multiple use the supports the continued resilience of public lands. The proposed rule would direct land managers to identify landscapes and degraded landscapes and consider whether and habitat clean air and clean water and how can be maintained or improved or restored if necessary. At the same time the proposal would direct these of the best available science and data including indigenous knowledge and decisionmaking but the proposal outlines tools to support restoration and offset the impact of Development Conservation leasing. The blm could Leverage Private investment towards mitigation efforts taking place on public lands. While working with partners industry and the public on Energy Development to conserve Wildlife Habitat. The bom receives feedback from stage localities and developers. The budget too is necessary to support durable Lands Restoration to offset the impact of development. The row rule is responding to that input for this is an important point overall pick the concept in that direction in this proposed rule rule arises that appears at the blm experience in implementing and working with public land users on the ground. They have been discussed and implemented internally and externally for this proposed rule reflects Lessons Learned the needs identified in continuing conversation blm has with so many partners across this country who depend on the resources of our lands. The blm is in process of receiving feedback on this proposed rule to the rules published in the federal register on april 3 opening a 75 stay closed, period. Today the deal and has five informational sessions are provided frustration to a wide range of inches public around the west and the rest of the country. Blm is achieved by 120,000 comments thus far. While a Public Outreach has been robust in response to several requests including members of this committee today we are announcing an additional 15 days for Public Comment bringing the Comment Period to to 90 days. Will consider the valuable input we have received and continue to receive to inform inform the final rope him off to make this will help achieve our shared goal discussed by everyone here today to manage public lands so they can support the multiple uses we rely on now and maintaining the health of lands for future generations. Every day the blm seeks many uses and resources to store the public lands for all but the proposed robot guide balance management that does not elevate one use over others through the blm will continue to permit multiple uses on public land and conservation will remain compatible with many other uses. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony. Thank you Principle Deputy director kober and i recognize ms. Kathy Chandler Henry to testify for five minutes. Commissioner you are now recognize. A good morning chairman westerman makya member grijalva and members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to h. R. H. R. 3397 and express my support for the blms proposed public lands row. I was lucky to grow up in a small town in the Central Mountains of colorado. Spending time on my familys ranch in exploring the mountains surrounding areas instilled in me an epic to protect these places. Eagle county has grown since i was a kid. Cars surrounding public lands and beautiful mountains make the county uniquely desirable place to visit raise a family ski hike wrapped and hunt or fish that are public lands are challenged by the impacts of changing climate continued population growth and increased demand on Natural Resources. They must dont does with protecting our ecosystems. The proposed public lands ruled helps of this balancing act by or findability of blm to develop Resource Management plans demanding resilient ecosystems and to promote collaboration among public lands users. Over 80 of eagle county in the 11 million acres of public land is home to portions the river National Forest which is the most visited forest in the nation. More visitors than yellowstone yosemite grand canyon and Rocky Mountain National Park combined. Eagle county is home to blm wilderness study areas. About a quarter million acres and eagle county is managed by the blm and like the rest of colorado for only 15 of blms 8. 3 million acres are durably protected most of these lands and eagle county are not serve. These public lands contribute to our worldclass recreation experiences and help ensure their local economy thrives. Tourism in outer recreation accounts for roughly 50 of the eagle countys annual revenue. Maintaining our riches along tourism and ski resorts can be seen that the county with numerous grazing allotments. Id like to applaud the blm for creating a new tool of conservation races as part of the proposed rule. These leases would be temporary allowing multiple groups to work with blm on Restoration Projects for Renewable Energy companies for compensatory mitigation. This is a very promising and complementary tool to support lance across my county and around the u. S. Verification of the proposal that perfectly balances conservation values with other types of plant practices will allow the blm to create plans that benefit rural economies like ours. The proposed rule further establishes the guiding principals that blm manages for resilience in public land for protection of landscapes and restoration of grazing landscapes. Eagle county is the headwaters headwaters county for their Community Members rely on public lands not only further quality of Wildlife Habitat but also to provider communities with safe drinking water. Water from eagle county flows into the mighty Colorado River and helps provide water for drinking, echo floats are powering industry for 40 Million People downstream. Aint hitting healthy watersheds can be resilient in be resilient in the face of drought and fires a priority for our county. We believe the proposed rule that resigns to the management of public lands has a Significant Impact on our local communities. Having a federal Land Management partner with a clear direction to work with us on balancing multiple uses including conservation will only strengthen the collaboration we already rely on Cable Provider communities with more certainty that our needs will be considered in blms planning and Land Management. H. R. 3397 would undermine blms ability to ensure conservation of critical public land. The bill would prevent local managers from working with communities like ours to protect important recreation and preservation areas that are vital to our economy and way of life putting conclusion is that support the bls public land toolkit will empower the agency to deliver on its multiple use mandate by placing conservation values on par with their public lands. As the Climate Change Energy Development recreation and tourism continues to grow this will promote ecosystem resilience. Clarification of blms multiuse approach in providing tools to collaborate with all users is the best method of managing these public lands that we so dearly love. Thank you for your consideration. Say thank you commissioner Chandler Henry and i now recognize the present of the western Energy Alliance and you are recognized for five minutes. Sorry about that. Youd think id know how to operate this by now. I really am glad we have 15 more days to comment on her rule and im glad to hear that Deputy Director but i think this rule is so nebulous and raises so many different questions that i dont think it should have been put out as a proposed rule or they think it should have should have been put out as a request for information or dance notice of rulemaking because they are there are so many nebulous concepts in this rule. I dont see how blm goes through this period even the extended Comment Period and come out with a rule that can withstand a legal challenge. Theres so many concepts that blm has redefined within this rule that congress simply has defined already. We have conservation races which were not contemplated. We have conservation in thing elevated to the principle use on par with the principle uses that are clearly defined. What blm would like to change what they say congress is the only one that can change it. Right now you look at what are the principle uses. Specifically livestock raising Mineral Exploration and production fish and Wildlife Management and Development Recreation and timber. Conservation is a goal and it is not a use. For congress to want to change that, they certainly could that blm does not have the authority to read the fine it. With this ruled blm is attempting to give itself power that brought questions of policy for congress simply did not give it. Blm had its chance specifically with flpma and it seems blm wants to use areas of critical areas of concern. Seems to want to replay out history and Congress Gave it a chance. So blm needs to stay within the boundaries that Congress Gave it in his blm doesnt like those boundaries if members of this committee who mostly are not here want to change that they need to do the hard work of changing the law. So we dont see how this rule comes out in a way that will stand the test of not only time that any kind of legal challenge. It seems to be that blm is defining itself new powers but i think the governors did such a great job of talking about all that was wrong with the rule and im going on in my time. I dont need to use my whole time for that. I would just echo many of the things that they would say. I particularly concerned with how blm has redefined the terms that simply doesnt have the ability to do so appreciate the ability to be here today and i call in blm to resent this rule and we certainly support h. R. 97. Thank you ms. Sgamma and thank you to all the witnesses and we will now move to questions. For the first round of questions i recognize that the lady from colorado mrs. Ms. Boebert boebert. Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Im from eagle county two. Principle Deputy Director colder 50 of his federal lands and 90 of the blm to a 45 million acres are located in western rural committees. Consequently this rule will negatively impact Rural America particularly urban areas. Why didnt blm breathe public on this rule in denver away from our most rules actually are . Thank you for the question congresswoman congress on it. Im glad to get the opportunity as someone who was that out all of the Public Information session as well as additional briefings we have been doing. Im short on time and i would just like to know was why was held in denver. We help three sessions in three areas where we felt a lot of people would be working. Where were those areas . 3 information sessions were held in denver colorado, albuquerque, new mexico and nevada. Denver is a very urban area and my rural area in the colorado district is impacted the most by this and you chose to have that meeting in person in denver rather than the western slope or southwest colorado. This week i heard from one of my constituents as a farmer and a rancher and mason county that this unconstitutional rule could prevent her livestock from grazing on blm land where they currently grace and where she has an active permit. Ranchers and farmers across the west still do not have a clear answer as to this impacts current grazing leases or what happens when they are up for renewal. We heard from one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle today that other multiuse activities wont be harmed. Let me ask you this. Will this rule lock up more land and prevent other multiple use activities under the guise of conservation . No, it will not congressman. There would be no additional land held up and locked up and no one would be prevented from this rule and that is your comment . Multiple use management under flpma. Cicero was proposed with little to no Stakeholder Input their 86,000 submitted Public Comments from a wide range of stakeholders with a lot of questions. I want to dive into some of those that were sent to me. One law passed by congress is given blm the authority to propose this rule because it sure seems like the blm is trying to rewrite flpma and has no authorization from congress similarly to what we heard ms. Sgamma. We are implemented implementing the federal land policy act including our authority. Thank you phil blm is defining new powers for flpma through this rule . Where following flpma for multiple use. We her concerns earlier from governor know him about this ruled how old prevent active Forest Management which is a big issue especially my district. We have had forest fires and recorded history in my district and it will lead to more wildfires. Active Forest Management including a chemical faking consistent with conservation in the proposed rule . Absolutely. Will allow mechanical thinning to continue . s benefit the record show that this rule will not affect mechanical thinning and the management of active management of our forests. I want to record a show that you have promised that if. What we are seeing and what we are hearing the questions that are coming up looks like a huge threat to Forest Management. Is this rule and attempt to two further demonstrations 30 by 30 agenda . I want to finish answering your last question. Access is part of restoration is a different tools are appropriate in different places. I asked if mechanical thinning would be impacted. In terms of the agenda certain aspects of different management could certainly be good for conservation that would support i wanted to answer my last question that has previously in my time has expired. What a further demonstrations 30 by 30 agenda that we hear so much of . This is blm implementing its multiple use so we can continue. Do you want to further demonstrations 30 by 30 agenda to lock up land and water by 3030 . The gentleladys time has expired and the cello the chair recognizes the young lady from alaska. I thought it was new mexico but there seems to be some debate here. Thank you mr. Chairman. I just wanted to see if mrs. Mrs. Woolf called for would like to answer any of the questions a more detailed . Thank you for that opportunity. I requested a rate to reiterate that. We include both restoration and protection and those are active uses under the federal land policy. As part of the specific direction we have from congress and its part of our additional policy right now. Please see see active restoration is a vital part of managing our land we are grateful for the funding that congress has given us to do the more restoration of our public lands. I am sensitive about the issue that representative boebert brought up about rural people not having access to Public Comment and im wondering if you can explain how remote people in colorado were able to make comments although the hearing was in denver. Certainly and thank you for the opportunity. We did have two virtual listening sessions. The recordings are posted on line a and along with dreika asked questions and guides and we wanted to include those of those information questions. Read quite a few people who came which was wonderful to see. We had colorado and out albuquerque and we had californians in nevada. At the same time are blm leaders around the west have been beating with their local communities so i know our Colorado State director most of the last week colorado meeting with cattlemen similar in wyoming and arizona. We are trying to give them every opportunity for people who have questions and to submit comments. That is really good news and i really appreciate the zooms and things like that for these meetings but it does want to put a plugin for americans who dont have access to Broadband Internet internet or wifi wifi. Bera many Many Americans certainly across alaska and across the United States who either cant afford it to have quality internet to stay connected especially unofficial platforms. A lot of times and people have video on they just drop off in one of the frustrations i have had is the state agencies and the federal agencies look at our web site and some of them are challenging to navigate. You have to have internet to be able to even get onto the web site. I was very sensitive to her concerns about rural and remote people being able to be part of the public process and i appreciate your answer and the way you were able to be conclusive. Thank you mr. Chairman i yield back my time. The gentlelady yields back and regarding the Comment Period appreciate the link in the nod on 15 days. I still think 15 days is totally unacceptable especially when you think about people having to travel from different states to come to one of those hearings where you can do it on line and not have access. I recognize the demo from california mr. Lamalfa for five minutes. These numbers are 6094 round numbers like that. That all said under the blm rule there is the thought that this could require any permitted activity to be offset by a separate conservation lease. Thats a concern. If can you comment . Is that a scenario where someone is seeking a grazing lease or any kind of permitted activity . Would they be required then . You see a scenario where a separate conservation least need to be acquired this person because the money in order to have the least for a conservation area. Principled Deputy Director wolffculver please. Thank you for the opportunity and if i dont answer i dont answer all of them sure you follow up with me. The idea with the conservation leases is one way someone whos carrying out permitted activity in public lands that results in an unavoidable impact could offset that. Doesnt require that every activity be offset through that generally happens on a casebycase basis. Its a framework for if you are seeking to offset the impact that has occurred on public land one option b. To offset on public landed one tool could be conservation. So thats a scenario where lets say im seeking a grazing lease. It could be determined i may have to offset that with conservation lease and i may have to pay for that . No, right now we continue to manage grazing under the federal grazing act and are grazing policy and this would not impact that. And thats just an example but how about timber operations . Similarly the requirements for compensatory mitigation happenings so far in blm plans we are trying to avoid we have regulation requiring that and when we are working with the state. We work closely and we manage the habitat and they managed for wildlife. Often states require mitigation for Wildlife Habitat that may be happen in for permitted activity on blm land. It sound like you may be referring to the states on that. Theres also a question here that these conservation leases could be part of a tool or a requirement to have Carbon Offset credits. Are we looking at activities, permitted activities possibly being required to have Carbon Offsets . The rule doesnt complement complement contemplate implementing that kind of requirement. One of the questions that we got input on from the public is should we define the types of permitting more specifically for conservation leases and should be the permitting them for Carbon Offset credits . Like the competence compensatory the it would come from a separate agreement or project from a state policy. A great amount of effort is being made on this whole carbon content situation. Do you know what the percent of our atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide . Not off the top of my head. Not off the top of my head sir. Okay vin numbers. 04 of our atmosphere. Its a much higher number where the average person on the street thinks its 25 to 50 with all the advertising out there. In 1960 was. 03 so what we are talking about is over this period of time a change of 1 100th of 1 carbon is what everybody is getting about. This is so detrimental to our country and its economy and basically replacing our economy with those of another country and the pacific rim or maybe offsetting clean American Natural Gas with russian natural gas which is known to be 40 flowing into europe or what have you. I would be cautious that we would look at carbon credits to supply additional offset for legal and necessary permitted activities. With that mr. Chairman i yield back. The gentlelady yields back in the chair recognizes gentlelady from oregon for five minutes. I represent the fourth Congressional District and blm manages 2. 1 million acres of owen c. Lands in western oregon. About 800,000 of those acres are in oregons Fourth District and the rest and i spoken to this committee before about how these lands are unique with a checkerboard ownership pattern on private state and federal land. They are important to my district and the owen c. Lands represent the vast majority of the timberlands that blm oversees and well over 95 . For over a century century the onc lancet provided Wildlife Habitat recreational opportunities fish habitat and timber harvest that is crucial to oregons rural economy. The onc act of 1937 was one of the First Federal conservation loss and directed that all timberland should be managed under sustained yields so that harvest levels are in balance. Later on the federal land policy Management Act of 1976 major the blm manages all its land under the same yield a multiple uses however section 701b of flpma is clear if there inconsistencies between flpma in the onc act the onc act shall prevail. A great deal of my concern today and confused about why the blm public land rule does not mention the onc land and my concern is there no mention of them nor an acknowledgment that the onc act even exists much less that would prevail inconsistency. Was this an oversight or is this an intentional change in policy and to you ms. Culver i would like to know and the counties i represent would like to know deserve to know whether the blm intends to implement this rule on onc lance . Thank you for the question. Right now she noted flpma specifically acknowledge his oregon and california lance act under both authorities and ensures we comply with both of them. Our intent for this regulation is the same. We are not amending the federal land policy Management Act nor will we change the onc act or the grazing act. We currently manage in a way that complies with all of those laws and we will continue to do so. Followup. What i would like to no, because again these lands are unique and again my concern and the concerns of my constituents are that this is a change in policy. I would like to know if you could put that in writing in this rule that in the case of inconsistencies of flpma and the onc land act that the onc land act will prevail. Certainly and thank you for following up it certainly we do not intend to change the way that flpma differs to the onc act and take into account how we might be more explicit than that. The intent is not to undermine that relationship. Followup. Thank you for saying that is not your intent. But it is important to me and it is important to my constituents and important to these lands that are absolutely unique especially as we see droughts and wildfires and all of the challenges of managing multiple uses and multiple ownership of land. It is critical that the onc land act prevails. What i would like and i dont know but i would guess that my colleague would like and certainly what my counties would like his clarity in writing. I appreciate you saying we would like to see that but what i would like to see as i would like to see that in writing explicitly in this rule. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from idaho for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Ms. Culver thank you for being here. Appreciate you taking the time to do this. Snack i was at a meeting in utah. That meeting was more important than showing up to the meeting to talk about resources . The director was scheduled to be in west meeting with our executive leadership. Ms. Culver on may 11 the entire idaho delegation sent a letter addressed to the director and it was on this issue and basically it expresses concern on the board right now, it expresses concern about this issue and it asked for a public hearing and it describes how devastating this rule if implemented will be on our statement got to tell you being from idaho, we never get any response at all. Were you even aware of this letter . Yes. We have received a lot of letters different asked either for extensions or for us to complete the rules. Is a typically your habit not to respond to those . You will receive a response. Okay thank you for that. Ms. Culver to point out the importance of the 63 of my state, 62 to 63 of my status federal lands. The only state by personage morris nevada that 33 million acres. 33 million by the way thanks to lack of management, not climate somewhere between a half million and 1 million acres a year burns and thats because the fuel load and we cant touch the ground we live on for the most part. We cant put intelligence into the management. Thats how significant this is to us. I think i know exactly why the director isnt here and thats because she didnt want to answer these questions. I thank you for showing up in mr. Chairman id like to submit for the record a copy of this letter from idaho delegation with your permission. Without objection, so ordered. Ms. Culver have youve been yes. Have you spending time with the stakeholders to work on that land in that live there and attempt to operate or make a living on that lance . In my capacity at blm i have not been on the official tour. Yes i have. Then you know you have met with these people that proper grazing in the proper grazing project is conservation. The proper recreational access is conservation and a proper fitting programmer Timber Management Program is conservation. So you can understand why we are concerned about making a separate category for conservation inadvertently makes to compete with other forms of conservation in conjunction with other uses. The multiple use structure has been in place for decades and the worst problem we have in my home is not being able to execute on it and arrogance quite frankly the flatout arrogance for the administration , for yourselves to promulgate Something Like this thinking you know better than the people who live on this property and who depend on it and work on it and who have the biggest vested interest in it the biggest investment and to see it prosper for years and years, the arrogance is unbelievable. Especially when the majority of the administration i would say probably hasnt even been there. I want to just summarize, i think you get a pretty good feel where we are app i just want to summarize. With this request id like to have an hearing in my state. The closest in person hearing in idaho was reno nevada. Depending on where you are thats a five hour drive minimum or 14 hour drive for my constituents and the people that are impacted the most by this. Im going to assume you cant answer that question now but i wanted in person hearing or maybe you cant answer it. I can answer that question right now by appreciate it. That im going to get a response back on this letter . Creating a category of conservation, theres significant arrogance by making this decision and imposing it on the people were conservation is in alloftheabove approach. Mr. Chairman i yield back. The gentleman yields back in the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new mexico. Thank you so much and thank you for the testimony from all three of our witnesses. We have a lot of women in agriculture and a lot of women in wrenching and conservation in new mexico. The issue about grazing is important in new mexico as to any of our other Western States. The key element of our economy and a key element of our heritage. In mexico we have been grazing and cattle and a lot of other things on our lands for centuries since before there was the United States we have been grazing on this land. The issue that some of those lands were lost and turned into public land even though theyve been used by the people who live there but will the proposed rule affect existing grazing permits or leases that is key to us . Deputy director culver can you tell me what the answers to that want to get and where can we look to find that the rules in the previous regulations yet issued . At the outset i wanted to emphasize the framework doesnt make any decision or any on the ground decisions will be made by local land managers. I would encourage everyone to search the word local. We emphasize that in that process will not change. In terms of daytoday decisions on managing grazing that will not change and that will contain to be managed at the local level. The rule itself doesnt change the grazing act and does not affect any conservation. In the context of conservation leasing a conservation lease is to be issued in a way that respects any permitted authorized to use so the issuance of a conservation lease would only occur over grazing permit if those two uses were consistent. For example ranch or make want to enter into, who has grazing would come to work with you and saying how can i work with a programs to actually restore. There is work that needs to be done. Is that right . Yes. We manage 155 million acres for grazing. We have seen that is key to success of this rule and particular conservation leasing as an opportunity for ranchers to work with entities who may be providing funding that they are undertaking but maybe formerly set out as an additional income pixton this issue ringing additional income is really important as we look at the statistics. They are many ranchers and farmers who dont make a profit on their land. Consolidated so that issue is important to them. What about future permits and lisas . Will this affect future grazing . The rule itself doesnt look at it one way or the other. What it looks like looks at us grazing practices can be one aspect and we are trying to set up the framework. Im looking at page 19,591 where you do state its not intended to preclude uses such as grazing mining and recreation and it would not disturb existing authorizations or state or turtle land use management. You have that in there as you discuss the rule and i think making sure you can point to specific places in the rule will help this clarity because my constituents want that clarity for the state land commissioner, last week or two weeks ago she sent there for this process wants to make sure theres a commitment to continue to do that work with the state and the tribes and do we have that commitment from you . Yes, i appreciate the up or to the third knowledge that request. We have heard it and again what we are putting in here is what we intended the rules to say and how we expected to work and if it needs to be clear that as the feedback we are looking for right now. Thank you and mr. Chair i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record one letter of areas we have seen from the office of the governor in opposition to h. R. 3397. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you mr. Chairman and i go. Submit the dental ladies time has expired in the chair recognizes mr. Desaulnier for five minutes. Thank you very much mr. Chair. The department of the interior has told us today that new conservation leases created is a new tool for folks to offset impacts of activities on federal lands and are not a requirement. However given this administration has a track record of moving the goalposts left and right to their political benefit we cannot rely on what they say. We must watch what they do. Ms. Sgamma do you believe this rule would create a new conservation lease for Energy Projects on federal land . I think that is the goal, yes and they do not have the authority to require that type of offsite litigation. What kind of impact would this have on the smallbusiness community . I think the Small Business to Small Business semester should affix the opposite vest in a recent letter that this will impact Small Businesses. Most of our companies are independent and small producers with an average of 14 employees. I agree with you that this rule has a Significant Impact on Small Businesses and as it turns out this Small Business office about the series but as unanimous consent on the peons proposed rules peons proposed rule sent this to say to secretary allenby entered into the record for todays hearing. Without objection, so ordered and i want to quote from that letter quote given the rule has the potential to impact a substantial number of Small Businesses across various Industry Sectors blm must properly and thoroughly considered these impacts and modify the proposed analysis accordingly. The department of the interior determined the proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on substantial numbers of small entities under the regulatory act. If you fail to conduct initial regulatory analysis are you going to provide the factual basis for certifying that Small Businesses wont be impacted . Why did you refuse to analyze this rules impact on our Small Businesses . I appreciate that question. When we looked at the Economic Analysis that we created as part of this rule did you. That yourself or with Small Businesses . It was done by experts within. And not Small Businesses that may be affected, is that correct . The blm prepared economic rear at and also some of the rule. So my question was he didnt talk to Small Businesses that could be affected by this . It was repaired by an expert of blm. You didnt consult with Small Businesses, that is correct . Bashar department not care about Small Businesses which are the engine and innovator of our economy . Couldnt agree more that our public lands are key to supporting Small Businesses around the country. We value those partnerships. Why didnt you include the Small Businesses in your decision . Im not quite sure what you are asking however we prepare the Economic Analysis and evaluation is significant. Working with the offices information buried atari analysis and the office of management and budget the department of the interior flow of those agencies have provided that direction to us. Thats the same department of the interior that banned mining in northeastern minnesota . Thats the interior department you are talking about. As you know the office of advocacy has called foul on you for failing to conduct this analysis and is called on blm to quote provide a supplemental document within initial regulatory flexibility analysis and that includes a discussion of the impact of small entities. What if any of these impacts we may face in what regulatory alternatives the agency has considered . Yes or no we commit to fulfilling the office of advocacys requests . I need to review the request and the rule because we did complete the required analysis so i look forward to reading that comment. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman as a mr. Schiff has continually failed to consider Small Businesses in their regulus reckless on celebrity appreciate you holding this hearing today to allow us to conduct oversight of this rulemaking and i look forward to working with you and the committee on Small Business to stand up for Small Businesses across this country and i yield back. The drama gets back on the chair recognizes gentlelady from california for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman i have to say the whiplash in this committee is unbelievable. The last panel the governor come both of them complained about how this will take away public input and they got an amen corner from my colleague on the other side of other side i appeared last. Last week we had a Committee Hearing and the committee balked at the need for public input as it relates to mining and its impacts so i guess it just depends on who the public is. Deputy director colder i want to know more about how it integrates with the need coinciding with respect for communities and mr. Chair i ask unanimous consent to enter two resolutions into the hearing record. One is from the National Congress of American Indians outlining how they can elevate traditional knowledge and protect traditional Cultural Resources and the second is by the affiliated tribes of northwest indians, identifying new pathways for designating conservation areas that protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historical or valued resources are other natural systems. Without objection objection. Then i think you mr. Chair and i want to enter into the record and im asking this question because the and im so my colleagues that they know whats best when it comes to tribes. They either appropriate or discredit the viewpoint of Indigenous People based on i guess political to the point that they want to score. Folks have said theres there is no need for meaningful consultation. Theres no need for consultation by indigenous communities which i find outrageous and it strikes me quite often as settler colonialist rhetoric which makes all the hair stand up on the top my head so a do believe we should be speaking for tribes without including them into these processes and discussions . Thank you for the question in your hair looks great. Thank you. Also we visited the day one and are committed to making sure that we are engaging in meaningful consultation and not just in the pro forma way but a proactive way to assure additional engagement thats why the committed to stewardship and have led the way for the department of the interior on that. We have heard that people want to feel included in the discussion including communities that dont want other folks speaking for them. Can you go a little deeper in terms of how this proposed rule incorporates requests from tribes in indigenous communities and what comanagement and co. Stewardship looks and feels like an anon appropriate way . Thank you. Im feeling it today. One of the aspects of this rule that we are very proud of is that explicitly a corporates requirements to evaluate indigenous knowledge as part of the best available science that we are taking into account decisionmaking and explicitly emphasizing the importance of consulting and working with tribes when we are planning where he allocate land for management and the context of areas up to critical normative concerns we have received numerous letters and resolutions from tribes asking we formalize the process for identifying and protecting and designating those areas to be managed as one tool that the blm has required under the federal land policy and Management Act to prioritize it and explicitly considers historic and cultural use. What we have done done is no pin ports of evaluating it whether it could be designated at the blm and whether would use that to look at proposals from tribes and consider an opportunity. Stewardship and what they that could look like its how we incorporate knowledge into management positions are how we might Work Together for example to ensure theres adequate education. Thank you for that explanation in response and i was having some discussions with some different communities and when i was sharing what i was hearing in this committee and how i was questioning if they felt that they were being silenced they said keep asking questions about this issue because it is important that we are seen as valued in these discussions so with that i want to thank you for your response and i yield back mr. Chair. The town lady gets back on the chair recognizes the dauman for montana mr. Rosendale for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chair. Appreciate that. Ms. Cole for as i sit here and listen to all of this as much as you try to deny it what i see and what i read and the reality is a blm trying to expand its powers and attempt to expand your powers. The fact that no hearings have been held in the areas where the impact of land is located demonstrates quite frankly the complete disregard that the agency has for the opinion of the people that will be impacted by this and holding a hearing in an intensely urban area instead of out in the field with the people that will be impacted the people managing those lands now nowhere near that is an insult quite frankly. Montana delegation also sent a letter to the department of the interior and to blm trying to obtain a hearing to be held in the areas that were going to be impacted and again nothing. We set that back on may 11. This rule completely contradicts the taylor grazing act and it does contradict and the Supreme Court has recently ruled in agency overreached West Virginia versus the epa and now you have heard it from congress that you are getting outside in line so please save money and save time and save aggravation for the people across this nation to have to go through that Legal Process to show that this is out of line and simply stay in your lane, okay . We make the laws. Stay in your lane. Thats who we want to say. We have heard navigating through complex is not something that the blm excels at. Can you give us some examples in her experience were blm failed to mitigate conflict by your members . Im not sure i can think of a specific example off the top of my head but in general when you look at the definition of conservation leases you cant help but see the way its defined in the proposed rule is going to preclude productive uses. I dont see how there isnt an inherent conflict with that and i think you are absolutely right that congress simply hasnt given blm. A. Chance to redefine flpma rules. With this rule provide more clear day about how lance can be used or how they should be managed for ambiguity and subjectivity . Its nebulous at this point the proposed rule which is why we joined with Public Lands Council the beef cattlemen, Beef Association, Beef Association cut american mining and Exploration Association Safari Club International and others asking that this rule be pulled back or at least go through another iteration of comments once blm has a chance to react to everything they are given because they are too many new terms and too many questions raised. Thank you so much and at the rule would take effect you believe it result in better or worse outcomes than why . Again i think its nebulous how this is intended and how would be used and i dont know what would come out at this and thats why think blm needs to do another round of Public Comment to explain itself better. Would your definition of Public Comment include areas so the people in the land mentioned them would be included . I do agree indeed indeed. This is be shipping the rural areas because the rural areas that are the most impacted. Thank you so much mr. Chair a yield back. The dauman yields back in the chair recognizes the ranking member. Thank you very much. Commissioner having deployed to this position i was a county commissioner chair of my local county board and theres a mythology that goes on about the west. This is the west that its always been and this is the west that will continue to be. The west has changed. The dynamics are different and we have to deal with Habitat Restoration and conservation plan in order to deal with endangered species and land use and those are all different at the local level but at the end of the day its in response to guidance and in response to a federal law and the end result would benefit more surety about what zoning was a conservation ethic that got strengthened in terms of protection of areas and grazing rights no grazing rights were lost. No Mining Operations in the mountains was closed. Dire consequences did not hit my county. Thats all it does. It doesnt change the fundamental ground that were working with, but it provides an opportunity for the future. And i think more importantly, the word doesnt get used enough, the less duration of areas that need to be restored. Messes all over west that nobody talks about, no restoration, no remediation. Taxpayers having to carry that burden. Heres an opportunity. Could you speak to what it means to local people to have this opportunity and why a kind of twist on mythology that doesnt exist, cant help us going into this century in dealing with issues like climate. Thank you so much for that very perceptive question, congressman. Youve really hit the nail on the head. And our county, we really rely on collaboration, with we rely are on working with our federal land managers. Our Small Businesses are based on Outdoor Recreation and tourism. Our Small Businesses rely on conservation values, and they rely on the certainty that this proposed rule would implement to look at those conservation easements on par with every other use. In our county we have to pay businesses to come in and take the timber out for our Forest Restoration are programs. Its not a big moneymaker for us. Oil and gas is negligible. Our extractive industry is tourism, Outdoor Recreation. Were a rural area. We worked hand in glove with our ranchers and our conservationists. The conservation district is run by our ranchers, works with our open space, and we work closely with blm to make all that work. Deputy director, the proposition that were seeing here today to, either it is no rule because the freedom and fundamental life of our nation stakes in this rule. Talk about restoration, talk about the new players that hasnt been talked about in this part of the discussion, because restoration is a use. And the way this is being interpreted is that restoration for many communities and conservation is an important element that were adding to the portfolio of what blm should be doing. I dont want to repeat the 18th century law of mining where we get to do nothing but give lining everything they want. This rule gives the public, regardless of where you live, you own part of this public land, each individual in this country. And the response has to be lasting. It cant be with short term, parochial with Collateral Damage being okay here but conservation being important somewhere else. Please . We really intentionally defined the conservation aspects of this rule as including both restoration and protection, considering those both very active useses. Weve received, as i mentioned before, a lot of funding recently from congress for restoration. We see that as something that this rule can really help us implement. Our public lands will benefit there this type of restoration, whether its making them more resis about the for fire, or drought, and the intent of this rule, the way its structured, the actual words of it are it is a structure, it is a framework. And what were insuring is that one element of Conservation Restoration is taken into account in decision making, looking for those opportunities, identifying the best places to do that. And the rule is very explicit that we do that with our partners as we always do. Yield back. Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. Benz, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for their patience. Deputy director culver, i just want a little background. My district in oregon is larger than the entire state of washington. I think we have somewhere around 72,000 square miles of space in my district. And of that, about 50 million acres is public land. Exactly how much is blm and how much is forest, i couldnt tell you, but theres a lot more blm than forest. So this rule has great importance to to me and to the people i represent. Im looking at your bureau of Land Management 43cfr part 16000 that was published in the public register april 3rd, and it would suggest that there is a gap in your regulations. You agree with that, of course, because it says so right here in your document, right . If im reading it, this proposed rule is intended to to address this gap in the bureaus regulations. What is that gap . Thank you for the question, congressman. The reference there is the lack of explicit regulations discussing this particular aspect of the multiple uses in sustained yield carry that forward, because ive been studying this the entire time ive been sitting here trying to figure it out. I want to tell you what it actually means. The way i read it suggests that youre now going to take conservation as its never defined, by the way, in here, so so im not sure what it is. I can did dig up a definition of it. Its fairly broad. The act of protecting the earths Natural Resources for current and tush the generations. Future generations. Thats the National Geographics definition. Is that yours . We define it as protecting or restoring Natural Habitats and ecological actually, are you reading that out of your blm, department of interior manual h4180 . Is that where youre getting it . Direction . 6101. 4 of the proposed regular alation. Its suggested in this article by michael blum out of my law school, blm defines health as the degree to which the integrity of the soil and ecological process are sustained. Are you trying to change the standard that currently is in your manuals of this rule . I think you are but you can tell me. You have to be. Theres a gap. Youre fill ifing it, so you have to be changing it, right in. We are providing additional detail on how to carry out this work, and if we need to update i want some additional detail. Youre filling a gap right. With something. So youre saying its not changing anything . This is just additional detail of something that already exists . Is in that your argument . Were setting out a framework of how to explicitly address these two aspects of conservation, protection and restoration, with the specific tools and processes in the regulation. The gap in part refers to the fact that this is a portion of our regulations that was reserved for additional regulation, and the blm promulgates new i regulations as we see the need for more direction. Okay. Then at least you do agree these are additional regulations, and there will be additional work to be done across the entire scope of your activities as a bureau. Is that correct . Because thats exactly what it says here on the fourth page [inaudible] and then it walks down through how the proposed rule would require the blm to plan for and consider conservation as a use on par with all other uses and identify the practices and insure conservation actions are effective in building resill cent public lands. And it goes on to say that you currently cant apply some of these standards, but youre going to start doing so. Youve actually, youve said theyre applicable to grazing now, but you want to extend that ability to other activities on public land. I mean, its in your rule, so am i correct there . Thats a new step on your part. The rule would apply the standards that currently apply specifically to grazing. Consideration of grazing makes that explicit to apply to other uses. Weve heard for a long time from the Grazing Community that they look they have complied with these fundamentals of public health, and that should be explicitly applied to other uses of the public land. I have to pop back ott lands because, indeed, as the congresswoman suggested, there needs to be much clarity in the rule, and i think she was trying to ask what the letter a hay sent to you, one of the county commissioners from one of the counties that has a lot of this type of land in it, conservation as a use cannot be apply to onc timberlands, is that that correct . The way we define conservation regulation includes restoration which is certainly something that we do in compliance with the o to nc act. So we would apply this regulation in a way that complies with the ordinance of california. Thank you, mr. Chair. I yield back with. Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. Huffman. Youre recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, many chairman. And it would mr. Chairman. And it would be easy to forget that we are talking about public lands that belong to the people of the United States if youre listening in to this hard hearing where so many questions and speeches seem to suggest that these public lands should simply be available to various extracting industries for commercial purposes and that they should continue to have the type of impunity that they have had for decades. But i think that the blm public lands rule is on the right track. I dont think its wildly controversial at all. Blm has been in the conservation business for a long time and has cone all kinds of rule makings and policy guidance for every type of extractive industry that operates on blm lands but never for conservation. So i would say its about time. And i want to just enter into the record that congresswoman degette and i have sent on this matter, one from february this year sign by 40 representatives in support of this rule and another from earlier this week where we coled a letter with senator Martin Heinrich from new mexico outlining the positives that we see in this common sense step reflected in the proposed rule. We had 45 representatives and senators sign that letter so, mr. Chairman, without objection, i hope we would like to enter that into the record. So ordered. Thank you. Now, Deputy Director culver, is it correct that congressional intent for the federal land policy and Management Act is to include conservation as part of blms multiple use mandate . Thank you for the question. Absolutely, it is. The definition of multiple use is very clear. It includes, for example, natural scenic scientific and historical values. Those are certainly aspects of conservation as are management of habitat. And i think the quote that i read a few times lately comes from former governor of idahoan dress can who was andros who was the secretary of interior in 1976, and he talked about the importance of these public lands for all americans and said in response. To the passage conservation is no longer a pious ideal, it is an element of our survival. I take that as something that, you know, maybe we should have gotten around to these regulations earlier, as you note. But i take that to reit late that that was intention at time of passage. And is it fair to say that over the years you have done a lot of rulemaking when it comes to mining and grazing and oil and gas activities on our federal public lands and other commercial uses . We do have standalone regulations for all of those activities as well as for rightofways, and when we saw the need, we updated our regulations, we just issued updated regulations on that today. But youve never done a rulemaking for conservation concern. We have not. So that do does not seem radical, it seems long overdue and sensible. Putting it on equal footing. And lets just establish that. Youre not putting a thumb on the scale for conservation and elevating it over other uses in your multiple use portfolio or, are you . Were not, and the rule is exprison sit that this is one of the multiple uses. Thank you. So the bill before us would not only close the door to you taking this step, it would lock the door, and it would prevent you there doing other regulatory actions in this space. How, how would that tie your hands and your ability to the carry out your multiple use mandate . Thank you for that question, for pointing that out, that there may be unintended consequences or intended of such a law because the rule itself actually reiterates numerous policies and activities that are already underway. For example, compensatory mitigation, restoration planning ahead for managing ore sore habitat, working with our partners to identify the best places to manage for healthy public lands and to manage for restoration. As i mentioned in my. , the ideas and the concepts and the cools tools in this proposed rule grow out of activities and ideas that are already underway at the blm and have been for decades. Thank you, Deputy Director. I just want to note as i close that of the 245 million acres of public lands blm manages,9 0 90 are open for oil and gas leasing, the vast majority are open for hard rock mining. S high time time to we elevate conservation to equal footing x this rule seeks to do just that. I will note, Deputy Director, that ive had some Solar Power Developers that are a little bit nervous about this rule. I think theyre misinterpreting whats going on here, but it would be very important as you to go forward, i think, to provide some assurance and care i that just as this would not prevent other uses, it would certainly not stand in the way of our renewable goals. And with that, i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Bill sponsor for questions, mr. Curtis, youre recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like to direct my questions to the Deputy Director. Thank you for being here and all the witnesses for your long hours that youve been here. Deputy director, im from utah. Blm manages 22. 8 million acres of public land in kurt. In utah. Thats 42 of our state. If you go more specifically to my district, i dont have specific numbers for blm, but federal lands represent about 90 of a High Percentage of my district. Can you explain given those numbers why there were no Public Meetings in utah about this rule . Sorry. Thanks for the question. Of we identified a number of places to hold information sessions, and again have continued to provide responses and information sessions and briefings as requested. The governor of south dakota and wyoming were here earlier, and they also expressed that there were no Public Meetings in their states with similar numbers. Do you not feel that you missed something here by not coming to the people many these good areas and getting their input . Having worked on a number of regulations and seen the federal government issue regulations for many years, i think we have one of the most robust outreach processes ive ever seen. The information sessions online, the information weve posted online, the information weve made available around the west, the amount of outreach going on from our state directors to be clear then, youre saying states with significant, Significant Impact by this rule didnt need to be heard from and that that was adequate . Is that what youre telling me . With respect, congressman, that is absolutely not what im saying. Then help me understand why you wouldnt hold a single Public Meeting i dont know about the other sates in the region, but these three i know about. Why wouldnt you hold a single Public Meetingsome not one . So we did not hold Public Meetings to the receive comment. We held information sessions to provide additional information, and then weve been supplement aring those with meetings held with our state directors, our districts and our field offices just as so many people have talked about how well hay work with their local blm, their state blm, those are the people who were having help us with let me get to that in a minute. Okay, blm has not responded to letters my colleagues on the committee and i have sent. How can utah ranchers, farmers and recreationallists have their voices heard when youre not responding to our letters and youre not Holding Hearings . What do you want me to go back and tell them . Weve been doing briefings for thin who asks, and were anyone who asks, and were happy to continue doing that. We are in a Public Comment period right now im asking for a briefing in San Juan County. Understood. Are you willing another thatsome. I will coany, you know, i have responsive briefings. Weve been doing most of them virtually, but im sure we can, you know, figure that out. Thats a yes. I will need to confirm, but im sure we can find a way to continue discussions no, i want an manyperson briefing in San Juan County where theyre impacted by this in a dramatic way. I understand your request. As i said, were not Holding Public hearings, but we are providing are you willing to extend the Comment Period given the fact that so many people have not been heard from . I am. Today we announced an extension of the Comment Period by an additional 15 days. 15 . Yes, sir. That gives you two weeks to get down to San Juan County. Ill meet with your scheduler immediately having driven from albuquerque to San Juan County to Salt Lake City on monday, i thinking be done, but i hear you. Please, we would like that to happen. So im curious, two questions. One is sounds like youre a little bit familiar with the ge. Can you give me an example where you feel like this rule would have made a difference in utah in the last decade . What would it have preserved that was not preserved . So to give an example thats from a little farther north in this state the, we recently permitted the transmission line as part of that process. That line goes through a number of Western States including utah. So youre saying that would not have been permitted . No. What happened with that was the company in its own discussions agreed to compensatory mitigation to provide funding ive only got 30 seconds left. So we could have worked out ive got 30 seconds. I thought you wanted me to explain. Im sorry. 30 seconds, hurt . How are you going you have no funding in my district. You have two blm agents for the entire area. What is your funding how is funding going to change so that you have resources to do this . Most of this will be part of our ongoing standard practices such as planning and permitting projects. We expect that it will be, you know,funded in that way. All right. Im, unfortunately, out of time. Ill hopefully interpret from my results that we dont feel heard, that we feel like were doing a very good job of conservation ourselves, and i really would challenge you to point out anything where your involvement would have provided better conservation than what weve done. And i wish i could give you a chance to respond. Im out of time. And, mr. Chairman, i yield my time. You can respond if you would like. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman. The example i was going to give with the transmission if line, there are millions of dollars for compensatory mitigation. If we had this opportunity, this rule, it would have been easier to work with local communities to propose projects and to implement those projects directly with the communities instead of going through the National Fish and wildlife i think the question is what would have been preserved particularly in the south that wasnt, that was not preserved because this rule was not in place . I think what were looking at is the rule making it easier for our i know. But what would have been preserved that wasnt preserved by my locals that this law would help you do, this rule would help you do . I think there are significant restoration talking about preservation. Not restoration. And you dont have the money for restoration, by the way. Weve just received a lot of funding from the congress, and were very grateful for that, and we look forward to directing it around okay. But not a single example of what would have been preserved that wasnt preserved. The rule is a framework. It does not a vision to preserve something that isnt already preserved. It provides a way to use that tool. Okay. I just want to point out that were doing a very good job of preserving ourselves, and im not sure that theres anything in this rule that will do a better job of preserving in our area. Our intent is to support those activities through the rule. We can go on, mr. Chairman, but ill i thought we wering pickles we were canning pickles or something. Laugh the chair now recognizes mr. Gosar for 5 minutes. Thank you very much. And i want to make it perfectly clear, im against this rule and so are my constituents. And thats why im also requesting an inperson meeting in arizona with my, with the blm with my constituents and myself. So i think we deserve it and we demand it. So deputy culver, the federal land policy management at section 202c9 requires the bureau to coordinate proposed rule with states and local governments. This probably has been asked before, but has that occurred . Thank you for the question, congressman. That section actually pertains to our Land Use Planning processes where we certainly do coordinate closely with our cooperating agencies. In terms of the rule itself, much of the input that we have received over the decades of implementing with our partners is reflected in the rule. So yes or no . Is that a yes or a no . Yes, we have consulted with states and other partners over the years on the concepts in this rule. So can you provide us with a report documenting the coordination process including the steps you took to satisfy the criteria for coordination set forth in the rule and efforts to the reach consistency with the state and local specifically, i would like the report to address the following four elements of this the criteria. One, because of the importance of the public lands to Western States, and i made myself if very clear in the first, second panel, whatever it was, and in particular the rural areas and their economies. Section 20 the 2c9 requires meaningful coordination by the blm with state and local governments with respect to land use inventory, planning and Management Activities. Two, in addition, section 202c9 authorizes the elected and appointed officials of state and local governments to furnish advice to the blm concerning the development and revision of land use guidelines. Land use rules, land use regulations for the public lands of their respective states. Three, section 202c9 also requires the blm to provide state and local are governments meaningful involvement in the land use programs, land use regulations and land use decisions for public lands. And finally under section 202c9, Land Use Plan ifs adopted by the blm must be consistent with state and local plans to maximize to the extent possible unless any other federal law requires otherwise. Furthermore, the blm must assist in resolving to the extent practical inconsistencies wean the federal Land Use Plans and the state and local government plans. Are you capable of doing that . The rule would at some point, i assume if the rule is finalized, it will be carried out through the land use [inaudible conversations] finalization. I think, first of all, you have to go through these four or five aspects. You havent done them. And is youve heard or the parade of my colleagues saying, you know, youre way out in front of your skis. This is, this is the gentleman had it right, were the people that are making the laws, not you. Youre part of the enforcement aspect and implementation. Weve got this all backwards, really backwards. And thats why i brought up the southern atlanta [inaudible] because if this is what youre going to continue to do, then it should be up to the states and to local governments to go back and obtain those jurisdictions over those lands. I find this offensive. They say stay in your lane. I think that is the best advice i possibly can tell. And probably to be very frank with you, i think more and more states need to take the blm and the Forest Service to court because you are too far over the skis. You are out of your lane. And thats not right. This is, this constitution, this country was formulated on a rule basis, and when you look at the equal footings clause, particularly the arizona model in regards to those are contracts with the state. And so its not if youre predisposing one part of multiple use over another, its you hues use all of those. Must use all of those. Otherwise you back to the state. I tell you, im very disappointed in what ive seen, and i hope that youll i dont hope, ill be looking forward to your answers. Thank you. I yield back. Or. Gentleman yields back. Only one person left to the ask questions, and since when im talking there wont be anybody to tell me im over time, this could go on for a while. But, again, thank the witnesses for being here. Im going to ask you, its going to be a difficult question im going to ask you because im going to ask you to maybe help me role play, and im going to do my to be a rural coloradoan. Youll have to pretend with my accent. You know, maybe youre out in rural colorado and im a friend and i come up to you and i say, hey, kathleen, ive known you for a while, youre a smart person, you follow all this stuff. I know you go to d. C. And you testify before committees ask youre really tuned in on what the federal government and blms doing. I saw where theyre proposing this new rule to do something with conservation and, you know, i thought thats what their job was anyhow. I thought we spent billions of taxpayer dollars to Fund Agencies to take care of our land and practice conservation. What is this conservation easement thing im hearing about . Hows it going that affect me here in colorado . Well, besides the tact fact that you really dont sound like you come there colorado, i would have to say i think its still pretty unclear what the intention is. We keep hearing that this is just a framework, that this is not, you know, this is just multiple use, but congress didnt define conservation as a multiple use with. So when you look at these conservation is leases, you cant help but think that its going to preclude other uses. Its going to preclude the grazing, its going to preclude oil and gas development, solar, wind. So at this point, its hard to say exactly what the impact will be. But just looking at the plain language of it and hearing what its not going to do, it makes me nervous that when they say its its not going to do this, its not going to stop graigz or its not going to stop grazing or its not going to stop Energy Development, that what were going to actually see out of the rule is the exact opposite, that it will be used to stop those primary, principal multiple uses on federal lands and that it will be stopped to do you know, it will be used to elevate conservation above other productive uses so that it passes over that conservation. Because we all do conservation on federal lands. Were always conserving. Were restoring, were reclaiming. Oil and Gas Companies are always reclaiming the land and are restoring it, and we do that conservation in agreement with blm. But its going to pass over from conservation to preservation only. We see the blm trying to become like the National Park service and move from its multiple use mandate to its, to a preservationonly type of mandate. In laymans terms, theyre saying its not going to change anything if they need a massive rule to go into effect so they can do the job that theyre already supposed to be doing . Right. Blm already has ability to do conservation. In fact, they, there are 38 million acres in the Landscape Conservation system that blm manages already. So blm clearly has been doing conservation. What were concerned about is when they say its not going to stop grazing, its not going to stop leasing, its not going to stop mining that, in fact, that is exactly whats going to happen. And thank you for that. Thats i think the general public, i was very confused when i saw this proposed rule come out, and i asked the same question, why . Why do they need this . Whats the ulterior motive. And, you know, weve heard that its not going to do anything, but im going to read from the letter that mr. Stoner submitted for the record stopper submitted from the small Business Administration office of advocacy. This is directly from their letter. Blm has not clarified how conservation leases will be compatible with the other principal uses laid out in the rule. In at least two instances, mining and grazing, the proposed rule is incompatible. Without proper clarification regarding the implications of conservation leases on other uses and the inevitable incompatibility that may result, the proposed rule has the effect of placing conservation leases above other interests. This is contrary to the statutory intent outlined in flipma. As anticipated above, blm does not have Statutory Authority to create such additional uses that would make the other principal uses incompatible or yeah, incompatible. According to the statutory texts text cited throughout this letter, congress did not intend for if land uses to be excluded on a programmatic level. So even the small Business Administration disagrees and says that that blm apparently doesnt know, somebody doesnt know what theyre talking about within the administration. And, ms. Culver, you talked about experts in the blm. And i know youre a political appointee. I dont think you went through senate confirmation, but your boss did. And i know politics change. And when whoevers in the white house, their politics gets to filtrate throughout the administration. But was this political staff or career staff that wrote this 88page rule . Thanks for the question, mr. Chairman. The rule was written by career taffe. We engage staff. We engage staff throughout, subject Matter Experts throughout blm, both headquarters and around the west. What would happen if the career staff said im not willing to write that rule . That did not happen, so i cant really speculate. We have a lot of, as i mentioned, a lot of the ideas in this rule you can see reflected in blm Land Use Plans the bottom line is we know that nothing would happen, that career staff, they work for the federal government. Theres no repercussions for when they do their work, when they dont do their work. And we also know that who do they answer to . Who do career staff answer to . They report generally to additional career staff. Career staff report to career staff who are writing rules. They answer to nobody. Theyve never been elected, they never have to go out and face public. They can put their own views, their own bias, whatever they want to. And guess what . After youre gone and this administrations gone, they will still be there, and theyll be the ones enforcing these rules. Theyll be the ones that they have full enforcement. They have, also get to be the judge and the jury because if somebody complains, there is an administerrive law judge there in the agency, they can rule in favor of the career bureaucrat. A broken system. It gets abused, and thats the big problem that i have with this, because its totally unnecessary. If if there was leadership and there were, and people were doing the right thing, we would be conserving our lands. Be providing access to it. But guess what . I know im the only one left here, but we answer to people. We answer to voters all across this country. So were going to push back because we dont think career bure with accurates buried in some cubicle over in some nondescript building should be determining what happens in our federal lands. And were just not going to allow that to happen. We may not be able to pass this law out of the house and the senate and get the president to sign it, but the way it goes i will be in the contact with my friends over at the Appropriations Committee and have an amendment in the appropriations bill that says no appropriations shall be used to implement this rule that the blms proposing. Its sad it has to happen that way, but at the end of the day, we do control the pursestrings. They may still have their job, but itll be against the law if were able to passes this in appropriations, and its too bad we cant actually work on these things and you all have hearings in all the states that you respond to questions and letters that i rised, not just the house rised, but senators as well. And we get to the point where if the elected representatives facing off against the unelected bureaucrats and as administrations change, unfortunately the career bureaucrats dont. So with that, i want to thank witnesses for being here today. I do have some things for the record. I ask unanimous consent that the following nine letters from 93 different organizations representing a wide variety of stakeholders including those involved in grazing, Forest Management, recreation and conservation and energy and Mineral Development be added to the record for todays hearing. Each letter details different concerns and and expresses support for h. R. 3397 or opposition for the blm proposed rule. These groups include the american Forest Resources council, Public Lands Council, American Farm bureau federation, National Mining association, independent Petroleum Association of america, national stone, sand and Gravel Association and america outdoors association. And without objection, so ordered. Again, thank you so the witnesses for being here today. Members of the committee may have some additional questions for our witnesses, and we will ask that they respond to these in writing. Under Committee Rule three, members must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p. M. On wednesday, june 1st, 2023 june 21st. If theres no further business, without objection, the committee on Natural Resources stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]