[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                 



 
                   H.R. 3283, H.R. 3299, H.R. 5401,


                 H.R. 6012, H.R. 7976, AND H.R. 8012

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

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               before the

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                         Tuesday, July 9, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-134

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
       
        GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
       


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

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                         Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan
Tom McClintock, CA                             , CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ                           Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA                        Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS             Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA                         Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL                       Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR             Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID                         Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, M                          NMary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT                       Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI                          Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL                           Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO                       Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR                          Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA                          Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU                           Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                       Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA                         
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                                    
 
                                    
                                     

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                       TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
                     JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
                     JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Pete Stauber, MN                         CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU                       Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                 ------                                
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing Memo.....................................................     v
Hearing held on Tuesday, July 9, 2024............................     1

Statement of Members:

    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     2
    Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado, Prepared statement for the record.............    45

    Panel I:

    Miller-Meeks, Hon. Mariannette, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of Iowa.....................................     4
    Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the 
      District of Columbia.......................................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................    51
    D'Esposito, Hon. Anthony, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of New York......................................     6
    Waltz, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Florida...........................................     7

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    French, Chris, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. 
      Forest Service, Washington, DC.............................     8
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
    Caldwell, Mike, Associate Director, Park Planning, 
      Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, Washington, 
      DC.........................................................    12
        Prepared statement of....................................    13
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    15
    Romano, Michael, Executive Vice President, NTCA, The Rural 
      Broadband Association, Arlington, Virginia.................    19
        Prepared statement of....................................    20
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    24
    Jaworski, Jim, General Manager, Daytona Tortugas, Daytona 
      Beach, Florida.............................................    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    27
    Quinn, Joe, Visionary Network Member, National September 11 
      Memorial and Museum, New York City, New York...............    29
        Prepared statement of....................................    30

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 
      Statement for the Record on H.R. 3299 and H.R. 3283........    43

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Neguse

        9/11 Advocacy Coalition, Statement for the Record on H.R. 
          5401...................................................    47
        Husein Yatabarry, Muslim Community Network, Statement for 
          the Record on H.R. 5401................................    49

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Carbajal

        Southern California Edison, Statement for the Record on 
          H.R. 6012..............................................    52

 GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT


To:        Subcommittee on Federal Lands Republican Members

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

Date:     Tuesday, July 9, 2024

Subject:   Legislative Hearing on 6 Bills
________________________________________________________________________
        _______

    The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold a legislative hearing 
on 6 bills:

     H.R. 3283 (Rep. Miller-Meeks), ``Facilitating DIGITAL 
            Applications Act'';

     H.R. 3299 (Rep. Cammack), ``DIGITAL Applications Act'';

     H.R. 5401 (Rep. D'Esposito), ``9/11 Memorial and Museum 
            Act'';

     H.R. 6012 (Rep. Carbajal), ``Fire Safe Electrical 
            Corridors Act of 2023'';

     H.R. 7976 (Rep. Holmes Norton), ``Civil War Defenses of 
            Washington National Historical Park Act''; and

     H.R. 8012 (Rep. Waltz), ``Jackie Robinson Commemorative 
            Site Act''.

    The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 9, 2024, at 10:15 a.m. 
in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building.

    Member offices are requested to notify Will Rodriguez 
(Will.Rodriguez@mail. house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 2024, 
if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.

I. KEY MESSAGES

     The Republican bills on today's hearing will ensure 
            broader access to the digital world of the future and 
            bolster our understanding of the past by supporting 
            important historical and commemorative sites across the 
            country.

     Legislation offered by Representatives Miller-Meeks and 
            Cammack would expand high-speed internet access by 
            streamlining the application process for broadband 
            development on federal lands and creating a reporting 
            mechanism to monitor agency progress toward that goal.

     Bills sponsored by Representatives D'Esposito and Waltz 
            would support sites that are integral to American history. 
            Representative D'Esposito's legislation would provide a 
            one-time grant to support the 9/11 Memorial & Museum in New 
            York City, New York, while Representative Waltz's 
            legislation would designate the Jackie Robinson Ballpark in 
            Daytona Beach, Florida, as a national commemorative site.

II. WITNESSES

Panel I (Members of Congress):

     To Be Announced

Panel II (Administration Officials and Outside Experts):

     Mr. Chris French, Deputy Chief--National Forest System, 
            U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC [H.R. 3283, H.R. 3299, 
            H.R. 6012]

     Mr. Mike Caldwell, Associate Director--Park Planning, 
            Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, Washington, 
            DC. [H.R. 3283, H.R. 3299, H.R. 5401, H.R. 7976, H.R. 8012]

     Mr. Joe Quinn, Visionary Network Member, National 
            September 11 Memorial & Museum, New York City, New York 
            [H.R. 5401]

     Mr. Michael Romano, Executive Vice President, NTCA--The 
            Rural Broadband Association, Arlington, Virginia [H.R. 
            3283, H.R. 3299]

     Mr. Jim Jaworski, General Manager, Daytona Tortugas, 
            Daytona Beach, Florida [H.R. 8012]

III. BACKGROUND

H.R. 3283 (Rep. Miller-Meeks), ``Facilitating DIGITAL Applications 
        Act''
    An affordable and reliable connection to high-speed internet, or 
broadband, is vital to many aspects of modern life.\1\ Broadband access 
requires the support of various technologies, including cable, 
telephone wire, fiber, satellite, and mobile and fixed wireless 
transmitters.\2\ From online education to telemedicine and ecommerce, 
essential activities, experiences, and interactions increasingly occur 
online.\3\ For large segments of the population, however, the 
transition into the digital world remains elusive.\4\ Deploying 
broadband technology in rural areas presents challenges due to lower 
population densities, vast distances, and rugged topography.\5\ To 
reach rural and tribal areas, much of this infrastructure must be 
installed on federal land.\6\ However, broadband providers must endure 
burdensome permitting requirements and application processes imposed by 
federal, state, and local governments.\7\ These regulatory hurdles 
raise the costs of, and bring delay and uncertainty to, broadband 
development plans.\8\ As a result, rural and tribal areas ``tend to lag 
behind urban and suburban areas in broadband deployment and the speed 
of service offered.'' \9\ This discrepancy in broadband accessibility 
is so pronounced it now broadly known as the ``digital divide.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Colby Leigh Rachfal, ``The Digital Divide: What Is It, Where Is 
It, and Federal Assistance Programs,'' Congressional Research Service, 
March 9, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46613.
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Colby Leigh Rachfal, ``The Digital Divide: What Is It, Where Is 
It, and Federal Assistance Programs,'' Congressional Research Service, 
March 9, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46613.
    \6\ ``Special Uses--Communications Uses,'' U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-
land/special-uses/communications-uses. Streamlining Federal Siting 
Working Group Final Report, FCC Broadband Deployment Advisory 
Committee, January 24, 2018, https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/
bdac-federalsiting-01232018.pdf.
    \7\ Streamlining Federal Siting Working Group Final Report, FCC 
Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, January 24, 2018, https://
www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdac-federalsiting-01232018.pdf.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS) process the most applications and communications use 
authorizations to install communications facilities on federal 
property.\11\ Communications use authorizations are requests for 
easements, rights-of-way, leases, or other authorizations ``to locate 
or modify a transmitting device, support structure, or other 
communications facility'' on public lands.\12\ Presently, USFS manages 
over 1,400 communications sites and administers more than 4,000 
communications use authorizations on national forests and 
grasslands.\13\ Communications facilities support over 10,000 
``wireless uses'' for governments, utility companies, private 
businesses, and individuals.\14\ Similarly, on public lands, BLM 
administers more than 1,500 communications sites and has authorized the 
installation and operation of more than 4,000 additional communications 
facilities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ ``Broadband Deployment: Agencies Should Take Steps to Better 
Meet Deadline for Processing Permits,'' U.S. Government Accountability 
Office, April 10, 2024, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106157#.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Communication Uses--Wireless Uses,'' U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-
land/special-uses/communications-uses/wireless-uses.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ ``Communications Sites,'' U.S. Department of the Interior, 
Bureau of Land Management, https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-
realty/communication-sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite these figures, the Department of the Interior (DOI) and 
USFS impose formidable regulatory barriers to broadband deployment.\16\ 
Before they can construct or operate the necessary facilities on 
federal land, broadband providers must typically participate in a pre-
application meeting, complete the Standard Form 299 application 
materials, and undergo extensive review periods.\17\ The agencies face 
a statutory requirement to grant or deny these applications within 270 
days.\18\ In practice, however, this process can be much lengthier. The 
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported that 
roughly half of the communications use applications submitted to the 
BLM and USFS from fiscal year (FY) 2018 to FY 2022 either exceeded the 
270-day deadline or lacked sufficient data to conclude whether the 
deadline had been met.\19\ Broadband developers report that fiber 
deployment in rural areas takes, on average, between five to 10 years 
to complete.\20\ These lengthy wait times dissuade many would-be-
providers from even applying in the first place. Without lowering these 
obstacles, the ``digital divide,'' and its harmful consequences, will 
persist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Streamlining Federal Siting Working Group Final Report, FCC 
Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, January 24, 2018, https://
www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdac-federalsiting-01232018.pdf.
    \17\ 17 Communications Sites,'' U.S. Department of the Interior, 
Bureau of Land Management, https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-
realty/communication-sites.
    \18\ ``Broadband Deployment: Agencies Should Take Steps to Better 
Meet Deadline for Processing Permits,'' U.S. Government Accountability 
Office, April 10, 2024, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106157#.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Linda Hardesty, ``Whoa--the fiber permitting process could 
crush digital divide dreams,'' Fierce Network, December 9, 2021, 
https://www.fierce-network.com/broadband/whoa-fiber-permitting-process-
could-crush-digital-divide-dreams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Expanding public access to broadband requires making targeted and 
complementary reforms to the existing regulatory system. H.R. 3283 
seeks to ameliorate these challenges by making transparent key federal 
efforts to streamline broadband deployment in rural and tribal areas.
    Specifically, the bill would require the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to regularly 
report to Congress on the extent to which DOI and USFS established 
online portals for accepting, processing, and disposing of a Form 299 
for communications use authorizations.\21\ H.R. 3283 requires the NTIA 
to submit these reports every 60 days until the portals are 
established.\22\ Such reporting would allow for improved tracking of 
efforts to deploy broadband on federal land.\23\ This bipartisan 
legislation is sponsored by Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-
IA-01) and cosponsored by Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ H.R. 3283, 118th Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/
118th-congress/house-bill/3283?s= 8&r=1.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ ``Iowa Rep. Miller-Meeks introduces bill to expedite broadband 
expansion,'' CBS News, May 16, 2023, https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/
iowa-rep-miller-meeks-introduces-bill-to-expedite-broadband-expansion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3299 (Rep. Cammack), ``DIGITAL Applications Act''

    H.R. 3299 is complementary legislation to H.R. 3283. Whereas H.R. 
3283 requires reports on online portals for processing Form 299s for 
communications use authorizations, H.R. 3299 sets the requirement for 
DOI and USFS to establish these separate online portals.\24\ The 
legislation also requires DOI and USFS to notify the NTIA within three 
business days of establishing their respective portals.\25\ After that, 
the NTIA must create links to those portals from its own website.\26\ 
Together, these provisions create an online, ``one-stop-shop'' for 
applicants to apply for communications use authorizations from federal 
land managers.\27\ In the process, the bill promises to bring 
transparency and accountability to an important application system. 
This bipartisan legislation is sponsored by Representative Kat Cammack 
(R-FL-03) and co-sponsored by Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ H.R. 3299, 118th Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/
118th-congress/house-bill/3299?s= 6&r=1.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ ``Reps. Cammack, Matsui Introduce H.R. 3299, Bipartisan 
DIGITAL Applications Act To Close Digital Divide,'' The Office of 
Congresswoman Kat Cammack, May 16, 2023, https://cammack.house.gov/
media/press-releases/reps-cammack-matsui-introduce-hr-3299-bipartisan-
digital-applications-act.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 5401 (Rep. D'Esposito), ``9/11 Memorial and Museum Act''

    The National September 11 Memorial & Museum is located in lower 
Manhattan at the site of the former World Trade Center in New York 
City. Also known as the 9/11 Memorial & Museum, this unique facility 
serves as the principal tribute of remembrance and honor to the nearly 
3,000 people killed in the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center 
site on September 11, 2001. It also honors the six victims killed in 
the World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993. Since its 
dedication on September 11, 2011, the Memorial has attracted more than 
72 million visitors, while the nearby Museum has drawn over 22 million 
visitors since opening to the public in 2014.\28\ The World Trade 
Center Foundation, Inc., a private, not-for-profit organization, 
operates the 9/11 Memorial & Museum. In fulfilling its important 
mission, the 9/11 Memorial & Museum has shouldered substantial costs. 
Construction of the facility totaled $700 million and operating 
expenses are approximately $111 million annually.\29\ Security for the 
premises, which must always be sustained at high levels, costs 
approximately $1 million per month.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ ``Financial & Legal Information,'' National September 11 
Memorial & Museum, 2023, https://www.911memorial.org/financial-legal-
information.
    \29\ National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade 
Center Foundation, Inc. IRS Form 990 2019. https://911memorial.org/
sites/default/files/inline-files/2019%20Nal911%20 Form%20990%20-
%20Public%20Inspection%20Copy.pdf.
    \30\ Josh Christenson, ``Rep. Anthony D'Esposito floats up to $10M 
grant for 9/11 Memorial,'' The New York Post, September 11, 2023, 
https://nypost.com/2023/09/11/ny-rep-desposito-floats-up-to-10-million-
grant-for-9-11-memorial/.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.001


    .epsAfter nearly 23 years since the 9/11 attacks, it has grown 
increasingly important to educate younger generations about the tragic 
events of that day, the national response the attack elicited, and the 
broader consequences of terrorism.\31\ Yet the passage of time also 
makes funding more difficult to obtain.\32\ In the face of diminishing 
financial support, the 9/11 Memorial & Museum may also find itself 
vulnerable to increased security risks.\33\ Accordingly, H.R. 5401 
provides a one-time grant--from $5 million to $10 million--from the 
Department of Homeland Security to assist the 9/11 Memorial & Museum 
defray its significant costs.\34\ Grant funding would come out of 
appropriations to the Department of Homeland Security. Specifically, 
the authorized funding would help the 9/11 Memorial & Museum continue 
operations, increase safety measures, and provide free admission for 
military veterans, first responders, and victims' families.\35\ This 
legislation is sponsored by Representative Anthony D'Esposito (R-NY-04) 
and 37 additional bipartisan cosponsors.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Annual Report: 2023, 9/11 Memorial & Museum, https://
911memorial.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/
2023%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Josh Christenson, ``Rep. Anthony D'Esposito floats up to $10M 
grant for 9/11 Memorial,'' The New York Post, September 11, 2023, 
https://nypost.com/2023/09/11/ny-rep-desposito-floats-up-to-10-million-
grant-for-9-11-memorial/.
    \34\ H.R. 5401, 118th Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/
118th-congress/house-bill/5401?s= 2&r=1.
    \35\ Josh Christenson, ``Rep. Anthony D'Esposito floats up to $10M 
grant for 9/11 Memorial,'' The New York Post, September 11, 2023, 
https://nypost.com/2023/09/11/ny-rep-desposito-floats-up-to-10-million-
grant-for-9-11-memorial/.
    \36\ H.R. 5401, 118th Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/
118th-congress/house-bill/5401?s= 2&r=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 6012 (Rep. Carbajal), ``Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act of 
        2023''

    Overgrown, unhealthy, and fire-prone federal forests are 
tinderboxes that pose significant threats to Western communities in the 
wildland-urban interface. Downed hazard trees within utility rights-of-
way (ROW) remain one of the biggest ignition threats and have sparked 
some of the most significant and deadly fires in the country's history. 
For example, the largest single wildfire in California state history, 
the Dixie Fire, ignited when a tree fell onto electrical lines.\37\ 
Catastrophic fires in Maui and Texas over the last two years have also 
been linked to downed utility lines.\38\ To address these threats, 
utility companies attempt to maintain clear ROW and fell hazard trees 
within their utility corridors under a special use permit from the 
USFS. To dispose of the felled timber, however, utilities companies are 
currently required to go through a lengthy timber sale process.\39\ 
This frequently leads to wood waste stacking up in piles and not being 
removed, further heightening wildfire risk. This unnecessarily costly 
and time-consuming process for removing hazard trees in needlessly 
preventing active management in some of the highest risk areas of our 
national forests.\40\ H.R. 6012, the ``Fire Safe Electrical Corridors 
Act,'' would allow USFS to permit utility companies to fully remove 
hazard trees and other vegetation within the vicinity of distribution 
or transmission lines without going through a separate timber sale. If 
the utilities eventually sell the used material, this legislation 
requires the proceeds to be returned to USFS, accounting for any 
transportation costs. This bipartisan legislation is sponsored by 
Representative Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24) and co-led by Representative 
Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Tim Stelloh ``California's massive Dixie Fire ignited after 
tree fell on PG&E electrical lines, officials say,'' NBC News, January 
4, 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/californias-massive-
dixie-fire-ignited-tree-fell-pge-electrical-lines-rcna10973.
    \38\ ``Preliminary After-Action Report:2023 Maui Wildfire'', U.S. 
Fire Administration February 8, 2024, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/blog/
preliminary-after-action-report-2023-maui-wildfire/. Kane Wells, ``500+ 
structures destroyed by Smokehouse Creek fire'', Reinsurance News, 
March 4, 2024, https://www.reinsurancene.ws/500-structures-destroyed-
by-smokehouse-creek-fire/.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ ``Creating Fire-Safe Electrical Corridors'', Northern 
California Power Agency, February 2024, https://republicans-
naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/NCPA_Creating_Fire-
Safe_Electrical_Corridors_Issue_Paper_2024.pdf.

H.R. 7976 (Rep. Holmes Norton), ``Civil War Defenses of Washington 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        National Historical Park Act''

    By the end of the Civil War, the nation's capital was heavily 
fortified by ``68 forts, supported by 93 detached batteries for field 
guns, 20 miles of rifle pits, and covered ways, wooden blockhouses at 
three key points, 32 miles of military roads, several stockaded 
bridgeheads, and four picket stations.'' \41\ These forts and defenses 
not only protected the residents of Washington, D.C. but ``many 
enslaved people came to the fort system for protection and settled 
nearby.'' \42\ Today, the remaining sites are collectively known as the 
``Civil War Defenses of Washington'' (CWDW) and are dispersed among 
Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia. 17 of the original forts 
associated with the CWDW are managed by the National Park Service 
(NPS), with other sites under state, local, or private ownership.\43\ 
Collectively, these sites tell an important story about the Civil War 
and the efforts of the Union Army to make the nation's capital ``one of 
the most heavily fortified cities of the world.'' \44\ They also serve 
as hallowed reminders of the sacrifices made to protect democracy, 
freedom, and the union during the Civil War.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ ``History & Culture,'' Civil War Defenses of Washington, NPS, 
https://www.nps.gov/cwdw/learn/historyculture/index.htm.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ NPS's own accounts on this number vary, with some NPS sources 
citing 17 under ownership and some sources citing 19. 18 sites are 
included in H.R. 7976. ``The Capital Can't Be Taken!,'' Civil War 
Defenses of Washington, NPS, https://www.nps.gov/cwdw/learn/
historyculture/index.htm.
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 7976 redesignates the CWDW as the ``Civil War Defenses of 
Washington National Historical Park.'' National Historical Parks (NHP) 
are considered the most appropriate designation for NPS units with 
multiple historic sites included within the boundaries. Included in 
this designation are 18 federally owned forts or batteries. The bill 
designates four additional areas as affiliated units with the CWDW NHP. 
The bill requires several studies to evaluate potential additional 
areas for inclusion or affiliation with the NHP, as well as a study on 
broader Civil War history. This legislation will ensure the rich and 
storied history associated with the CWDW carries on through generations 
and told in a more holistic, organized, and cohesive manner.

H.R. 8012 (Rep. Waltz), ``Jackie Robinson Commemorative Site Act''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.002


    .epsIn 1946, Brooklyn Dodgers manager Branch Rickey invited Jackie 
Robinson to spring training in Daytona Beach, Florida, following a 
standout college baseball career.\45\ At the time, Jim Crow laws 
prevented integrated baseball throughout the South. However, Rickey 
worked with city officials and convinced the mayor to provide an 
exception for Robinson. On March 17, 1946, the first racially 
integrated spring training game was played at what is today known as 
the Jackie Robinson Ballpark in Daytona Beach.\46\ Throughout the rest 
of spring training, many games outside of Daytona Beach were canceled, 
despite high demand from many tourists to support Robinson in the 
stands.\47\ Robinson would go on to lead the Montreal Royals, the 
Triple-A affiliate of the Brooklyn Dodgers, to a minor league 
championship later that year.\48\ Following this success, on April 10, 
1947, Jackie Robinson signed his first National League contract. Five 
days later, Robinson would make his Major League Baseball (MLB) debut 
in front of over 26,000 spectators at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn. In 
doing so, Robinson broke the MLB's color barrier, becoming the league's 
first African American to play in an MLB game in the modern era.\49\ He 
would go on to finish his career with a .311 batting average, amass 
over 1,500 hits, and become a six-time all-star.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Bill Schumann, ``Why the First Racially Integrated Spring 
Training in Modern Professional Baseball Took Place in Daytona Beach in 
1946'', https://jackierobinsonballpark.com/.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ Farrell Evans, ``6 Decades Before Jackie Robinson, This Man 
Broke Baseball's Color Barrier'', History.com, https://www.history.com/
news/moses-fleetwood-walker-first-black-mlb-player.
    \50\ ``Robinson Debuts Five Days After Signing with Dodgers,'' 
National Baseball Hall of Fame, https://baseballhall.org/discover/
inside-pitch/robinson-signs-first-big-league-contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 8012 would designate the Jackie Robinson Ballpark in Daytona 
Beach, Florida, as the ``Jackie Robinson Ballpark National 
Commemorative Site.'' As a National Commemorative Site, the ballpark 
would not be a unit of the National Park System. The bill includes 
provisions to prevent any interference with the rights of private 
property owners, local zoning ordinances, or land use plans. 
Additionally, the new National Commemorative Site would be included in 
the African American Civil Rights Network.\51\ By designating the 
ballpark as a National Commemorative Site, H.R. 8012 recognizes the 
facility's historic role in advancing civil rights without adding to 
the federal estate or using taxpayer dollars. The legislation is 
sponsored by Representative Michael Waltz (R-FL-06) and has 50 
bipartisan cosponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ ``African American Civil Rights Network,'' U.S. Department of 
the Interior, National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/
civilrights/african-american-civil-rights-network.htm.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & SECTION-BY-SECTION

H.R. 3283 (Rep. Miller-Meeks), ``Facilitating DIGITAL Applications 
        Act''

Section 2. Report on Barriers to Establishing Online Portals to Accept, 
        Process, and Dispose of Certain Form 299s.

     Directs the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 
            Communications and Information to submit, not later than 90 
            days after enactment of the bill and every 60 days 
            thereafter, reports to Congress on whether the Secretaries 
            of Agriculture and the Interior have established separate 
            online portals for the acceptance, processing, and disposal 
            of a Form 299 for communications use authorizations. The 
            Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and 
            Information must also report on any barriers to the 
            establishment of such portals.

     Requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior 
            to notify the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 
            Communications and Information within three business days 
            of establishing their respective online portal.

H.R. 3299 (Rep. Cammack), ``DIGITAL Applications Act''

Section 2. Establishment of Online Portals to Accept, Process, and 
        Dispose of Certain Form 299s.

     Requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior 
            to establish, not later than one year after enactment of 
            the bill, respective online portals for the acceptance, 
            processing, and disposal of a Form 299 for communications 
            use authorizations.

     Requires the Secretaries to notify the Assistant Secretary 
            of Commerce for Communications and Information within three 
            business days of their respective portal being established.

     Directs the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 
            Communications and Information to publish, on the National 
            Telecommunications and Information Administration's 
            official website, a link to each online portal established 
            by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the 
            Interior after being notified that such portal has been 
            established.

H.R. 5401 (Rep. D'Esposito), ``9/11 Memorial and Museum Act''

Section 3. One-Time Grant for National September 11 Memorial & Museum.

     Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to award, 
            within 90 days of the receipt and approval of an 
            application, to the 9/11 Memorial & Museum a one-time grant 
            of not less than $5 million but not more than $10 million. 
            Such grant shall be for the purposes of the operation, 
            security, and maintenance of the 9/11 Memorial & Museum.

     Sets considerations for awarding the grant, including the 
            needs of the grantee, number of visitors to the Memorial 
            and Museum, and the ability to use funds to increase the 
            number of visitors to the site.

     Conditions the grant on free admission to the 9/11 
            Memorial & Museum for active and retired members of the 
            Armed Forces, first responders to the 9/11 attacks, and 9/
            11 victims' family members. Further, the 9/11 Memorial & 
            Museum must use the grant funds to provide free admission 
            hours to the general public at least once per week and must 
            allow for federal audits of its financial statements.

     Requires a report to Congress on the expenditure of grant 
            funds.

H.R. 6012 (Rep. Carbajal), ``Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act of 
        2023''

Section 2. Permits and Agreements with Electrical Utilities.

     Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
            permission to electrical utilities to cut and remove trees 
            and other vegetation from within the vicinity of 
            distribution or transmission lines without requiring a 
            separate timber sale under a special use permit or easement 
            provided to such utility.

     Requires such actions to comply with the applicable land 
            management plan and all other applicable laws.

     Requires electrical utilities that sell any portion of the 
            removed material under the permit or easement to provide 
            the Secretary of Agriculture with proceeds from those 
            sales, less any transportation costs incurred in the sale.

     Specifies that nothing in the bill requires a timber sale.

H.R. 7976 (Rep. Holmes Norton), ``Civil War Defenses of Washington 
        National Historical Park Act''

Section 2. Findings and Purpose.

     States the purposes of the bill are to protect, preserve, 
            enhance, and interpret the CWDW as well as to study and 
            consider creative and cost-effective ways the stories of 
            the defenses of Washington and the Shenandoah Valley 
            Campaign of 1864 can be interpreted to the public.

Section 3. Redesignation.

     Redesignates the CWDW as the ``Civil War Defenses of 
            Washington National Historical Park.''

Section 4. Areas Included in the Civil War Defenses of Washington 
        National Historical Park.

     Specifies the CWDW NHP shall include Battery Kemble, Fort 
            Bayard, Fort Bunker Hill, Fort Carroll, Fort Chaplin, Fort 
            Davis, Fort DeRussy, Fort Dupont, Fort Foote, Fort Greble, 
            Fort Mahan, Fort Marcy, Fort Reno, Fort Ricketts, Fort 
            Slocum, Fort Stanton, Fort Stevens, and Fort Totten. These 
            sites are owned and operated by NPS.

     Specifies that Fort Circle Drive, Battleground National 
            Cemetery, Fort Washington, and Oxon Cove Park and Oxon Hill 
            Farm will be affiliated areas of the NPS.

     Allows affiliated sites owned by local and state 
            governments to be affiliated with the NHP through a 
            cooperative agreement. These sites include Fort Ward, Fort 
            C.F. Smith, Fort Ethan Allen, and Fort Willard in Virginia 
            and Battery Bailey in Maryland.

Section 5. Possible Inclusion of Additional Areas.

     Allows privately owned sites to become affiliated areas of 
            the NHP in consultation with relevant stakeholders 
            including state and local governments and interested 
            organizations or members of the public.

     Requires consent from non-Federal property owners and 
            prevents and condemnation in land.

Section 6. National Civil War History Education Center Report.

     Requires a study and report to Congress on creative and 
            cost-effective ways to facilitate improved interpretation 
            of the Civil War in coordination with relevant 
            stakeholders.

Section 7. Administration

     Requires the Secretary of the Interior to administer the 
            NHP consistent with the laws governing the National Park 
            System.

     Allows the Secretary to provide technical assistance for 
            the management, interpretation, and preservation of the 
            CWDW.

     Allows the Secretary to accept donations and enter into 
            cooperative agreements with state or local governments, 
            private organizations or individuals to further the 
            purposes of the bill.

     Allows the Secretary to identify significant federally or 
            non-federally owned sites related to Civil War history in 
            Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia.

H.R. 8012 (Rep. Waltz), ``Jackie Robinson Commemorative Site Act''

Section 2. Jackie Robinson Ballpark National Commemorative Site.

     Designates the Jackie Robinson Ballpark in Daytona Beach, 
            Florida, as the ``Jackie Robinson Ballpark National 
            Commemorative Site.''

     Adds the Jackie Robinson Ballpark Commemorative Site to 
            the African American Civil Rights Network established under 
            the African American Civil Rights Network Act of 2017.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Pub. Law 115-104, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-
115publ104/pdf/PLAW-115publ 104.pdf.

     Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into 
            cooperative agreements with public or private entities for 
            interpretative and educational purposes involving the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Jackie Robinson Ballpark National Commemorative Site.

     Clarifies the site is not a unit of the National Park 
            System.

     Clarifies that the Secretary of the Interior is not 
            authorized to acquire property or interfere with private 
            property rights, local zoning ordinances, or state or local 
            land-use plans.

     Requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct and 
            submit to Congress, not later than two years after funding 
            is made available, a special resource study of the Jackie 
            Robinson Ballpark Commemorative Site. The study must 
            evaluate the facility's national significance and determine 
            the feasibility of designating it as a unit of the National 
            Park System.

V. COST

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated H.R. 3283 and H.R. 
3299 would not affect direct spending or revenues.\53\ None of the 
other bills on the agenda have received a formal cost estimate from 
CBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ ``H.R. 3283, Facilitating DIGITAL Applications Act,'' 
Congressional Budget Office, August 2, 2023, https://www.cbo.gov/
publication/59454. ``H.R. 3299, DIGITAL Applications Act,'' 
Congressional Budget Office, August 25, 2023, https://www.cbo.gov/
publication/59526.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. ADMINISTRATION POSITION

    The administration's position is unknown at this time.

VII. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW (RAMSEYER)

    None of the bills on the agenda amend current law.
                                     

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3283, TO REQUIRE THE ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TO 
REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ANY BARRIERS TO ESTABLISHING ONLINE 
PORTALS TO ACCEPT, PROCESS, AND DISPOSE OF CERTAIN FORM 299S, 
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``FACILITATING DIGITAL APPLICATIONS 
ACT''; H.R. 3299, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND 
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TO ESTABLISH ONLINE PORTALS TO 
ACCEPT, PROCESS, AND DISPOSE OF CERTAIN FORM 299S, AND FOR 
OTHER PURPOSES, ``DIGITAL APPLICATIONS ACT''; H.R. 5401, TO 
PROVIDE A ONE-TIME GRANT FOR THE OPERATION, SECURITY, AND 
MAINTENANCE OF THE NATIONAL SEPTEMBER 11 MEMORIAL & MUSEUM AT 
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TO COMMEMORATE THE EVENTS, AND HONOR THE 
VICTIMS, OF THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, AND 
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``9/11 MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM ACT''; H.R. 
6012, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO PERMIT 
REMOVAL OF TREES AROUND ELECTRICAL LINES ON NATIONAL FOREST 
SYSTEM LAND WITHOUT CONDUCTING A TIMBER SALE, AND FOR OTHER 
PURPOSES, ``FIRE SAFE ELECTRICAL CORRIDORS ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 
7976, TO DESIGNATE THE CIVIL WAR DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON 
NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK COMPRISED OF CERTAIN NATIONAL PARK 
SYSTEM LANDS, AND BY AFFILIATION AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS 
OTHER HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES, LOCATED IN THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, VIRGINIA, AND MARYLAND, THAT WEREPART OF 
THE CIVIL WAR DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON AND RELATED TO THE 
SHENANDOAH VALLEY CAMPAIGN OF 1864, TO STUDY WAYS IN WHICH THE 
CIVIL WAR HISTORY OF BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH CAN BE ASSEMBLED, 
ARRAYED,AND CONVEYED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, AND FOR 
OTHER PURPOSES, ``CIVIL WAR DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON NATIONAL 
HISTORICAL PARK ACT''; AND H.R. 8012, TO ESTABLISH THE JACKIE 
ROBINSON BALLPARK NATIONAL COMMEMORATIVE SITE IN THE STATE OF 
FLORIDA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``JACKIE ROBINSON 
COMMEMORATIVE SITE ACT''
                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, July 9, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Tiffany, Stauber, Bentz; and 
Porter.
    Also present: Representatives D'Esposito, Miller-Meeks, 
Waltz; Hoyle, and Norton.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to consider six bills: 
H.R. 3283, by Representative Miller-Meeks; H.R. 3299, 
Representative Cammack; H.R. 5401, Representative D'Esposito; 
H.R. 6012, Representative Carbajal; H.R. 7976, Delegate Holmes 
Norton; and H.R. 8012, Representative Waltz.
    I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the 
gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Hoyle; the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Carbajal; the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Waltz; the gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Cammack; the 
gentlelady from Iowa, Mrs. Miller-Meeks; the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. D'Esposito; and the gentlelady from the District of 
Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Tiffany. The bills on today's legislative agenda take 
important steps to broaden access to the digital world of the 
future, while also honoring our past by supporting important 
historical and commemorative sites across the country.
    Affordable and reliable high-speed Internet or broadband is 
vital to many aspects of modern life, including telemedicine 
and online education. Too often, however, rural and tribal 
areas have difficulty fully participating in the digital world. 
To expand access to these areas, additional broadband 
facilities must be deployed on Federal land.
    Unfortunately, the current regulatory climate places 
considerable obstacles in the way of rural broadband providers, 
ranging from burdensome permitting requirements to lengthy 
application processes. In fact, broadband developers have 
reported that deployments on Federal land often take between 5 
and 10 years to complete. It is no wonder, then, that the 
digital divide remains so persistent, including in my home 
state of Wisconsin.
    According to a 2023 report from the Wisconsin Governor's 
Task Force on Broadband Access, 10 percent of Wisconsin's homes 
and businesses lack basic access to the Internet, and more than 
20 percent don't have access to any high-speed broadband 
services. Those are the statewide figures. But in Wisconsin's 
rural areas, including the communities in my district, the 
number of homes without access to broadband jumps 
exponentially.
    Through joint targeted reforms, H.R. 3283 and H.R. 3299 
would improve the current permitting system. Specifically, 
Representative Cammack's bill would require the Department of 
the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service to establish online 
portals for accepting, processing, and disposing of 
communications use authorizations. Representative Miller-Meeks' 
legislation complements this effort by adding needed mechanisms 
for transparency and accountability, and setting up these 
portals. These bipartisan bills will help set up a digital one-
stop-shop for communications use authorizations, making it 
easier for providers to build new broadband infrastructure on 
Federal lands. This is a common-sense fix that will help make 
the broadband permitting process less cumbersome and time-
consuming.
    Representative Miller-Meeks and Cammack's legislation is 
the latest in a series of bills this Subcommittee has 
considered to expand broadband access. Earlier this year, the 
Committee marked up legislation from Representative Fulcher, 
the BARS Act, that addressed NEPA delays with siting broadband 
infrastructure on Federal lands in previously disturbed rights-
of-ways. Taken together, these bills will help close the 
digital divide by adding transparency, accountability, and 
efficiency to a flawed Federal communications system.
    The remaining three bills recognize and support important 
historical sites across the country.
    Representative D'Esposito's legislation would provide a 
one-time grant to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York 
City. The Memorial and Museum is the principal tribute of 
remembrance and honor to the nearly 3,000 people killed by 
terrorists on September 11, 2001. Security costs for protecting 
the site, its staff, and its visitors remain high. The single 
grant authorized by this bill would provide needed funding to 
this hallowed site to help ensure that future generations 
continue to learn the lessons of this tragic historical event 
in American history.
    Additionally, we are considering a bill sponsored by 
Delegate Holmes Norton that would designate the Civil War 
Defenses of Washington, DC as a national historical park. 
Included in that designation are a collection of forts, 
artillery batteries, and other defense structures that were 
built to protect the nation's capital during the Civil War. 
Eighteen of those sites are already federally owned, while the 
remaining locations will be incorporated into the historical 
park as affiliated sites governed by locally-led cooperative 
agreements with the National Park System.
    Finally, H.R. 8012, sponsored by Representative Waltz, 
would designate the Jackie Robinson Ballpark in Daytona Beach, 
Florida as the Jackie Robinson Ballpark National Commemorative 
Site. Before going on to break Major League Baseball's color 
barrier in 1947, Jackie Robinson broke the racial divide that 
segregated players in the minor leagues. This bill would 
commemorate the ballpark where that momentous event occurred 
without adding to the Federal estate or using taxpayer dollars. 
Jackie Robinson's story is a powerful reminder of the unifying 
power of sports, and this legislation is an appropriate honor 
for his extraordinary legacy.
    Finally, I would like to highlight the bipartisan Fire Safe 
Electrical Corridors Act offered by Representatives Carbajal 
and Chavez-DeRemer. This legislation would make it easier for 
utility companies to clear overgrown vegetation and hazard 
trees in rights-of-way. This legislation would support more 
active management of our overgrown, fire-prone forests, and 
protect communities in the wildland-urban interface from the 
risk of catastrophic wildfire.
    As of yesterday, catastrophic wildfires have already burned 
another 2.8 million acres this year. A few weeks ago, this 
Committee marked up the bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act by voice 
vote, a bill that I am co-sponsoring. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we 
can get meaningful, historic, and desperately-needed forest 
management reforms enacted into law this year.
    I want to thank Members on both sides of the dais for their 
work on today's bills. I also want to express my appreciation 
to the witnesses appearing before us today.
    I appreciate you taking the time to travel to be here to 
provide your expert testimony.
    OK. We are going to start with our first panel, and I would 
like to recognize Representative Miller-Meeks for 5 minutes in 
regards to H.R. 3283.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, A 
       REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for inviting me to speak in support of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 
3283, the Facilitating Digital Applications Act.
    This bill requires the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration to submit a report on the 
development of online portals for processing applications for 
communication use authorizations.
    As Members from all over the country that represent rural 
districts understand, broadband deployment in rural areas is 
both expensive and time-consuming. Broadband for providers face 
multiple regulatory hurdles, particularly when infrastructure 
build-out covers a portion of Federal land. Under the current 
system, the Bureau of Land Management requires providers 
applying for right-of-way permits to download a standard Form 
299, arrange for a pre-application meeting with the BLM staff, 
and submit a completed application either in person or through 
the mail, in addition to undergoing extensive review periods. 
These forms can be filed multiple times a day by a single 
applicant.
    Agencies often exceed the 270-day statutory time limit for 
approving or denying applications. This lengthy process jams up 
states' build-out plans, and creates economic uncertainty for 
providers, and I have witnessed this firsthand in my state of 
Iowa. The current method is inefficient and, frankly, outdated.
    A permitting regime that incorporates an online portal 
submission process for applications would allow for the rapid 
exchange of information between applicants and Federal 
agencies. This would cut down on the time that it takes 
agencies to process paperwork, and it would lessen the burden 
on the applicant by creating a central hub for project 
information.
    The Facilitating Digital Applications Act is a key 
component of this mission to make permitting more efficient. It 
directs NTIA to submit a report to Congress on the progress of 
launching an online submission portal for applications within 
90 days of the bill's enactment, and every 60 days thereafter 
until the portals are established. It is a complement to 
Representative Cammack's bill, which begins the process of 
delineating how online applications should be structured. By 
requiring these reports, Congress can gain deeper insight into 
the Federal permitting process and take a crucial step in 
eliminating barriers to a more efficient broadband 
infrastructure deployment.
    The need for this bill is evident. Many families and 
businesses across the country still lack access to broadband. 
As we look across our districts, we know that this service gap 
can result in negative impacts on Americans' health, education, 
and financial outcomes. Nothing exposed this reality for rural 
areas more acutely than the COVID-19 pandemic. In today's 
economy, it is more important than ever that we reduce 
bureaucratic red tape and make common-sense solutions to close 
the digital divide.
    I thank the Chairman once again for holding this important 
hearing. I thank the witnesses in advance for their testimony.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Miller-Meeks, for 
your testimony. And now we are going to move on to the 
testimony from Delegate Holmes Norton in regards to H.R. 7976.
    Ma'am, you have 5 minutes. Welcome to the Committee.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, for holding this 
hearing and allowing me to testify on H.R. 7976, the Civil War 
Defenses of Washington National Historical Park Act.
    The Civil War Defenses of Washington, including forts, 
unarmed batteries, and rifle trenches created a ring of 
protection for the nation's capital during the Civil War. The 
bill would recognize and preserve the Defenses of Washington 
located in the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland by 
re-designating the 22 Defenses of Washington currently under 
National Park Service jurisdiction as a National Historic Park, 
and allowing other sites associated with the Defenses of 
Washington that are owned by DC or a unit of state government 
to be affiliated with the National Historic Park through 
cooperative agreements.
    This bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior 
to facilitate the history of the Civil War, including the 
history of the Defenses of Washington and the Shenandoah Valley 
Campaign of 1864 being assembled, arrayed, and conveyed for the 
benefit of the public.
    The Defenses of Washington were constructed at the 
beginning of the war in 1861 as a ring of protection for the 
nation's capital and for President Abraham Lincoln. By the end 
of the war, these defenses included 68 forts, 93 unarmed 
batteries, 807 mounted cannons, 13 miles of rifle trenches, and 
32 miles of military roads.
    The major test of the Defenses of Washington came from the 
Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, when Confederate Lieutenant 
General Jubal Early, directed by General Robert E. Lee, sought 
to attack the nation's capital from the north, causing Union 
forces threatening to attack Richmond, the capital of the 
Confederacy, to be withdrawn. General Early was delayed by 
Union Major General Lew Wallace at the Battle of Monocacy on 
July 9, 1864, and was stopped at the northern edge of 
Washington at the Battle of Fort Stevens on July 11 and 12, 
1864. The Shenandoah Valley Campaign ended when Union 
Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan defeated General Early at 
the Battle of Cedar Creek, Virginia, on October 19, 1864.
    Nearly all the individual forts in the Defenses of 
Washington on both sides of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers 
were involved in stopping General Early's attack, and the 
Battle of Fort Stevens was the second and last attempt by the 
Confederate Army to attack Washington. Taken together, these 
battles were pivotal to the outcome of the war and the freedom 
and democracy that the war represented for this country. It is 
therefore fitting that we recognize the Defenses of Washington 
by re-designating them as a National Historic Park.
    Again, I thank you for holding this hearing and allowing me 
to testify, and I look forward to working with you to pass this 
bill.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Delegate Holmes Norton. And now I 
would like to recognize Representative D'Esposito for 5 minutes 
in regards to H.R. 5401.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you very much, Chairman Tiffany and 
the entire Subcommittee, for taking on this critical 
legislation today.
    I would also like to thank Mr. Joe Quinn, who traveled here 
today to speak on the importance of this legislation.
    Mr. Quinn, I am extremely sorry for your loss, and remind 
you that we will never, ever forget.
    On September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 Americans tragically 
lost their lives on a Pennsylvania field, the World Trade 
Center in New York City, and at the Pentagon, just miles away 
in Virginia. Over 20 years later, we continue to lose people to 
9/11-related illnesses. Each year for over two decades, our 
nation has vowed to never forget the friends, the families, the 
brothers, the sisters, the mothers, the fathers, the daughters, 
or the sons that we lost that day; to never forget the heroism 
of the first responders that ran into the towers to save their 
fellow man at the cost of their own lives; to never forget the 
national resilience this nation witnessed in the days and weeks 
that followed.
    Today, here in 2024, every kid that is in high school was 
born after 9/11, making our nation's vow to never forget and to 
educate the next generation more critically important than 
ever.
    Mr. Chairman, on the wall of the National September 11th 
Memorial and Museum there is a quote from Virgil: ``No day 
shall erase you from the memory of time.'' The Memorial and 
Museum in New York City sits on the site of the World Trade 
Center and memorializes every individual who lost their lives 
on September 11th. In the museum, you can listen to the last 
phone calls made from the towers and on those planes to loved 
ones to say goodbye. You can look at photos of the nearly 3,000 
victims and see some of their belongings that helped tell the 
story of their life. You can see the posters of desperate loved 
ones looking for their friends or family in the days and the 
weeks following that devastating attack on our American soil. 
You could see for yourself the destruction and devastation 
caused that day.
    Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to walk out of that museum 
unchanged by what you have seen, what you have heard, and, more 
importantly, what we have learned. The National September 11th 
Memorial and Museum upholds this nation's promise to never 
forget, and it is absolutely critical that the museum has the 
resources it needs to continue to educate both Americans and 
visitors from every corner of this world.
    My legislation would authorize up to $10 million in 
additional funds for the museum to help them continue to tell 
these critical stories and ensure the next generation 
understands what our nation lost that day. It will also help 
keep the museum and all its visitors and staff safe from, God 
forbid, another attack.
    As a lifelong New Yorker and a retired NYPD detective who 
lost and continues to lose friends, I am proud to have 
introduced this legislation. And to the families and survivors 
of 9/11, I will never, ever stop fighting on your behalf in 
Congress.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative D'Esposito. Now I 
would like to recognize Representative Waltz for 5 minutes in 
regards to H.R. 8012.
    Sir, the floor is yours.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL WALTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today in support of my bipartisan and 
bicameral H.R. 8012, led in the Senate by Senator Rubio, the 
Jackie Robinson Ballpark Commemorative Site Act to honor Jackie 
Robinson's legacy by memorializing the stadium where Jackie 
Robinson played his first professional game and broke 
baseball's color barrier.
    This bill would designate the Jackie Robinson Ballpark in 
Daytona Beach, Florida as a National Commemorative Site. 
Additionally, this bill would add the ballpark to the African 
American Civil Rights Network, as well as direct the Secretary 
of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study to start the 
process designating the stadium as a National Historic 
Landmark.
    The City of Daytona Beach and the then-named Daytona City 
Island Ballpark were the first city and stadium to allow Jackie 
Robinson to play during the 1946 season spring training. 
Robinson signed to play then for the AAA Montreal Royals, who 
held spring training in Florida with the Brooklyn Dodgers. 
Local baseball affiliates in Jacksonville and Sanford, believe 
it or not, they locked their stadiums to not allow Robinson and 
the Royals to play. They forced the cancellation of exhibition 
games due to local laws and ordinances that prohibited mixed 
race athletics.
    Thankfully, and I am proud to say, Daytona Beach permitted 
the game. And on March 17, 1946, Jackie Robinson played his 
first professional baseball game in Daytona City Island 
Ballpark, helping to change the course of American history. 
Jackie Robinson would go on to lead the Royals to a minor 
league championship in 1946. The next year he was promoted to 
the Dodgers, and then broke Major League Baseball's color 
barrier.
    Importantly, Mr. Chairman, the Dodger Stadium has since 
been torn down. So, this stadium in Daytona Beach would be the 
living and still standing landmark commemorating this historic 
event.
    In his book, ``My Own Story,'' Jackie Robinson reflected on 
the importance of this first game, stating, ``I knew, of 
course, that everyone wasn't pulling for me to make good, but I 
sure know that the whole world wasn't lined up against me. When 
I went to sleep the applause was still ringing in my ears.''
    Now home to the Daytona Tortugas and the oldest active 
ballpark in minor league baseball, Jackie Robinson Stadium is a 
historic landmark, a reminder of the Civil Rights Movement and 
the integration of modern professional baseball.
    Mr. Chairman, I urge this Subcommittee to preserve and 
honor Jackie Robinson's legacy and the impact he had on the 
future of this country. We have over 50 co-sponsors on this 
bill.
    I thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to speak today on 
this bill, and I hope we can preserve this ballpark for 
generations to come.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Waltz, for your testimony. We 
are going to move on to our second panel now.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you 
must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on 
the microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I 
will ask you to please wrap up your statement.
    First, I would like to introduce Mr. Chris French, Deputy 
Chief of the National Forest System at the U.S. Forest Service.
    Deputy Chief French, welcome back to the Committee. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST 
          SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. French. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and members of the 
Committee. My name is Chris French, the Deputy Chief of the 
National Forest System for the U.S. Forest Service. Thank you 
for the opportunity to provide the perspective of the USDA 
Forest Service in support of these three public land bills 
under consideration today.
    The Forest Service manages 193 million acres of public 
national forests and grasslands that provide a wide range of 
benefits including jobs, drinking water, food, wood and fiber, 
and extensive recreational opportunities. The agency also 
supports important services for the benefit of the American 
people by way of permitting nearly 66,000 special uses across 
the National Forest System, including communication sites and 
power line corridors.
    The bills we are discussing today aim to support the 
agency's mission and supporting the communication needs of the 
American public, and helping to maintain safe corridors for our 
electric infrastructure. The USDA supports the intent of H.R. 
3299 and H.R. 3283, which addressed the permitting of 
communications infrastructure on National Forest System lands.
    The Forest Service has made some recent advances in 
establishing an online portal system that are relevant to these 
bills. We defer to the Department of the Interior and the 
Department of Commerce on elements of the bill and their 
purview.
    H.R. 3299 aims to improve the agency's communication 
permitting program by requiring the agency to establish a 
public-facing online portal system to accept, process, and 
dispose of applications for communication use authorizations.
    H.R. 3283 would require the Forest Service to submit 
information to the Assistant Secretary for the Department of 
Commerce, who would be responsible for reporting to Congress on 
whether USDA and other agencies have established online portals 
for communication use authorization.
    We acknowledge the need for an online portal system. Such a 
system will help us ensure that we can effectively process and 
permit critical infrastructure that provides communication 
services, including broadband, to the American people. With 
this in mind, the Forest Service is already investing heavily 
in developing a robust digital permitting system that we hope 
will improve our applicants' experience and potentially 
significantly improve the entire approval process.
    We would like to work with the bill's sponsors in the 
Committee to offer some technical changes, given our ongoing 
efforts to develop enhanced digital services, and to address 
concerns about the potential burden of reporting requirements 
within the bill.
    H.R. 6012 would grant the Secretary of Agriculture 
authority to allow electric utilities operating under special 
use permits or easements on National Forest System lands to cut 
and remove vegetation adjacent to power lines without requiring 
a separate timber sale. Vegetation can fall on or damage power 
lines, sometimes causing costly fires, power outages, and 
resource damage. Power line rights-of-way on National Forest 
System lands need constant maintenance to ensure safe delivery 
of electric power to the American people. H.R. 6012 intends to 
help facilitate the removal of unsafe vegetation adjacent to 
power lines, which would greatly reduce the risk of fires. 
Funding for vegetation removal can be a barrier to needed 
maintenance, especially for small, rural utilities. H.R. 6012 
would hasten the removal of unsafe vegetation by eliminating 
the need to prepare and process a timber sale.
    In addition, any proceeds from the sale of any merchantable 
fiber by the utility can be applied to the cost of transporting 
unsafe vegetation adjacent to power lines to market. The bill 
would not change required compliance with any environmental 
laws or regulations.
    USDA supports the intent of H.R. 6012, and would like to 
work with the Committee and the bill's sponsors to fully 
realize the bill's intention to facilitate the removal of 
unsafe vegetation adjacent to these power lines.
    That concludes my remarks today, and I look forward to 
answering any questions you have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Christopher French, Deputy Chief, United States 
               Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
                 on H.R. 3299, H.R. 3283, and H.R. 6012

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on 
several bills pertaining to the USDA Forest Service. We defer to the 
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) for its views on those elements 
of the bills that would affect federal lands under its jurisdiction.
H.R. 3299, ``DIGITAL Applications Act''

    H.R. 3299 would require DOI and USDA each to establish an online 
portal to accept and process applications for communications use 
authorizations and to notify the Assistant Secretary of Commerce of the 
availability of the online portal.
    USDA recognizes the Forest Service's important role in permitting 
critical infrastructure that provides communications services, 
including broadband, to the American people. USDA fully supports the 
bill's establishment of an online portal to accept and process 
proposals and applications for communications use authorizations, and 
the Forest Service has already started developing digital permitting 
services.
    Until recently, a proposal or application for a communications use 
was submitted by email or through regular mail to the local Forest 
Service office. A longstanding goal of the Forest Service has been to 
automate this process by developing and deploying enhanced digital 
permitting services.
    As an interim solution, the Forest Service recently created a 
publicly available online portal for submission of communications use 
proposals and applications (available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/
managing-land/special-uses/communications-uses/fiber-optic-cable). The 
portal allows the agency to track communications use proposals and 
applications at the national level, thus providing an additional level 
of oversight. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is investing in more robust 
digital permitting services that will include several features, such as 
the ability for proponents to submit and track their proposals and 
applications online and digitally sign their authorizations.
    To promote the goal of more robust digital permitting services, the 
Forest Service has obtained additional skills and capacity through an 
agreement with the General Services Administration's Technology 
Transformation Services (known as GSA 18F). This effort will support 
research and customer engagement to enhance the digital permitting 
services' utility, functionality, and user interface. The enhanced 
digital permitting services will promote efficiency in processing all 
proposals and applications, reliability of proponent and agency data, 
and agency transparency and accountability. All these enhancements will 
significantly improve customer service and satisfaction.
    USDA recently received funding from the Federal Permitting 
Improvement Steering Council to support the Forest Service's 
development and deployment of enhanced digital permitting services. Our 
efforts to enhance digital permitting services can be complemented by 
the agency's use and expanded availability of categorical exclusions 
(CEs) we have adopted under the Fiscal Responsibility Act, such CEs C-4 
through C-8 concerning new communications uses, including broadband, 
from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration; 
and CEs A-4 (communication towers) and A-6 (fiber optic cable) from the 
Department of Commerce.
    USDA supports the intent of H.R. 3299 and would like to work with 
the bill sponsors and Committee to offer technical assistance given the 
Department's ongoing efforts to develop and fund enhanced digital 
services and to address concerns about the Department of Commerce 
notification requirement.
H.R. 3283, ``Facilitating DIGITAL Applications Act''

    H.R. 3283 would require the Assistant Secretary of Commerce to 
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on whether 
DOI and USDA have established online portals to accept and process 
applications for communications use authorizations.
    USDA is already working toward establishing an online portal to 
accept and process applications for communications use authorizations 
and welcomes Congress's interest in this endeavor.
    As an interim solution, the Forest Service recently created a 
publicly available online portal for submission of communications use 
proposals and applications (available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/
managing-land/special-uses/communications-uses/fiber-optic-cable). The 
portal allows the agency to track communications use proposals and 
applications at the national level, thus providing an additional level 
of oversight. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is investing in more robust 
digital permitting services that will include several features, such as 
the ability for proponents to submit and track their proposals and 
applications online and digitally sign their authorizations.
    To promote the goal of more robust digital permitting services, the 
Forest Service has obtained additional skills and capacity through an 
agreement with the General Services Administration's Technology 
Transformation Services (known as GSA 18F). This effort will support 
research and customer engagement to enhance the digital permitting 
services' utility, functionality, and user interface. The enhanced 
digital permitting services will promote efficiency in processing all 
proposals and applications, reliability of proponent and agency data, 
and agency transparency and accountability. All these enhancements will 
significantly improve customer service and satisfaction.
    USDA recently received funding from the Federal Permitting 
Improvement Steering Council to support the Forest Service's 
development and deployment of enhanced digital permitting services. Our 
efforts to enhance digital permitting services can be complemented by 
the agency's use and expanded availability of categorical exclusions 
(CEs) we adopted under the Fiscal Responsibility Act, such CEs C-4 
through C-8 concerning new communications uses, including broadband, 
from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration; 
and CEs A-4 (communication towers) and A-6 (fiber optic cable) from the 
Department of Commerce.
    USDA supports the intent of H.R. 3283. USDA would like to work with 
the bill sponsors and Committee to offer technical assistance given the 
Department's ongoing efforts to develop and fund enhanced digital 
services and to address concerns about the Department of Commerce 
reporting requirements.
H.R. 6012, ``Fire Safe Electric Corridors Act of 2023''

    H.R. 6012 would grant the Secretary of Agriculture authority to 
allow electric utilities operating on National Forest System (NFS) 
lands under a special use authorization to cut and remove vegetation 
within the vicinity of their authorized powerline facilities without 
requiring a separate timber sale. Any vegetation management conducted 
under this authority would have to be consistent with the applicable 
land management plan and applicable environmental laws and regulations.
    USDA supports the intent of the H.R. 6012 and appreciates 
Congress's efforts to facilitate more efficient management of powerline 
facility rights-of-way on NFS lands. Current forest management 
authority allows for disposal of some timber associated with vegetation 
management for powerline facilities and other administrative uses 
without a separate timber sale. Our existing authority is limited by 
the Agency's overall maximum cutting volume and does not directly 
address disposal of felled hazard trees in or adjacent to a powerline 
facility right-of-way without a separate timber sale.
    USDA looks forward to working with the Committee and bill sponsors 
to fully realize the bill's intention of addressing the limitations in 
Forest Service's existing authority. We are interested in a clear 
authority to cut and dispose of hazard trees in or adjacent to 
powerline facility rights-of-way that would not require a timber sale 
or need to compensate the federal government. We would like to work 
with the committee to ensure that the authority to cut and dispose of 
hazard trees along power line ROWs is clear and that the disposal of 
hazard trees is not subject to valuation and timber sale requirements.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Deputy Chief French. I would now 
like to introduce Mr. Mike Caldwell, Associate Director for 
Park Planning Facilities and Lands at the National Park 
Service.
    Associate Director Caldwell, you have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MIKE CALDWELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, 
  FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Caldwell. Chairman Tiffany and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the 
Department of the Interior's views on two of the bills on 
today's agenda. I would like to submit our full statements for 
the record and summarize the Department's views.
    I would also like to submit a statement for the record for 
two other bills, H.R. 3299, the Deploying Infrastructure with 
Greater Internet Transactions and Legacy Applications Act; and 
H.R. 3283, the Facilitating the Deployment of Infrastructure 
with Greater Internet Transactions and Legacy Application Act. 
This statement was prepared by the Bureau of Land Management, 
and we would request that any questions about these bills be 
referred to them.
    H.R. 7976 would re-designate the Civil War Defenses of 
Washington as the Civil War Defenses of Washington National 
Historical Park. These defenses were a ring of forts and 
buttresses that encircled the capital city as a safeguard from 
invasion by Confederate troops, and made Washington the most 
heavily fortified city in the world at the time. The park would 
include the 19 National Park Service sites that are currently 
associated with the Civil War Defenses of Washington.
    H.R. 7976 would allow the National Park Service to 
affiliate with any site in the District of Columbia, Virginia, 
and Maryland that is associated with the Civil War Defenses of 
Washington for possible inclusion in the park, and provide the 
option to purchase these properties.
    The bill would also direct a study and report of the 
history of the Civil War to consider ways these stories could 
be conveyed for the benefit of the public.
    The Department recognizes the important contribution to 
America's story that is represented by the Civil War Defenses 
of Washington sites, and supports the bill's goal to expand the 
public's understanding of the significance of the Defenses of 
Washington and the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864. However, 
rather than designating the sites as a standalone National Park 
Service unit, the Department believes the current management 
system effectively protects the existing resources while 
affording interpretive education and recreational opportunities 
across the sites.
    The National Park Service continuously seeks ways to 
collaborate with local governments and stakeholder groups to 
elevate public awareness and appreciation of these special 
places. If the Committee decides to act on this legislation, we 
would like to have the opportunity to work with the bill's 
sponsor and the Committee on amendments.
    H.R. 8012 would designate Jackie Robinson Ballpark in 
Daytona Beach, Florida as a national commemorative site. The 
bill would also add the site to the African American Civil 
Rights Network, and it would authorize a special resource study 
of the Jackie Robinson Ballpark.
    The Department views the achievements and legacy of Jackie 
Robinson, who paved the way for integration in the national 
sport of baseball, as an important and inspiring story in our 
nation's history, and supports authorizing a special resource 
study of the Jackie Robinson Ballpark. The Department 
recommends deferring action on designating the ballpark as a 
national commemorative site until after the special resource 
study is completed, and recommendations for preservation and 
interpretation of the site are submitted to Congress.
    We also recommend pursuing inclusion of the site on the 
African American Civil Rights Network through previously 
authorized administrative process, rather than adding it 
through H.R. 8012.
    The special resource study authorized by H.R. 8012 would 
provide an opportunity for the National Park Service to 
evaluate the Jackie Robinson Ballpark and make recommendations 
to Congress about whether it would be a good candidate for 
inclusion in the National Park System, while also considering 
alternatives for preservation, protection, and interpretation 
of the site by other governmental or non-governmental entities. 
Designating the site as a national commemorative site prior to 
completing the study would be premature. A special resource 
study would provide valuable information in determining how 
best to designate and manage the ballpark to recognize Jackie 
Robinson and his incredible legacy.
    The Department recommends amending H.R. 8012 to authorize a 
special resource study to be completed within 3 years of 
funding being made available, rather than 2. We would be happy 
to work with the Committee and the sponsor on amendment 
language.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am happy to 
answer any questions that you or other members of the 
Subcommittee may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Caldwell follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Michael A. Caldwell, Associate Director, Park
         Planning, Facilities and Lands, National Park Service,
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
                       on H.R. 7976 and H.R. 8012

                               H.R. 7976

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department 
of the Interior's views on H.R. 7976, the Civil War Defenses of 
Washington National Historical Park Act.
    The Department recognizes the important contribution to America's 
story that is represented by the Civil War Defenses of Washington sites 
and supports the bill's goal to expand the public's understanding of 
the significance of the Defenses of Washington and the Shenandoah 
Valley Campaign of 1864. However, rather than designating the sites as 
a stand-alone unit of the National Park System, the Department supports 
maintaining the existing comprehensive system of parks that interpret 
the historic forts and also provide recreation opportunities, preserve 
substantial tracts of forests, and protect water resources in and 
around the Nation's Capital.
    H.R. 7976 would redesignate the Civil War Defenses of Washington as 
the Civil War Defenses of Washington National Historical Park. The park 
would include the National Park Service (NPS) sites that are currently 
associated with the Civil War Defenses of Washington. H.R. 7976 would 
also allow the NPS to affiliate with any site in the District of 
Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland that is associated with the Civil War 
Defenses of Washington for possible inclusion in the park; it would 
further provide the NPS with the option to purchase these properties 
from willing sellers. The bill would also direct a study and report of 
the history of the Civil War to consider what ways these stories could 
be conveyed for the benefit of the public.
    The Civil War Defenses of Washington are historically significant 
to the Nation for being instrumental to the protection of Washington, 
DC, during the Civil War. At that time, a ring of forts and buttresses 
encircled the capital city as a safeguard from invasion by Confederate 
troops. It was composed of 68 forts supported by 93 detached batteries 
and 20 miles of rifle pits. In record time, the Union built a fort 
system that made Washington, DC, the most heavily fortified city in the 
world.
    The remaining federally owned sites originally were to have been 
connected by a Fort Circle Drive in accordance with the 1902 McMillan 
Commission Report. The drive was not completed, and the forts and 
parcels of land purchased for the drive were divided among Rock Creek 
Park, National Capital Parks-East, and the George Washington Memorial 
Parkway to manage. Today, the NPS manages 19 Civil War fort sites in 
the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland. Other sites are 
managed by local governments in Maryland and Virginia while the rest 
have been torn down or lost to other purposes. The NPS preserves the 
historical integrity of the fort remnants that are an important part of 
the Capital's rich Civil War history, and these sites also function as 
community parks and a greenbelt of open space for outdoor recreation 
for the benefit of residents and visitors.
    Because the Civil War defenses are spread across three NPS units, 
the NPS has developed a management system to coordinate across park 
boundaries within our existing staffing and funding capacity. A Civil 
War Defenses of Washington program manager and two rangers provide 
education, interpretation, event planning, and program coordination for 
all 19 NPS sites. The Department believes this management system 
effectively protects the existing resources while affording 
interpretive, education, interpretive, and other opportunities across 
the sites. The NPS continuously seeks ways to collaborate with local 
governments and stakeholder groups to elevate public awareness and 
appreciation of these special places.
    If the Committee decides to act on this legislation, we would like 
to work with the bill sponsor and the Committee on amendments that 
would align the bill's language with that Congress typically uses for 
other legislation authorizing new units of the National Park System, 
including referencing a legislative map. We would also like to discuss 
whether the study that would be authorized by this bill could be 
tailored to meet more specific goals.
    Chairman Tiffany, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to 
answer any questions that you or the other members of the Subcommittee 
have.

                               H.R. 8012

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department 
of the Interior's views on H.R. 8012, a bill to establish Jackie 
Robinson Ballpark National Commemorative Site in the state of Florida, 
and for other purposes.
    The Department views the achievements and legacy of Jackie Robinson 
as an important and inspiring story in our nation's history and 
supports authorizing a special resource study of the Jackie Robinson 
Ballpark in Daytona Beach, Florida, as provided for in H.R. 8012. The 
Department recommends deferring action on designating the ballpark as a 
national commemorative site until after the special resource study is 
completed and recommendations for preservation and interpretation of 
the site are submitted to Congress. We also recommend pursuing 
inclusion of the site on the African American Civil Rights Network 
through the previously authorized administrative process, rather than 
adding it through H.R. 8012.
    H.R. 8012 would designate Jackie Robinson Ballpark as a national 
commemorative site. The bill would also add the site to the African 
American Civil Rights Network, a program managed by the National Park 
Service (NPS). Additionally, the bill would authorize a special 
resource study of the Jackie Robinson Ballpark to assess its national 
significance, suitability, and feasibility for establishment as a unit 
of the National Park System, and consider alternatives for 
preservation, protection, and interpretation of the Site by Federal, 
State, or local government entities, or private and nonprofit 
organizations.
    Jackie Robinson, the son of South Georgia sharecroppers, made 
history by breaking the race barrier in Major League Baseball (MLB) as 
the first African American to play in a regularly scheduled MLB 
professional game in the modern era. On March 17, 1946, he played his 
first exhibition game at Daytona Beach's City Island Ball Park in 
Florida. His remarkable performance, including a stolen base and a run 
scored, captured the nation's attention. Robinson challenged 
segregation in both presence and performance and paved the way for 
racial integration in the national sport of baseball. He went on to win 
the National League's pennant and Rookie of the Year honors and became 
the first African American player inducted into the Baseball Hall of 
Fame. His legacy transcended the sport of baseball, and he continued to 
serve as an ardent civil rights activist until his death in 1972.
    In 1990, the City Island Ball Park, along with the associated ball 
field and grandstand, was renamed Jackie Robinson Ball Park--a tribute 
to his impact on baseball and the nation's fight for racial equality.
    The special resource study authorized by H.R. 8012 would provide an 
opportunity for the NPS to evaluate the Jackie Robinson Ballpark for 
its potential for inclusion in the National Park System, consider 
alternatives for preservation, protection, and interpretation of the 
site by federal, state, or local government entities, or private and 
nonprofit organizations, and report these findings to Congress. 
Designating the site as a national commemorative site prior to 
completing the study would be premature. A special resource study would 
provide valuable information in determining how best to designate and 
manage the ballpark to recognize Jackie Robinson and his legacy.
    Furthermore, the Department has concerns about the use of the term, 
``national commemorative site,'' since the term has no definition by 
law or custom and the public may be confused about its significance. 
The NPS is aware of only three examples where Congress has used this 
designation: the Quindaro Townsite National Commemorative Site in 
Kansas, the Kennedy-King National Commemorative Site in Indiana, and 
the Charleston High School National Commemorative Site in Arkansas. The 
NPS recommends that Congress define the term along with a programmatic 
context prior to designating any new national commemorative sites.
    Additionally, legislative designation of the Jackie Robinson 
Ballpark as part of the African American Civil Rights Network would 
circumvent an established administrative process that ensures that all 
nominated properties meet the network's criteria.
    The Department recommends amending H.R. 8012 to authorize a special 
resource study to be completed within three years of funding being made 
available, rather than two. We would be happy to work with the 
Committee and the sponsor on amendment language.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to 
answer any questions that you or other members of the Committee might 
have.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Mike Caldwell, Associate
Director--Park Planning, Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, 
                       Department of the Interior

Mr. Caldwell did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. In his testimony, Deputy Chief Chris French of the U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS) stated that USFS supports the intent behind H.R. 
3283 and H.R. 3299 and acknowledges the need for an online portal 
system to process communications use authorizations for USFS-
administered lands.

    1a) Does the BLM similarly acknowledge the need for creating an 
online portal system to process communications use authorizations for 
BLM-administered lands? Please explain why or why not.

    1b) If not, by what alternative means would the BLM seek to improve 
its current application-processing system?

    Question 2. In his testimony, Mr. Romano indicated that online 
portals should ``not only facilitate the submission of applications,'' 
but should ``also provide greater visibility into the status of such 
applications--including identification of where they stand in terms of 
review and any items that might be deemed as lacking or missing in the 
submission.''

    2a) Does the BLM agree that, to be effective, an online portal 
should have features that enable an applicant to track the status of 
their applications for communications use authorization? If so, please 
explain how the BLM would plan to create these features.

    2b) If not, please explain how the BLM would otherwise work to 
ensure that applicants have more transparency regarding the status of 
their applications.

    Question 3. In his remarks to the Committee on H.R. 8012, Associate 
Director Michael Caldwell of the National Park Service (NPS) stated 
that the Department of the Interior (DOI) ``recommends deferring action 
on designating the [Jackie Robinson Ballpark] as a national 
commemorative site until after the special resource study is completed 
and recommendations for interpretation and preservation and 
interpretation of the site are submitted to Congress.'' Associate 
Director Caldwell also explained that the DOI recommends that H.R. 8012 
be amended to give the DOI three years, rather than two, to complete 
the special resource study authorized by the legislation.

    3a) Why does the DOI need a full three years to complete the 
special resource study?

    3b) Has the NPS ever completed a special resource study in less 
than 3 years? If so, please list instances when this has occurred.

    Question 4. In its Statement for the Record, the BLM states that 
the agency ``place[s] a high priority on working with applicants on 
their proposed [rights-of-way (ROW)] to process the application 
expeditiously'' and ``strives to provide ROW applicants a decision 
within 60 days from the receipt of the completed application.'' In a 
report dated April 10, 2024, however, the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO), observed that roughly half of the 
communications use applications submitted to the BLM during fiscal 
years (FY) 2018 to 2022 either exceeded the 270-day statutory deadline 
or lacked sufficient data to conclude whether the deadline had been 
met.

    4a) What explains these failures by the BLM to meet the statutory 
deadline and achieve its own goals for ``expeditiously'' processing 
requests for commercial use authorizations?

    4b) Please describe, in detail, all steps that the BLM has taken to 
address the deficiencies highlighted in the GAO report cited above.

    Question 5. In response to questioning from Chairman Tiffany, 
Deputy Chief French stated that the USFS is already investing heavily 
in a digital permitting system to improve the approval process of 
requests for communications use authorizations.

    5a) Please describe all efforts currently underway at the BLM to 
develop or use digital systems to process and approve requests for 
communications use authorizations.

    5b) If no such efforts are underway, please explain why not.

    Question 6. During his testimony, Associate Director Caldwell 
stated that the DOI supports H.R. 7976's goal to increase public 
understanding of the Civil War Defenses of Washington (CWDW). However, 
Associate Director Caldwell explained that, rather than designating the 
sites as a standalone NPS unit, the DOI believes that current 
management system, under which the CWDW are spread across three NPS 
units, ``effectively protects the existing resources while affording 
interpretative, education . . . and other opportunities across the 
sites.'' Which other NPS units are currently managed under a cross-unit 
management system?

    Question 7. In his testimony, Michael Romano, Executive Vice 
President of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA), described 
the considerable difficulties that small, community-based 
telecommunications and broadband services providers face when working 
with federal authorities. Mr. Romano declared that ``NTCA members can 
share many `lessons learned' regarding permitting processes that are 
inefficient, outdated, understaffed, or simply not working otherwise as 
intended.''

    7a) Is the BLM aware of this general perception among rural 
broadband providers? Does the BLM acknowledge that applying for 
communications use authorizations on BLM-administered land is often a 
lengthy and difficult process?

    7b) Does the BLM regularly solicit feedback from broadband 
providers about their experiences in trying to obtain communications 
use authorizations on BLM-administered land? If so, please describe 
that process.

    7c) If not, will the BLM commit to establishing a system for 
soliciting and obtaining such feedback?

    Question 8. In his testimony, Mr. Romano shared the concern of many 
NTCA members that ``the delays and costs that already exist within 
permitting processes will only grow as efforts to deliver on universal 
broadband connectivity ramp up in coming years.''

    8a) Does the BLM share this concern? Why or why not?

    8b) What does the BLM plan to do to address this problem? Please 
provide concrete steps.

    Question 9. During the hearing, Chairman Tiffany asked how the NPS 
would ensure that private property rights and local decision making 
would be protected alongside the creation the National Historical Park 
proposed by H.R. 7976. In response, Associate Director Caldwell said 
that preserving the affiliated sites would be sufficient to respect 
private property rights. Using specific examples, please elaborate on 
how the NPS's affiliated sites preserve private property rights.

    Question 10. In his testimony, Associate Director Caldwell stated 
that ``NPS continuously seeks ways to collaborate with local 
governments and stakeholder groups to elevate public awareness and 
appreciation of these special places [within the CWDW].''

    10a) Please provide a few examples of how NPS has gone about this.

    10b) Are certain concerns commonly raised by these groups? If so, 
please describe those concerns.

    Question 11. Broadband developers have reported that deploying the 
necessary communications facilities on federal land often takes years 
to complete, largely due to the complex permitting system imposed by 
federal land management agencies.

    11a) Is the BLM concerned that the significant delays and costs 
associated with its current permitting and application systems are 
dissuading many broadband providers from even applying for 
communications use authorizations in the first place? Please explain 
why or why not.

    11b) Does the BLM agree that the significant delays and costs 
associated with its current permitting and application systems are more 
likely to cause greater harm to small broadband providers than to their 
larger competitors? Please explain why or why not.

    11c) Does the BLM believe that the regulatory requirements it 
imposes on applicants for communications use authorizations contribute 
to the disparity in broadband access that is commonly referred to as 
the ``digital divide''? Please explain why or why not.

    Question 12. In its Statement for the Record, the BLM explained 
that, despite supporting the goals of H.R. 3299, the agency believes 
that the one-year timeframe the legislation establishes for creating 
the online portal ``is not achievable given current resources.''

    12a) Given that the USFS has already established an interim online 
portal and has not raised concerns about H.R. 3299's timeline, why does 
the BLM believe it cannot meet the deadline?

    12b) According to Mr. Romano, the workflows that federal agencies 
will encounter in reviewing communications use authorizations ``likely 
will become more overwhelming'' in the next few years, which ``could 
lead to even greater delays and costs.'' Given this dynamic, wouldn't 
the BLM be better served by establishing an online portal as quickly as 
possible?

    Question 13. Associate Director Caldwell's testimony states that, 
if H.R. 7976 were to be advanced in Committee, the NPS would ``like to 
discuss whether the study that would be authorized by [H.R. 7976] could 
be tailored to meet more specific goals.'' Please describe in greater 
detail the ``more specific goals'' that the NPS would like the study to 
be aimed at achieving.

    Question 14. In his testimony, Mr. Romano stated that delays and 
costs associated with lengthy processing of applications for 
communications use authorizations ``can be confounding,'' especially 
when the applicant proposes merely to install facilities in 
``previously disturbed terrain.'' As an example of this, Mr. Romano 
mentioned that applications to make a simple switch from copper wiring 
to fiber in existing ROWs still take a long time to process.

    14a) Does the BLM agree that this indicates that its current 
application-processing system is flawed? Please explain why or why not.

    14b) Does the BLM have any proposals for streamlining its review of 
applications for maintaining, updating, or repairing existing 
communications facilities on previously disturbed terrain? If so, 
please describe those proposals in detail. If not, please explain why 
not.

    Question 15. The BLM states that it ``added the ability to submit 
SF-299 applications for communications use'' online in June 2023. What 
prompted the BLM to institute this change?

    Question 16. The BLM admits in its Statement for the Record that 
its existing online portal handles only the submissions of Standard 
Form 299 (SF-299) applications for communications use, whereas the 
applications are processed and ultimately approved or rejected by staff 
working offline.

    16a) In his testimony, Mr. Romano recounted how NTCA members have 
struggled to identify the proper agency personnel to contact for 
questions regarding their applications. Does the BLM believe that the 
offline processing of these applications is more efficient than using 
an online portal? Please explain why or why not.

    16b) According to testimony from Deputy Chief French, the USFS is 
``investing in more robust digital permitting services that will 
include several features, such as the ability for proponents to submit 
and track their proposals and applications online . . .'' Does the BLM 
have similar plans to move more of its application processing online? 
If so, please describe those plans. If not, please explain why not.

    Question 17. Associate Director Caldwell's testimony on H.R. 8012 
states that the NPS would prefer that the Jackie Robinson Ballpark be 
added to the African American Civil Rights Network ``through the 
previously authorized administrative process, rather than adding it 
through H.R. 8012.''

    17a) Please explain why the NPS takes this position.

    17b) Please provide an estimate of the amount of time it would take 
to add the Jackie Robinson Ballpark to the African American Civil 
Rights Network through ``the previously authorized administrative 
process.''

    Question 18. In his testimony, Mr. Romano stated that many NTCA 
members have reported that ``permitting offices and agencies can fall 
silent for long stretches of time regarding the status of 
applications'' after the initial submission. Further, these ``episodes 
of silence'' are often followed by repeated data requests that would 
have been easier for applicants to have addressed at the beginning of 
the process.

    18a) Please describe all steps that the BLM is currently taking to 
ensure that applicants for communications use authorizations have 
greater visibility into their application status and are more promptly 
informed of any additional information they need to provide for their 
applications to be fully processed.

    18b) Does the BLM believe that an online portal could help resolve 
these issues? If not, please describe the BLM's alternative solution.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Moylan

    Question 1. Associate Director Caldwell, can you please speak on 
any ongoing projects and efforts by the National Park Service to help 
facilitate the connection of our rural communities, especially those in 
the Pacific?

    Question 2. What actions can be taken by Congress to make these 
efforts more effective?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Associate Director. I will now 
recognize Mr. Michael Romano, Executive Vice President of NTCA, 
the Rural Broadband Association.
    Mr. Romano, you have 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL ROMANO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NTCA, 
      THE RURAL BROADBAND ASSOCIATION, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

    Mr. Romano. Chairman Tiffany, members of the Subcommittee, 
thank you for the opportunity to testify. My testimony focuses 
upon two bills: H.R. 3283, the Facilitating Digital 
Applications Act; and H.R. 3299, the Digital Applications Act.
    I am appearing today on behalf of more than 850 community-
based broadband providers serving the most rural parts of the 
country. Despite facing typical densities of about six 
locations per square mile and having fewer than 30 employees on 
average, these small businesses have deployed cutting-edge 
broadband networks that rival anything available in urban areas 
today. These network deployment efforts have provided 
substantial experience with permitting on Federal lands, among 
other rights-of-way. At the same time, these providers have 
more to do to upgrade their remaining customers, and they are 
actively engaged in expanding their networks to reach unserved 
locations in other areas, giving them a substantial interest, 
as well, in finding ways to make permitting procedures more 
efficient.
    We are grateful for the chance to share some of these 
experiences and to highlight how H.R. 3283 and H.R. 3299 can 
help in providing greater access and transparency in 
applications to place broadband facilities on Federal lands. 
NTCA is thankful to Representatives Miller-Meeks and Cammack, 
respectively, for sponsoring these bills, and to 
Representatives Dingell and Matsui, respectively, for showing 
bipartisan support for them.
    In many rural areas, providers often have no choice but to 
install networks that touch BLM, National Park Service, or 
Forest Service property. Re-routing even just a small portion 
of a project can be infeasible due to massive distances, 
impassable terrain, or the inability to access private land if 
any happens to be nearby. My testimony shared examples of 
challenges that providers have faced in obtaining approvals to 
deploy broadband networks. Such concerns could become even more 
severe, however, as private investment ramps to meet increasing 
broadband demand, and as the largest broadband funding program 
in our nation's history prepares to launch.
    The broadband related bills under consideration today 
tackle an important piece of the broader permitting puzzle, 
specifically, how providers seek permission to deploy broadband 
networks on Federal lands using Form 299. My testimony includes 
data from a GSA report that tracks activity related to Form 
299. I won't go into this data in detail as part of the opening 
remarks, but suffice to say they show that more applications 
are being submitted than approved each quarter, and that a 
backlog is therefore growing. The GSA report also highlights 
some of the challenges that Federal property managing agencies 
encounter even just in databasing the substantial paperwork.
    NTCA members report that Form 299 itself is relatively 
straightforward to complete, although, to be clear, subsequent 
levels of environmental and historical review take 
significantly more work and time. But the lack of an online 
portal has led at times to frustration, confusion, and delay. 
For example, one NTCA member reported difficulty in identifying 
the proper agency personnel for receipt of an application. 
Obviously, an online portal would mitigate such concerns.
    Similarly, another member indicated that the use of an 
online portal for state-level permitting has made it more 
efficient to track progress, highlighting the promise of such 
an approach at the Federal level, as well. H.R. 3283 would 
prompt the creation of such a portal by directing the Commerce 
Department to consult with Interior and Agriculture to submit a 
report to Congress regarding creation of a portal. H.R. 3299 
would compel the Interior and Agriculture Departments to create 
such online portals within a year.
    We support both of these bills and we encourage the 
Subcommittee to advance them. In closing, I want to highlight a 
few other related issues raised in my written testimony.
    First, I cannot emphasize enough growing concerns about the 
workforce needed to process permit applications. NTCA members 
commonly report that Federal agencies and other permitting 
offices are overwhelmed by what is already before them. As tens 
of billions of dollars flow into much-needed broadband 
deployment efforts in the next few years, these concerns will 
likely be exacerbated. Even as an online portal will be a much 
welcomed improvement in Federal land permitting processes, the 
promise of such a portal could be undermined if there are 
insufficient skilled eyeballs on the other side of that portal 
to promptly process the information received.
    Second, any online portal should not only receive Form 299, 
but also facilitate better communication. NTCA members report 
that permitting agencies can fall silent for stretches of time 
after applications are submitted. These episodes of silence can 
be followed by serial requests for additional information. NTCA 
hopes that any online portals created will not only facilitate 
the initial submission of applications, but also provide 
greater visibility into their status and identification of open 
issues still to be resolved.
    Thank you for providing NTCA with the opportunity to share 
these thoughts on behalf of its rural, community-based 
broadband provider members. We look forward to working with 
this Subcommittee, other Members of Congress, the Federal 
agencies of jurisdiction, and other stakeholders to realize and 
sustain our nation's shared vision of universal broadband 
access.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Romano follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Michael Romano, Executive Vice President, NTCA--
                    The Rural Broadband Association
                       on H.R. 3283 and H.R. 3299

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, Vice Chairman Curtis, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 
at this legislative hearing. My testimony today will focus upon two 
bills--H.R. 3283, ``Facilitating the Deployment of Infrastructure with 
Greater Internet Transactions and Legacy Applications Act'' or the 
``Facilitating DIGITAL Applications Act,'' and H.R. 3299, ``Deploying 
Infrastructure with Greater Internet Transactions and Legacy 
Applications Act'' or the ``DIGITAL Applications Act.''
    I am Michael Romano, the Executive Vice President of NTCA--The 
Rural Broadband Association. I oversee NTCA's public policy, government 
affairs, and business development initiatives, the educational mission 
of the Foundation for Rural Service, and several areas of internal 
association operations. My prior work experience and educational 
background are detailed in the curriculum vitae provided to the 
Subcommittee. My remarks today are on behalf of the NTCA membership, 
which consists of over 850 small community-based providers of 
telecommunications and broadband services in some of the hardest-to-
serve parts of rural America across 45 states. Despite having 
approximately 6,000 customers on average over thousands of square 
miles, facing typical densities of approximately six locations per mile 
(less than the entire State of Montana), and operating with an average 
of fewer than 30 employees, these providers have deployed advanced 
networks in deeply rural spaces; NTCA's latest survey indicates that on 
average more than 80% of members' customers have fiber connections and 
100 Mbps symmetrical broadband service levels or greater.
    This good work has not been easy, however. It has taken 
extraordinary effort by these providers to serve their neighbors, 
friends, and family--and this work rests atop a unique mix of 
commitment to their communities, entrepreneurial spirit, and effective 
governmental policies and programs that help make and sustain the 
business case for investing and continuing to operate networks in 
deeply rural areas. Moreover, it is worth noting that for all this 
compelling progress, there is more to be done. Even as more than 80% of 
NTCA members' rural customers on average can receive service that 
rivals what many urban and suburban users enjoy, and even as this 
percentage continues to climb year after year, much work remains to 
deliver the same high levels of service to the remaining customers. 
And, in rural areas not fortunate enough to be served historically by 
community-based providers like those in NTCA's membership, the picture 
is less promising still--in these other areas, far more rural Americans 
long for the kind of broadband access needed to participate 
meaningfully in an increasingly online world.
    NTCA members' progress in upgrading networks in their own 
historical serving areas over the past several years is remarkable, and 
they have been proactive in seeking to expand into rural markets 
traditionally served by larger providers as well. As just one example, 
NTCA members collectively have been among the most active applicants 
for, and among the largest recipients of, ReConnect program funding 
through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (``USDA''). Looking forward, 
I expect that many NTCA members will seek to participate in the 
Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (``BEAD'') program. In short, 
NTCA members are leaving no stone unturned in seeking to improve 
connectivity in small towns and unincorporated areas across rural 
America--even beyond their historical footprints.
    But this brings us to this important hearing. Based upon this 
extensive history of network deployment--upon not only the federal 
lands that are under the purview of this Subcommittee, but also along 
interstate, state, and local roadways, under railroad crossings, on 
poles, and/or in private rights-of-way--NTCA members can share many 
``lessons learned'' regarding permitting processes that are 
inefficient, outdated, understaffed, or simply not working otherwise as 
intended. We are grateful for the chance to share some of these 
experiences, and to highlight how H.R. 3283 and H.R. 3299 can help in 
providing greater access and transparency with respect to the process 
of applying to place broadband facilities on federal lands--and 
ultimately in expediting such broadband deployment. NTCA is thankful to 
Representatives Miller-Meeks and Cammack, respectively, for sponsoring 
these bills, and to Representatives Dingell and Matsui, respectively, 
for showing bipartisan support for these bills as original co-sponsors.
    As context for why measures like these are so important, I will 
first provide a few brief examples from rural network deployments to 
highlight how permitting processes can affect the achievement of 
universal broadband. NTCA members are particularly concerned that the 
delays and costs that already exist within permitting processes will 
only grow as efforts to deliver on universal broadband connectivity 
ramp up in coming years. After discussing these examples, I will 
discuss how H.R. 3283 and H.R. 3299 would help in addressing an 
important part of these processes. Finally, I will highlight a few 
additional considerations for Congress in relation to permitting.
EXAMPLES OF BROADBAND PERMITTING ISSUES

    NTCA members across the nation indicate that our country's 
broadband availability and affordability goals could be undermined by 
inefficient or ineffective processes to apply for and obtain permits 
for network deployment. This appears to be a shared concern for 
providers of all kinds--large and small, rural and urban, wireline and 
wireless.

    Obtaining access to federal lands for broadband facilities 
installation--or otherwise obtaining a permit when a project is 
considered a ``major federal action'' under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (``NEPA'') and/or a ``federal undertaking'' pursuant to the 
National Historic Preservation Act (``NHPA'')--is a common concern of 
rural providers. Given the nature of the areas these providers serve, 
they often have no choice, for example, but to install fiber under a 
road touching Bureau of Land Management (``BLM''), National Park 
Service, or Forest Service property, as re-rerouting even just a small 
portion of a project may be infeasible due to substantial distances, 
impassible terrain, or the inability to obtain easements on privately 
held land (if any is nearby). (It is also worth noting that providers 
must comply with NEPA and NHPA processes even if they are not 
installing facilities on federal lands; for example, if the deployment 
is funded by a ReConnect or BEAD grant, providers must adhere to NEPA 
and NHPA regardless of whether the project is on federal lands.) 
Members recount delays of up to two years in some cases to apply for 
and obtain permissions to build. Indeed, even if a project touches 
federal land for only a short distance as part of a larger deployment 
(or not at all in some cases), the entire project can still be delayed 
by the need to obtain approvals for the part under an agency's purview. 
As just a few brief examples to provide context:

     One NTCA member sought to place fiber under a road on BLM 
            land. The project was meant to improve redundancy and 
            reliability of the operator's network, and the portion 
            touching BLM land was a small percentage of the overall 
            project. The initial permit application was not accepted as 
            complete for nearly a year, however, during which time the 
            provider received sequential requests for additional 
            information.

     Another NTCA member utilized ReConnect funding to connect 
            consumers via fiber in a rural area. Although the entire 
            project was in a previously disturbed right-of-way and 
            subject to a NEPA ``Categorical Exclusion'' (the most 
            streamlined level of NEPA review), the provider was not 
            granted final approval to begin construction and receive 
            funds for 9 months. This resulted in an even greater delay 
            than that, however, as the project is in a part of the 
            country where frozen ground prevents construction for 
            approximately 5 months of the year--meaning construction 
            could not commence for another several months thereafter.

     One member experienced significant delays receiving 
            permits for two separate projects funded by the ReConnect 
            program. In each case, the projects were primarily in 
            previously disturbed terrain, but historical preservation 
            and consultation processes under NHPA nevertheless took 
            approximately two years to complete.

     Another NTCA member was informed that final release of 
            ReConnect grant funds would require securing more than two 
            dozen wetlands permits, which could not be obtained without 
            submitting more detailed engineering and network design 
            plans, even as such plans were already included in the 
            ReConnect grant application in the first instance.

     An NTCA member reports having to plan for phases of a 
            construction project so that any work on U.S. Forest 
            Service lands will be undertaken last because of a lack of 
            sufficient staffing in the agency to process the voluminous 
            amount of information required in connection with 
            environmental reviews; in turn, these delays have made 
            already-difficult parts of the projects even more expensive 
            due to inflationary impacts as calendar quarters and years 
            go by awaiting approval.

    As these examples highlight, NTCA members and providers like them 
can face lengthy delays--and the need to expend substantial sums beyond 
the actual costs of deployment--to access federal lands or other 
rights-of-way for broadband infrastructure installation. Especially in 
the case of installation of facilities in previously disturbed terrain, 
delays in application processing can be confounding and 
counterproductive to upgrading of existing networks. NTCA members have 
serious concerns that, without proactive planning and concrete action, 
issues of this kind could become more severe as private investment 
ramps to meet ever-increasing broadband demand--and as the largest 
broadband deployment funding program in our nation's history prepares 
to launch to amplify and augment these private sector efforts.
H.R. 3283 AND H.R. 3299

    The broadband-related bills under consideration today aim to tackle 
an important piece of the permitting puzzle--how providers apply for 
and obtain permission to deploy networks on federal lands. 
Specifically, Form 299 (SF-299) was created by the General Services 
Administration (``GSA'') pursuant to a 2012 mandate from Congress for a 
common application to install, construct, or maintain certain 
communications facilities on federal property. A report prepared for 
the third quarter of 2023 by GSA indicated the following activity in 
recent quarters across federal property-managing agencies related to 
Form 299 submissions:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6224.003


    .epsSource: GSA, Executive Order 13821, ``Streamlining and 
Expediting Requests to Locate Broadband Facilities in Rural America,'' 
Q3 FY 2023 Quarterly Report (available at: https://www.gsa.gov/system/
files/Executive_Order_13821_Quarterly_Report_Q3FY23.pdf)

    Data such as these underscore the importance of processing 
applications as efficiently as possible, with dozens of applications 
authorized each quarter but far more submitted and more still under 
consideration from prior quarters. Moreover, this same GSA report 
indicated (at page 7) that BLM, which is ``typically responsible for 
80% of the volume of reported applications,'' had switched to a new 
record-keeping system ``that may have contributed to field offices 
having challenges querying their databases'' and ``likely resulted in 
fewer applications being reported than are present in their 
inventory.''
    NTCA members report that Form 299 itself is relatively 
straightforward to complete (even as subsequent layers of environmental 
and historical preservation review can take much more work and time as 
noted in the examples I shared earlier). But the lack of an online 
portal for submission has led at times to frustration, confusion, and 
apparent delay. For example, one NTCA member reported concern in 
identifying the proper Forest Service personnel to whom to route an 
application; obviously, an online portal would mitigate unnecessary 
delays and confusion in this regard. Similarly, another member has 
indicated that the use of an online portal in connection with State-
level permitting processes has yielded efficiencies in tracking 
progress of review and approval, highlighting the promise of such an 
approach at the federal level as well.
    H.R. 3283 would help to prompt the creation of such an online 
portal by directing the Department of Commerce to consult promptly with 
the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture (the two most 
significant property-managing agencies in NTCA members' experience) and 
then to submit a report to Congress within 90 days regarding the status 
of efforts in those agencies to create an online portal for submission 
of Forms 299 and any barriers thereto. Meanwhile, H.R. 3299 would take 
the additional step of compelling the Interior and Agriculture 
departments to create such online portals within one year. NTCA 
supports both H.R. 3283 and H.R. 3299, and we encourage the 
Subcommittee to advance these bipartisan measures as important steps in 
improving the effectiveness of Form 299 and ultimately making it easier 
for providers and property-managing agencies alike to process broadband 
deployment applications.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

    Before ending my testimony, I wanted to address a few other matters 
related to the ultimate effectiveness of any online portals and the 
streamlining of permitting processes generally.
    First, I had the privilege to testify last year before the 
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the House Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. That hearing reviewed a few dozen bills aimed at 
streamlining permitting issues to expedite broadband deployment. It is 
useful to highlight one particular aspect of that testimony here 
related to the definition of ``communications facility,'' which is 
drawn from the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 and 
is cited in the legislation before us today (H.R. 3283 and H.R. 3299). 
While the section of the 2012 law in which it appears is entitled 
``Wireless Facilities Deployment,'' and while a good portion of that 
section speaks to the placement of wireless towers or base stations, 
the definition of a ``communications facility installation'' is 
expressly defined to include ``wireline transmission'' as well. I raise 
this here again simply to underscore that it will remain important for 
all parties--from Congress to the property-managing agencies to 
providers--to recall that provisions seeking to improve online 
application processes or to streamline permitting otherwise must apply 
with equal force to wireline and wireless deployments alike.
    Second, I would be remiss in discussing the processing of 
applications if I did not raise concerns about the workforce needed to 
fulfill these obligations. NTCA members have seen firsthand that 
federal agencies and other permitting offices are overcome by the 
requests and applications before them now, leading to the kinds of 
delays described above. One NTCA member, for example, shared that BLM 
had only two staff people to process applications in a large western 
state--and this was for access not only for communications uses, but 
for oil and gas extraction as well. As tens of billions of dollars flow 
into much-needed broadband deployment efforts in the next few years, 
the workflows to review permit applications likely will become more 
overwhelming and could lead to even greater delays and costs. In 
addition to improving the technology by which applications can be 
submitted and processed, we must ensure that these agencies and offices 
have the resources and skill sets needed to meet this demand. The 
promise offered by an online portal will be undermined if there is 
insufficient trained and skilled agency staff on the receiving end to 
process those applications.
    Finally, any online portal should be designed not only to receive 
Forms 299 in the first instance, but also to facilitate better 
communication among stakeholders regarding the status of them. NTCA 
members report that permitting offices and agencies can fall silent for 
long stretches of time regarding the status of applications or what 
else might be needed to deem an application ``complete,'' despite 
repeated inquiries by providers and their engineers and contractors. 
These episodes of silence can be followed at times by serial requests 
for additional information that could have been caught earlier or 
avoided altogether with better guidance and communication upfront. This 
dynamic in turn undermines the purpose of the ``shot clock'' 
established by federal law for review and approval of applications 
because the application is not deemed complete and thus subject to a 
mandatory 270-day review period until much longer after filing. NTCA 
therefore hopes that any online portals created will not only 
facilitate the submission of applications, but that they will also 
provide greater visibility into the status of such applications--
including identification of where they stand in terms of review and any 
items that might be deemed as lacking or missing in the submission.
    Thank you again for providing NTCA with the opportunity to share 
these thoughts on behalf of its rural community-based broadband 
provider members. We look forward to working with this Subcommittee, 
other Members of Congress, the federal agencies of jurisdiction, and 
other stakeholders to realize and sustain our nation's shared vision of 
universal broadband access.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Michael Romano, Executive 
         Vice President, NCTA--The Rural Broadband Association

              Questions Submitted by Representative Moylan

    Question 1. Mr. Romano, can you please discuss actions Congress can 
take to support localbroadband development and deployment in rural 
areas, especially in island communities?

    Answer. I thank Delegate Moylan for this question and for the 
opportunity to provide thoughts regarding further steps that Congress 
can take--in addition to passing the two bills (H.R. 3283 and H .R. 
3299) that NTCA supported at this legislative hearing--to facilitate 
broadband deployment on federal lands and in other rural areas, 
including especially island communities.
    As an initial matter, I had the privilege of testifying in April 
2023 before the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the House 
Energy and Commerce Committee at a hearing entitled ``Breaking 
Barriers: Streamlining Permitting to Expedite Broadband Deployment.'' 
In my testimony at that hearing, I highlighted a number of issues that 
providers far too frequently face in deploying broadband in rural areas 
(including specifically federal lands) and spoke in support of several 
still-pending bills that could help address these concerns.
    For example, I shared in my prior testimony that obtaining access 
to federal lands for broadband facilities installation--or otherwise 
obtaining clearances pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 
(``NEPA'') and/or the National Historic Preservation Act (``NHPA'') is 
a common concern for rural providers. Given the nature of the areas 
these providers serve and the significant distances between customer 
locations and network points of presence, rural providers often have no 
choice but to cross a Bureau of Land Management road or touch Forest 
Service property, for example. Yet the process of obtaining permissions 
through the environmental, historic preservation, and other 
consultation processes required by NEPA and NHPA can take many months 
or even years to complete; the myriad overlay of federal (including 
military in some places like Guam), state, and local regulatory regimes 
complicate this even further. While federal agencies have undertaken 
commendable efforts in recent months to attempt to streamline these 
processes through ``program comments'' and ``categorical exclusions,'' 
these measures do not always apply, and providers and agencies alike 
may not even be fully aware when such relief is available. Thus, bills 
like the ``Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands Act'' (H.R. 
3297) and the ``BROADBAND Leadership Act'' (H.R. 3295) would likely be 
very useful to expedite deployments by giving more meaning to ``shot 
clocks'' that govern permit review and providing clearer and consistent 
exemptions from the most stringent layers of review for certain kinds 
of projects.
    Relatedly, we often hear from small rural providers--including 
network owners in Guam and other island communities--particular 
frustration with the process for upgrading existing network facilities 
in existing rights-of-way. As I mentioned at this legislative hearing 
on July 9, it makes little sense to require providers to jump through 
significant hoops simply to replace one technology with another in an 
existing right-of-way where there is previously disturbed terrain. This 
concern is both a deterrent to upgrading networks in the ordinary 
course of business to deliver better services to consumers, and it can 
be of even greater importance and impact when a provider is looking to 
restore existing networks on islands like Guam that can from time to 
time contend with severe weather such as typhoons. Especially given the 
desire for resilient networks (and particularly in areas like Guam 
where mission-critical networks serve strategic national interests), 
the ability to upgrade plant in existing rights-of-way with buried 
infrastructure that can even better withstand natural disasters should 
be seen as an essential aspect of improvements to permitting processes.
    We would also submit that Congress could play an important role by 
ensuring that the fees associated with permitting and use of public 
rights-of-way are reasonable and do not saddle the relatively fewer 
customers in rural areas with even higher costs for deployment. One 
example of legislation that could address this concern is the ``BEAD 
FEES Act'' (H.R. 3298), which would, at least in the context of the 
upcoming Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (``BEAD'') program, 
prompt states and territories to ensure that fees for access to public 
rights-of-way and other areas necessary for deployment of BEAD-funded 
projects will be cost-based and publicly disclosed.
    Finally, as I mentioned at the July 9 legislative hearing, even the 
best streamlining measures still depend ultimately upon sufficient 
resources in terms of skilled staff within federal, state, and local 
permitting agencies to process applications promptly. As the hearing 
reinforced, many of these agencies already face a growing backlog of 
applications--and as programs like BEAD are poised to inject tens of 
billions of dollars more into much-needed broadband deployment--these 
backlogs are likely only to grow unless smart streamlining is paired 
with attention to the skilled workforce needed at all levels of 
government to make sure the streamlining works as intended and 
designed. We would urge Congress to probe further into these concerns 
as well, so that any legislation adopted to improve permitting 
procedures can in fact realize its promise.

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Romano. I would now like to 
recognize Mr. Jim Jaworski, General Manager of the Daytona 
Tortugas in Daytona Beach, Florida.
    Mr. Jaworski, you have 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF JIM JAWORSKI, GENERAL MANAGER, DAYTONA TORTUGAS, 
                     DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA

    Mr. Jaworski. Chairman Tiffany and members of the 
Subcommittee, my name is Jim Jaworski, General Manager for the 
Daytona Tortugas professional baseball team, Single-A affiliate 
of the Cincinnati Reds located in Daytona Beach, Florida. This 
is my 15th year with the organization, and I am honored to be 
here with you today. Thank you for the invitation, and a 
special thanks to Representative Waltz. Today, I am here to 
talk about Jackie Robinson and a historic event that took place 
in Daytona Beach.
    Baseball has been played on City Island Daytona Beach since 
1914, making it the third oldest active professional baseball 
field in the United States, only behind Wrigley Field and 
Fenway Park. On March 17, 1946, Jackie Robinson broke the 
professional baseball modern-era color barrier when he stepped 
to the plate at then-City Island Ballpark, later to be named 
Jackie Robinson Ballpark, in Daytona Beach as a Montreal Royal, 
the Brooklyn Dodgers' top farm club, in an inter-squad game 
against the Dodgers. This historic event took place at what is 
now called Jackie Robinson Ballpark, and was largely made 
possible by the local advocacy of Mary McLeod Bethune, founder 
of Bethune-Cookman University, with the local city commission.
    On that Sunday morning in Daytona Beach, Black churchgoers 
listened to sermons about Robinson before heading to the 
ballpark hand in hand. Dodgers officials invited African 
American veterans from an Army hospital to attend a game. These 
veterans, about 250 in number, sat wherever they wanted for the 
game, disregarding the segregation of the bleachers. Thus, 
before the game even began, City Island Ballpark was 
integrated.
    One year after his debut, Robinson began his Major League 
Baseball career in Brooklyn, demonstrating that African 
American players could excel in the League. He led in stolen 
bases, won the National League Rookie of the Year, and later 
earned the Most Valuable Player title. He made six all-star 
appearances and secured a World Series victory in 1955. His 
achievements swiftly earned him induction to the Baseball Hall 
of Fame in 1962.
    In 1990, City Island's historic field was renamed Jackie 
Robinson Ballpark, and features a statue of Robinson behind 
home plate. The statue portrays Robinson passing a baseball to 
two young children, symbolizing his enduring impact on future 
generations. Each year on Jackie Robinson's Major League 
Baseball debut anniversary, baseball honors his monumental 
contributions. In 1997, then-Commissioner Bud Selig retired 
Robinson's number 42 across Major League Baseball in a ceremony 
before a Dodgers Mets game.
    In addition to the number 42 being retired in Daytona 
Beach, we also have retired Robinson's number 9, worn during 
his time in Daytona Beach. On April 15, all of Major League 
Baseball honors Robinson by wearing the number 42. In a similar 
way, the Daytona Tortugas honor Robinson and commemorate the 
events of the barrier-breaking game by wearing the number 9. In 
2022, Minor League Baseball launched The Nine, an initiative 
and outreach program celebrating Black baseball pioneers and 
civil rights leaders, named after Robinson's Minor League 
number in Daytona Beach.
    As we look forward to continuing to champion Jackie's 
legacy in Daytona Beach and across the country, the passage of 
H.R. 8012, the Jackie Robinson Commemorative Site Act, would be 
of enormous benefit to this effort and our community. 
Designating Jackie Robinson Ballpark as a national landmark 
would provide even more opportunities to showcase all he did 
for the game and for bettering the communities in which we 
live.
    To this day, the home plate at Jackie Robinson Ballpark 
stands in the same spot that it did on that historic day in 
1946. Every year, hundreds of athletes step up to the plate 
into Jackie Robinson's footsteps. This story continues at 
Jackie Robinson Ballpark as the HBCU Bethune-Cookman 
University's baseball team continues to practice and play their 
games at the ballpark. This is a partnership that Mary McLeod 
Bethune, recently memorialized in Statuary Hall, would 
certainly be proud of.
    As a Single-A affiliate for the Cincinnati Reds, Jackie 
Robinson Ballpark continues to be the first step for Minor 
League players, and a memorable one at that. As we take Jackie 
Robinson Ballpark into the future, our goal is to preserve the 
history that took place on the grounds and showcase it for 
years to come. The ballpark is currently undergoing roughly $30 
million of improvements to ensure that baseball will be played 
for generations to come in Daytona Beach. This private-public 
effort is being led by Mayor Derrick Henry, City Manager Deric 
Feacher in Daytona Beach, the club and leaders from the 
Cincinnati Reds, and Major League Baseball. These improvements 
are transformational for us, and envisioned to include a Jackie 
Robinson Museum on site.
    A National Landmark designation will further increase 
visibility and traffic to the ballpark, making the local 
economic impact of the park even more compelling. Jackie 
Robinson Ballpark is so much more than baseball, and as Jackie 
famously once said, ``A life is not important except in the 
impact it has on other lives.'' The national landmark status 
and passing of the Jackie Robinson Commemorative Site Act would 
only help cement this philosophy through shining a light on his 
life for generations to come. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Jaworski follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Jim Jaworski, General Manager, Daytona Tortugas
                              on H.R. 8012

    My name is Jim Jaworski, General Manager for the Daytona Tortugas 
Professional Baseball Team, Single-A Affiliate of the Cincinnati Reds 
located in Daytona Beach, Florida. This is my 15th year with the 
organization, and I am honored and extremely excited to be here with 
you today. Thank you for the invitation.
    Today, I am here to talk about Jackie Robinson and a historic event 
that took place in Daytona Beach. Baseball has been played on City 
Island in Daytona Beach since 1914 making it the third oldest, active 
professional baseball field in the United States only behind Wrigley 
Field and Fenway Park.
    On March 17, 1946 Jackie Robinson broke the professional baseball 
modern era color barrier when he stepped to the plate at then City 
Island Ballpark (later to be named Jackie Robinson Ballpark) in Daytona 
Beach as a Montreal Royal, the Brooklyn Dodgers' top farm club, in an 
intra-squad game against the Dodgers. This historic event took place at 
what is now called Jackie Robinson Ballpark and was largely made 
possible by the local advocacy of Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of 
Bethune Cookman University, with the local city commission.
    On that Sunday morning in Daytona Beach, black churchgoers listened 
to sermons about Robinson before heading to the ballpark hand in hand. 
Dodgers officials invited African-American veterans from an Army 
hospital to attend the game. These veterans, about 250 in number, sat 
wherever they wanted for the game, disregarding the segregation of the 
bleachers. Thus, before the game even began, City Island Ballpark was 
integrated.
    One year after his debut, Robinson began his Major League Baseball 
career in Brooklyn, demonstrating that African American players could 
excel in the league. He led in stolen bases, won the National League 
Rookie of the Year award, and later earned the Most Valuable Player 
title, made six All-Star appearances, and secured a World Series 
victory in 1955. His achievements swiftly earned him induction into the 
Baseball Hall of Fame in 1962.
    In 1990, City Island's historic field was renamed Jackie Robinson 
Ballpark and features a statue of Robinson behind home plate. The 
statue portrays Robinson passing a baseball to two young children, 
symbolizing his enduring impact on future generations.
    Each year on Jackie Robinson's Major League Baseball debut 
anniversary, baseball honors his monumental contributions. In 1997, 
Commissioner Bud Selig retired Robinson's No. 42 across Major League 
Baseball at a ceremony before a Dodgers-Mets game. In addition to the 
number 42 being retired, Daytona Beach also retired Robinson's No. 9, 
worn during his time in Daytona Beach. On April 15th all of Major 
League Baseball honors Robinson by wearing the number 42. In a similar 
way, the Daytona Tortugas honor Robinson and commemorate the events of 
the barrier breaking game by wearing the number 9. In 2022, Minor 
League Baseball launched ``The Nine,'' an initiative and outreach 
program celebrating black baseball pioneers and civil rights leaders, 
named after Robinson's minor league number in Daytona Beach.
    As we look forward to continuing to champion Jackie's legacy in 
Daytona Beach and across the country, the passage of H.R. 8012, The 
Jackie Robinson Commemorative Site Act, would be of enormous benefit to 
this effort and our community.
    Designating Jackie Robinson Ballpark as a National Landmark would 
provide even more opportunities to showcase all he did for the game and 
for bettering the communities we live in.
    To this day, home plate at Jackie Robinson Ballpark stands in the 
same spot that it did on that historic day in 1946. Every year, 
hundreds of athletes step up to the plate and into Jackie Robinson's 
footsteps. The story continues at Jackie Robinson Ballpark as the HBCU, 
Bethune-Cookman University's baseball team continues to practice and 
play their games at the ballpark. This is a partnership that Mary 
McLeod Bethune, recently memorialized in Statuary Hall, would certainly 
be proud of. As a Single-A affiliate for the Cincinnati Reds, Jackie 
Robinson Ballpark continues to be the first step for Minor League 
Baseball players and a memorable one at that.
    As we take Jackie Robinson Ballpark into the future, our goal is to 
preserve the history that took place on the grounds and showcase it for 
years to come. The ballpark is currently undergoing roughly $30 million 
of improvements to ensure that baseball will be played for generations 
to come in Daytona Beach. This private/public effort, being led by 
Mayor Derrick Henry and City Manager Deric Feacher in Daytona Beach, 
the club, and leaders from the Cincinnati Reds and Major League 
Baseball. These improvements are transformational for us and envisioned 
to include a Jackie Robinson Museum on-site. A National Landmark 
designation will further increase visibility and traffic to the 
ballpark making the local economic impact of the park even more 
compelling.
    Jackie Robinson Ballpark is so much more than baseball and as 
Jackie famously once said, ``A life is not important except in the 
impact it has on other lives.'' The National Landmark status and 
passing of the Jackie Robinson Commemorative Site Act would only help 
cement this philosophy, through shining a light on his life, for 
generations to come.
    Thank you.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Jaworski.
    By the way, did Elly De La Cruz go through Daytona Beach on 
his way to Cincinnati?
    Mr. Jaworski. Yes he did.
    Mr. Tiffany. Good to know.
    Mr. Jaworski. He was fun to watch.
    Mr. Tiffany. I am sure he didn't stay long.
    Mr. Jaworski. He did not. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. Finally, I would like to recognize Mr. Joe 
Quinn, a Visionary Network member at the National 9/11 Memorial 
and Museum.
    Mr. Quinn, you have 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF JOE QUINN, VISIONARY NETWORK MEMBER, NATIONAL 
   SEPTEMBER 11 MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK

    Mr. Quinn. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to testify 
today on H.R. 5401, the 9/11 Memorial and Museum Act. Thank you 
to the Committee for your support in the past, and thank you to 
Representatives D'Esposito and Goldman for your continued 
support.
    H.R. 5401, sponsored by Representative D'Esposito, is an 
important piece of legislation that will ensure the Federal 
Government partners with the 9/11 Memorial and Museum for its 
ongoing protection, safety, and security for its millions of 
annual visitors from across the country and across the world.
    My name is Joe Quinn. I am a 9/11 family member and a 
military veteran. During my senior year at the United States 
Military Academy at West Point, 9/11 happened. I remember that 
day like it was yesterday, seeing the Twin Towers burning at 
the top like smokestacks from my television.
    My brother, Jimmy, worked on the top floor of the North 
Tower. My brother was everything to me. He wasn't only just my 
brother, but he was also my best friend. During the 1993 
bombing of the World Trade Center, my brother and I were just 
teenagers with our entire futures ahead of us. We really didn't 
understand why someone would attack the World Trade Center, 
nonetheless why they would attack it again, providing a false 
sense of security when my brother would accept his first job 
out of college in finance with Cantor Fitzgerald at just 23 
years old. My brother Jimmy would tell people that he worked on 
top of the world, and that is how he felt until it all came 
crashing down on September 11, 2001.
    From my room at West Point, I watched the North Tower 
collapse with my brother inside of it. The next day, I made my 
way down to Manhattan. I made my way to as close to ground zero 
as possible before being stopped by a police officer who told 
me I couldn't go through. I told him my brother was in there. 
We both stared at the fire, smoke, and rubble, and knowingly 
said nothing to each other. We both knew my brother couldn't be 
in there.
    That day, I vowed to never let something like this happen 
again. So, after graduating West Point I was commissioned as an 
officer in the United States Army, doing two tours in Iraq as a 
soldier and one tour in Afghanistan as an advisor. After 
getting out of the Army, I studied terrorism at Harvard 
University, and then became an instructor at West Point's 
Combating Terrorism Center. And one of my greatest takeaways 
from that period of study is the importance of symbolism for 
targets of terrorism.
    While it didn't make sense to me as a teenager, it now made 
sense to me why terrorists would attack the World Trade Center 
in 1993 and then again in 2001. It is because the World Trade 
Center was a symbol of freedom, economic power, and the power 
of our diversity as a nation where every race, religion, and 
creed was attacked on 9/11, to include citizens from more than 
90 countries.
    The site of the World Trade Center, the 9/11 Memorial and 
Museum, will continue to be a target not only because it 
represents our strength and our diversity, but it now 
represents our resilience and unity as a country.
    Twenty-three years later, I still struggle with the loss of 
my brother. It is not only that he was killed, it was how he 
was killed. I picture him being scared. He was asthmatic and 
scared of heights. As the smoke billowed up, he had to peer 
down 102 stories and choose between smoke inhalation and 
jumping to his own death. And I couldn't do anything to protect 
him.
    Twenty-three years later, I am now living back in New York 
City with my family. I followed my brother's footsteps, working 
in finance for the firm called Drexel Hamilton, where we have 
the mission of hiring veterans, and where I bring veterans to 
the 9/11 Memorial on a monthly basis. I am also lucky enough to 
be married to a Gold Star family member, where my wife's oldest 
brother was killed in Iraq. We have three wonderful kids, 7, 5, 
and 3 years of age, where we take them to the 9/11 memorial 
often to visit their Uncle Jimmy, since his remains were never 
found.
    In conclusion, I was humbled when asked to testify today, 
but I hesitated because life is busy, especially with three 
little kids. And today is my 13th wedding anniversary, so I am 
in a bit of trouble on the way home.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Quinn. But I am here because I didn't want to be the 
one who didn't support this 9/11 bill. I failed to protect my 
brother. But collectively, we can protect the children, 
veterans, and millions of our fellow citizens going forward, 
and preserve the 9/11 Memorial Museum as a beacon of national 
unity.
    Thank you for your support for this important piece of 
legislation, and thank you for honoring America's promise to 
never forget. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Quinn follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Joe Quinn
                              on H.R. 5401

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today on H.R. 5401, the 
9/11 Memorial & Museum Act. Thank you to this Committee for your 
support in the past, and thank you to Representatives D'Esposito and 
Goldman for your continued support and for providing testimony today.
    One-third of the U.S. population was too young to remember or has 
been born since 9/11/01. That's 100 million Americans having no lived 
memory of the worst terrorist attack in history--a day that changed our 
lives forever.
    H.R. 5401, the 9/11 Memorial and Museum Act, sponsored by 
Representative Anthony D'Esposito, is an important piece of legislation 
that will ensure the federal government partners with the Memorial & 
Museum for the ongoing protection, safety, and security of the 9/11 
Memorial and Museum, it's millions of annual visitors, and its staff. 
The 9/11 Memorial and Museum is considered a high-value target by 
malicious actors and terrorist groups.
    My name is Joe Quinn. I'm a military veteran and member of the 9/11 
Memorial community. During my senior year at the United States Military 
Academy at West Point, 9/11 happened. I remember that day like it was 
yesterday, with my roommate Joe Peppers calling out to me, saying, 
``Joe, turn on the TV, the Twin Towers are on fire.'' I turned on the 
television to see the towers burning at the top like smokestacks. Then 
my phone rang. It was my mother. She said, `Are you watching this? 
We're at war. You're at West Point and we're now at war,'' not even 
thinking of the safety of my brother Jimmy who worked for Cantor 
Fitzgerald on the 102nd floor of the North Tower.
    My brother Jimmy was everything to me: my best friend on top of 
being my brother. We were bunkbed mates in our shared room of our home 
in Brooklyn, New York.
    During the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, my brother and I 
were just teenagers with our entire futures ahead of us. We really 
didn't understand why someone would attack the World Trade Center, 
nonetheless why they would attack it again, providing a false sense of 
security when my brother would accept his first job out of college with 
Cantor Fitzgerald at just 23 years-old.
    My brother Jimmy would tell people that he worked on ``Top of the 
World,'' and that's how we felt, until it all came crashing down on 
September 11th, 2001.
    From my television set in my room at West Point, I watched the 
North Tower collapse with my brother inside of it, and I collapsed to 
the floor with it. My roommate Joe Peppers picked me up off the floor, 
and I eventually made my way out of my room and down to Ground Zero the 
next day.
    I made my way as close to Ground Zero as possible before being 
stopped by a police officer who told me I couldn't go through. I told 
him my brother was in there. We both stared at the fire, smoke, soot 
and rubble and knowingly said nothing to each other. We both knew my 
brother couldn't be `in there.'
    That day I vowed to never let something like this happen again, so 
after graduating West Point, I was commissioned as an officer in the 
United States Army--doing two tours in Iraq as soldier and eventually a 
tour in Afghanistan as a civilian advisor.
    After getting out of the Army, I'd study terrorism at Harvard's 
Kennedy School of Government and then became an Instructor at West 
Point's Combating Terrorism Center, and one of my greatest takeaways 
from that period of study is the importance of symbolism for targets of 
terrorism.
    While it didn't make sense to me as a teenager, it now made sense 
to me why terrorists would attack the World Trade Center in 1993 and 
then again in 2001. It's because the World Trade Center was a symbol of 
freedom, economic power and the power of our diversity as a nation--
with every race, religion and creed being attacked on 9/11 to include 
citizens from more than 90 countries.
    The site of the World Trade Center--the 9/11 Memorial & Museum--
will continue to be a target, not only because it represents our 
strength and diversity, but it now represents our resilience and unity.
    23 years later, I still struggle with the loss of my brother, 
Jimmy. It's not only that he was killed, but it was how he was killed. 
I picture him being scared. He was asthmatic and scared of heights. As 
the smoke rose, he had to peer down 102 stories and choose between 
smoke inhalation or jumping to his death, and I couldn't do anything to 
protect him.
    23 years later, I'm now back living in New York City with my 
family. I've followed my brother's footsteps working in finance, for 
the firm, Drexel Hamilton, where we have a mission of hiring veterans, 
and where I bring veterans to the 9/11 Memorial on a monthly basis.
    I'm also lucky enough to be married to a Gold Star family member, 
where my wife's oldest brother was killed in Iraq. We have three 
wonderful kids now--7, 5 and 3 years of age, where one of them is named 
after his uncles--and who we take to the 9/11 Memorial often to visit 
their Uncle Jimmy, since his remains were never found.
    How much is it worth to protect my children and the thousands of 
children who visit the 9/11 Memorial every year?
    How much is it worth to protect my parents and the 8,000 9/11 
family members who gather at the Memorial every year?
    How much would we give to protect more than 77 million visitors 
from every state in the U.S., from all walks of life, from 175 
countries that have visited over the last 10 years--including tens of 
thousands of active, retired and veterans who visit every year?
    If you close your eyes, and remember how you felt on September 
11th, 2001, then the answer is simple.
    I'd give anything for my brother to be alive, but I've learned the 
hard way that there's nothing I can do for him now, after failing to 
protect him.
    But there's something I can do now, there's something we can all do 
now, to protect our children, to protect our veterans, and to protect 
our fellow citizens from terrorist's number one target--the 9/11 
Memorial & Museum site--where we can protect its legacy as place of 
healing, resilience and unity.
    Thank you for your support for this important piece of legislation 
and thank you for honoring America's promise to Never Forget.
9/11 Memorial & Museum

    The 9/11 Memorial & Museum remembers and honors the 2,983 people 
killed in the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001 and the February 
26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as well as those who risked their 
lives to save others and all who demonstrated extraordinary compassion 
in the aftermath of the attacks. It fulfills this mission through 
commemoration, exhibitions, and education. Since its dedication on 
September 11, 2011, the 9/11 Memorial has welcomed 77 million visitors 
from all 50 states and 175 countries; and the Museum has welcomed more 
than 23 million individuals since its dedication on May 15, 2014.
    In the middle of the World Trade Center site is the 9/11 Memorial 
plaza, eight acres dedicated to remembering every individual killed on 
September 11, 2001, the six individuals killed as a result of the 
terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and 
all who are sick or have died as a result of exposure to toxins at and 
around the attack sites during the recovery efforts post-9/11, and 
those who have become sick or have died due to exposure to toxins 
during recovery efforts at the three 9/11 attack sites. Anchoring the 
plaza are two twin reflecting pools with waterfalls, each about an acre 
in size and set within the footprints of the original Twin Towers. The 
Memorial is a powerful reminder that visitors are standing on the 
physical site where the attacks occurred.
    Situated 70 feet below the plaza and within the archaeological 
heart of the World Trade Center site, the 9/11 Memorial Museum is 
comprised of 110,000 square feet of exhibition and public space. It 
tells the story of 9/11 and its continuing significance through 
multimedia displays, archaeological excavations, in situ historical 
remnants, artifacts, recorded testimonies, and compelling narratives.
    The Museum houses two core exhibitions. In the footprint of the 
North Tower is the historical exhibition, which presents the events of 
September 11, 2001 as they unfolded that day, the historical 
antecedents leading up to the attacks, and the recovery efforts and 
acts of compassion, volunteerism, and public service evidenced in the 
days, months, and years following the attacks. The Museum's memorial 
exhibition, In Memoriam, located in the South Tower footprint, tells 
the personal stories of the nearly 3,000 individuals who were killed in 
the terrorist attacks of 2001 and 1993. Other galleries are dedicated 
to changing exhibitions, or special installations related to 9/11 and 
the World Trade Center site. The Museum also offers a slate of 
educational and public programming that fulfills the institution's 
mission. The primary goals of these programs are to accurately convey 
what happened on 9/11 and in its aftermath, to connect audiences to the 
human impact of the attacks, and to underscore the ongoing relevance of 
the attacks today. The Museum is an active collecting institution, 
caring for more than 75,000 objects.

    Memorial: We are the proudly designated custodian responsible for 
monitoring a site with extraordinarily complex infrastructure and 
mechanical systems that require constant attention: 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, 365 days a year. The continuous operation and 
maintenance of the Memorial plaza and Museum is of utmost importance, 
ensuring through the highest standard of care that it can exist in 
perpetuity.
    The 9/11 Memorial & Museum was consciously designed and constructed 
to incorporate sustainable practices for a healthy, efficient, carbon- 
and cost-saving green facility. The 9/11 Memorial was awarded LEED Gold 
Certification in July 2015 based on sustainable design elements and 
practices that address the impact of the site's carbon footprint, 
including optimized energy usage, water conservation and storm water 
management, as well as a heat island effect with green roof and 
landscaping. The eight-acre site has ample public green space, 
including over 400 swamp white oak trees and 45,750 square feet of 
groundcover. Existing sustainability and green practices include a 
green roof that sits on layer of structural soil, which allows 
landscaping, including trees, groundcover, and grass, to grow freely 
without being confined to planters. Additionally, during non-drought 
conditions, 100% of the landscape irrigation demand is met by a storm 
water harvesting system, whereby rain that falls on the plaza flows to 
four harvest tanks where the water is filtrated for landscaping 
purposes.

    Security: In 2024, the 9/11 Memorial remains one of the busiest 
tourist sites in New York City and, as such, safety for the thousands 
of daily visitors is of the utmost importance, representing one of the 
institution's highest annual expenses. Furthermore, with the 9/11 
Memorial & Museum situated at a site that was the target of two 
terrorist attacks, it remains a site of significant risk. The 9/11 
Memorial security staff, working in coordination with local, state, and 
federal law enforcement, is responsible for the safety and security of 
all who visit the Memorial.
    Security personnel are stationed on the plaza to monitor visitors' 
behavior, including possible damage to Memorial parapets; from walking 
through protected areas; ensuring animals and pets do not enter the 
Memorial grounds; and enforcing the site's list of prohibited items and 
rules regarding unauthorized media and expressive activity on the 
plaza. Simultaneously, other on-duty security personnel are posted 
throughout the Museum interior screen visitors entering the Museum to 
ensure all guests comply with TSA style (e.g., x-ray, magnetometer) 
screening; safekeep of exhibitions and individual artifacts on display; 
and monitor the loading dock and employee entrance according to 
industry standards.

    Education: 9/11 Memorial & Museum currently offers a diverse slate 
of programs which aim to accurately convey what happened on 9/11 and in 
its aftermath, to connect our audience to the human impact of the 
attacks, and to underscore their ongoing relevance today. Inquiry-based 
and interdisciplinary, they provide an accurate historical 
understanding and foster the critical thinking skills and empathy 
required to tackle this challenging content. Key programs include:

     9/11 Anniversary Digital Learning Experience (DLE): 
            Offered annually on the Anniversary, this commemorative 
            program (formerly known as Anniversary in the Schools) 
            introduces students and teachers from around the world to 
            9/11 through first-person accounts of the attacks and their 
            aftermath and a live chat with Museum staff. For many 
            students, this is their first time learning about 9/11. For 
            many educators, the program serves as an introduction to 
            our work and mission. In 2023, 22% of participating 
            students were in elementary school, 41% in middle school, 
            and 37% in high school. To date, the DLE has reached over 
            3.2 million individuals from all 50 states and 60 
            countries, with ample room to grow.

     9/11 Memorial & Museum Field Trips (In-Museum/Virtual): 
            Our inquiry-based field trips introduce 9/11 and its 
            aftermath through guided tours. To convey this history, the 
            programs focus on the stories of those affected and draw 
            from the Museum's permanent collection of more than 21,500 
            artifacts. An increased investment in education will enable 
            outreach to specific target markets across the country.

     Professional Development for Educators (PD): We offer a 
            diverse slate of programs to help elementary, secondary, 
            and pre-service educators teach 9/11 in their classrooms. 
            Our Educator Conference Series invites educators into the 
            Museum, providing interdisciplinary tools and strategies 
            for teaching this challenging content. In summer 2023, we 
            launched the Institute for Educators bringing educators 
            from around the country for a more in-depth weeklong 
            experience. Museum staff also regularly delivers 
            professional development sessions to education conferences 
            around the country. Presentations focus on current topics 
            within the social studies, civic education, and 9/11 
            scholarship. Our research estimates that for every teacher/
            educator we reach, they in turn teach anywhere from 30-150 
            students.

     Digital Education Toolkit: We currently offer a range of 
            online resources for educators and learners, including 
            interactive lesson plans, the 9/11 primer, digital 
            exhibitions, and interactive timelines. Funding will assist 
            Education staff in expanding these offerings for students 
            and teachers; for example, by creating additional lesson 
            plans geared toward these grades and supporting the filming 
            and archiving of Professional Development workshops on our 
            website.

     Youth and Family Programs: We offer a variety of programs 
            for visitors with children. All activities use age-
            appropriate language to help children learn more about 9/11 
            and how people responded to the attacks. Current programs 
            include the 9/11 Memorial Art Cart, 45-minute Youth & 
            Family Tours of the Museum, and art-based Activities at 
            Home.

                    9/11 Memorial & Museum's Mission

    The National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade 
Center bears solemn witness to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001 and February 26, 1993. Respecting this site made sacred through 
loss, the Memorial & Museum remembers and honors the nearly 3,000 
victims of these attacks and all those who risked their lives to save 
others. It further recognizes the thousands who survived and all who 
manifested extraordinary compassion and leadership in the wake of the 
attacks. Demonstrating the consequences of terrorism on individual 
lives and its impact on communities at the local, national, and 
international levels, the Memorial & Museum attests to the triumph of 
human dignity over human depravity and affirms an unwavering commitment 
to the fundamental value of human life.

    May the lives remembered, the deeds recognized, and the spirit 
reawakened be eternal beacons, which reaffirm respect for life, 
strengthen our resolve to preserve freedom, and inspire an end to 
hatred, ignorance, and intolerance.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Quinn, for your testimony. That 
concludes our panelists' testimony. We are going to move on to 
questions from Committee members.
    First, I would like to recognize the gentleman from 
Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Quinn, thank you 
for your testimony.
    Mr. D'Esposito, thanks for your professional service as a 
law enforcement officer. As one of just a few myself that have 
worn the uniform, I can assure you we will never forget.
    As a Representative of Minnesota's 8th Congressional 
District, I understand the importance of broadband access for 
rural America. That is why I am proud to support the 
legislation brought by my colleagues that will improve the 
permitting of rural broadband technology and infrastructure on 
Federal lands.
    Mr. Romano, can you go into greater detail on why having an 
online portal for Form 299 submissions will help expedite this 
permitting process?
    And without this online portal, how is a provider supposed 
to submit this necessary paperwork?
    Mr. Romano. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
    The way that the form is submitted today, it could be any 
number of ways physically. It is USPS, UPS, Fed-Ex, or you can 
do it by e-mail, as well.
    The legislation that is before you would help in several 
ways. I can think of four in particular. The first is to allow 
you to figure out where to send it, to make sure you can get it 
to the right place in the agency. The second is to get a 
confirmation of receipt, instead of having an e-mail or 
something go to essentially a blank post office box, and not 
knowing where it ends up. Third is to track the status of the 
application, hopefully, and figure out where that stands in the 
process of review and approval. And the fourth is to enable 
communication back and forth with the permitting agency to 
understand if there are any questions.
    Mr. Stauber. And I think that is important for the people 
submitting the Form 299, that they understand where it is at, 
and what position it is at, and when they are going to get an 
answer, et cetera.
    So, Mr. Romano, absent this portal, there may be a 
completely different process virtually every time a provider 
needs to submit a Form 299, as you just said. It can be 
completely different, based on which Federal land manager they 
are seeking approval from or which field office or national 
forest or park system unit they are seeking to construct 
necessary infrastructure on.
    Do you think, as far as a permitting reform, do you think 
that it will streamline and be easier for not only the agency, 
but the applicants, as well?
    Mr. Romano. Certainly, yes. The form is common, but the 
process is not necessarily common. Each agency has its own way 
of administering these things and reviewing these things. I am 
not sure of every agency's processes, but I know, for example, 
for the Bureau of Land Management, they have field offices and 
units that handle information. I heard from a member in one 
Western state there were two people involved in the processing 
of communications facilities, gas pipelines, and other 
facilities on BLM land. So, there are different processes by 
different agencies.
    I would hope that an online portal could be used not only, 
again, for submission and receipt, but also for some 
commonality and streamlining in the review across different 
agencies. Each agency will have its own needs and challenges, 
to be sure, but hopefully this would lend itself to greater 
commonality across all of those.
    Mr. Stauber. And I want you to repeat it for the public. 
Without this online portal, how is a provider supposed to 
submit this necessary paperwork? You mentioned some. Repeat 
those.
    Mr. Romano. Sure. I have heard tell of U.S. Postal Service, 
UPS, Fed-Ex, and e-mail, just in inquiring in the last several 
days with members about different ways they have sent it in.
    Mr. Stauber. And this is a good bill to streamline that.
    And we are talking about permitting reform. And this is 
incredible. I don't think any type of infrastructure investment 
enjoys such broad, bipartisan support than rural broadband 
infrastructure. But our permitting system, it is so backwards 
we can't even make these investments because of the permitting 
system. And this is directly affecting rural communities like 
those in northern Minnesota.
    One more, Mr. Romano. I agree with you that we need to 
increase transparency around the permitting process for rural 
infrastructure investments, and creating a public online portal 
for Form 299 submissions is one of the easiest, most 
straightforward things we can do. That said, we know this is 
just the start of what has to be done. Mr. Romano, does 
frivolous litigation pose a significant challenge for rural 
broadband providers to build and invest in rural broadband 
infrastructure?
    Mr. Romano. Congressman, I have certainly heard of 
litigation in other contexts related to placement of facilities 
or environmental clearances and the like. Our members are small 
businesses. They can't afford to engage in litigation, and 
oftentimes they need to get a project done quickly because they 
are serving their neighbors, their friends, their family. So, 
they tend not themselves to engage in litigation on this. They 
look to find ways to make this work and get it through. 
Improving those processes will be incredibly important for all 
of these reasons.
    Mr. Stauber. And we hear that, unfortunately every week in 
this Committee, where litigation halts good projects or delays, 
and tends to be more expensive because of the delay. We need 
permitting reform, and we need reforms to the judicial review 
process to be part of that, as well.
    I thank all of you for your testimony today.
    And Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now turn to the 
gentlelady from Oregon for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    First of all, Mr. Quinn, I want to thank you. I know it is 
difficult, and it is so meaningful that you are here, you share 
your experience, and that we never forget what happened.
    I was in Germany on 9/11 and had family members that were 
firefighters on the scene. We didn't know for days whether or 
not they were alive. I have a cousin who still has lung damage, 
as he searched for survivors that just weren't there. So, we 
can't forget. And, again, I am sorry for your loss, and I just 
want to thank you. This is critical and important.
    But that is not what I came to speak about. So, with that, 
I would like to speak in support of H.R. 6012, the Fire Safe 
Electrical Corridors Act from my colleague, Representative 
Carbajal. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation.
    As we speak, western Oregon is in the middle of a record 
heat wave. Today in Eugene, Oregon, it is set to peak at 104 
degrees. This is not normal. There is also a red flag warning 
in place due to increased fire risk throughout the Willamette 
Valley and central Oregon. I have the fire map that I look at 
every morning. From the time I looked at it yesterday morning 
until the afternoon, there were 10-fold more fires that had 
started. And we haven't even gotten into the lightning season 
yet.
    So, I want to thank the first responders who are out there 
in this 100-plus-degree heat, working to keep our communities 
safe. My constituents are very aware of the threat of 
wildfires, we have our to-go bags ready and packed at all 
times, and in particular the wildfire risk that power lines can 
create on Federal lands.
    In 2020, during the historic Labor Day fires, we had seven 
mega-fires at the same time. The Archie Creek Fire just west of 
me, caused by power lines, burned over 125,000 acres and 
devastated communities in my district.
    We have learned a lot. Utilities in Oregon have been 
working hard to fireproof their infrastructure to prevent 
future disasters, and it is in all of our best interests to 
reduce the red tape to make it easier for utilities to reduce 
wildfire risk from power lines. We cannot allow bureaucracy to 
get in the way of saving lives in our communities, which is why 
I strongly support this bipartisan bill to allow utilities to 
remove hazard trees near power lines on Federal lands without 
going through the timber sale process. This is bipartisan. This 
is good legislation, and it is a common-sense solution to a 
serious issue.
    I want to thank my colleagues who supported it, 
Representative Carbajal for bringing it forward, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the bill. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your questions and comments. And 
now I recognize Mr. D'Esposito for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And Mr. Quinn, thank you again for being here today, not 
only on behalf of your family, but for all the families of the 
victims of 9/11 and, like I mentioned in my opening remarks, 
the victims who are still being taken from 9/11.
    And I have to say that this questioning, at least for me, 
it seems sort of ridiculous, because we know the answers to it, 
and we know how important the 9/11 Museum is to not only New 
Yorkers, but to Americans and, quite frankly, to people from 
across the world. But I want to get some of these answers on 
the record, because I think it is important to our colleagues 
and those who perhaps have in the past not always been 
supportive of the efforts that we have had in New York on 
behalf of the 9/11 Memorial.
    So, why do you believe that it is so important that we 
continue to educate future generations about the attacks on 
September 11, 2001?
    Mr. Quinn. No, I appreciate that, and a great question.
    As a military veteran, I actually just spoke to a group of 
ROTC cadets, and the core of my talking points about military 
service was based on the first question of where were you on 9/
11, and everyone was sheepish. I thought it was just a shy 
class until a brave cadet raised his hand and said, ``Sir, we 
weren't born yet.'' And for me, emotionally, as you could 
probably see, to me it feels like yesterday every day in my 
life. And I think for many Americans it feels that way. So, to 
think that it has been 23 years, we sometimes assume that we 
are still on the forefront of preventing threats in downtown 
New York, particularly around the World Trade Center and the 9/
11 Memorial Museum. But it remains a high value target for many 
reasons.
    And then second of what I just said as far as people tend 
to forget. And it is not their fault. About 100 million 
Americans either weren't born or are too young to remember that 
day. So, to have a museum remember not what happened that day, 
but how we reacted, the resilience, the unity we had as a 
country, the reminder, but also have those educational programs 
that teach the next generation what happened that day and what 
we need to do to continue to prevent threats and the emotional 
tie and the resilience we have all experienced on September 12 
as Americans.
    Mr. D'Esposito. I know that you mentioned that not only do 
you take regular visits to the museum, but you have brought 
people from your firm and veterans to the museum. And, 
obviously, over the years since it has been open, some of the 
initiatives have changed, some of them have remained the same, 
some of them have expanded.
    If you could, just tell us a little bit about some of the 
initiatives you think that have gone on at the museum that are 
so critical, or ones that we know about that are in the 
planning stages that will obviously be beneficial to this 
funding in this bill.
    Mr. Quinn. Definitely. One of the reasons I mentioned my 
story is that I came back to New York. I am raising my family 
in New York City. So, when I take my 3-year-old, my 5-year-old, 
who is named after his uncle, and my 7-year-old, we go to the 
Memorial Museum, and visit the pools, and to see their Uncle 
Jimmy on a consistent basis. So, I see the security, I see the 
need for the security in an open plaza. And then, just as we 
came in here there was security, you need security into the 
museum.
    And then, I can't stress this enough, the importance of the 
9/11 Memorial Museum to military veterans. I have seen more 
veterans cry just showing up there and letting out such emotion 
for being there, because it was the impetus for service for 
millions and millions of Americans from all 50 states of 
America that joined the military and come back, and have that 
connection to it.
    So, whether it is events, educational programs, or just the 
experience of the museum, you said yourself with the Virgil 
quote, it is just something that needs to be preserved and 
protected for the long haul.
    Mr. D'Esposito. I was going to ask you what you thought the 
benefits were to Americans and those that live outside the New 
York City area. But you have answered the question in totality, 
and I think it is clear that this memorial, this museum serves 
as a beacon, and it serves individuals who were not directly 
affected by 9/11, those who perhaps are being affected by 9/11 
now, but I think you just made a great point, men and women who 
left the safety and security of this beautiful country to fight 
for something greater, to defend the greatest country on the 
planet. And they come there and find a place of solace to learn 
and to remember the history of that day and to make sure that 
we will absolutely never forget.
    And Mr. Quinn, happy anniversary. I hope you get home safe. 
Please know, for my days in Congress, as long as they will be, 
and I hope they are long, I will continue to fight for every 
resource for this museum, and I will make sure that my 
colleagues and the rest of this country never forget 9/11.
    Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. D'Esposito, for bringing this 
bill forward to the Subcommittee.
    Now, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from, not 
right? How about if I go into questions, then?
    Mr. French, thank you for being back before the Committee 
here. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, expressed 
concern about statutory deadlines not being met. And you share 
their conclusion that the Forest Service needs to reform its 
application processing system.
    Mr. French. I do, and we are. We put an interim portal, and 
we have seen our response times go from meeting that deadline 
about 55 percent of the time to about 75 percent of the time.
    Mr. Tiffany. How would the legislation before us, and will 
it, take us from an interim to a more permanent one-stop-shop 
portal?
    Mr. French. It is very helpful and supportive. We currently 
have a grant right now where we are working on that system. 
Having the authority behind it and for us to do this will be 
very helpful.
    Mr. Tiffany. I think there was some concern expressed in 
regards to staffing also. With this portal will there be 
sufficient staffing to be able to expeditiously move these?
    Mr. French. Well, I think there are a couple of things to 
think about here.
    One is whenever you put together IT, you have to maintain 
it over time. So, we have to have the funding and staffing to 
make sure that in 5 years we don't have the resources to keep 
it updated, which is actually a chronic issue with IT systems 
within the Federal Government. We usually have the money to 
build it, we don't necessarily always have the resources to 
continue it.
    We have 66,000 special use permits across the agency. This 
year we have received about 4,400 new applications. We have 
processed and completed 3,400 of those with a staff of 
essentially 16 to 100. That is the biggest chronic issue we 
have, is staffing. The portal helps us by us being able to see 
in a one-time place where the applications are occurring, and 
to move capacity to help do that and keep the local units on 
track for being accountable for those time frames. Otherwise, 
we can't see it.
    Mr. Tiffany. I don't know if you have studied this, is this 
an instance where perhaps artificial intelligence might be able 
to help to be able to process them?
    Mr. French. Yes, we are seeing artificial intelligence help 
us on many fronts right now, from being able to review comments 
that come in, looking at common environmental issues, providing 
information back, environmental compliance, but also looking at 
where you are seeing surges for applications and helping us 
think more proactively about how we deploy personnel and 
resources.
    Mr. Tiffany. Switching to the corridors, the Fire Safe 
Corridors, a lot of devastating wildfires have been started as 
a result of these power lines sparking. And why is it important 
that utility companies have greater flexibility?
    And actually, I think you have worked extensively on this 
issue, haven't you?
    Mr. French. I have.
    Mr. Tiffany. Why is that important that they have greater 
flexibility?
    Mr. French. We have 18,000 miles of power lines that cross 
the National Forest System, from large, big power lines to very 
small power lines that are running through communities. The 
proper maintenance of those is critical to protect our 
communities from forest fires, bottom line. Small, rural 
electric cooperatives are challenged to find the funding to do 
this sort of maintenance work. And our processes at times take 
too long in order to keep up with that.
    There are four things that I think are critical for 
managing our power lines right now: funding, the proper 
staffing, getting things done in a timely manner, and there are 
growing issues with companies being able to manage the strict 
liability associated with our permits. They have trouble 
finding insurance and things like that.
    This bill helps on the efficiency side of things. We don't 
feel it necessary to be required. Trees are considered property 
of the Federal Government, so we have to value those and sell 
those under very strict timber sales. For the protection and 
safety along with power lines, removing that stipulation would 
be very helpful in terms of efficiency and time to approve 
these.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, will this combination, of course, we had 
the Fix our Forests Act that I referenced earlier, and now this 
Fire Safe Corridors. Will that combination help to be able to 
alleviate that challenge that is before you?
    Mr. French. Yes, it will.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Caldwell, how is the Park Service going to 
ensure that private property rights and local decision-making 
will be protected with the National Historic Park here in 
Washington, DC?
    Mr. Caldwell. Concerning the Civil War Defenses Park? I 
think what the Department believes with the proposed bill is 
that we are preserving those 16 different units, 16 different 
sites affiliated with the Civil War Defenses on site within 
three of our units, within one region of the National Park 
Service. We believe that is certainly sufficient to preserve 
those sites while respecting private property rights.
    Mr. Tiffany. You expressed a concern, I believe, in your 
testimony in regards to the stadium in Daytona Beach. Have you 
communicated them with Mr. Jaworski or anyone that is with the 
ballpark?
    Mr. Caldwell. First, I think that certainly the Department 
recognizes the incredible history that Jackie Robinson 
represents.
    It is our belief that we should conduct a special resource 
study prior to any designation of the stadium. We believe that 
would allow us to take a look at the resource, take a look at 
the significance, see if it is feasible for inclusion in the 
National Park System, or what other arrangements could be 
arranged in partnership with maybe state and local governments 
or the private sector.
    And most importantly, we feel strongly that a special 
resource study process gives us an opportunity to have a public 
input with stakeholders and the local communities as we 
complete the special resource study and provide Congress our 
recommendations.
    Mr. Tiffany. Has this been communicated to you, Mr. 
Jaworski, other than today?
    Mr. Jaworski. Not at this time, no.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK, so this is the first that you know about 
this.
    Mr. Jaworski. Correct.
    Mr. Caldwell. And Mr. Caldwell, will you be providing 
information to Mr. Jaworski or his cohorts to make sure that 
they can get to the right people and understand what your 
concerns are?
    Mr. Caldwell. Yes, we will, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK, I am going to close with Mr. Romano.
    We have the Federal concerns that are before us. I would 
like to shift a little bit away from the bills here. Do you 
also run into some local concerns? In particular, I think about 
zoning and things like that. What are the principal concerns 
that you are finding locally or at the state level?
    Mr. Romano. The first one I will mention, and it is 
something you brought up in your opening remarks with respect 
to previously disturbed land, we find repeatedly that the 
processes of trying to upgrade facilities in previously 
disturbed earth seem to take longer than one might think at 
first blush. Especially in our case, for example, we are 
replacing copper. Our members, the telephone companies way back 
in the day who started up when that was the unserved issue, 
they are now trying to replace that, and have replaced it in 
many cases, with fiber. But it is a bit startling to see how 
long that process takes to get clearances for historic 
preservation and environmental review associated with something 
as seemingly simple as upgrading facilities within an existing 
right-of-way to move them from copper to fiber, for example. 
So, that is one thing I think we see at Federal, state, and 
local levels alike.
    The second thing--
    Mr. Tiffany. Can I just follow up on that first one?
    Mr. Romano. Yes, please.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, you are just saying to basically use a 
different type of material, but you are going to be in 
basically the same footprint, and yet you are running into 
extensive reviews that sometimes happen. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Romano. That is correct, yes. So, it may be a culvert 
along a roadway, where we are taking out the fiber or taking 
out copper and putting fiber and conduit. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Romano. A second issue I would mention, again, and just 
to put another highlight on this, is the staffing question, 
because that is something we see especially at state and local 
levels, where there is insufficient staffing in order to 
process the number of applications they see. So, as a result, 
even the most efficient system becomes a bit of a bottleneck 
because there are one, two, or three people in a given office.
    I will say this has gotten better since COVID, when it was 
really probably most problematic, but it continues to be a 
challenge. And we are particularly concerned about this in the 
context of there are billions of dollars of Federal funding and 
state funding flowing right now into broadband deployment, 
which is fantastic, we are going to hopefully overcome the 
digital divide, but there remains a concern that will there be 
the parties to handle this? We hear a lot about the fact that 
it takes years for deployment. This is often the long pole in 
the tent.
    The last thing I will mention just briefly, and this is a 
little bit of an aside from state and local, but railroad 
crossings. Railroad crossings, especially in rural areas, 
continue to be a rather significant impediment. There are not a 
lot of ways to get around a railroad track. You have to go far 
down one way or the other to get around that. And the amount of 
time, the amount of expense that it takes to get across a 
railroad crossing, underneath a railroad crossing is 
surprisingly large, given the several hours of work and having 
a few people out there to flag. You want to be concerned about 
safety.
    But at times it appears to be, again, another long pole in 
the tent, and a very expensive one when it comes to placement 
of facilities in rural areas.
    Mr. Tiffany. Where does that problem lie?
    Mr. Romano. In terms of jurisdictionally, who has 
jurisdiction over that? That is a great question, Mr. Chairman. 
States have passed laws with respect to this to try to deal 
with this. There is some thought that maybe the FCC has some 
authority, pursuant to its ability to pre-empt state laws and 
local laws that might create barriers in terms of the amount of 
hoops that one has to jump through to get through railroad 
crossings. It is certainly something we would encourage 
Congress to take a look at, and other stakeholders have joined 
us in the communications industry to----
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you think it is a Federal problem?
    Mr. Romano. It is a nationwide problem, for sure. Right 
now, though, a lot of railroad crossings are governed by state 
laws. The question is, I think at least the very least, we 
would encourage Congress to take a look at it to see whether 
the state laws are working, whether there is a place for a 
Federal regime that might be more streamlined. And in 
particular, whether certain communities have become harder to 
reach as a result of some of these issues.
    So, I would say that it is probably a Federal-State 
partnership, but I do think there is a role for Congress to 
play and potentially agencies to play in at least looking at 
the problem and scoping and sizing it to determine where the 
solution may lie best.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you.
    Finally, Mr. Jaworski, this is an active ballpark that we 
are talking about here. This is just not a museum set piece or 
anything like this, and you anticipate that this will continue 
to be an active site here as we go forward. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Jaworski. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is there anything that you were not able to 
cover in your testimony that you would like to share with the 
Committee?
    Mr. Jaworski. I think I covered just about most of it. I 
mean, to your point about being an active site, we are 
currently affiliates of the Cincinnati Reds. As I mentioned 
briefly, we are working on $30 million of renovations to the 
ballpark.
    Briefly, back in 2019, when Major League Baseball was going 
through their restructure, we were at risk of losing the 
affiliation, and losing our Major League Baseball partnership. 
And that is when a lot of the renovations and the construction 
that is ongoing is going to take place to allow us to be able 
to continue to play baseball at Jackie Robinson Ballpark, and 
that is something that, obviously, we are extremely proud of to 
carry on, and continue that message, to continue to share that 
story for generations to come. And to say that it is pretty 
special is definitely an understatement, for sure.
    Thank you for your time here today.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, I appreciate your testimony.
    Members, if you have another question, I will allow it. And 
Ms. Hoyle, if you have anything that you wanted to follow up 
on, you are welcome to.
    If not, Mr. D'Esposito?
    Mr. D'Esposito. I am good, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. Well, I would like to thank all the witnesses 
for their testimony and Members for your questions.
    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for our witnesses today, and we will ask that they 
respond to those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of 
the Subcommittee must submit questions to the Subcommittee 
Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, July 12, 2024. The hearing record 
will be held open for 10 business days for those responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                        Statement for the Record
                       Bureau of Land Management
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
                  H.R. 3299, DIGITAL Applications Act
            H.R. 3283, Facilitating DIGITAL Applications Act

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the 
Record on H.R. 3299, the Deploying Infrastructure with Greater Internet 
Transactions And Legacy Applications Act (``DIGITAL Applications Act'') 
and H.R. 3283, the Facilitating the Deployment of Infrastructure with 
Greater Internet Transactions and Legacy Applications Act 
(``Facilitating DIGITAL Applications Act''). H.R. 3299 requires the 
establishment of online portals for applications for rights-of-way for 
communications use, and H.R. 3283 contains reporting requirements for 
the Department of Commerce regarding the establishment of such portals. 
The BLM supports the goals of H.R. 3299. However, we believe that the 
timeframe specified for establishment of the required online portals is 
not achievable given current resources.
    The BLM defers to the Department of Commerce regarding potential 
impacts associated with H.R. 3283.
Background

    The BLM manages approximately 245 million surface acres, located 
primarily in 12 western states, and approximately 700 million acres of 
subsurface mineral estate. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) sets forth the BLM's multiple-use mission, directing that 
public lands generally be managed for a broad range of uses, such as 
renewable and conventional energy development, livestock grazing, 
timber production, hunting and fishing, recreation, wilderness, and 
conservation--including protecting cultural and historic resources. 
FLPMA also requires the BLM to manage public land resources on a 
sustained-yield basis for the benefit of current and future 
generations.
    Under Title V of FLPMA, the BLM is authorized to grant, issue, or 
renew rights-of-way (ROW) over, upon, under, or through public lands 
for specific projects, such as roads, pipelines, transmission lines, 
and communication sites. A ROW grant authorizes rights and privileges 
for a specific use of the land for a specific period of time. 
Generally, a BLM ROW is granted for a term appropriate for the life of 
the project.
    The BLM currently administers more than 1,500 communications sites 
on public lands in the 11 Western states and Alaska. Most 
communications sites on BLM-managed public lands are located at 
geographic elevations and consist of one or more facilities (such as 
towers, antennas, or other buildings) owned by private or governmental 
entities. Activities at each site are managed by a local BLM field 
office under a resource management plan and a site-specific management 
plan. To date, the BLM has authorized the construction and operation of 
more than 4,000 facilities--ranging from radio and television 
transmitters to cellular and wireless broadband towers--using ROW 
grants.
H.R. 3299 & H.R. 3283

    H.R. 3299 requires the Department of the Interior (Department) and 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish online portals to 
accept, process, and dispose of Standard Form 299 (SF-299) applications 
for communications use within one year of enactment. The bill further 
requires the Department of Commerce to publish links to these portals 
on the website of the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA). H.R. 3283 requires the Department of Commerce to 
provide a report to Congress within 90 days of enactment and every 60 
days thereafter until such online portals are established. The bill 
requires the reports to describe any barriers to the establishment of 
the online portals. In addition, H.R. 3283 would require the Department 
and USDA to provide notice to NTIA within three days of establishing 
their respective portals.
    The BLM places a high priority on working with applicants on their 
proposed ROW to process the application expeditiously while ensuring 
the protection of resource values. The BLM strives to provide ROW 
applicants a decision within 60 days from the receipt of a completed 
application. The BLM also notifies applicants after 30 days if the 
application processing will take longer and provides a date when a 
decision on the application can be reasonably expected.
    The BLM notes that it has already established an online portal for 
the submission of SF-299 applications for communications use. The BLM's 
Mineral and Land Records System (MLRS) is an online platform for 
delivering and reporting mineral and land records transactions, 
tracking, and mapping. In June 2023, the BLM added the ability to 
submit SF-299 applications for communications use electronically via 
MLRS. The BLM does not currently have an online portal dedicated to the 
processing or approval/rejection of these applications; these tasks are 
handled by staff at the applicable BLM office, who work with applicants 
directly.
    While the BLM supports the goals of H.R. 3299 to establish an 
online portal to process and dispose of SF-299 applications for 
communications use, the agency would be unable to do so within the one-
year timeframe specified in the bill given current resources. The BLM 
notes that the development and refinement of MLRS, which includes the 
modernization of a number of legacy systems, has been a resource-
intensive, multi-year effort. As such, we would like to work with the 
Sponsor and the Subcommittee on a more reasonable timeframe to develop, 
or incorporate into existing platforms, a fully functioning platform 
that can authenticate and process SF-299 applications for 
communications use. We would also like to work with the Sponsor to 
clarify their intent with respect to the terms ``acceptance'' and 
``disposal'' in the bill.
    The BLM defers to the USDA regarding any impacts associated with 
H.R. 3299 on the USDA Forest Service. Regarding H.R. 3283, we defer to 
the Department of Commerce on the provisions affecting their interests.
Conclusion

    Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this Statement for 
the Record.

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Neguse

Prepared Statement of the Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress 
                       from the State of Colorado

    Thank you, Chairman Tiffany.
    Good morning, everyone. It's good to be back after the July 4th 
holiday last week.
    The bills on today's agenda once again serve as a reminder of the 
wide range of benefits and uses associated with our parks and public 
lands--and the work that we can get done under this subcommittee.
    It is imperative that we continue to identify new places worthy of 
recognition, while bolstering our protection of those that have already 
been identified.
    As members of the Federal Lands Subcommittee, we collectively have 
the opportunity to champion new conservation opportunities--something I 
was proud to lead when I served as Chair of this Subcommittee, and 
continue to advocate for today.
    Some of the bills on our agenda today serve as a way for us to 
recognize the historical and diverse stories across our nation, and I'm 
looking forward to hearing more about these bills.
    This hearing continues a promising trend of considering more 
conservation and commemorative bills. As we have heard in our last two 
subcommittee hearings, there are still plenty of places throughout the 
country that deserve increased protection and conservation.
    But I would also like to remind my friends across the aisle that 
there is a long running list of additional bills-sponsored by members 
of both parties--to create new national parks, designate new wilderness 
and withdrawals, and protect some of the most special places across our 
great nation.
    This includes my CORE Act, which I've talked about many times in 
this Subcommittee, and so many more.
    Our constituents support real conservation, enhanced recreational 
opportunities, and even ways to accelerate tribal co-stewardship and 
enhance protections for sacred sites.
    Two of the bills that we are considering today have already 
received legislative hearings, been marked up, and advanced unanimously 
through the Energy and Commerce Committee.
    H.R. 3283 and H.R. 3299 both seek to promote accessibility and 
transparency in the permitting process for locating or modifying 
various types of communications or broadband equipment and 
infrastructure on public lands.
    There is significant support from both sides of the aisle for these 
bills and increasing the deployment of broadband across public lands.
    There are many other pieces of legislation that are still waiting 
for a hearing and consideration by our Subcommittee.
    For example, one of the bills we are considering today is the 
Jackie Robinson Commemorative Site Act.
    I know the Park Service has expressed concerns with commemorative 
site designations because they do not include any direct federal 
management or other nexus, and while this bill only scratches the 
surface of the long list of bills we need to consider by the end of the 
year, I still think it represents a good start.
    This bill would continue to bolster the Robinson legacy in the 
world of professional baseball and beyond, and I appreciate the 
entirety of the Florida delegation for bringing the history of the 
stadium in Daytona to the Federal Lands Subcommittee so we can learn 
more about the best way to achieve this goal.
    Also on the agenda is H.R. 5401 to authorize a one-time grant from 
the Department of Homeland Security to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in 
New York City to assist with operations, security, and maintenance of 
the facilities.
    The 9/11 Memorial and Museum is the principal tribute of 
remembrance and honor of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the terror 
attacks at the World Trade Center in 2001 and the six killed in the 
World Trade Center bombing in February of 1993.
    I look forward to hearing more about this initiative and would like 
to encourage cooperation among all interested parties in the continued 
operation of the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. To that end, I ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record a letter from a coalition of 
interfaith organizations with constructive recommendations for this 
bill moving forward.
    Next, we have Representative Carbajal's Fire Safe Electric 
Corridors Act, which would allow for the removal of hazardous trees 
near power lines without requiring a timber sale.
    As Co-Chair of the Wildfire Caucus, I am pleased to see this bill 
on our agenda as there is much to be done to improve our wildfire 
preparedness and mitigation, and I am excited to work with 
Representative Carbajal on this initiative.
    And last, but certainly not least, H.R. 7976 from my colleague and 
friend Representative Holmes Norton would designate the Civil War 
Defenses of Washington National Historical Park.
    Washington, DC. served as the Union's capital during the American 
Civil War and dozens of sites in the area are currently managed by the 
National Park Service--but not given the full recognition that a 
unified National Historical Park would bring.
    I look forward to hearing from the Congresswoman about the history 
and significance of these sites.
    I'd like to close by repeating my message from earlier in my 
opening statement. We need to be listening to our constituents and 
hearing bills that are important to them, and I hope the Chairman will 
work with me to ensure we are also taking up bills to protect and 
conserve our nation's public lands.
    We still have a lot of work to do, and only six months left to do 
it--but I look forward to working to get this done.
    With that Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                        9/11 Advocacy Coalition
                 H.R. 5401, 9/11 Memorial & Museum Act

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Committee,
    We, a broad coalition of faith and secular leaders, advocates, 
historians, educators, and directly impacted 9/11 family members, write 
to express our concerns regarding H.R. 5401, which proposes increased 
funding for the National 9/11 Museum. While the Museum operates as a 
non-profit, it continues to disregard public input and fuels anti-
Islamic rhetoric. There are significant opportunities for improvement 
in its governance, transparency, and inclusivity.
    The Museum has faced challenges in managing funds and has taken 
public funds while operating in a manner that does not always align 
with the guidelines of public institutions and the norm of 
transparency. The Board has resisted incorporating the powerful legacy 
of inter-religious response, recovery efforts, and reconciliation work. 
Additionally, the Museum has maintained certain exhibits, such as the 
20+ year old video ``The Rise of Al Qaeda,'' which could benefit from 
updates to reflect a more balanced perspective. Furthermore, the 
Museum's leadership has continued to support Board member Debra 
Burlingame, despite her history of controversial statements, including 
publicly sharing anti-Muslim sentiments by calling Muslims ``weird 
animals'' and connecting the practice of Islam to extremism and 
violence.

    Our coalition is committed to working collaboratively to ensure 
that the Museum can fulfill its mission in a way that is inclusive and 
respectful of all communities. To this end, we propose the following 
recommendations for the Subcommittee's consideration:

  1.  Reinstate a Multifaith Advisory Committee: The Museum should 
            reinstate a multifaith advisory committee to review exhibit 
            content and meet with the board and leadership quarterly.

  2.  Ensure Transparent Governance: The Museum should commit to 
            transparent governance, adhering to budget targets and 
            development strategies aligned with philanthropic 
            standards.

  3.  Implement an Academic Review Process: The Museum should create an 
            academic advisory council to ensure scholarly rigor and 
            prevent the conflation of Islam with Al-Qaeda in its 
            exhibits.

  4.  Highlight Diverse Contributions: The Museum should explicitly 
            address the diverse contributions of Americans of all 
            faiths and backgrounds in the aftermath of September 11, 
            2001.

  5.  Enhance Public Engagement: The Museum should institutionalize 
            public-facing processes and community engagement, creating 
            multiple platforms for community participation, including 
            directly impacted families.

    In addition, we suggest considering the Memorial's operation under 
the National Park Service, with the museum and its archive managed by 
the Smithsonian.
    We strongly oppose Congress passing H.R. 5401 to provide more 
funding for the Museum due to its refusal to engage in constructive 
dialog with groups such as this diverse coalition that includes those 
who lost loved ones during 9/11, historians, clergy, and civil society 
leaders. Addressing the public's concerns regarding the content shared 
with the thousands of visitors each day is crucial.
    We believe these steps will help the Museum operate in a manner 
that is inclusive, transparent, and reflective of the diverse fabric of 
our nation. We urge the Subcommittee to withhold additional funding 
until these recommendations are addressed.
    Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We look 
forward to working together to support the Museum in becoming a beacon 
of inclusivity and understanding.

            Sincerely,

        Husein Yatabarry              Heba Khalil
        Executive Director            Executive Director
        Muslim Community Network      Emgage NY

        Rev. Dr. Chloe Breyer         Peter B Gudaitis
        Executive Director            Executive Director and CEO
        Interfaith Center of New 
        York                          New York Disaster Interfaith 
                                      Services

        Todd Fine                     Talib Abdullah
        President                     Executive Director
        Washington Street Advocacy 
        Group                         ACCESS of WNY

        Marwa Janini                  Afaf Nasher
        Executive Director            Executive Director
        Arab American Assoc. of New 
        York                          Council on American Islamic 
                                      Relations (CAIR-NY)

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                            Husein Yatabarry
                        Muslim Community Network
                 H.R. 5401, 9/11 Memorial & Museum Act

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Committee,

    Thank you for allowing me to submit written testimony regarding 
H.R. 5401, the 9/11 Memorial & Museum Act. My name is Husein Yatabarry, 
and I am the Executive Director of the Muslim Community Network.
    As a Black Muslim of West African descent, my roots in New York run 
deep. My father immigrated to the US in 1987 and my mother followed in 
1991. On September 11, 2001, I was just 9 years old. That day remains 
vividly etched in my memory. I was in my 4th grade classroom at PS53 in 
The Bronx, confused as teachers urgently gathered in the hallway. My 
mother's sudden appearance, her face lined with worry, only added to my 
confusion. ``The twin towers have been struck by planes,'' she told me. 
Those towers held a personal connection for us; we had photos from 
family visits, and my father had worked at a restaurant there in the 
late 90s. As we watched the tragedy unfold on television, the gravity 
of the situation and the identities of the perpetrators became starkly 
clear.
    In the immediate aftermath, the nation's focus was not on 
understanding the intricate dynamics of global politics and the rise of 
extremist groups. Instead, a wave of fear and suspicion engulfed 
communities, particularly targeting Muslims and Islam. The Muslim 
community in the US faced swift and severe backlash, marked by public 
hostility and undue scrutiny from government entities. My world, once 
familiar and secure, was suddenly filled with anxiety and uncertainty 
about our place in this country. The US, my birthplace and home, felt 
increasingly alien and hostile. The media and institutions often 
silenced our diverse perspectives, favoring oversimplified narratives 
of ``us versus them.'' This oversimplification denied the American 
public the opportunity to engage with and understand the rich, complex 
narratives of Muslims and Islam.
    While I understand the noble intent behind H.R. 5401, which seeks 
to ensure federal support for the 9/11 Memorial and Museum, I must 
express deep concerns that need to be addressed before additional 
funding is granted.
    The 9/11 Memorial and Museum, despite its status as a non-profit 
institution, has repeatedly ignored public input and allowed anti-
Muslim rhetoric to persist within its exhibits. This is deeply 
troubling and must be rectified. There have been significant issues 
with the Museum's financial transparency and adherence to the high 
standards expected of public institutions.

    For years, the Board has resisted incorporating the rich and 
powerful legacy of inter-religious solidarity, recovery efforts, and 
reconciliation work that followed the 9/11 attacks. To address these 
serious concerns, I propose the following actions:

    First, the Museum must reinstate a multifaith advisory committee. 
This committee should review exhibit content to ensure that diverse 
perspectives are represented and meet with the board and leadership 
quarterly to provide ongoing input and guidance.

    Second, the Museum must commit to transparent governance. This 
means adhering to budget targets and aligning development strategies 
with philanthropic standards. Transparent governance is critical to 
building trust and ensuring responsible management of public funds.

    Third, an academic review process must be implemented. Forming an 
academic advisory council will ensure scholarly rigor and prevent the 
conflation of Islam with Al-Qaeda in exhibits. This council can offer 
expert oversight to ensure that content is accurate and balanced.

    Fourth, the Museum should explicitly recognize the diverse 
contributions of Americans of all faiths and backgrounds in the 
aftermath of September 11, 2001. Highlighting these contributions will 
foster a more inclusive narrative that reflects the unity and 
resilience that emerged in the wake of the attacks.

    Fifth, enhancing public engagement is essential. The Museum should 
create multiple platforms for community participation, including 
directly impacted families. Institutionalizing public-facing processes 
and community engagement will ensure that the voices of all 
stakeholders are heard and valued.
    Additionally, we recommend that the operation of the Memorial be 
considered for transfer to the National Park Service, with the museum 
and its archive managed by the Smithsonian Institution. This would 
leverage the expertise and resources of these respected organizations 
to benefit the Memorial and Museum.
    I strongly oppose the passage of H.R. 5401 to provide more funding 
for the Museum until these critical recommendations are implemented. 
The Museum must engage in constructive dialog with a diverse range of 
groups, including those who lost loved ones during 9/11, historians, 
clergy, and civil society leaders. Addressing public concerns regarding 
the content shared with visitors daily is vital.
    Implementing these steps will help the Museum operate inclusively, 
transparently, and reflect the diverse fabric of our nation. I urge the 
Subcommittee to withhold additional funding until these necessary 
changes are made.

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Norton

                        Statement for the Record
                  Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton
 H.R. 7976, Civil War Defenses of Washington National Historical Park 
                                  Act

    I thank Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse for holding this 
hearing and allowing me to testify on H.R. 7976, the Civil War Defenses 
of Washington National Historical Park Act.
    The Civil War Defenses of Washington, including forts, unarmed 
batteries and rifle trenches, created a ring of protection for the 
nation's capital during the Civil War. This bill would recognize and 
preserve the Defenses of Washington located in the District of 
Columbia, Virginia and Maryland by redesignating the 22 Defenses of 
Washington currently under National Park Service jurisdiction as a 
national historical park, and allowing other sites associated with the 
Defenses of Washington that are owned by D.C. or a unit of state 
governments to be affiliated with the national historical park through 
cooperative agreements. This bill would also require the Secretary of 
the Interior to facilitate the history of the Civil War, including the 
history of the Defenses of Washington and the Shenandoah Valley 
Campaign of 1864, being assembled, arrayed and conveyed for the benefit 
of the public.
    The Defenses of Washington were constructed at the beginning of the 
war, in 1861, as a ring of protection for the nation's capital and for 
President Abraham Lincoln. By the end of the war, these defenses 
included 68 forts, 93 unarmed batteries, 807 mounted cannons, 13 miles 
of rifle trenches and 32 miles of military roads. The major test of the 
Defenses of Washington came with the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 
1864, when Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal Early, directed by 
General Robert E. Lee, sought to attack the nation's capital from the 
north, causing Union forces threatening to attack Richmond, the capital 
of the Confederacy, to be withdrawn. General Early was delayed by Union 
Major General Lew Wallace at the Battle of Monocacy on July 9, 1864, 
and was stopped at the northern edge of Washington at the Battle of 
Fort Stevens on July 11-12, 1864. The Shenandoah Valley Campaign ended 
when Union Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan defeated General Early at 
the Battle of Cedar Creek, Virginia on October 19, 1864.
    Nearly all the individual forts in the Defenses of Washington--on 
both sides of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers--were involved in 
stopping General Early's attack, and the Battle of Fort Stevens was the 
second and last attempt by the Confederate Army to attack Washington.
    Taken together, these battles were pivotal to the outcome of the 
war and the freedom and democracy that the war represented for this 
country. It is therefore fitting that we recognize the Defenses of 
Washington by redesignating them as a national historical park.
    Again, thank you for holding this hearing and allowing me to 
testify. I look forward to working with you to pass this bill.

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Carbajal

                        Statement for the Record
                              Steve Powell
                 President and Chief Executive Officer
                       Southern California Edison

    Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, my name is Steve Powell, the President, and CEO of 
Southern California Edison, and I am here today to express support for 
H.R. 6012, the Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act, legislation 
sponsored by Representatives Salud Carbajal and Lori Chavez-DeRemer.
    I want to first share my appreciation to this Committee for its 
strong commitment to addressing the threat of catastrophic wildfires 
facing the West and, increasingly, throughout other parts of the United 
States. As we have all seen, wildfires are growing in frequency and 
burning with greater intensity.
    Furthermore, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the importance 
of the Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act, and the role this 
legislation will play in reducing wildfire threat in our National 
Forests. Passage of this Bill will encourage preservation of forest 
lands and enhance wildfire protection. Currently, vegetation mitigation 
practices on Forest lands do not provide flexibility to remove felled 
timber and vegetation debris. This is a deficiency that would be 
addressed by H.R. 6012.
    Southern California Edison is an electric utility that delivers 
power to 15 million people across Southern, Central and Coastal 
California. SCE has facilities within eight National Forests, seven of 
which are managed by the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) of the 
U.S. Forest Service. They include Angeles, Cleveland, Inyo, Los Padres, 
San Bernardino, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests. This legislation 
would also have an impact on SCE's work in Humboldt-Toiyabe, which is 
located in Region 6.
    Wildfire mitigation has been an integral part of SCE's operational 
practices for many years, and we are continuing to strengthen our 
programs to manage and reduce the risk we face. We have stepped up our 
comprehensive mitigation efforts and have made substantial progress 
through our Wildfire Mitigation Plans. Our efforts include hardening 
the grid, increasing our situational awareness, and improving our 
operational practices, including vegetation management.
    On an annual basis, SCE's vegetation management program inspects 
roughly 1.6 million trees in our service area, including 745,000 trees 
located in High Fire Risk Areas. Roughly half of these trees require 
pruning. In addition, in High Fire Risk Areas, we inspect trees that 
could pose a hazard by falling or blowing into our electrical assets. 
Since 2018, our certified arborists have assessed over 400,000 unique 
trees that potentially pose a hazard, with roughly 5% requiring removal 
as the form of mitigation. In 2024, we plan to assess approximately 
240,000 potentially hazardous trees and mitigate about 7,500 of them.
    For Forest Service lands in particular, SCE has historically 
mitigated approximately 19,000 trees annually. Going forward, SCE 
anticipates mitigating approximately 10,000-15,000 trees annually. 
However, mitigation volumes may increase, especially following natural 
disasters such as wildfires, windstorms, or beetle infestations.
    For the past several years, the electric utility industry has been 
working with the federal land management agencies, principally the 
Forest Service and BLM, to address wildfire risk on federal lands. In 
2022, Forest Service Chief Randy Moore formed a government-industry 
working group to address issues like streamlining the permitting 
process to allow utilities to perform wildfire mitigation activities 
more quickly and efficiently. Despite much progress, the working group 
continues to face regulatory challenges which limit the effectiveness 
of utility wildfire mitigation efforts on federal lands. One of these 
challenges is how timber felled through wildfire mitigation activities 
can be efficiently removed from the National Forests.
    Electric utilities currently receive special use permits, which 
provide authorization from the Forest Service to fell dead, diseased, 
dying, and green hazard trees located in their respective service 
territory through permitted vegetation management operations. In order 
to remove the felled trees, current regulations require utilities to 
purchase the felled trees from the Forest Service through a timber sale 
contract or give the trees away to certain designated entities through 
a time consuming and inefficient process. 36 CFR 223--the Sale and 
Disposal of National Forest System Timber--proscribes specific 
authorities by which the Forest Service can allow an entity to remove 
felled trees including: a timber sale; giving them to a Native American 
tribe; or reducing them to firewood at a campsite.
    Utilities have suggested other options including the use of 
categorical exclusions or stewardship agreements, but the Forest 
Service has indicated that these options do not give them the legal 
authority needed to allow timber to be removed by utilities. They are 
effectively restricted by regulations based on current law.
    The options provided under current law are not always practical or 
efficient for utilities. The result, in many cases, is that the 
utilities are forced to leave the felled trees onsite in the National 
Forests. This worsens an already vulnerable situation from a wildfire 
perspective, as debris and felled timber from previous years' 
vegetation mitigation operations remain in the forest landscape. In 
essence, the accumulation of this debris increases the intensity of 
wildfires. Removal of this fuel benefits the forest by helping to 
create fuel breaks and reduce wildfire intensity should a wildfire 
occur.
    Representatives Carbajal and Chavez-DeRemer have recognized the 
problems with existing law and are working to provide a solution. The 
legislation we are discussing today, the Fire Safe Electrical Corridors 
Act, would grant the USDA the authority to allow electric utilities 
with proper permits to remove timber that is felled within the vicinity 
of its power lines. This commonsense, bipartisan, legislation will 
reduce the amount of fuel in our National Forests and help us manage 
the wildfire risk on federal lands.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share Southern California Edison's 
support of H.R. 6012, the Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act.