Why it Matters
A sprawling package of public lands legislation comes before the House Natural Resources Committee on May 19, with seven bills that together represent a coordinated Republican push to open millions of acres of national forest to road construction and timber harvesting, while also advancing a pair of bipartisan measures on military land and historic sites. The hearing puts Congress on a collision course with ongoing litigation over the Trump administration's move to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. It signals that Republicans intend to lock in through statute what the executive branch has been pursuing through rulemaking.
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins rescinded the Roadless Rule in June 2025, citing wildfire risk on 28 million of the 58.5 million acres covered by the Clinton-era regulation. Earthjustice filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco to reinstate the rule. The USDA then initiated a formal Environmental Impact Statement in August 2025, covering roughly 44.7 million acres of National Forest System lands. By March 2026, new research was challenging the Forest Service's core claim that more roads reduce wildfire risk, adding scientific friction to an already contentious regulatory fight. The House Natural Resources bills on the hearing agenda would give Congress a direct hand in resolving the dispute, removing the Roadless Rule's fate from the courts and future administrations.
The Forest Management Bills
The centerpiece of the hearing is H.R. 7695, introduced by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY), which would nullify the 2001 Roadless Rule outright and require the Secretary of Agriculture to construct roads on National Forest System lands for purposes including forest restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, and habitat management. The bill would also bar the USDA from issuing similar roadless protections in the future. Road construction would still require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, but the rule itself would have no force or effect.
Hageman's bill has the backing of several committee members, including subcommittee Chair Tom Tiffany (R-WI), who is listed as a cosponsor alongside Reps. Troy Downing, Celeste Maloy, and Pete Stauber.
Alongside H.R. 7695, the hearing will take up two additional forest management bills. H.R. 8682, Rep. Downing's Accelerating Forest Management Act, would streamline environmental review for salvage logging on Bureau of Land Management lands, allowing removal of dead and dying trees across up to 5,000 acres in larger disturbance areas with limited new road construction. H.R. 8688, the Forest Health and Wildlife Risk Reduction Act introduced by Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-CO), would similarly allow tree density modification projects on BLM lands under 5,000 acres to bypass detailed environmental assessments, codifying a categorical exclusion the BLM had previously proposed.
Rounding out the forest management package is H.R. 184, the Action Versus No Action Act, introduced by subcommittee member Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA). The bill would narrow NEPA environmental reviews for certain forest management activities to just two alternatives, either the proposed action or no action. When agencies evaluate the no-action alternative, they would be required to weigh impacts on forest health, wildfire potential, timber production, and economic factors, a framing designed to make inaction harder to justify on the record.
Together, the three forest management bills reflect a legislative strategy that has been building since the administration's Roadless Rule rescission. An Inside Climate News report from March 2026 noted that the administration's justification for the rescission, specifically that roads and active management reduce wildfire risk, was being challenged by new scientific research.
A Bipartisan Measure on New Mexico Land Grants
Not all the legislation before the Federal Lands Subcommittee hearing in May 2026 cuts along partisan lines. H.R. 2785, introduced by subcommittee member Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM), would direct the BLM and Forest Service to enter a memorandum of understanding with the New Mexico Land Grant Council, formalizing processes for land grants-mercedes (communities with roots in Spanish and Mexican land grants) to obtain authorization for historical and traditional uses of federal lands. Those uses include water access, grazing, subsistence hunting and fishing, and maintenance of monuments and cemeteries.
Sen. Ben Ray Luján has introduced companion legislation in the Senate, with his office describing the bill as providing "greater cooperation between the federal government" and land grant communities that "trace their deep-rooted history in New Mexico back for generations." The bill includes provisions for fee reductions or waivers based on socioeconomic conditions, and requires that land management plans address these traditional use rights.
Yuma Proving Ground and Monterey
Two additional bills round out the hearing agenda. H.R. 8686, introduced by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), would amend the Military Land Withdrawals Act of 2013 to permanently withdraw and reserve approximately 22,000 acres of federal land in Yuma and La Paz counties for the Yuma Proving Ground. The Army completed a Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement for the withdrawal in July 2025, and the BLM subsequently implemented a five-year temporary withdrawal of the land. The bill, reported by KAWC on May 11, would make that arrangement permanent through statute.
H.R. 8735, introduced by Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of Lower Presidio Historic Park in Monterey, California, which is a narrower measure that adds a bipartisan element to an otherwise heavily partisan hearing agenda.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.