Murkowski, Schultz Discuss FY27 Forest Service Budget

Murkowski, Schultz Discuss FY27 Forest Service Budget

Washington, DC-U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, recently convened a hearing with the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Tom Schultz, to discuss the agency's budget request for Fiscal Year 2027.

Senator Murkowski also asked Chief Schultz about how Alaskans would be impacted by the Forest Service's recently announced reorganization and called for more transparency in this effort for Alaskan Forest Service employees and their families. At the hearing, Chief Schultz confirmed that the reorganization will not result in the closure of research facilities in Alaska or reductions in Alaska-based staff. The agency also affirmed its commitment to maintaining a strong on-the-ground presence in the state, recognizing Alaska's unique forest ecosystems and the critical role that local research and personnel play in supporting forest management, wildfire preparedness, and sustainable economic activity.

Watch Senator Murkowski's opening statement here.

Read Senator Murkowski's full opening statement below.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Senator Murkowski: Welcome to Chief of U.S. Forest Service here this morning to speak to the Forest Service Fiscal Year 2027 budget. I want to thank you for your leadership, Chief, I really appreciated the conversation that we had yesterday.

Lot on the table, and there is more to raise here today. I anticipate good participation from the committee here this morning.

I want to start by crediting you for many of the good things that are happening back home in Alaska right now.

A year ago, I told you I was impressed by your understanding and your genuine awareness of Alaska's issues, and I think that you've been using your legislative and your administrative authority to help address them.

You've entered into a shared stewardship agreement with the State of Alaska. You're working on lifting the Roadless Rule, which, in my view, should never have been applied to Alaska, but you're doing that on a nationwide basis now. You started the process of revising the Tongass National Forest Plan, for the first time in decades. You've issued a draft decision for the South Revilla project to enable the harvesting of more timber from the Tongass, and all the while that you're doing this, your folks are processing the recreational permits that we're seeking to be able to welcome our many tourists and as they seek to enjoy our multi-use forests.

As you know, I've not always been pleased or satisfied with the Forest Service management decisions in Alaska, and while I have some real concerns about agency staffing, I think you're restoring balance to the agency mission, and I appreciate that.

I think you recognize the need for timber harvesting, energy development, and mining, and you are reasonably allowing those multiple use activities on our forest lands, even as we're working to protect subsistence and to welcome and encourage tourists back to Alaska.

Our first cruise ship of the season landed a couple days ago. So, the folks are coming, and I will tell you when they come up that Inside Passage, they're going through the Tongass National Forest, and they're seeing these emerald landscapes around them and the recognition that we've actually harvested in these areas for most is "Where? How?"

Well, this is a renewable resource, and when managed correctly and properly, you can enjoy the abundance of what grows on the land while also enjoying the natural beauty that continues.

There's a lot to be positive about right now, but as we meet, I also have just a sense of dread and looming. We're looking at the maps that you just shared with Senator Merkley and I. As we look to the upcoming summer season and what it's going to mean for wildfire and drought, the pictures that you're showing about Alaska allows me to breathe a little bit easier, but I know for my colleague here (Senator Merkley), he's taken deep gulps.

And the reality is it is in so many different parts across our country right now. There are severe threats because many of our forests are already unhealthy. Too many are overgrown, infested by insects and invasive species, increasingly susceptible to once extreme conditions that are now becoming the norm.

Most forecasts are projecting that this will be a bad year for both fire and drought, and if that comes to be, it's going to impact everything. It's going to impact the firefighters, the forest, the forest resources, the communities that surround them, the communities on the front lines.

And it's going to impact our federal budget. We passed the so-called "fire fix" in 2018. We're now entering the final years of its budgetary adjustment in FY27. In my view, we need to provide every resource needed to fight fires as part of a broader policy that addresses every facet of the problem. And that means robust forest management through a full spectrum of activities that help reduce, prevent, and ultimately lower the cost of wildland fire.

So as we brace for fire season, the Forest Service is simultaneously tackling some very big internal initiatives, starting with a proposal for a new wild land fire service. As I told Secretary Burgum last week, there is merit to the proposal. I have seen in Alaska-a state where we don't have Forest Service firefighting-I have seen how the Alaska model can work elsewhere, so I know it can be done.

I understand why it would make sense for the Department of Interior, but my question still remains: does it make the same sense for the Forest Service and the lands that you manage?

You're also proposing a significant reorganization of the Forest Service. I agree that many improvements can be made to the agency's structure and organization, but details matter. So I'll have some questions about how what is being proposed would actually work in practice.

And as much as you have proposed a reorganization, you're also proposing a consolidation of Forest Service assets and facilities, and again, in some cases, that absolutely makes sense. I think we do have some sprawl that can be realigned.

But as we do that, you move cautiously. It's not knee jerk. It's not without a good deal of consultation there. This isn't BRAC, this isn't DOGE, being lean and mean and moving to an Interior-like state office model doesn't necessarily mean being more effective, especially if the cuts being made degrade the agency's capabilities and research mission.

But I have shared with you, I think it makes sense when you are the Forest Service and most of your lands are managed in the West, it makes sense to head further to the West, and you're talking about your headquarters there to Salt Lake. I could suggest that you can move it all the way to the West and bring it up to Alaska, but I'm going to back off that idea.

Perhaps the easiest thing to say right now is that the Forest Service has an incredibly ambitious agenda right now (and) in my view, there's no need to shy away from the conversations that will follow.

Not much that you have proposed is a hard no for me, but I'm not exactly an immediate yes on everything, either. So to get to that good place, I think I'm going to be seeking firm assurances for what I think we need in Alaska, like a sustainable timber harvest in our largest national forest, a commitment to maintain important agency facilities and personnel, continued co-management agreements with our Tribes, and a robust public process for those affected by agency decisions-and that's just to name a few.

We're a long way from ensuring our mutual goal of ensuring the health, productivity and resilience of our forests. But I do look forward to working with you, Chief Schultz, and along with my ranking member, Senator Merkley here, and all the members on the panel to put together a good budget, a budget that will be right for all across the country and move us in the right direction. So again, I thank you for your leadership and your willingness to be here and to work with the committee.

###