House Subcommittee Hears Competing Views on HR 1820 ‘FLASH Act’ to Increase Border Access on Federal Lands

A House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands hearing to consider HR 1820, the Federal Lands Amplified Security for Homeland Act (the FLASH Act), featured sharply divided testimony Tuesday over whether expanding Border Patrol access to federal border lands through roads, temporary barriers and relaxed restrictions would improve security and environmental protection or instead damage fragile landscapes and impose unfunded costs on understaffed agencies.

The sponsor, Representative Siskamani, told the subcommittee the bill "would strengthen border security by providing for the construction of navigable roads along the border on federal lands, allow states to place temporary barriers on federal lands, and directs federal managers to develop a strategy to address hazardous trash piles," and argued those measures are needed where an estimated 35% of the southern border is federally owned.

Why it matters: proponents said the FLASH Act would close access gaps used by smugglers and cartel networks, enable faster responses to environmental hazards and permit placement of tactical infrastructure in remote areas. Opponents warned that the measure would impose large, unspecified construction and maintenance costs on already understaffed land management agencies, risk harm to wilderness and park resources, and duplicate authorities that existing agreements already address.

Border security and access arguments

Paul Perez, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told the subcommittee that Border Patrol "need[s] three things to patrol our border: manpower, access, and situational awareness." Perez said federal lands can be harder for agents to access than private lands, and he endorsed the FLASH Act’s provision to permit construction and maintenance of roads near the border and to allow tactical infrastructure such as radio repeaters and surveillance equipment.

Sheriff Thaddeus Cleveland of Terrell County, Texas, described long experience in border work and supported the bill, saying he had seen trash, human waste and other environmental damage in remote crossings and that "we would all benefit" from better coordination, planned access and roadways that could also serve as firebreaks.

Opposition and environmental, staffing concerns

Bob Krummenacher, a retired superintendent of Big Bend National Park representing the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks and the Association of National Park Rangers, urged caution. "Title 1 of the Flash Act ... takes a blunt approach that is neither needed nor cost effective," Krummenacher said, arguing the bill could "irreparably harm" public landscapes, gut wilderness protections and require construction and maintenance spending the agencies lack staff or budgets to meet.

Ranking Member Joe Neguse and Rep. Jared Huffman pressed a similar theme: they said recent workforce cuts and proposed layoffs at the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service make it unrealistic to add large new infrastructure responsibilities without additional funding or staff. Huffman told the committee that the committee had not invited Interior or Forest Service leadership to explain capacity concerns.

Costs, capacity and existing mechanisms

Subcommittee members and witnesses cited figures and prior testimony: the FLASH Act would require the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to provide or permit roughly 584–600 miles of navigable road within 10 miles of the border (witness and sponsor descriptions), while Forest Service testimony in a prior Congress estimated an "upfront investment of $40 million to $60 million plus annual maintenance costs of up to $280,000" to implement comparable measures. Committee members also noted the National Park Service’s reported billions in deferred maintenance and local examples such as Big Bend’s roughly $192 million deferred maintenance backlog.

Witnesses noted existing cooperation frameworks: Krummenacher described the 2006 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Department of Homeland Security and federal land management agencies and said the MOU requires land managers and Border Patrol to resolve access and operational disputes at the lowest possible level and to respect wilderness constraints except in emergencies.

Public-safety and criminal activity testimony

Local law-enforcement witnesses described criminal activity on federal lands. Lieutenant Larry Lopez of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department testified about illegal cannabis cultivation on remote public lands, the use of toxic pesticides (including carbofuran) and the public-health risks of contaminated product entering legal markets. He urged stronger penalties and coordinated response mechanisms that the FLASH Act would authorize, including a "trespass Cannabis Cultivation Site Response Initiative" described in the bill’s text and in witnesses’ testimony.

Manpower and retirement risk

Paul Perez testified that Border Patrol has about 19,500 agents on duty, with more than 2,500 eligible to retire immediately and about 4,000 more eligible within four years — a staffing risk he said puts pressure on access and deterrence capabilities.

No vote; record open

The hearing was a fact-finding session; committee members asked witnesses and discussed concerns but took no final vote on HR 1820. The subcommittee kept the hearing record open for written follow-up: members were instructed to submit questions to the clerk by 5 p.m. Friday, 03/14/2025, and the record will remain open for 10 business days for responses.

What’s next

Supporters said the FLASH Act would close access gaps used by cartels, reduce environmental damage in sensitive areas by enabling faster cleanups and give Border Patrol needed tactical access. Opponents said the bill would shift substantial construction and maintenance obligations to agencies already reporting staffing and budget shortfalls, risk damage to wilderness and park resources, and bypass existing cooperative mechanisms. The subcommittee’s written questions and agency responses requested after the hearing will likely shape how members refine the bill or press for additional funding or limits if the measure moves forward.