[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 106 (Thursday, July 9, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4993-H5007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 RESILIENT FEDERAL FORESTS ACT OF 2015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 347 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2647.
  Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1622


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2647) to expedite under the National Environmental 
Policy Act and improve forest management activities in units of the 
National Forest System derived from the public domain, on public lands 
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on tribal 
lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
12\1/2\ minutes remained in general debate.
  The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) has 9 minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), a former member of our committee, but 
someone whose district clearly knows the significance and impact of 
forestlands and how they should be maintained.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, the challenge that we face in the West is 
very obvious. Overgrown forests, bark beetle devastation, threat to our 
watersheds, threat to habitat, threat to public property that sensible 
people have long called for a solution to be able to have rendered.
  I would like to be able to applaud the hard work of Chairman Bishop, 
the committee, and particularly the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Westerman) in putting commonsense pieces of legislation forward in H.R. 
2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act.
  The concept of being proactive rather than being reactive, putting 
the health of our forests, protection of our watersheds, habitat for 
wildlife, and saving private property while bringing some control back 
to our States and our communities is long overdue.
  Forward-looking and innovative legislation like the Resilient Federal 
Forests Act speaks to the very heart of responsible forest management. 
This is a piece of legislation, which is long overdue. We have seen the 
impact in pilot projects of healthy forests, the opportunity to be able 
to get the forests again in a healthy state, creating abundant ground 
cover and forage for our animals and protecting those watersheds.
  This is a commonsense piece of legislation that I would like to 
encourage my colleagues to be able to support.
  Ms. TSONGAS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, impartial justice and access to 
the courts is a right guaranteed to every citizen in this country.
  Across the street from this Chamber, Lady Justice sits blindfolded on 
the steps of the Supreme Court so we can all be reminded that justice 
should be blind. Today, we are debating yet another Republican bill 
restricting access to the courts to only those with deep pockets.
  H.R. 2647 continues the alarming trend of Republican-sponsored 
legislation that proposes to limit the average American's access to the 
courts so polluters that line the pockets of politicians with campaign 
contributions can continue to profit.
  H.R. 2647 requires that a citizen post a bond prior to challenging 
the United States Government's forest management activities. This bond 
must cover all the defendant's anticipated cost, expenses, and 
attorney's fees to be paid if the defendant prevails. In the rare 
occasion plaintiffs are successful, they will only be able to recover 
the amount posted in the bond and only if they win exactly on all 
counts. The government, however, does not have to cover any of the 
plaintiff's costs.

[[Page H4994]]

  Requiring the posting of a bond that could be as costly as tens of 
thousands of dollars undermines citizen access to the courts when a 
party believes the government failed to follow the law.
  The individual consumer, nonprofit organizations, small business, or 
public interest groups do not have the financial ability to challenge 
large corporations or, more often, the Federal Government which 
citizens believe is harming their communities or environment. By 
allowing citizens to recover their reasonable legal fees when they file 
suit and win in court, you encourage Americans to participate in public 
discourse and to hold the government accountable.
  Rollbacks to judicial review and imposition of attorney's fees upon 
plaintiffs, along with legislative interference with key judicial 
powers contemplated in H.R. 2647, cripple the ability of those 
concerned with environmental protection to seek representation and 
redress in the courts.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. May I inquire as to how much time I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts has 1\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I want to close by reiterating that, instead 
of working together on a bipartisan basis to improve the health of our 
national forests, this bill irresponsibly chips away at the 
environmental safeguards of the National Environmental Policy Act and 
places tremendous burdens, as we have just heard, on American citizens 
seeking to participate in the public review process of Forest Service 
programs.
  I am glad that the majority acknowledges the urgent need to address 
fire borrowing, but we still have concerns with this proposal and it in 
no way offsets the many other serious problems with this legislation 
developed without any input from committee Democrats or meaningful 
testimony from the Forest Service.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I appreciate the opportunity to present this bill. I also thank all 
the many people who have worked from three different committees on 
this: Chairman Shuster of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, Chairman Conaway of the Agriculture Committee, as well as 
those who work on the Natural Resources Committee. I am very grateful 
for the Democrats, Mr. Schrader and Mr. DeFazio, who have spoken here 
already in defense of this bill, and for their help and assistance in 
this.
  As the former Chief of the Forest Service said, we don't have a fire 
problem in our Nation's forests. We have a land management problem, and 
it needs to be addressed quickly. That is exactly what the Westerman 
bill does. It addresses that problem. The status quo, flat out, is not 
working.
  The Forest Service has recommended or recognized that we have at 
least 58 million acres that are in dire need of assistance right now 
but can easily be burned in this next fire season.

                              {time}  1630

  That is bigger than my home State of Utah, which is still the 11th 
largest State in the Nation.
  If you add the higher-end estimates, then you add more acreage into 
that, which means you would add the State of Utah and Michigan. One-
third of the entire forests we have are in danger of being destroyed if 
we do not do something immediately.
  The Forest Service right now can only address the problem in 3 
million acres; 58 is the minimum. That simply means it would take them 
over 20 years to address the problem. That is more than my lifetime is 
left here to try and solve this problem.
  I realize that I was probably born at a greater distance from the 
apocalypse than most of the people here; but at the same time, in my 
lifetime, you can't solve the problem if we keep on with the status 
quo. That is why this bill is essential, and that is why I appreciate 
all the speakers who have gone on today saying why this is the perfect 
first step.
  What is so good about it is, as soon as the President signs this 
thing, the Forest Service can immediately implement everything. These 
are practices and processes that they have at their disposal. They are 
ready to move forward with it. All we have to do is give them the tools 
to immediately do that.
  Now, we realize some of the issues that are there. Funding is a 
significant issue. Funding alone will not solve our problem, but we 
have addressed that; and I appreciate, once again, Chairman Shuster and 
subcommittee Chairman Barletta, who have come up with--from the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee--come up with a good 
funding mechanism so that we can address that issue and move us 
forward.
  That, by itself, does not solve our problems. We have a land 
management issue at the same time. We have a problem with litigation, 
which basically stops the efforts of the Forest Service to do their job 
in their tracks.
  As soon as they become sued, they have to stop moving forward on 
their program; they have to spend money to defend themselves in a 
lawsuit, or they have to try and go through efforts to try and cover 
themselves so they don't get sued in the first place. It does not work.
  We have heard a lot of comments about the inability of being able to 
sue, as a poor private citizen doesn't have the right to sue if we pass 
our bill. That is ridiculous.
  This only deals with areas that have been collaboratively worked on--
that means where citizens actually got together and came up with a plan 
of action on their forest and, as they move forward to that, some 
special interests groups with a whole lot of deep pockets on their side 
stops them in their tracks by a lawsuit.
  Those are the kinds of groups that are going to have to put up the 
bond. Those are the kind of groups who can no longer say: We are going 
to sue you on 25 different issues. We realize only three of them are 
going to be realistic, but we want you to take the time and effort to 
spend your Federal moneys to try and defend all those 25.
  What we are saying is: Look, if you are going to sue on something, 
sue on something that is realistic. Don't put the entire world on 
there, and make sure that you are willing to cede on those particular 
issues, in those particular areas.
  We also have in title I in there that simply says: You can still sue, 
but you can't get an injunction to stop our work while we go through 
frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit.
  In the last two administrations, not counting this one, but two prior 
administrations, we have over 11,000 lawsuits that took place simply to 
stop the Forest Service from going forward. That has to be addressed. 
It has to be addressed. The Forest Service recognizes that, and that is 
why former Forest Service employees--as well as the current ones--
realize, if we don't have some kind of litigation reform, we will not 
solve our problems with forest health.
  We also have to give them the tools so they can move quickly on what 
they need to do. Categorical exclusion is not something that is evil; 
it is actually something that is essential to move forward. They 
recognize that they need that tool. That is why I said, as soon as this 
bill is signed by the President, they can implement what they already 
know to do.
  What we are asking them is to do an environmental review, but you 
don't have to do review after review after review. If you have done the 
review the first time, it is sufficient, and they have the wisdom and 
the ability to do that. Will that destroy our forests? Heavens, no.
  What this will do is have the potential of actually saving our 
forests, being able to allow the Federal forest land to be as 
resilient, to be as well managed as the State and tribal forest lands 
are because, in State and tribal forest lands, they don't have to deal 
with a lot of the issues that stop them from actually solving their 
problems, but we do on the Federal forest system, unless we move 
forward.
  That is why I appreciate all those who have spoken so far on the need 
of moving forward on this particular bill. We are in the beginning of a 
fire season that could be catastrophic. We have witnessed the results 
of wildfires in the past. We need to do something now, and we have to 
move forward.

[[Page H4995]]

  This is a bill that is common sense. It was wonderful to have our 
hearings, listening to the group of people who are experts in this 
area, being excited about the opportunity of having the tools the 
Forest Service needs to do their job, having the funding the Forest 
Service needs to do their job, and also have the protection from 
frivolous lawsuits the Forest Service needs to do their job. We must 
give our Forest Service personnel the tools they need to be successful.
  If we don't pass this bill because we want something perfect from on 
high to come down--first, if we don't pass this bill, we are going to 
have a devastating situation coming in our forest lands and in our 
Nation this coming year.
  This is an essential step forward. Is it perfect? No. There is a 
whole lot more that we need to do, and we will still look forward to 
those issues; we will move forward on these issues, but what this does 
is move us forward in a significant way.
  Does this bill destroy our bedrock environmental laws? Of course 
not--the last time I heard people talking about bedrock was talking 
about Wilma and Fred and Barney. I am sorry; those laws didn't save 
their pet dinosaurs back in those days, either.
  We are not going to change anything; we are not going to move 
forward; we are not going to destroy what we have gained in the past, 
but what we are going to do is allow the Forest Service to do their 
job, something they are stopped from doing now because of procedural 
practices, because of litigation, because of lack of funding. All three 
of those are addressed in this particular piece of legislation.
  It is a great piece of legislation, and it needs to go forward. I 
urge everyone in here to realize how we must make steps to move forward 
and pass this bill and get it over to the Senate and onto the 
President's desk so our Forest Service can do their jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chair, I rise to discuss Title IX of H.R. 
2647, the ``Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015.''
  Each year, several hundred small wildfires occur within the State of 
Indiana. Most of these fires are extinguished by our local fire 
departments. While the Hoosier State does not experience the 
devastating effects of wildfires that the West does, I understand and 
support the need to ensure that wildfires on Federal lands are treated 
similar to other major disasters so that they have access to funds 
outside the discretionary budget caps. It is important that the 
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service, which manages the 
Hoosier National Forest in southern Indiana, have access to sufficient 
funding to suppress wildfires on Federal lands whenever they occur.
  Earlier this year, the Committee held a hearing and received 
testimony that made clear that wildfire funding is an issue that needs 
to be addressed. As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, which has 
jurisdiction over the Robert T. Stafford Act Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), I think it is appropriate to 
amend the Stafford Act to ensure similar treatment for wildfires on 
Federal lands.
  Some may have concerns that amending the Stafford Act will afford the 
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service with access to 
programs and funds intended for other disasters. I agree that these 
agencies should not be eligible for other Stafford Act assistance 
programs nor should these agencies have access to funds provided to the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency for other types of major disasters. 
But I am confident that the Stafford Act may be amended to treat 
wildfires on Federal lands as a major disaster without affecting other 
programs and funding. It is simply a matter of establishing a dedicated 
funding stream specifically for wildfires on Federal lands to ensure 
that these agencies have access to funds outside the discretionary 
budget caps. It is my understanding that this is the intent of Title 
IX.
  I appreciate Ranking Member DeFazio's interest and dedication to this 
issue. Moreover, I thank Chairman Shuster for trying to address this 
matter.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express support for 
the Resilient National Forests Act, and to thank Rep. Bruce Westerman 
of Arkansas for his work on this important issue.
  Last summer my home state of Washington faced the largest wildfire in 
state history, burning hundreds of thousands of acres.
  The amount of damage was unprecedented, but not entirely unexpected.
  Decades of over-regulation and frivolous lawsuits have hindered 
forest management, and we've all paid the price.
  In Eastern Washington, the Colville National Forest has been the 
economic engine for Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille counties--
providing jobs, energy, and recreational opportunities. Yet, mills have 
closed, jobs lost, and of the 945,410 million acres in the Colville 
National Forest, more than 300,000 are bug infested. This is 
unacceptable.
  Currently, between one-quarter and one-third of all acres of national 
forest are at risk of catastrophic wildfire and only 2-3 percent are 
being treated each year. Dead, diseased, and ready-to-ignite timber is 
just sitting there, rotting away while the U.S. Forest Service and 
affected communities are powerless to remove it.
  As we speak, there are fires burning across the Northwest--in Eastern 
Washington near my hometown in Stevens County, in the Blue Mountains in 
Asotin County, and nearby in Central Washington and Northern Idaho.
  We have a responsibility to enact legislation that ensures wildfire 
fighting is properly funded and reduces the risk of future fires.
  The Resilient National Forests Act is bipartisan, collaborative, and 
will produce the best possible outcome for all involved parties.
  With this legislation, the Forest Service will have the tools they 
need to quickly remove dead trees and to effectively manage the forests 
in Eastern Washington, and across the country.
  Mr. Chair, I ask this body join me in voting to keep our promise and 
preserve America's great resources for generations to come and call for 
the Senate to follow suit.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  In lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Natural Resources, 
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
Print 114-21, modified by the amendment printed in part B of House 
Report 114-192. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2647

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Resilient 
     Federal Forests Act of 2015''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

       Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
       Sec. 2. Definitions.

     TITLE I--EXPEDITED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND AVAILABILITY OF 
    CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS TO EXPEDITE FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

       Sec. 101. Analysis of only two alternatives (action versus 
           no action) in proposed collaborative forest management 
           activities.
       Sec. 102. Categorical exclusion to expedite certain 
           critical response actions.
       Sec. 103. Categorical exclusion to expedite salvage 
           operations in response to catastrophic events.
       Sec. 104. Categorical exclusion to meet forest plan goals 
           for early successional forests.
       Sec. 105. Clarification of existing categorical exclusion 
           authority related to insect and disease infestation.
       Sec. 106. Categorical exclusion to improve, restore, and 
           reduce the risk of wildfire.
       Sec. 107. Compliance with forest plan.

 TITLE II--SALVAGE AND REFORESTATION IN RESPONSE TO CATASTROPHIC EVENTS

       Sec. 201. Expedited salvage operations and reforestation 
           activities following large-scale catastrophic events.
       Sec. 202. Compliance with forest plan.
       Sec. 203. Prohibition on restraining orders, preliminary 
           injunctions, and injunctions pending appeal.
       Sec. 204. Exclusion of certain lands.

        TITLE III--COLLABORATIVE PROJECT LITIGATION REQUIREMENT

       Sec. 301. Definitions.
       Sec. 302. Bond requirement as part of legal challenge of 
           certain forest management activities.

[[Page H4996]]

  TITLE IV--SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT 
                               AMENDMENTS

       Sec. 401. Use of reserved funds for title II projects on 
           Federal land and certain non-Federal land.
       Sec. 402. Resource advisory committees.
       Sec. 403. Program for title II self-sustaining resource 
           advisory committee projects.
       Sec. 404. Additional authorized use of reserved funds for 
           title III county projects.

              TITLE V--STEWARDSHIP END RESULT CONTRACTING

       Sec. 501. Cancellation ceilings for stewardship end result 
           contracting projects.
       Sec. 502. Excess offset value.
       Sec. 503. Payment of portion of stewardship project 
           revenues to county in which stewardship project occurs.
       Sec. 504. Submission of existing annual report.

 TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

       Sec. 601. Definitions.
       Sec. 602. Availability of stewardship project revenues and 
           Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund to 
           cover forest management activity planning costs.
       Sec. 603. State-supported planning of forest management 
           activities.

        TITLE VII--TRIBAL FORESTRY PARTICIPATION AND PROTECTION

       Sec. 701. Protection of tribal forest assets through use of 
           stewardship end result contracting and other 
           authorities.
       Sec. 702. Management of Indian forest land authorized to 
           include related National Forest System lands and public 
           lands.

         TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS FOREST MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. Balancing short- and long-term effects of forest 
           management activities in considering injunctive relief.
       Sec. 802. Conditions on Forest Service road 
           decommissioning.
       Sec. 803. Prohibition on application of Eastside Screens 
           requirements on National Forest System lands.
       Sec. 804. Use of site-specific forest plan amendments for 
           certain projects and activities.
       Sec. 805. Knutson-Vandenberg Act modifications.
       Sec. 806. Exclusion of certain National Forest System lands 
           and public lands.

         TITLE IX--MAJOR DISASTER FOR WILDFIRE ON FEDERAL LAND

       Sec. 901. Wildfire on Federal lands.
       Sec. 902. Declaration of a major disaster for wildfire on 
           Federal lands.
       Sec. 903. Prohibition on transfers.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In titles I through VIII:
       (1) Catastrophic event.--The term ``catastrophic event'' 
     means any natural disaster (such as hurricane, tornado, 
     windstorm, snow or ice storm, rain storm, high water, wind-
     driven water, tidal wave, earthquake, volcanic eruption, 
     landslide, mudslide, drought, or insect or disease outbreak) 
     or any fire, flood, or explosion, regardless of cause.
       (2) Categorical exclusion.--The term ``categorical 
     exclusion'' refers to an exception to the requirements of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et 
     seq.) for a project or activity relating to the management of 
     National Forest System lands or public lands.
       (3) Collaborative process.--The term ``collaborative 
     process'' refers to a process relating to the management of 
     National Forest System lands or public lands by which a 
     project or activity is developed and implemented by the 
     Secretary concerned through collaboration with interested 
     persons, as described in section 603(b)(1)(C) of the Healthy 
     Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591b(b)(1)(C)).
       (4) Community wildfire protection plan.--The term 
     ``community wildfire protection plan'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 101(3) of the Healthy Forests 
     Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511(3)).
       (5) Coos bay wagon road grant lands.--The term ``Coos Bay 
     Wagon Road Grant lands'' means the lands reconveyed to the 
     United States pursuant to the first section of the Act of 
     February 26, 1919 (40 Stat. 1179).
       (6) Forest management activity.--The term ``forest 
     management activity'' means a project or activity carried out 
     by the Secretary concerned on National Forest System lands or 
     public lands in concert with the forest plan covering the 
     lands.
       (7) Forest plan.--The term ``forest plan'' means--
       (A) a land use plan prepared by the Bureau of Land 
     Management for public lands pursuant to section 202 of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1712); or
       (B) a land and resource management plan prepared by the 
     Forest Service for a unit of the National Forest System 
     pursuant to section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).
       (8) Large-scale catastrophic event.--The term ``large-scale 
     catastrophic event'' means a catastrophic event that 
     adversely impacts at least 5,000 acres of reasonably 
     contiguous National Forest System lands or public lands.
       (9) National forest system.--The term ``National Forest 
     System'' has the meaning given that term in section 11(a) of 
     the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 
     1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
       (10) Oregon and california railroad grant lands.--The term 
     ``Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands'' means the 
     following lands:
       (A) All lands in the State of Oregon revested in the United 
     States under the Act of June 9, 1916 (39 Stat. 218), that are 
     administered by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
     the Bureau of Land Management, pursuant to the first section 
     of the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181a).
       (B) All lands in that State obtained by the Secretary of 
     the Interior pursuant to the land exchanges authorized and 
     directed by section 2 of the Act of June 24, 1954 (43 U.S.C. 
     1181h).
       (C) All lands in that State acquired by the United States 
     at any time and made subject to the provisions of title II of 
     the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181f).
       (11) Public lands.--The term ``public lands'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 103(e) of the Federal Land 
     Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)), except 
     that the term includes Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands and 
     Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands.
       (12) Reforestation activity.--The term ``reforestation 
     activity'' means a project or activity carried out by the 
     Secretary concerned whose primary purpose is the 
     reforestation of impacted lands following a large-scale 
     catastrophic event. The term includes planting, evaluating 
     and enhancing natural regeneration, clearing competing 
     vegetation, and other activities related to reestablishment 
     of forest species on the fire-impacted lands.
       (13) Resource advisory committee.--The term ``resource 
     advisory committee'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 201(3) of the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
     Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7121(3)).
       (14) Salvage operation.--The term ``salvage operation'' 
     means a forest management activity undertaken in response to 
     a catastrophic event whose primary purpose--
       (A) is to prevent wildfire as a result of the catastrophic 
     event, or, if the catastrophic event was wildfire, to prevent 
     a re-burn of the fire-impacted area;
       (B) is to provide an opportunity for utilization of forest 
     materials damaged as a result of the catastrophic event; or
       (C) is to provide a funding source for reforestation and 
     other restoration activities for the National Forest System 
     lands or public lands impacted by the catastrophic event.
       (15) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
     means--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National 
     Forest System lands; and
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to public 
     lands.

     TITLE I--EXPEDITED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND AVAILABILITY OF 
    CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS TO EXPEDITE FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 101. ANALYSIS OF ONLY TWO ALTERNATIVES (ACTION VERSUS NO 
                   ACTION) IN PROPOSED COLLABORATIVE FOREST 
                   MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Application to Certain Environmental Assessments and 
     Environmental Impact Statements.--This section shall apply 
     whenever the Secretary concerned prepares an environmental 
     assessment or an environmental impact statement pursuant to 
     section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) for a forest management activity 
     that--
       (1) is developed through a collaborative process;
       (2) is proposed by a resource advisory committee; or
       (3) is covered by a community wildfire protection plan.
       (b) Consideration of Alternatives.--In an environmental 
     assessment or environmental impact statement described in 
     subsection (a), the Secretary concerned shall study, develop, 
     and describe only the following two alternatives:
       (1) The forest management activity, as proposed pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a).
       (2) The alternative of no action.
       (c) Elements of Non-Action Alternative.--In the case of the 
     alternative of no action, the Secretary concerned shall 
     evaluate--
       (1) the effect of no action on--
       (A) forest health;
       (B) habitat diversity;
       (C) wildfire potential; and
       (D) insect and disease potential; and
       (2) the implications of a resulting decline in forest 
     health, loss of habitat diversity, wildfire, or insect or 
     disease infestation, given fire and insect and disease 
     historic cycles, on--
       (A) domestic water costs;
       (B) wildlife habitat loss; and
       (C) other economic and social factors.

     SEC. 102. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO EXPEDITE CERTAIN CRITICAL 
                   RESPONSE ACTIONS.

       (a) Availability of Categorical Exclusion.--A categorical 
     exclusion is available to

[[Page H4997]]

     the Secretary concerned to develop and carry out a forest 
     management activity on National Forest System lands or public 
     lands when the primary purpose of the forest management 
     activity is--
       (1) to address an insect or disease infestation;
       (2) to reduce hazardous fuel loads;
       (3) to protect a municipal water source;
       (4) to maintain, enhance, or modify critical habitat to 
     protect it from catastrophic disturbances;
       (5) to increase water yield; or
       (6) any combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs 
     (1) through (5).
       (b) Acreage Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--Except in the case of a forest management 
     activity described in paragraph (2), a forest management 
     activity covered by the categorical exclusion granted by 
     subsection (a) may not contain harvest units exceeding a 
     total of 5,000 acres.
       (2) Larger areas authorized.--A forest management activity 
     covered by the categorical exclusion granted by subsection 
     (a) may not contain harvest units exceeding a total of 15,000 
     acres if the forest management activity--
       (A) is developed through a collaborative process;
       (B) is proposed by a resource advisory committee; or
       (C) is covered by a community wildfire protection plan.

     SEC. 103. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO EXPEDITE SALVAGE 
                   OPERATIONS IN RESPONSE TO CATASTROPHIC EVENTS.

       (a) Availability of Categorical Exclusion.--A categorical 
     exclusion is available to the Secretary concerned to develop 
     and carry out a salvage operation as part of the restoration 
     of National Forest System lands or public lands following a 
     catastrophic event.
       (b) Acreage Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--A salvage operation covered by the 
     categorical exclusion granted by subsection (a) may not 
     contain harvest units exceeding a total of 5,000 acres.
       (2) Harvest area.--In addition to the limitation imposed by 
     paragraph (1), the harvest units covered by the categorical 
     exclusion granted by subsection (a) may not exceed one-third 
     of the area impacted by the catastrophic event.
       (c) Additional Requirements.--
       (1) Road building.--A salvage operation covered by the 
     categorical exclusion granted by subsection (a) may not 
     include any new permanent roads. Temporary roads constructed 
     as part of the salvage operation shall be retired before the 
     end of the fifth fiscal year beginning after the completion 
     of the salvage operation.
       (2) Stream buffers.--A salvage operation covered by the 
     categorical exclusion granted by subsection (a) shall comply 
     with the standards and guidelines for stream buffers 
     contained in the applicable forest plan unless waived by the 
     Regional Forester, in the case of National Forest System 
     lands, or the State Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, in the case of public lands.
       (3) Reforestation plan.--A reforestation plan shall be 
     developed under section 3 of the Act of June 9, 1930 
     (commonly known as the Knutson-Vandenberg Act; 16 U.S.C. 
     576b), as part of a salvage operation covered by the 
     categorical exclusion granted by subsection (a).

     SEC. 104. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO MEET FOREST PLAN GOALS FOR 
                   EARLY SUCCESSIONAL FORESTS.

       (a) Availability of Categorical Exclusion.--A categorical 
     exclusion is available to the Secretary concerned to develop 
     and carry out a forest management activity on National Forest 
     System lands or public lands when the primary purpose of the 
     forest management activity is to modify, improve, enhance, or 
     create early successional forests for wildlife habitat 
     improvement and other purposes, consistent with the 
     applicable forest plan.
       (b) Project Goals.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Secretary concerned shall design a forest management activity 
     under this section to meet early successional forest goals in 
     such a manner so as to maximize production and regeneration 
     of priority species, as identified in the forest plan and 
     consistent with the capability of the activity site.
       (c) Acreage Limitations.--A forest management activity 
     covered by the categorical exclusion granted by subsection 
     (a) may not contain harvest units exceeding a total of 5,000 
     acres.

     SEC. 105. CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION 
                   AUTHORITY RELATED TO INSECT AND DISEASE 
                   INFESTATION.

       Section 603(c)(2)(B) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 
     of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591b(c)(2)(B)) is amended by striking 
     ``Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III'' and inserting ``Fire 
     Regime I, Fire Regime II, Fire Regime III, or Fire Regime 
     IV''.

     SEC. 106. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO IMPROVE, RESTORE, AND 
                   REDUCE THE RISK OF WILDFIRE.

       (a) Availability of Categorical Exclusion.--A categorical 
     exclusion is available to the Secretary concerned to carry 
     out a forest management activity described in subsection (c) 
     on National Forest System Lands or public lands when the 
     primary purpose of the activity is to improve, restore, or 
     reduce the risk of wildfire on those lands.
       (b) Acreage Limitations.--A forest management activity 
     covered by the categorical exclusion granted by subsection 
     (a) may not exceed 5,000 acres.
       (c) Authorized Activities.--The following activities may be 
     carried out using a categorical exclusion granted by 
     subsection (a):
       (1) Removal of juniper trees, medusahead rye, conifer 
     trees, pinon pine trees, cheatgrass, and other noxious or 
     invasive weeds specified on Federal or State noxious weeds 
     lists through late-season livestock grazing, targeted 
     livestock grazing, prescribed burns, and mechanical 
     treatments.
       (2) Performance of hazardous fuels management.
       (3) Creation of fuel and fire breaks.
       (4) Modification of existing fences in order to distribute 
     livestock and help improve wildlife habitat.
       (5) Installation of erosion control devices.
       (6) Construction of new and maintenance of permanent 
     infrastructure, including stock ponds, water catchments, and 
     water spring boxes used to benefit livestock and improve 
     wildlife habitat.
       (7) Performance of soil treatments, native and non-native 
     seeding, and planting of and transplanting sagebrush, grass, 
     forb, shrub, and other species.
       (8) Use of herbicides, so long as the Secretary concerned 
     determines that the activity is otherwise conducted 
     consistently with agency procedures, including any forest 
     plan applicable to the area covered by the activity.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Hazardous fuels management.--The term ``hazardous fuels 
     management'' means any vegetation management activities that 
     reduce the risk of wildfire.
       (2) Late-season grazing.--The term ``late-season grazing'' 
     means grazing activities that occur after both the invasive 
     species and native perennial species have completed their 
     current-year annual growth cycle until new plant growth 
     begins to appear in the following year.
       (3) Targeted livestock grazing.--The term ``targeted 
     livestock grazing'' means grazing used for purposes of 
     hazardous fuel reduction.

     SEC. 107. COMPLIANCE WITH FOREST PLAN.

       A forest management activity covered by a categorical 
     exclusion granted by this title shall be conducted in a 
     manner consistent with the forest plan applicable to the 
     National Forest System land or public lands covered by the 
     forest management activity.

 TITLE II--SALVAGE AND REFORESTATION IN RESPONSE TO CATASTROPHIC EVENTS

     SEC. 201. EXPEDITED SALVAGE OPERATIONS AND REFORESTATION 
                   ACTIVITIES FOLLOWING LARGE-SCALE CATASTROPHIC 
                   EVENTS.

       (a) Expedited Environmental Assessment.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, any environmental assessment 
     prepared by the Secretary concerned pursuant to section 
     102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4332(2)) for a salvage operation or reforestation 
     activity proposed to be conducted on National Forest System 
     lands or public lands adversely impacted by a large-scale 
     catastrophic event shall be completed within three months 
     after the conclusion of the catastrophic event.
       (b) Expedited Implementation and Completion.--In the case 
     of reforestation activities conducted on National Forest 
     System lands or public lands adversely impacted by a large-
     scale catastrophic event, the Secretary concerned shall 
     achieve reforestation of at least 75 percent of the impacted 
     lands during the five-year period following the conclusion of 
     the catastrophic event.
       (c) Availability of Knutson-Vandenberg Funds.--Amounts in 
     the special fund established pursuant to section 3 of the Act 
     of June 9, 1930 (commonly known as the Knutson-Vandenberg 
     Act; 16 U.S.C. 576b) shall be available to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture for reforestation activities authorized by this 
     title.
       (d) Timeline for Public Input Process.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, in the case of a salvage operation or 
     reforestation activity proposed to be conducted on National 
     Forest System lands or public lands adversely impacted by a 
     large-scale catastrophic event, the Secretary concerned shall 
     allow 30 days for public scoping and comment, 15 days for 
     filing an objection, and 15 days for the agency response to 
     the filing of an objection. Upon completion of this process 
     and expiration of the period specified in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary concerned shall implement the project immediately.

     SEC. 202. COMPLIANCE WITH FOREST PLAN.

       A salvage operation or reforestation activity authorized by 
     this title shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the 
     forest plan applicable to the National Forest System lands or 
     public lands covered by the salvage operation or 
     reforestation activity.

     SEC. 203. PROHIBITION ON RESTRAINING ORDERS, PRELIMINARY 
                   INJUNCTIONS, AND INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL.

       No restraining order, preliminary injunction, or injunction 
     pending appeal shall be issued by any court of the United 
     States with respect to any decision to prepare or conduct a 
     salvage operation or reforestation activity in response to a 
     large-scale catastrophic event. Section 705 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall not apply to any challenge to the 
     salvage operation or reforestation activity.

     SEC. 204. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN LANDS.

       In applying this title, the Secretary concerned may not 
     carry out salvage operations or reforestation activities on 
     National Forest System lands or public lands--
       (1) that are included in the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System;
       (2) that are located within an inventoried roadless area 
     unless the reforestation activity is consistent with the 
     forest plan; or
       (3) on which timber harvesting for any purpose is 
     prohibited by statute.

        TITLE III--COLLABORATIVE PROJECT LITIGATION REQUIREMENT

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Costs.--The term ``costs'' refers to the fees and costs 
     described in section 1920 of title 28, United States Code.

[[Page H4998]]

       (2) Expenses.--The term ``expenses'' includes the 
     expenditures incurred by the staff of the Secretary concerned 
     in preparing for and responding to a legal challenge to a 
     collaborative forest management activity and in participating 
     in litigation that challenges the forest management activity, 
     including such staff time as may be used to prepare the 
     administrative record, exhibits, declarations, and affidavits 
     in connection with the litigation.

     SEC. 302. BOND REQUIREMENT AS PART OF LEGAL CHALLENGE OF 
                   CERTAIN FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Bond Required.--In the case of a forest management 
     activity developed through a collaborative process or 
     proposed by a resource advisory committee, any plaintiff or 
     plaintiffs challenging the forest management activity shall 
     be required to post a bond or other security equal to the 
     anticipated costs, expenses, and attorneys fees of the 
     Secretary concerned as defendant, as reasonably estimated by 
     the Secretary concerned. All proceedings in the action shall 
     be stayed until the required bond or security is provided.
       (b) Recovery of Litigation Costs, Expenses, and Attorneys 
     Fees.--
       (1) Motion for payment.--If the Secretary concerned 
     prevails in an action challenging a forest management 
     activity described in subsection (a), the Secretary concerned 
     shall submit to the court a motion for payment, from the bond 
     or other security posted under subsection (a) in such action, 
     of the reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys fees 
     incurred by the Secretary concerned.
       (2) Maximum amount recovered.--The amount of costs, 
     expenses, and attorneys fees recovered by the Secretary 
     concerned under paragraph (1) as a result of prevailing in an 
     action challenging the forest management activity may not 
     exceed the amount of the bond or other security posted under 
     subsection (a) in such action.
       (3) Return of remainder.--Any funds remaining from the bond 
     or other security posted under subsection (a) after the 
     payment of costs, expenses, and attorneys fees under 
     paragraph (1) shall be returned to the plaintiff or 
     plaintiffs that posted the bond or security in the action.
       (c) Return of Bond to Prevailing Plaintiff.--
       (1) In general.--If the plaintiff ultimately prevails on 
     the merits in every action brought by the plaintiff 
     challenging a forest management activity described in 
     subsection (a), the court shall return to the plaintiff any 
     bond or security provided by the plaintiff under subsection 
     (a), plus interest from the date the bond or security was 
     provided.
       (2) Ultimately prevails on the merits.--In this subsection, 
     the phrase ``ultimately prevails on the merits'' means, in a 
     final enforceable judgment on the merits, a court rules in 
     favor of the plaintiff on every cause of action in every 
     action brought by the plaintiff challenging the forest 
     management activity.
       (d) Effect of Settlement.--If a challenge to a forest 
     management activity described in subsection (a) for which a 
     bond or other security was provided by the plaintiff under 
     such subsection is resolved by settlement between the 
     Secretary concerned and the plaintiff, the settlement 
     agreement shall provide for sharing the costs, expenses, and 
     attorneys fees incurred by the parties.
       (e) Limitation on Certain Payments.--Notwithstanding 
     section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, no award may be 
     made under section 2412 of title 28, United States Code, and 
     no amounts may be obligated or expended from the Claims and 
     Judgment Fund of the United States Treasury to pay any fees 
     or other expenses under such sections to any plaintiff 
     related to an action challenging a forest management activity 
     described in subsection (a).

  TITLE IV--SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT 
                               AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 401. USE OF RESERVED FUNDS FOR TITLE II PROJECTS ON 
                   FEDERAL LAND AND CERTAIN NON-FEDERAL LAND.

       (a) Repeal of Merchantable Timber Contracting Pilot 
     Program.--Section 204(e) of the Secure Rural Schools and 
     Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7124(e)) 
     is amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (b) Requirements for Project Funds.--Section 204 of the 
     Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 
     2000 (16 U.S.C. 7124) is amended by striking subsection (f) 
     and inserting the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Requirements for Project Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     concerned shall ensure that at least 50 percent of the 
     project funds reserved by a participating county under 
     section 102(d) shall be available only for projects that--
       ``(A) include the sale of timber or other forest products, 
     reduce fire risks, or improve water supplies; and
       ``(B) implement stewardship objectives that enhance forest 
     ecosystems or restore and improve land health and water 
     quality.
       ``(2) Applicability.--The requirement in paragraph (1) 
     shall apply only to project funds reserved by a participating 
     county whose boundaries include Federal land that the 
     Secretary concerned determines has been subject to a timber 
     or other forest products program within 5 fiscal years before 
     the fiscal year in which the funds are reserved.''.

     SEC. 402. RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

       (a) Recognition of Resource Advisory Committees.--Section 
     205(a)(4) of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
     Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7125(a)(4)) is amended 
     by striking ``2012'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``2020''.
       (b) Temporary Reduction in Composition of Committees.--
     Section 205(d) of the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
     Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7125(d)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Each'' and inserting 
     ``Except during the period specified in paragraph (6), 
     each''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Temporary reduction in minimum number of members.--
       ``(A) Temporary reduction.--During the period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this paragraph and ending on 
     September 30, 2020, a resource advisory committee established 
     under this section may be comprised of 9 or more members, of 
     which--
       ``(i) at least 3 shall be representative of interests 
     described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2);
       ``(ii) at least 3 shall be representative of interests 
     described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2); and
       ``(iii) at least 3 shall be representative of interests 
     described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Additional requirements.--In appointing members of a 
     resource advisory committee from the 3 categories described 
     in paragraph (2), as provided in subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary concerned shall ensure balanced and broad 
     representation in each category. In the case of a vacancy on 
     a resource advisory committee, the vacancy shall be filled 
     within 90 days after the date on which the vacancy occurred. 
     Appointments to a new resource advisory committee shall be 
     made within 90 days after the date on which the decision to 
     form the new resource advisory committee was made.
       ``(C) Charter.--A charter for a resource advisory committee 
     with 15 members that was filed on or before the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph shall be considered to be filed 
     for a resource advisory committee described in this 
     paragraph. The charter of a resource advisory committee shall 
     be reapproved before the expiration of the existing charter 
     of the resource advisory committee. In the case of a new 
     resource advisory committee, the charter of the resource 
     advisory committee shall be approved within 90 days after the 
     date on which the decision to form the new resource advisory 
     committee was made.''.
       (c) Conforming Change to Project Approval Requirements.--
     Section 205(e)(3) of the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
     Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7125(e)(3)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In 
     the case of a resource advisory committee consisting of fewer 
     than 15 members, as authorized by subsection (d)(6), a 
     project may be proposed to the Secretary concerned upon 
     approval by a majority of the members of the committee, 
     including at least 1 member from each of the 3 categories 
     described in subsection (d)(2).''.
       (d) Expanding Local Participation on Committees.--Section 
     205(d) of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
     Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7125(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, consistent with the requirements of 
     paragraph (4)''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Geographic distribution.--The members of a resource 
     advisory committee shall reside within the county or counties 
     in which the committee has jurisdiction or an adjacent 
     county.''.

     SEC. 403. PROGRAM FOR TITLE II SELF-SUSTAINING RESOURCE 
                   ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROJECTS.

       (a) Self-Sustaining Resource Advisory Committee Projects.--
     Title II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
     Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7121 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 209. PROGRAM FOR SELF-SUSTAINING RESOURCE ADVISORY 
                   COMMITTEE PROJECTS.

       ``(a) RAC Program.--The Chief of the Forest Service shall 
     conduct a program (to be known as the `self-sustaining 
     resource advisory committee program' or `RAC program') under 
     which 10 resource advisory committees will propose projects 
     authorized by subsection (c) to be carried out using project 
     funds reserved by a participating county under section 
     102(d).
       ``(b) Selection of Participating Resource Advisory 
     Committees.--The selection of resource advisory committees to 
     participate in the RAC program is in the sole discretion of 
     the Chief of the Forest Service, except that, consistent with 
     section 205(d)(6), a selected resource advisory committee 
     must have a minimum of 6 members.
       ``(c) Authorized Projects.--Notwithstanding the project 
     purposes specified in sections 202(b), 203(c), and 204(a)(5), 
     projects under the RAC program are intended to--
       ``(1) accomplish forest management objectives or support 
     community development; and
       ``(2) generate receipts.
       ``(d) Deposit and Availability of Revenues.--Any revenue 
     generated by a project conducted under the RAC program, 
     including any interest accrued from the revenues, shall be--
       ``(1) deposited in the special account in the Treasury 
     established under section 102(d)(2)(A); and
       ``(2) available, in such amounts as may be provided in 
     advance in appropriation Acts, for additional projects under 
     the RAC program.
       ``(e) Termination of Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--The authority to initiate a project 
     under the RAC program shall terminate on September 30, 2020.
       ``(2) Deposits in treasury.--Any funds available for 
     projects under the RAC program and not obligated by September 
     30, 2021, shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United 
     States.''.

[[Page H4999]]

       (b) Exception to General Rule Regarding Treatment of 
     Receipts.--Section 403(b) of the Secure Rural Schools and 
     Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7153(b)) 
     is amended by striking ``All revenues'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in section 209, all revenues''.

     SEC. 404. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZED USE OF RESERVED FUNDS FOR 
                   TITLE III COUNTY PROJECTS.

       Section 302(a) of the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
     Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7142(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and law enforcement patrols'' after 
     ``including firefighting''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph (3):
       ``(3) to cover training costs and equipment purchases 
     directly related to the emergency services described in 
     paragraph (2); and''.

     SEC. 405. TREATMENT AS SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING.

       Section 102 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
     Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7112) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Treatment as Supplemental Funding.--None of the funds 
     made available to a beneficiary county or other political 
     subdivision of a State under this Act shall be used in lieu 
     of or to otherwise offset State funding sources for local 
     schools, facilities, or educational purposes.''.

              TITLE V--STEWARDSHIP END RESULT CONTRACTING

     SEC. 501. CANCELLATION CEILINGS FOR STEWARDSHIP END RESULT 
                   CONTRACTING PROJECTS.

       (a) Cancellation Ceilings.--Section 604 of the Healthy 
     Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591c) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections 
     (i) and (j), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new 
     subsection (h):
       ``(h) Cancellation Ceilings.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Chief and the Director may obligate 
     funds to cover any potential cancellation or termination 
     costs for an agreement or contract under subsection (b) in 
     stages that are economically or programmatically viable.
       ``(2) Advance notice to congress of cancellation ceiling in 
     excess of $25,000,000.--Not later than 30 days before 
     entering into a multiyear agreement or contract under 
     subsection (b) that includes a cancellation ceiling in excess 
     of $25,000,000, but does not include proposed funding for the 
     costs of cancelling the agreement or contract up to such 
     cancellation ceiling, the Chief or the Director, as the case 
     may be, shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
     Forestry of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources 
     and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives a written notice that includes--
       ``(A) the cancellation ceiling amounts proposed for each 
     program year in the agreement or contract;
       ``(B) the reasons why such cancellation ceiling amounts 
     were selected;
       ``(C) the extent to which the costs of contract 
     cancellation are not included in the budget for the agreement 
     or contract; and
       ``(D) an assessment of the financial risk of not including 
     budgeting for the costs of agreement or contract 
     cancellation.
       ``(3) Transmittal of notice to omb.--Not later than 14 days 
     after the date on which written notice is provided under 
     paragraph (2) with respect to an agreement or contract under 
     subsection (b), the Chief or the Director, as the case may 
     be, shall transmit a copy of the notice to the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.''.
       (b) Relation to Other Laws.--Section 604(d)(5) of the 
     Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 
     6591c(d)(5)) is amended by striking ``, the Chief may'' and 
     inserting ``and section 2(a)(1) of the Act of July 31, 1947 
     (commonly known as the Materials Act of 1947; 30 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(1)), the Chief and the Director may''.

     SEC. 502. EXCESS OFFSET VALUE.

       Section 604(g)(2) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 
     2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591c(g)(2)) is amended by striking 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(A) use the excess to satisfy any outstanding liabilities 
     for cancelled agreements or contracts; or
       ``(B) if there are no outstanding liabilities under 
     subparagraph (A), apply the excess to other authorized 
     stewardship projects.''.

     SEC. 503. PAYMENT OF PORTION OF STEWARDSHIP PROJECT REVENUES 
                   TO COUNTY IN WHICH STEWARDSHIP PROJECT OCCURS.

       Section 604(e) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 
     2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591c(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``subject to 
     paragraph (3)(A),'' before ``shall''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``services received by 
     the Chief or the Director'' and all that follows through the 
     period at the end and inserting the following: ``services and 
     in-kind resources received by the Chief or the Director under 
     a stewardship contract project conducted under this section 
     shall not be considered monies received from the National 
     Forest System or the public lands, but any payments made by 
     the contractor to the Chief or Director under the project 
     shall be considered monies received from the National Forest 
     System or the public lands.''.

     SEC. 504. SUBMISSION OF EXISTING ANNUAL REPORT.

       Subsection (j) of section 604 of the Healthy Forests 
     Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591c), as redesignated by 
     section 501(a)(1), is amended by striking ``report to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives'' and inserting ``submit to the congressional 
     committees specified in subsection (h)(2) a report''.

 TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 601. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
       (A) a State or political subdivision of a State containing 
     National Forest System lands or public lands;
       (B) a publicly chartered utility serving one or more States 
     or a political subdivision thereof;
       (C) a rural electric company; and
       (D) any other entity determined by the Secretary concerned 
     to be appropriate for participation in the Fund.
       (2) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the State-Supported 
     Forest Management Fund established by section 603.

     SEC. 602. AVAILABILITY OF STEWARDSHIP PROJECT REVENUES AND 
                   COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION FUND 
                   TO COVER FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY PLANNING 
                   COSTS.

       (a) Availability of Stewardship Project Revenues.--Section 
     604(e)(2)(B) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 
     (16 U.S.C. 6591c(e)(2)(B)), as amended by section 503, is 
     further amended by striking ``appropriation at the project 
     site from which the monies are collected or at another 
     project site.'' and inserting the following: 
     ``appropriation--
       ``(i) at the project site from which the monies are 
     collected or at another project site; and
       ``(ii) to cover not more than 25 percent of the cost of 
     planning additional stewardship contracting projects.''.
       (b) Availability of Collaborative Forest Landscape 
     Restoration Fund.--Section 4003(f)(1) of the Omnibus Public 
     Land Management Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C. 7303(f)(1)) is amended 
     by striking ``carrying out and'' and inserting ``planning, 
     carrying out, and''.

     SEC. 603. STATE-SUPPORTED PLANNING OF FOREST MANAGEMENT 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) State-Supported Forest Management Fund.--There is 
     established in the Treasury of the United States a fund, to 
     be known as the ``State-Supported Forest Management Fund'', 
     to cover the cost of planning (especially related to 
     compliance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2))), carrying out, and 
     monitoring certain forest management activities on National 
     Forest System lands or public lands.
       (b) Contents.--The State-Supported Forest Management Fund 
     shall consist of such amounts as may be--
       (1) contributed by an eligible entity for deposit in the 
     Fund;
       (2) appropriated to the Fund; or
       (3) generated by forest management activities carried out 
     using amounts in the Fund.
       (c) Geographical and Use Limitations.--In making a 
     contribution under subsection (b)(1), an eligible entity 
     may--
       (1) specify the National Forest System lands or public 
     lands for which the contribution may be expended; and
       (2) limit the types of forest management activities for 
     which the contribution may be expended.
       (d) Authorized Forest Management Activities.--In such 
     amounts as may be provided in advance in appropriation Acts, 
     the Secretary concerned may use the Fund to plan, carry out, 
     and monitor a forest management activity that--
       (1) is developed through a collaborative process;
       (2) is proposed by a resource advisory committee; or
       (3) is covered by a community wildfire protection plan.
       (e) Implementation Methods.--A forest management activity 
     carried out using amounts in the Fund may be carried out 
     using a contract or agreement under section 604 of the 
     Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591c), 
     the good neighbor authority provided by section 8206 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a), a contract under 
     section 14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 
     U.S.C. 472a), or other authority available to the Secretary 
     concerned, but revenues generated by the forest management 
     activity shall be used to reimburse the Fund for planning 
     costs covered using amounts in the Fund.
       (f) Relation to Other Laws.--
       (1) Revenue sharing.--Subject to subsection (e), revenues 
     generated by a forest management activity carried out using 
     amounts from the Fund shall be considered monies received 
     from the National Forest System.
       (2) Knutson-vanderberg act.--The Act of June 9, 1930 
     (commonly known as the Knutson-Vanderberg Act; 16 U.S.C. 576 
     et seq.), shall apply to any forest management activity 
     carried out using amounts in the Fund.
       (g) Termination of Fund.--
       (1) Termination.--The Fund shall terminate 10 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Effect of termination.--Upon the termination of the 
     Fund pursuant to paragraph (1) or pursuant to any other 
     provision of law, unobligated contributions remaining in the 
     Fund shall be returned to the eligible entity that made the 
     contribution.

[[Page H5000]]

        TITLE VII--TRIBAL FORESTRY PARTICIPATION AND PROTECTION

     SEC. 701. PROTECTION OF TRIBAL FOREST ASSETS THROUGH USE OF 
                   STEWARDSHIP END RESULT CONTRACTING AND OTHER 
                   AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Prompt Consideration of Tribal Requests.--Section 2(b) 
     of the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 (25 U.S.C. 
     3115a(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Not later than 120 days 
     after the date on which an Indian tribe submits to the 
     Secretary'' and inserting ``In response to the submission by 
     an Indian tribe of''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Time periods for consideration.--
       ``(A) Initial response.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary receives a tribal request under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide an initial 
     response to the Indian tribe regarding--
       ``(i) whether the request may meet the selection criteria 
     described in subsection (c); and
       ``(ii) the likelihood of the Secretary entering into an 
     agreement or contract with the Indian tribe under paragraph 
     (2) for activities described in paragraph (3).
       ``(B) Notice of denial.--Notice under subsection (d) of the 
     denial of a tribal request under paragraph (1) shall be 
     provided not later than one year after the date on which the 
     Secretary received the request.
       ``(C) Completion.--Not later than two years after the date 
     on which the Secretary receives a tribal request under 
     paragraph (1), other than a tribal request denied under 
     subsection (d), the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) complete all environmental reviews necessary in 
     connection with the agreement or contract and proposed 
     activities under the agreement or contract; and
       ``(ii) enter into the agreement or contract with the Indian 
     tribe under paragraph (2).''.
       (b) Conforming and Technical Amendments.--Section 2 of the 
     Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 (25 U.S.C. 3115a) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsections (b)(1) and (f)(1), by striking ``section 
     347 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (16 U.S.C. 2104 note; Public Law 
     105-277) (as amended by section 323 of the Department of the 
     Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 (117 
     Stat. 275))'' and inserting ``section 604 of the Healthy 
     Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591c)''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``subsection (b)(1), the 
     Secretary may'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (4)(B) of 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall''.

     SEC. 702. MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN FOREST LAND AUTHORIZED TO 
                   INCLUDE RELATED NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS 
                   AND PUBLIC LANDS.

       Section 305 of the National Indian Forest Resources 
     Management Act (25 U.S.C. 3104) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Inclusion of Certain National Forest System Land and 
     Public Land.--
       ``(1) Authority.--At the request of an Indian tribe, the 
     Secretary concerned may treat Federal forest land as Indian 
     forest land for purposes of planning and conducting forest 
     land management activities under this section if the Federal 
     forest land is located within, or mostly within, a geographic 
     area that presents a feature or involves circumstances 
     principally relevant to that Indian tribe, such as Federal 
     forest land ceded to the United States by treaty, Federal 
     forest land within the boundaries of a current or former 
     reservation, or Federal forest land adjudicated to be tribal 
     homelands.
       ``(2) Requirements.--As part of the agreement to treat 
     Federal forest land as Indian forest land under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary concerned and the Indian tribe making the 
     request shall--
       ``(A) provide for continued public access applicable to the 
     Federal forest land prior to the agreement, except that the 
     Secretary concerned may limit or prohibit such access as 
     needed;
       ``(B) continue sharing revenue generated by the Federal 
     forest land with State and local governments either--
       ``(i) on the terms applicable to the Federal forest land 
     prior to the agreement, including, where applicable, 25-
     percent payments or 50 percent payments; or
       ``(ii) at the option of the Indian tribe, on terms agreed 
     upon by the Indian tribe, the Secretary concerned, and State 
     and county governments participating in a revenue sharing 
     agreement for the Federal forest land;
       ``(C) comply with applicable prohibitions on the export of 
     unprocessed logs harvested from the Federal forest land;
       ``(D) recognize all right-of-way agreements in place on 
     Federal forest land prior to commencement of tribal 
     management activities; and
       ``(E) ensure that all commercial timber removed from the 
     Federal forest land is sold on a competitive bid basis.
       ``(3) Limitation.--Treating Federal forest land as Indian 
     forest land for purposes of planning and conducting 
     management activities pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not be 
     construed to designate the Federal forest land as Indian 
     forest lands for any other purpose.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Federal forest land.--The term `Federal forest land' 
     means--
       ``(i) National Forest System lands; and
       ``(ii) public lands (as defined in section 103(e) of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1702(e))), including Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands 
     reconveyed to the United States pursuant to the first section 
     of the Act of February 26, 1919 (40 Stat. 1179), and Oregon 
     and California Railroad Grant lands.
       ``(B) Secretary concerned.--The term `Secretary concerned' 
     means--
       ``(i) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the 
     Federal forest land referred to in subparagraph (A)(i); and
       ``(ii) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to the 
     Federal forest land referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii).''.

         TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS FOREST MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS

     SEC. 801. BALANCING SHORT- AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF FOREST 
                   MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN CONSIDERING INJUNCTIVE 
                   RELIEF.

       As part of its weighing the equities while considering any 
     request for an injunction that applies to any agency action 
     as part of a forest management activity under titles I 
     through VIII, the court reviewing the agency action shall 
     balance the impact to the ecosystem likely affected by the 
     forest management activity of--
       (1) the short- and long-term effects of undertaking the 
     agency action; against
       (2) the short- and long-term effects of not undertaking the 
     action.

     SEC. 802. CONDITIONS ON FOREST SERVICE ROAD DECOMMISSIONING.

       (a) Consultation With Affected County.--Whenever any Forest 
     Service defined maintenance level one or two system road 
     within a designated high fire prone area of a unit of the 
     National Forest System is considered for decommissioning, the 
     Forest Supervisor of that unit of the National Forest System 
     shall--
       (1) consult with the government of the county containing 
     the road regarding the merits and possible consequences of 
     decommissioning the road; and
       (2) solicit possible alternatives to decommissioning the 
     road.
       (b) Regional Forester Approval.--A Forest Service road 
     described in subsection (a) may not be decommissioned without 
     the advance approval of the Regional Forester.

     SEC. 803. PROHIBITION ON APPLICATION OF EASTSIDE SCREENS 
                   REQUIREMENTS ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS.

       On and after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may not apply to National Forest 
     System lands any of the amendments to forest plans adopted in 
     the Decision Notice for the Revised Continuation of Interim 
     Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and 
     Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (commonly known as the 
     Eastside Screens requirements), including all preceding or 
     associated versions of these amendments.

     SEC. 804. USE OF SITE-SPECIFIC FOREST PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 
                   CERTAIN PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES.

       If the Secretary concerned determines that, in order to 
     conduct a project or carry out an activity implementing a 
     forest plan, an amendment to the forest plan is required, the 
     Secretary concerned shall execute such amendment as a 
     nonsignificant plan amendment through the record of decision 
     or decision notice for the project or activity.

     SEC. 805. KNUTSON-VANDENBERG ACT MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Deposits of Funds From National Forest Timber 
     Purchasers Required.--Section 3(a) of the Act of June 9, 1930 
     (commonly known as the Knutson-Vandenberg Act; 16 U.S.C. 
     576b(a)), is amended by striking ``The Secretary'' and all 
     that follows through ``any purchaser'' and inserting the 
     following: ``The Secretary of Agriculture shall require each 
     purchaser''.
       (b) Conditions on Use of Deposits.--Section 3 of the Act of 
     June 9, 1930 (commonly known as the Knutson-Vandenberg Act; 
     16 U.S.C. 576b), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Such deposits'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Amounts deposited under subsection (a)'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (3) by inserting before subsection (d), as so redesignated, 
     the following new subsection (c):
       ``(c)(1) Amounts in the special fund established pursuant 
     to this section--
       ``(A) shall be used exclusively to implement activities 
     authorized by subsection (a); and
       ``(B) may be used anywhere within the Forest Service Region 
     from which the original deposits were collected.
       ``(2) The Secretary of Agriculture may not deduct overhead 
     costs from the funds collected under subsection (a), except 
     as needed to fund personnel of the responsible Ranger 
     District for the planning and implementation of the 
     activities authorized by subsection (a).''.

     SEC. 806. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS 
                   AND PUBLIC LANDS.

       Unless specifically provided by a provision of titles I 
     through VIII, the authorities provided by such titles do not 
     apply with respect to any National Forest System lands or 
     public lands--
       (1) that are included in the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System;
       (2) that are located within an inventoried roadless area 
     unless the forest management activity to be carried out under 
     such authority is consistent with the forest plan applicable 
     to the area; or
       (3) on which timber harvesting for any purpose is 
     prohibited by statute.

     SEC. 807. APPLICATION OF NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN SURVEY AND 
                   MANAGE MITIGATION MEASURE STANDARD AND 
                   GUIDELINES.

       The Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage Mitigation 
     Measure Standard and Guidelines shall not apply to any 
     National Forest System lands or public lands.

     SEC. 808. MANAGEMENT OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS IN 
                   WESTERN OREGON.

       (a) General Rule.--All of the public land managed by the 
     Bureau of Land Management

[[Page H5001]]

     in the Salem District, Eugene District, Roseburg District, 
     Coos Bay District, Medford District and the Klamath Resource 
     Area of the Lakeview District in the State of Oregon shall 
     hereafter be managed pursuant to title I of the Act of August 
     28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181a through 1181e). Except as provided 
     in subsection (b), all of the revenue produced from such land 
     shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States in 
     the Oregon and California land-grant fund and be subject to 
     the provisions of title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 
     U.S.C. 1181f).
       (b) Certain Lands Excluded.--Subsection (a) does not apply 
     to any revenue that is required to be deposited in the Coos 
     Bay Wagon Road grant fund pursuant to sections 1 through 4 of 
     the Act of May 24, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 1181-f through f-4).

     SEC. 809. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 
                   PLANS.

       (a) Additional Analysis and Alternatives.--To develop a 
     full range of reasonable alternatives as required by the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall develop and consider in detail a reference 
     analysis and two additional alternatives as part of the 
     revisions of the resource management plans for the Bureau of 
     Land Management's Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay, Roseburg, and 
     Medford Districts and the Klamath Resource Area of the 
     Lakeview District.
       (b) Reference Analysis.--The reference analysis required by 
     subsection (a) shall measure and assume the harvest of the 
     annual growth net of natural mortality for all forested land 
     in the planning area in order to determine the maximum 
     sustained yield capacity of the forested land base and to 
     establish a baseline by which the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall measure incremental effects on the sustained yield 
     capacity and environmental impacts from management 
     prescriptions in all other alternatives.
       (c) Additional Alternatives.--
       (1) Carbon sequestration alternative.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall develop and consider an additional alternative 
     with the goal of maximizing the total carbon benefits from 
     forest storage and wood product storage. To the extent 
     practicable, the analysis shall consider--
       (A) the future risks to forest carbon from wildfires, 
     insects, and disease;
       (B) the amount of carbon stored in products or in 
     landfills;
       (C) the life cycle benefits of harvested wood products 
     compared to non-renewable products; and
       (D) the energy produced from wood residues.
       (2) Sustained yield alternative.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall develop and consider an additional alternative 
     that produces the greater of 500 million board feet or the 
     annual net growth on the acres classified as timerland, 
     excluding any congressionally reserved areas. The projected 
     harvest levels, as nearly as practicable, shall be 
     distributed among the Districts referred to in subsection (a) 
     in the same proportion as the maximum yield capacity of each 
     such District bears to maximum yield capacity of the planning 
     area as a whole.
       (d) Additional Analysis and Public Participation.--The 
     Secretary of the Interior shall publish the reference 
     analysis and additional alternatives and analyze their 
     environmental and economic consequences in a supplemental 
     draft environmental impact statement. The draft environmental 
     impact statement and supplemental draft environmental impact 
     statement shall be made available for public comment for a 
     period of not less than 180 days. The Secretary shall respond 
     to any comments received before making a final decision 
     between all alternatives.
       (e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     affect the obligation of the Secretary of the Interior to 
     manage the timberlands as required by the Act of August 28, 
     1937 (50 Stat. 874; 43 U.S.C. 1181a-1181j).

         TITLE IX--MAJOR DISASTER FOR WILDFIRE ON FEDERAL LAND

     SEC. 901. WILDFIRE ON FEDERAL LANDS.

       Section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(2)'' and all that follows through 
     ``means'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Major disaster.--
       ``(A) Major disaster.--The term `major disaster' means''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Major disaster for wildfire on federal lands.--The 
     term `major disaster for wildfire on Federal lands' means any 
     wildfire or wildfires, which in the determination of the 
     President under section 802 warrants assistance under section 
     803 to supplement the efforts and resources of the Department 
     of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture--
       ``(i) on Federal lands; or
       ``(ii) on non-Federal lands pursuant to a fire protection 
     agreement or cooperative agreement.''.

     SEC. 902. DECLARATION OF A MAJOR DISASTER FOR WILDFIRE ON 
                   FEDERAL LANDS.

       The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170 et seq.) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

       ``TITLE VIII--MAJOR DISASTER FOR WILDFIRE ON FEDERAL LAND

     ``SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this title--
       ``(1) Federal land.--The term `Federal land' means--
       ``(A) any land under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
     the Interior; and
       ``(B) any land under the jurisdiction of the United States 
     Forest Service.
       ``(2) Federal land management agencies.--The term `Federal 
     land management agencies' means--
       ``(A) the Bureau of Land Management;
       ``(B) the National Park Service;
       ``(C) the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
       ``(D) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and
       ``(E) the United States Forest Service.
       ``(3) Wildfire suppression operations.--The term `wildfire 
     suppression operations' means the emergency and unpredictable 
     aspects of wildland firefighting, including support, 
     response, emergency stabilization activities, and other 
     emergency management activities of wildland firefighting on 
     Federal lands (or on non-Federal lands pursuant to a fire 
     protection agreement or cooperative agreement) by the Federal 
     land management agencies covered by the wildfire suppression 
     subactivity of the Wildland Fire Management account or the 
     FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund account of the 
     Federal land management agencies.

     ``SEC. 802. PROCEDURE FOR DECLARATION OF A MAJOR DISASTER FOR 
                   WILDFIRE ON FEDERAL LANDS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may submit a request to the 
     President consistent with the requirements of this title for 
     a declaration by the President that a major disaster for 
     wildfire on Federal lands exists.
       ``(b) Requirements.--A request for a declaration by the 
     President that a major disaster for wildfire on Federal lands 
     exists shall--
       ``(1) be made in writing by the respective Secretary;
       ``(2) certify that the amount appropriated in the current 
     fiscal year for wildfire suppression operations of the 
     Federal land management agencies under the jurisdiction of 
     the respective Secretary, net of any concurrently enacted 
     rescissions of wildfire suppression funds, increases the 
     total unobligated balance of amounts available for wildfire 
     suppression by an amount equal to or greater than the average 
     total costs incurred by the Federal land management agencies 
     per year for wildfire suppression operations, including the 
     suppression costs in excess of appropriated amounts, over the 
     previous ten fiscal years;
       ``(3) certify that the amount available for wildfire 
     suppression operations of the Federal land management 
     agencies under the jurisdiction of the respective Secretary 
     will be obligated not later than 30 days after such Secretary 
     notifies the President that wildfire suppression funds will 
     be exhausted to fund ongoing and anticipated wildfire 
     suppression operations related to the wildfire on which the 
     request for the declaration of a major disaster for wildfire 
     on Federal lands pursuant to this title is based; and
       ``(4) specify the amount required in the current fiscal 
     year to fund wildfire suppression operations related to the 
     wildfire on which the request for the declaration of a major 
     disaster for wildfire on Federal lands pursuant to this title 
     is based.
       ``(c) Declaration.--Based on the request of the respective 
     Secretary under this title, the President may declare that a 
     major disaster for wildfire on Federal lands exists.

     ``SEC. 803. WILDFIRE ON FEDERAL LANDS ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--In a major disaster for wildfire on 
     Federal lands, the President may transfer funds, only from 
     the account established pursuant to subsection (b), to the 
     Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     conduct wildfire suppression operations on Federal lands (and 
     non-Federal lands pursuant to a fire protection agreement or 
     cooperative agreement).
       ``(b) Wildfire Suppression Operations Account.--The 
     President shall establish a specific account for the 
     assistance available pursuant to a declaration under section 
     802. Such account may only be used to fund assistance 
     pursuant to this title.
       ``(c) Limitation.--
       ``(1) Limitation of transfer.--The assistance available 
     pursuant to a declaration under section 802 is limited to the 
     transfer of the amount requested pursuant to section 
     802(b)(4). The assistance available for transfer shall not 
     exceed the amount contained in the wildfire suppression 
     operations account established pursuant to subsection (b).
       ``(2) Transfer of funds.--Funds under this section shall be 
     transferred from the wildfire suppression operations account 
     to the wildfire suppression subactivity of the Wildland Fire 
     Management Account.
       ``(d) Prohibition of Other Transfers.--Except as provided 
     in this section, no funds may be transferred to or from the 
     account established pursuant to subsection (b) to or from any 
     other fund or account.
       ``(e) Reimbursement for Wildfire Suppression Operations on 
     Non-Federal Land.--If amounts transferred under subsection 
     (c) are used to conduct wildfire suppression operations on 
     non-Federal land, the respective Secretary shall--
       ``(1) secure reimbursement for the cost of such wildfire 
     suppression operations conducted on the non-Federal land; and
       ``(2) transfer the amounts received as reimbursement to the 
     wildfire suppression operations account established pursuant 
     to subsection (b).
       ``(f) Annual Accounting and Reporting Requirements.--Not 
     later than 90 days after the end of each fiscal year for 
     which assistance is received pursuant to this section, the 
     respective Secretary shall submit to the Committees on 
     Agriculture, Appropriations, the Budget, Natural Resources, 
     and Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry, Appropriations, the Budget, Energy and Natural 
     Resources, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and 
     Indian Affairs of the Senate, and make available to the 
     public, a report that includes the following:

[[Page H5002]]

       ``(1) The risk-based factors that influenced management 
     decisions regarding wildfire suppression operations of the 
     Federal land management agencies under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary concerned.
       ``(2) Specific discussion of a statistically significant 
     sample of large fires, in which each fire is analyzed for 
     cost drivers, effectiveness of risk management techniques, 
     resulting positive or negative impacts of fire on the 
     landscape, impact of investments in preparedness, suggested 
     corrective actions, and such other factors as the respective 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       ``(3) Total expenditures for wildfire suppression 
     operations of the Federal land management agencies under the 
     jurisdiction of the respective Secretary, broken out by fire 
     sizes, cost, regional location, and such other factors as the 
     such Secretary considers appropriate.
       ``(4) Lessons learned.
       ``(5) Such other matters as the respective Secretary 
     considers appropriate.
       ``(g) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this title shall limit 
     the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     Indian tribe, or a State from receiving assistance through a 
     declaration made by the President under this Act when the 
     criteria for such declaration have been met.''.

     SEC. 903. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFERS.

       No funds may be transferred to or from the Federal land 
     management agencies' wildfire suppression operations accounts 
     referred to in section 801(3) of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to or from any 
     account or subactivity of the Federal land management 
     agencies, as defined in section 801(2) of such Act, that is 
     not used to cover the cost of wildfire suppression 
     operations.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part C of House 
Report 114-192. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part C of House Report 114-192.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 203.
       Strike title III.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike a harmful and 
politically driven provision on the underlying bill that has the effect 
of limiting stakeholder input and curbing equal access to justice, a 
core constitutional principle in our Republic, and effectively removes 
an important check we have on arbitrary actions by Presidents and 
administrations.
  Absent my language, the underlying bill would hand President Obama a 
blank slate in determining how we run our Western lands. My bill will 
restore that balance and allow civil society stakeholders and local 
residents to be able to challenge illegal Federal actions.
  While I respect and appreciate the impetus for many parts of this 
bill and support them, particularly those aimed at incentivizing 
collaborative development management plans and fixing the flawed 
funding structure for wildfire response--very, very important in my 
district--the provision that I am striking in my amendment is truly a 
poison pill for many on my side of the aisle who care deeply about 
equal access to justice and many on the other side of the aisle who 
don't want to hand President Obama an unchecked control over Federal 
lands.
  In districts like mine, which are made up of 62 percent Federal land, 
the Forest Service owns huge amounts of open space that we use, enjoy, 
is a driver of our tourism economy; we recreate as hikers, skiers, 
hunters, bikers; it is used commercially by loggers, utility providers, 
and many, many other groups.
  I can attest to the fact that these groups, these stakeholders that I 
mentioned whose livelihood and enjoyment depend on these lands, are 
extremely valuable when it comes to providing practical, varied input 
into managing our Federal lands.
  This bill, however, would discourage and limit the depth and 
diversity of public input by expediting the development of forest 
management plans while removing the legal venues that exist for protest 
after a management plan has been implemented, meaning not only does the 
provision, like the one I am trying to strike, cripple the transparency 
and effectiveness by limiting the form of expertise we have in planning 
our Federal lands, it also has the potential to repeal some critical 
rights, like the right to protest and legal recourse for potential 
wrongdoing.
  The provisions I move to strike would effectively eliminate the 
ability of citizens, nonprofits, local residents, independent advocacy 
organizations, and others to file lawsuits against potentially illegal 
or improper forest management tools that the executive branch is using.
  By creating a harmful bonding requirement, which would really exclude 
judicial access for everybody--except the very wealthiest corporations 
and people--and a prejudicial fee-shifting requirement that enables the 
government to act with impunity at the clear expense of the plaintiff, 
we really break down the core principle of equal access to justice, 
which is our right.
  By prohibiting the courts from issuing any restraining orders, 
preliminary injunctions, or injunctions pending repeal in cases of 
postdisaster operations after broadly defined events, we are only 
compounding the damage.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle's 
move to block the court's ability to make sound, thoughtful, and 
transparent decisions if the executive branch acts illegally really 
will come at the expense of our local stakeholders for those of us who 
live in and around Federal land.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to realize 
there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the base bill that prohibits 
any individual or group from filing a lawsuit.
  What it does do is discourage frivolous lawsuits.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke) to expand 
on that.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the amendment. We 
have to reward collaboration and working together.
  What this bill does not do is discourage NEPA. What it does do, 
though, is it brings people together to work together. That is what I 
was sent to Washington, D.C., to do; and that is what all of us were 
sent to do, is work together and move the ball up the field. It does 
not prevent anyone from filing a lawsuit.
  What it does do, however, on frivolous lawsuits--and the numbers are 
clear. Between 1989 and 2008, over 1,125 lawsuits were submitted. 
Almost in every case, those lawsuits ended up costing the Forest 
Service that we are so concerned about the money they are spending--
number one is forest fires; number two is litigation.
  We want the same thing. We want more scientists, less lawyers in the 
woods, and healthy forests once again to be part of our country; yet 
what happens is the collaborative effort--and we made the definition of 
collaborative very vague so everyone can participate, everybody--it 
does not prevent anyone from suing.
  What it does do is, if you are not going to be involved in the 
collaborative effort, if you are not going to spend the time and the 
resources, then you have to post a bond, and that bond only covers what 
the Forest Service would have to defend. We could have made it a lot 
aggressive, and we didn't.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time 
remains on both sides.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Polis.
  As my colleague stated, title III would require anyone who challenges 
a

[[Page H5003]]

project on forest land in the Federal court system to put up a bond 
covering all litigation expenses of the government. Plaintiffs would 
only get their bond back if they prevailed on all their claim.
  Further, it would not allow litigants to recover attorney's fees 
under the Equal Access to Justice Act. While my colleagues across the 
aisle have said it doesn't prevent anyone from coming forward, we do 
know that the impact would be that it would prevent any plaintiffs, 
except those large companies with deep pockets, from bringing lawsuits 
against these projects, essentially keeping out the average American 
citizen from having their voice heard.
  I strongly support this amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, Eric Hoffer once said that every great 
cause becomes a movement, which becomes a business, which becomes a 
racket. That is what has happened with environmental litigation.
  Through many hearings, we have discovered that most of the groups 
litigating collaborative projects sue just to raise money or to defeat 
necessary projects through delay. That is their right. No one begrudges 
them it.
  But that does not include frivolous litigation designed solely to run 
out the clock on salvage projects or to nullify by delay the 
painstaking work of collaborative groups which often, in good faith, 
spend endless hours and considerable resources in negotiating a plan 
that is fair to all.
  I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have many of my constituents who are 
living in holdings on Federal lands. What happens if Federal land 
management policy changes their rights-of-way and makes it harder to 
access where they live? Where are they supposed to come up with the 
hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars that it would take to bond 
under this scenario to figure out whether what the Federal Government 
did was legal or not?
  That is why we need to fix this, Mr. Chairman. And I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment to defend the constitutional rights 
of families who live in and around Federal land.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chance to actually 
hear from the gentleman from California as well as from the gentleman 
from Montana.
  You see, what happens and what has failed to be discussed here is 
this section only applies to whether it has been a collaborative 
process.
  So real people, citizens, will spend years working together to 
develop a collaborative project. And then too frequently outside fringe 
groups that don't live in the area, but that do have big pockets, wait 
for those projects to be announced.
  Then they start to litigate, which has a chilling effect on any kind 
of collaborative work, and it makes the hundreds of hours that those 
citizens worked to come up with their projects simply moot.
  That has happened in California. I have been there to see those 
projects that were stopped by frivolous lawsuits. It is the same thing 
that happens in Montana and in northern Idaho. In that particular 
district, of all of those lawsuits he mentioned, over 70 percent of 
those were stopped because of frivolous lawsuits.
  Now, we are not stopping anyone from suing. What we are saying is you 
put up a bond if you are serious about it and you don't use this as a 
way of simply stopping a process that has been worked out by the 
citizens and the Forest Service at the same time. That is what this 
means, and that is what is going to be taken away.
  That is why this is so essential and why this part has to be part of 
this bill. It has to move forward or our Forest Service does not have 
the tools it needs to preserve our forests and to protect our people 
and to protect our landscape.
  This amendment cannot pass. It would destroy every effort of the 
Forest Service to actually move forward into the future. We oppose it. 
We oppose it vigorously and in all due respect.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tipton

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part C of House Report 114-192.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 33, after line 21, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 505. FIRE LIABILITY PROVISION.

       Section 604(d) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 
     2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591c(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Modification.--Upon the request of the contractor, a 
     contract or agreement under this section awarded before 
     February 7, 2014, shall be modified by the Chief or Director 
     to include the fire liability provisions described in 
     paragraph (7).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, Congress has previously authorized fire 
liability provisions for stewardship contracts. My amendment simply 
provides the same fire liability provisions for long-term stewardship 
contracts awarded by the Forest Service prior to February 7, 2014.
  These contracts have valid concerns over their potential liability, 
and it is prohibitively expensive to obtain liability insurance to 
cover the costs of large forest fires.
  The amendment provides these contractors with the same protections as 
all Federal timber sales and integrated resource timber purchasers and 
other integrated resource stewardship contracts that they already have. 
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
which would change the parameters of contracts that have already been 
awarded through a competitive bidding process.
  Stewardship end result contracting is a critical tool used to achieve 
land management goals across our national forests and grasslands.
  In addition to making the authority for stewardship contracting 
permanent, last year's farm bill directed the Forest Service to make 
the first liability provisions in integrated resource timber contracts 
equal to liability provisions typically found in timber sale contracts. 
Earlier this year the Forest Service issued rulemaking carrying out 
this directive.
  This was a commonsense change, and I agree with the sponsors of this 
amendment that this is a worthwhile change. However, their amendment 
would retroactively extend the updated liability requirement to 
contracts that were awarded before the farm bill was signed into law.
  The Forest Service would, therefore, have to modify existing 
contracts, which is not only a burden for the agency and the contract 
awardees, but it is unfair to companies that did not participate in the 
competitive bidding process because of their understanding of the fire 
liability requirements.
  Congress should not change contracts that have already been awarded 
through the competitive bidding process. For that reason, I oppose the 
adoption of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about fairness. We just had 
an amendment that was presented by my

[[Page H5004]]

colleague from Colorado that talked about fairness, and I think 
Chairman Bishop spoke very eloquently in regards to allowing that 
process to be able to work through the private sector.
  Yet, when we are talking about forest health, Mr. Chairman, wouldn't 
it be an appropriate thing to make sure that we have a level playing 
field when it comes to liability?
  If we want to be able to get in and actually protect those forests, 
to be able to protect those watersheds, to be able to protect 
endangered species and the other wildlife in the forests, let's make 
sure that we have a process to be able to do that so that that 
liability is not going to become a liability to something that I 
believe we all share as common ground, and that is the health of our 
forests.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part C of House Report 114-192.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 44, after line 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 703. TRIBAL FOREST MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may carry out demonstration projects by which 
     federally recognized Indian tribes or tribal organizations 
     may contract to perform administrative, management, and other 
     functions of programs of the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 
     2004 (25 U.S.C. 3115a et seq.) through contracts entered into 
     under the Indian Self -Determination and Education Assistance 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
support of my amendment that allows the Forest Service to establish a 
pilot program to execute contracts with tribes under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, known as 638 contracts. 638 
contracts allow tribes to manage and implement Federal programs in 
Indian Country.
  When I was the New Mexico Secretary of Health, I witnessed how 
successful and beneficial these contracts could be in efficiently 
delivering services to tribes and their members. Through these 
contracts, tribes operate hospitals, health clinics, mental health 
facilities, and a variety of other community health services.
  Having tribes manage and operate programs in their communities not 
only recognizes tribal self-determination and self-governance, but it 
also helps ensure that tribal needs are being met through traditionally 
and culturally appropriate methods.
  Although several agencies have the authority to execute 638 
contracts, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services, 
the Forest Service does not currently have this authority. Several 
tribes have expressed to me that they would like to see the Forest 
Service have the authority.
  Many of the pueblos in New Mexico have land in tribal forests that 
are adjacent to national forests, and we know that wildfires and pests 
can quickly affect entire regions, regardless of who owns the land.
  In fact, the Las Conchas wildland fire, which is one of the largest 
wildfires in New Mexico's history, started on June 26, 2011, in the 
Santa Fe National Forest. It burned more than 156,000 acres in New 
Mexico, including land belonging to the Pueblos of Santa Clara, Ohkay 
Owingeh, San Ildefonso, Pojoaque, Jemez, Cochiti, and Kewa.
  It is imperative that the Forest Service and tribes actively work 
together to co-manage forests. I urge Members to support my amendment, 
which will improve the Forest Service's ability to partner with tribes 
in order to work on projects that impact tribal lands and forests.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, 
although I may not be in opposition to this particular bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico, as this bill works its way through the process of 
ultimately being signed and implemented, if she would be willing to 
work with us to make sure this contracting authority in the future has 
no unintended consequences.
  I yield to the gentlewoman for a response.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. I 
appreciate that offer. Thank you.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment. I want to thank the ranking member from the Conservation and 
Forestry Subcommittee for bringing this amendment forward.
  This amendment obviously allows the Forest Service to create a pilot 
program that would execute contracts with tribes to perform 
administrative, management, and other functions of the program for the 
Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004.
  Allowing the Forest Service to execute contracts would recognize the 
government-to-government relationship that tribes have with the Federal 
Government, and it would be in line with the intent of the Tribal 
Forest Protection Act of working with tribes as partners.
  I certainly would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to particularly thank the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) for yielding and for 
introducing this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying that I know you have all heard, 
which is that the shadows of those who live on their land are the best 
protectors and the best stewards of that land.
  My wife and I have had the good fortune to plant over 100,000 trees 
on our land, with the help of the kids, and I want you to know they are 
doing well.
  I am supportive of this amendment because I think it is high time 
that the American Indians and the Alaska Natives, who are the first 
stewards of our lands, be allowed to better exercise their sovereignty 
and their self-determination in caring for the forests they have called 
home for untold centuries.
  We already have 638 contracts that allow the tribes to manage Federal 
lands in Indian Country. This amendment simply adds a partnership with 
the U.S. Forest Service to that list.
  By approving this measure, we help create jobs, protect our forests 
all across Indian Country, and we all become better stewards of our 
Nation's great resources.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this important 
amendment.
  I want to again particularly thank Ms. Lujan Grisham for her 
leadership on this important issue. I thank the chairman of the 
committee for his support of it as well. And I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah has 4 minutes remaining, 
and the gentlewoman from New Mexico has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
as it goes along with the collaborative efforts we are trying to 
include

[[Page H5005]]

in the bill with tribal and State governments.
  I just want to thank the gentlewoman for proposing this amendment, 
and I rise in full support of it.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1700


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Kilmer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part C of House Report 114-192.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

     SEC. 807. LANDSCAPE-SCALE FOREST RESTORATION PROJECT.

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall develop and implement at 
     least one landscape-scale forest restoration project that 
     includes, as a defined purpose of the project, the generation 
     of material that will be used to promote advanced wood 
     products. The project shall be developed through a 
     collaborative process.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Kilmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, before I speak to this amendment, I actually wanted to 
start by expressing my appreciation to the chairman for his work on 
this important legislation.
  I grew up in Port Angeles, Washington. I saw firsthand how a downturn 
in the timber industry impacted our region's economy and the livelihood 
of families who lived there. Those experiences were a major influence 
in my decision to pursue a career in economic development and now in 
public service. It is a big reason I have been working on harvest 
issues that impact the region that I represent.
  On the Olympic National Forest, I have been proud to help stand up a 
collaborative, bringing together a group of stakeholders from all 
across the spectrum to figure out how we can make real progress to 
rebuild the trust that we need to restore our forests and to promote 
harvest levels and to support our local communities.
  We have begun to see some successes come out of that. I am sure 
committed to working to help take actions that lead to better outcomes 
for our forests and for the local economies that rely on them as an 
important asset.
  I think the bill that is before us today is an honest effort to 
address the real challenges that are facing our Federal forests. 
Importantly, the underlying bill includes language that would make real 
progress toward ending the harmful practice of fire borrowing.
  Now, I have got some concerns about this bill that are going to keep 
me from supporting it today, but I am very hopeful that this is just a 
first step in a process that leads to compromise legislation that we 
can send on to the President and get signed into law to help our 
forests and to help our communities. I would welcome the opportunity to 
be a part of that process.
  Mr. Chair, the amendment that I have offered today is focused on an 
initiative that would support innovative wood products, including 
cross-laminated timber. CLT products offer increased use of responsibly 
harvested wood that could mean more jobs in rural areas of Washington 
State and all other States.
  These are renewable resources, rather than steel or concrete, that 
would make our buildings greener. These new wood products are strong 
and fire resistant and may actually be safer in an earthquake than 
nonwood alternatives.
  We can change the way our Nation constructs buildings by utilizing 
these new sturdy wood products. More importantly, we can lead the way 
on a global timber revolution that can bring lower costs, 
environmentally friendly building materials to market, providing more 
job opportunities in rural America.
  My amendment is pretty simple. It would direct the Secretary of 
Agriculture to develop a significant forest restoration project with 
the goal of generating the kind of material we can use for these 
advanced wood products. I would urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I actually rise in 
support of this amendment as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Conservation and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture.
  It is consistent with the U.S. Forest Service's recognition of the 
important role that advanced wood products can play, particularly in 
building construction. New and innovative technologies are yielding 
building products that are greener, stronger, fire resistant, and even 
safer in response to earthquakes than nonwood alternatives.
  The bottom line is, when it comes to good, healthy forest management, 
it is just not some of the barriers we are dealing with today in terms 
of harvesting; it is also about driving the market and increasing the 
value.
  It is a three-legged stool for healthy forests. I am very pleased 
with the underlying bill. I think that is helping on step one. I think 
this amendment helps us in terms of pushing the market value and the 
value of timber, and it is certainly consistent with many of the steps 
that we took within the farm bill in terms of research for advanced 
wood products.
  I just am very pleased to support this amendment.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. While it 
does nothing to address our underlying concerns with the bill, the 
promotion of advanced wood products is an important priority, and I 
commend my colleague from Washington, Mr. Kilmer, for taking on this 
issue.
  The amendment directs the Forest Service to establish a pilot project 
to promote the production of advanced wood products. Production of 
these products, like cross-laminated timber, or CLT, is a growing 
market with many practical applications. Growing this market here in 
the United States is an important economic development opportunity, and 
I thank Mr. Kilmer for his efforts in promoting this opportunity.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Westerman), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the concept of this 
amendment. The gentleman brings out a very important fact that we do 
need forest products to be able to utilize the resources coming off our 
forests in order to do healthy management.
  There are many forest products that can be made from smaller diameter 
materials that are already out there. We have the science behind it. A 
landscapewide collaborative project that uses these lower value 
products would be a good thing to do.
  I do challenge the gentleman to support the whole bill so that we 
could put this into practice, should it be passed, because it would be 
of benefit to the bill and to healthy forests across the country if 
such projects were implemented.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers, so I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, as we finish the last amendment to 
this very good bill, the gentleman from Washington full well knows how 
devastating it could be to his community if we do not pass this 
particular bill and wildfires actually attack his constituents and his 
area.
  That is why it is extremely important--as we take this last 
opportunity to speak towards this bill and this particular amendment--
to recognize that this is a bipartisan bill, bipartisan sponsorship, 
passed by a bipartisan

[[Page H5006]]

vote in our committee, passed in a bipartisan vote in the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  This is a good bill that will move us forward, and it is essential to 
move forward. I appreciate all the support we have had from both sides 
of the aisle moving this particular piece of legislation forward. I 
urge support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished 
business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 1 printed 
in part C of House Report 114-192 offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 247, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 427]

                               AYES--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--247

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cuellar
     Lofgren
     Payne
     Peters
     Roe (TN)

                              {time}  1736

  Messrs. CONAWAY, AMODEI, PAULSEN, MEEHAN, BRADY of TEXAS, and WALKER 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HECK of Washington, GALLEGO, BUTTERFIELD, NADLER, CLAY, and 
ASHFORD changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 427, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fleischmann). The question is on the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fleischmann, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2647) to expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act and 
improve forest management activities in units of the National Forest 
System derived from the public domain, on public lands under the 
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on tribal lands to 
return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for 
other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 347, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on ordering the previous question on House

[[Page H5007]]

Resolution 350, and adoption of House Resolution 350, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 262, 
noes 167, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 428]

                               AYES--262

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--167

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Lofgren
     Payne
     Peters
     Roe (TN)

                              {time}  1745

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to expedite 
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest 
management activities on National Forest System lands, on public lands 
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on tribal 
lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and 
for other purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________