[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.
____________________