Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 177 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8326-H8356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RESILIENT FEDERAL FORESTS ACT OF 2017

General Leave

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2936.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bergman). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 595 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2936.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1513

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 consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2936) 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, with Mr. Young of
Iowa in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Agriculture and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Natural Resources.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), and the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) will each control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

{time} 1515

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2936, the Resilient
Federal Forests Act of 2017.
As I stated last Congress, our national forests are facing an
epidemic of declining health, which is a direct result of policies
which have led to a dramatic decrease in managed acres creating
catastrophic wildfires that have increased in size and frequency.
The past two fire seasons have been some of the most expensive on
record, and this year appears to be no exception. Secretary of
Agriculture Sonny Perdue recently announced that wildland fire
suppression costs for this fiscal year have exceeded $2 billion, making
2017 the most expensive year on record.
While the suppression costs are staggering, these fires come at a
greater cost to local communities, private property, and pristine
landscapes. Most importantly, they also result in the loss of life.
For too long, our good folks at the Forest Service have been unable
to do the work needed to manage our forest fuel loads. Over the years,
the problem has compounded with more severe fires. Furthermore, these
fires have consumed more and more of the Forest Service budget that was
intended for management. This cycle has gone on for far too long.

[[Page H8327]]

In the 2014 farm bill, we took meaningful steps to empower the Forest
Service to carry out its mission. With passage of this bill, we will
provide the Forest Service another tool to carry out their duties.
This bill builds on the success of the farm bill to allow the Forest
Service and their partners to manage our forests using sound science
and environmental protections without fear of frivolous litigation.
Further, it promotes good stewardship through restoration projects that
protect our watersheds after catastrophic fire.
As fuel loads increase in our national forests, the cost of inaction
increases every day. This legislation allows the Forest Service to
account for the environmental consequences of inaction, hopefully
expediting treatments where needed.
Finally, this issue extends beyond just fire. While they have not yet
gone up in smoke, some of our national forests continue to deteriorate
as a result of insect and disease infestations, leaving what was
pristine and productive habitat so many in this Congress seek to
protect.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 25, 2017.
Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding with respect to H.R. 2936, the Resilient
Federal Forests Act of 2017. Thank you for consulting with
the Committee on Education and the Workforce with regard to
H.R. 2936 on those matters within my committee's
jurisdiction.
The Committee on Education and the Workforce will not delay
further consideration of this bill. However, I do so only
with the understanding this procedural route will not be
construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional interest
and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar
legislation and will not be considered as precedent for
consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my
committee in the future.
I respectfully request your support for the appointment of
outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the
Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in
a conference with the Senate. I also request you include our
exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of this bill on the House Floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Virginia Foxx,
Chairwoman.
____

Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 25, 2017.
Hon. Virginia Foxx,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Foxx: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 2936, Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. I
appreciate your support in bringing this legislation before
the House of Representatives, and accordingly, understand
that the Committee on Education and the Workforce will forego
action on the bill.
The Committee on Agriculture concurs in the mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of the bill at
this time, the Committee on Education and the Workforce does
not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained
in this bill or similar legislation in the future. In
addition, should a conference on this bill be necessary, I
would support your request to have the Committee on Education
and the Workforce represented on the conference committee.
I will insert copies of this exchange in the Congressional
Record during Floor consideration. I appreciate your
cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward to
continuing to work the Committee on Education and the
Workforce as this bill moves through the legislative process.
Sincerely,
K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman.
____

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 25, 2017.
Hon. Michael Conaway,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Conaway: I write concerning H.R. 2936, the
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. This legislation
includes matters that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
In order to expedite floor consideration of H.R. 2936, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will forgo
action on this bill. However, this is conditional on our
mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill
does not prejudice the Committee with respect to the
appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional
claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or
similar legislation that fall within the Committee's Rule X
jurisdiction. Finally, should a conference on the bill be
necessary, I ask that you support my request to have the
Committee represented on the conference committee.
Please place a copy of this letter and your response
acknowledging our jurisdictional interest in the
Congressional Record during House Floor consideration of the
bill. I look forward to working with the Committee on
Agriculture as the bill moves through the legislative
process.
Sincerely,
Bill Shuster,
Chairman.
____

Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 25, 2017.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 2936, Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. I
appreciate your support in bringing this legislation before
the House of Representatives, and accordingly, understand
that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will
forego action on the bill.
The Committee on Agriculture concurs in the mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of the bill at
this time, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
does not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter
contained in this bill or similar legislation in the future.
In addition, should a conference on this bill be necessary, I
would support your request to have the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure represented on the
conference committee.
I will insert copies of this exchange in the Congressional
Record during Floor consideration. I appreciate your
cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward to
continuing to work the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure as this bill moves through the legislative
process.
Sincerely,
K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2936 addresses some valid concerns regarding
forest management. The bill would simplify forest management activities
while also tamping down on overzealous regulations and policy decisions
made by activists and bureaucrats who have adopted a sue and settle
strategy to pursue their agenda. This is one of the main reasons why I
am a cosponsor of H.R. 2936.
While this bill isn't exactly what I would do if I was in charge of
putting the bill together, we need to do something to address forest
management concerns, and I believe that this bill seeks to do that and
moves us in the right direction. So I am supportive of moving the
process along so that we can negotiate with our Senate colleagues and
find a workable solution to address these issues.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2936, the
Resilient Federal Forests Act. When we fail to actively manage our
forests and Federal lands, we put ourselves and our neighbors at risk.
It is time to better manage our fire-prone forests and fix how we pay
for wildfire suppression.
California just experienced the deadliest wildfire in our history,
and 2017 is on track to be the worst fire season on record. We can't
wait until next season. We have got to put the right policies in place
now.
The Resilient Federal Forests Act gives us the tools to immediately
reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires. It allows us to expedite
the removal of dead trees and rapidly mitigate disease-infested areas.
It enables us to responsibly manage our forests and improve ecosystems,
and it permanently solves the fire borrowing problem. No longer will we
deplete forest restoration and management accounts to pay for wildfire
suppression. This will give our firefighters the resources they need
without hindering prevention efforts.
As California recovers from this year's fires, this bill will help us
mitigate future wildfires. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and
help improve the health and resiliency of our Federal forests.

[[Page H8328]]

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Association
of California Water Agencies in support of H.R. 2936.

Association of

California Water Agencies,

October 31, 2017.

ACWA Support for H.R. 2936--Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017

The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
respectfully requests your support for H.R. 2936, The
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. ACWA's 430 public
water agency members supply over 90 percent of the water
delivered in California for residential, agricultural, and
industrial uses.
Recent severe drought and one of the most destructive
wildfire seasons on record have focused renewed attention on
the health of California's headwaters. That attention is well
placed because the forests, meadows and source waters that
play a critical role in our water supply and water management
system are threatened by factors ranging from climate change
to incomplete management to a lack of planning and
coordination.
H.R. 2936 addresses many of these factors. It incentivizes
and rewards collaboration with local governments and
stakeholders by expediting environmental review for
collaborative projects up to 30,000 acres in size. It also
includes important provisions that will increase the yield
and protect the quality of our headwaters.
Additionally, H.R. 2936 solves the perennial ``fire
borrowing'' problem, in which federal land management
agencies must raid non-fire suppression accounts in order to
pay for suppression activities. H.R. 2936 ends this practice
by allowing FEMA to transfer funds to the Forest Service/BLM
when all fire suppression accounts have been exhausted.
As stated in ACWA's headwaters framework, ACWA believes
with more effective management ``healthy headwaters'' could
provide multiple benefits to California's water management
system and the environment. These benefits include: Increased
Water Supply Reliability; Improved Water Quality; Reduced
Impacts from Catastrophic Wildfires; Increased Renewable
Energy Supplies; Improved Response to Climate Change; and
Enhanced Habitat.
ACWA encourages you to vote for H.R. 2936.
If you have any questions please contact David Reynold.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from
Minnesota, Congressman Peterson, for yielding this time.
It is clear, I think, for everybody in this Chamber to know how
devastating the fires have been, not only in California over the last
recent weeks but throughout the West, and it has been this way for
several years.
It is long overdue for Congress to address the many issues facing our
forests under Federal management, and that is what this legislation
attempts to do.
Years of mismanagement have contributed to the rise of catastrophic
wildfires, not only in my home State of California but throughout the
West. The heart of the problem is simple: money that Congress has
allocated to prevent wildfires has been used instead to put them out.
Now, there are other factors involved as well to be sure, but for
years what we have done with densely overgrown forests that need
managing is we have set ourselves up to allow these densely overgrown
forests to be the subject of very destructive fires if something should
go wrong; and, of course, we have lightning strikes and we have other
natural conditions that cause these fires.
This year alone, the United States Forest Service has spent about
$2.4 billion on putting out fires and has transferred nearly $576
million from management activities. These management activities would
go to thinning the forests and to allow for better overall growth. This
would be a preventive means to decrease the ability of these fires to
grow.
I have concerns with some of the provisions in this legislation and
believe it can be improved with some modifications, specifically to the
way fire borrowing is addressed and the size of categorical exemptions
under public disclosure laws, but this is a work in progress, and we
can deal with that.
Let me be clear. We must reform the way our Federal forests are
managed, particularly the impacts as a result of the changing climate
that we have and as it becomes more pronounced, such as drought
conditions.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from California an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, the benefits of improved management will not
only help with wildfire suppression, putting out these fires, but it
will benefit the environment. With more effective management, healthier
headwaters will provide for an estimated increased water supply of
300,000 acre-feet of additional water--that is significant, certainly
in a State like California--and improved water quality downstream.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to work together to improve this
legislation before it is sent to the Senate for consideration, because
it is very clear in recent weeks, in recent months, and over the last 2
years that the status quo is unsustainable. We must do a better job in
managing our forests.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Resilient Federal Forests Act
of 2017. The National Forest System is governed by the principle of
multiple use--conferring maximum sustainable benefits in the form of
wildlife habitat, recreation, clean air and water, and timber harvests.
Sadly, government red tape and the constant threat of litigation has
caused paralysis by analysis at the Forest Service leading to a
decrease of public recreation activities and a reduction of timber
output.
In the counties surrounding the Apalachicola National Forest in
Florida's Second District--Franklin, Leon, Liberty, and Wakulla--the
lack of timber management not only means fewer jobs, but it also
creates a smaller tax base which means fewer resources to provide basic
services like law enforcement and good schools.
Under the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, forest management
will be driven by forest health and not by fear of litigation. This
improves stewardship and strengthens communities. I encourage all of my
colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any strong objections to the
parts of this bill that deal with forest resilience, and I yield to
people who know a lot more about forests than I do.
But I am concerned that H.R. 2936 is harmful for all of the species
that rely on forests for habitat and that the bill specifically
includes provisions that specifically attack and undermine the
Endangered Species Act.
The bill allows the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management
to unilaterally determine if authorized logging and forestry management
actions would adversely affect listed species or critical habitat
without ever consulting experts at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
as is required by the Endangered Species Act.
Furthermore, the bill declares that, for purposes of the ESA, all
logging and other forestry activities carried out pursuant to the bill
are ``nondiscretionary'' actions. Deeming these actions to be
nondiscretionary serves as a direct waiver of the Endangered Species
Act regulations and protections and allows forest activities to violate
the ESA and jeopardize species.
Another provision exempts the Forest Service and BLM from
implementing regulations that require consultation on management plans
when a new species is listed as threatened or endangered or there is a
new critical habitat designation.
This, in particular, will have profound implications for species that
have been proposed or are candidates for listing under the ESA that
rely on these lands for habitat, such as the North American wolverine.
In short, this bill dismantles interagency consultation that is
integral to wildlife protection under the Endangered Species Act.
America's forests are home to over 400 threatened or endangered
species, including the Florida panther, native wild trout, and the
black-footed ferret. We cannot allow this bill to strip protections for
these iconic species and eliminate environmental review processes for
our Nation's forests. So on this basis--the threat to the Endangered
Species Act--I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

[[Page H8329]]

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my
colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, it is great to be able to speak on this. I
am grateful to Mr. Westerman. We share a great deal of interests, and
Mr. Thompson.
As far as the endangered species, I remember hearing about how this
little spotted owl only could mate in virgin forests, and then it turns
out some pair were reported to have mated in a Kmart sign. But
endangered species will do best in managed forests where we clear
underbrush and where we make fire lanes--where we manage the forests.
The forests do better, and you stop the wildfires.
If you want to just leave it to nature, nature will destroy massive
numbers of acres of land. So we have a responsibility. Even in the
Garden of Eden when things were perfect, God said to tend the garden.
So I appreciate the time, and I also appreciate the chairman's
willingness to address the issue of the stewardship program so counties
don't get messed over.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).
Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2936, the
Resilient Federal Forests Act. My district is home to three national
forests, Ottawa, Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee. So when we use the term
``in our neck of the woods,'' we mean it.
We understand how vitally important proper management of forests is
for our environment, our economy, and our special way of life in
northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. I live right in the middle
of the Ottawa National Forest, so this issue really does hit close to
home for me.
Now as we have seen the devastation from forest fires in the West, it
is more important than ever to have this debate. But it is impossible
to talk about the need for wildfire suppression without talking about
proper forest management. These two go hand in hand--or at least they
should go hand in hand.

{time} 1530

All too often, we hear rhetoric that managing our forests and
removing dead or dying trees is a bad thing. This can't be further from
the truth.
When we leave these dried, rotting trees laying on the forest floor,
they become an incendiary breeding ground for fires. Those fires cost
the Forest Service billions of dollars and countless hours of manpower
to extinguish. Last year alone, we spent $2.9 billion on suppression
efforts. This leaves barely any financial resources to allocate towards
actually managing our forests.
H.R. 2936 seeks to end this cycle. Let's get at the problem now so it
doesn't become a disaster later. This is not a partisan issue. This is
a commonsense solution for our federally owned forest land.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Forest
Products Industry National Labor Management Committee and a letter from
the Intertribal Timber Council.

October 31, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for HR 2936, The Resilient Federal Forests
Act of 2017.
Dear Congressman Bishop: As chair of the Forest Products
Industry National Labor Management Committee, I am writing in
strong support of HR 2936, The Resilient Federal Forests Act
of 2017. I urge you to vote in support of HR 2936 when it
comes to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote
on Wednesday, November 1.
The Forest Products Industry National Labor Management
Committee is a non-profit trust formed to pursue the common
public policy interests of the working men and women in the
forest products industry. Collectively, the Committee
represents more than two million workers across the nation,
including lumber and sawmill workers, woodworkers,
machinists, carpenters, and pulp and paper workers.
The balanced and sustainable management of our federally-
owned forests has been of significant interest to the
Committee since it was founded in 1990. Since that time, the
Committee has engaged on numerous pieces of federal forest
and related legislation.
HR 2936 is a bipartisan measure that will address the
growing economic and environmental threats posed by
catastrophic wildfires. HR 2936 provides a responsible
budgetary solution and targeted forest management reforms to
improve the health and resiliency of America's forests.
Adoption of these proposals will enhance federal forest
stewardship; protect forest ecosystems from catastrophic fire
and disease; and preserve rural, family wage jobs.
The Forest Products Industry National Labor Management
Committee urges you to vote in support of HR 2936, the
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, when the measure comes
to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote this
week.
Sincerely,
Mike Draper,
Chairman, Forest Products Industry National Labor
Management Committee.
____

Intertribal Timber Council,

Portland, OR, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop: The Executive Board of the
Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) supports H.R. 2936, the
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, sponsored by Rep.
Bruce Westerman.
We wish to particularly express our strong support for
Title VII, which will enhance tribal input and involvement in
the restoration of federal forest lands. Such restoration
projects are sorely needed to improve forest health and
reduce threats to lands held in trust for Indians as well as
non-trust federal land upon which Indian tribes access for
traditional, subsistence and treaty-guaranteed purposes.
Section 701 would provide timelines for review, approval
and implementation of Tribal Forest Protection Act projects.
This new authority is needed because of the underperformance
of the TFPA authority. Thirteen years after Congress passed
the TFPA, only three projects have been fully implemented,
while others linger in years of procedural abyss. As a
result, tribal forest lands remain at high risk of wildfire
coming from adjacent federal lands. This section would give
tribes the certainty to pursue TFPA projects with their
federal neighbors and reduce the risk of wildfire migrating
from federal lands onto Indian trust land.
Section 702 would give the Forest Service and BLM a new
ability to have tribes carry out forest restoration projects
in their homelands. Improvement of forest health and
ecological functions are vital to maintain watersheds and
fish and wildlife habitat on lands that may be subject to
federally-reserved tribal rights. Acting through the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, tribes would be able to restore lands
using the federal regulatory structure used on Indian trust
lands. As the Committee has noted on several occasions,
tribal forest management is able to achieve greater results
faster and at lower costs than on federal land. This
provision would help bring that successful management
approach to federal lands sorely in need of restoration.
Section 703 authorizes pilot authority for the Interior and
Agriculture Departments to grant ``638'' contracting
authority to tribes and tribal organizations for the
administrative and management functions of TFPA projects.
The ITC is a forty-one year old association of more than
fifty Indian tribes and Alaska Native organizations that
collectively manage more than 90% of the 18 million acres of
forest land held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The ITC is dedicated to pursuing the best management and
protection of tribal forests and other natural resources. We
actively participated in the development of the National
Indian Forest Resources Management Act (PL 101-630, 1990) and
the Tribal Forest Protection Act (PL 108-278, 2004). It is
our pleasure to now support H.R. 2936.
Sincerely,
Phil Rigdon,
President.

Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 2936.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues have asked, because of the recent
fires in my district, how I will be voting on this measure today. Well,
I am a ``no.''
My district experienced the worst wildfires in California history.
Fires burned close to 300,000 acres, killed 43 people, forced more than
100,000 people to evacuate, decimated some 7,000 homes, and left 10,000
people homeless in the city of Santa Rosa alone.
Our fires didn't burn Forest Service lands and they didn't start on
public land, so nothing in this bill that we are discussing here today
could have prevented the devastation in my district.
I agree that we should be doing more to prepare for catastrophic fire
events, but this bill doesn't achieve that goal. Instead, it guts
longstanding protections and fails to fix the budgetary issues that
plague fire management. In

[[Page H8330]]

fact, this bill could make things worse by creating more red tape for
agencies when they are actively responding to wildfires.
That is why I joined Representative Huffman to introduce an amendment
that would have more directly addressed the risk of wildfires. We
incorporated provisions based on:
Representatives Simpson's and Schrader's Wildfire Disaster Funding
Act that gives land management agencies access to funding to fight
wildfires without jeopardizing other agency programs;
Legislation that I dropped today that is the companion bill to
Senators Cantwell's and Risch's Wildland Fires Act, which provides
funding to help communities prepare for wildfires and target high-risk
areas for prescribed burns. The gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) is
the coauthor of that legislation;
We incorporated Representatives LaMalfa's and Schrader's Electricity
Reliability and Forest Protection Act, which passed the House earlier
this year, and allows for hazardous vegetation management on Federal
lands that abut electrical transmission lines;
We also incorporated Representative Ruiz's Wildfire Prevention Act
that allows States to apply for hazard mitigation grants for wildfire
prevention projects.
Instead of considering controversial measures that will meet a dead
end once it gets to the Senate, we should pass these bipartisan,
practical, and effective solutions.
The fires that tore across my State must not be used as an excuse to
undermine fundamental environmental laws that protect public lands.
They should motivate us to work together to protect communities from
the devastation that my constituents are facing today.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).
Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
also thank the gentleman from Arkansas, a trained forester, for his
efforts to reform how we manage our forests.
Montana faced a devastating wildfire season. Over 1 million acres
have burned in our State. Lives were lost. Our livelihoods were
threatened. Wildlife habitats were destroyed. We breathed the smoke as
the clouds hung in the air.
Earlier this week, the gentleman from Arkansas and I met with
conservationists, the Forest Service, local leaders, and key
stakeholders, including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. They all
affirmed that litigation and an inability to inappropriately manage our
forests are the problem that lead to severe wildfires.
When catastrophic wildfires strike, we keep treating the symptoms--
suppressing the fires--and somehow think that the next wildfire will be
different. We have to address the underlying issues. We have to reform
how we manage our forests. We have to make our forests healthier and
our wildfires less severe. We can begin that process today.
The people of Montana need relief and a long-term solution. I
encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Issa). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter of
support for the legislation from the National Lumber and Building
Material Dealers Association, and a statement of support from the
former Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell.

NLBMDA Praises Reintroduction of Resilient Federal Forests Act

Washington, DC.--The National Lumber and Building Material
Dealers Association (NLBMDA) praises the introduction
yesterday of the Resilient Federal Forests Act by (H.R. 2936)
Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR). The legislation helps protect
the national forest system by implementing best practices
intended to lessen the threat of wildfires. Original
cosponsors for the bipartisan bill include Reps. Raul
Labrador (R-ID), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Cathy McMorris
Rodgers (R-WA), Rick Nolan (D-MN), Collin Peterson (D-MN),
and Scott Tipton (R-CO).
Rep. Westerman introduced the legislation during the
previous Congress in 2015, where it passed the House of
Representatives by a vote of 262-167 with support from 21
Democrats who crossed the aisle to support the bill.
The U.S. Forest Service manages over 190 million acres. Of
this, 46 million acres is designated as allowable for timber
harvest. Timber harvests from federal forests declined by 78
percent between 1987 and 2015, from 11.3 to 2.5 billion board
feet. This is far below the long-term, sustainable capability
of these lands of 12.2 billion board feet per year.
Poor land management during the past 30 years has led to
declining health of national forests. This has resulted in
fewer jobs and productivity in the forestry sector, fewer
board feet of domestically produced lumber entering the
market, and a marked increase in acreage ravaged by insects,
disease and fire.
``The Resilient Federal Forests Act strikes a balanced
approach in managing the national forest system by making
more land available for logging in an environmentally
sustainable way,'' said Jonathan Paine, NLBMDA President and
CEO. ``NLBMDA thanks Congressman Westerman for his leadership
on this important issue.''
NLBMDA supports greater sustainable harvesting of federal
forests to meet long-term demand for lumber as part of a
comprehensive plan that does not place U.S. private forests
at a competitive disadvantage.
____

Statement of Tom Tidwell, Chief, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service

Submitted to THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FEDERAL LANDS on THE RESILIENT FEDERAL FORESTS ACT OF 2017

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to present a statement regarding the
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. The U.S. Forest
Service is currently reviewing this discussion draft, and the
Administration does not have a position on it at this time.
We appreciate the significant work the Subcommittee put
into this bill since it was last introduced in the 114th
Congress. We also appreciate your efforts to incorporate
Forest Service comments and recommendations and are
encouraged by many of the goals outlined within this bill. We
look forward to continuing to work with you and your staffs
on the details to ensure this legislation results in
meaningful improvements to forest management work on the
ground.
The Forest Service welcomes legislation that expands the
toolset we can use to restore our nation's forests while
staying within the boundaries and intent of the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Forest restoration projects provide rural jobs, mitigate the
severity of wildfires, enhance watershed conditions, and
ensure a variety of other economic, social and environmental
benefits for the American people. Provisions that expand
categorical exclusions, incentivize collaboration, and
streamline environmental analysis or consultation with other
federal agencies are all important issues in the bill that we
are reviewing.
It is notable that the Resilient Federal Forests Act does
not contain provisions that would mandate harvest levels,
require a new layer of zoning on the National Forests, or
elevate one use over another on these multiple-use lands, as
we have seen in other recent forestry bills.
While we support efforts to provide new tools to improve
forest management and restoration, capacity constraints,
including the present approach to budgeting for wildfire,
continue to be impediments to increasing the pace and scale
of this work. We look forward to continuing to work with you
on the wildfire title to find a solution that addresses the
disproportionate growth of fire programs as a share of the
agency's overall budget.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to provide this
statement. The Forest Service stands ready to continue
working with you on this important legislation.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, this fire season has put the need for
real forest management in stark relief for those of us who live out
West.
The current laissez-faire forest policy, with random desperate
measures to fight increasingly horrific fires that threaten and destroy
rural and now--as we have seen in California--suburban communities is
completely inadequate and increasingly costly to the taxpayer.
This bill, contrary to what some have said, rewards communities that
have proactive, collaborative programs; stewardship programs; rural
advisory committees; and wildfire protection plans to manage their
forests without redundant NEPA processes.
A few thousand acres out of the millions acres of Federal forest land
are now going to be enabled to be managed for wildlife successional
forest habitat; removal of dangerous roadside and infrastructure
threatening vegetation; insect and disease infestations; reducing
hazardous fuel in the forests; and,

[[Page H8331]]

frankly, doing a little reforesting of salvage projects, which should
have been allowed years ago.
We also pilot a few arbitration projects to stop the endless
frivolous litigation of every single forest project, at least in
Oregon, and I think elsewhere.
SRS payments continue to rural communities whose way of life has
been, basically, taken away from them by the endless frivolous
litigation in our Federal forests. Counties, for the first time, get
some revenue from the very stewardship contracts that we want to
encourage, but not at the expense of rural communities' economic
health.
Many are still stuck in the recession, and this bill is critical to
their revival. Oregon counties in the Oregon and California railroad
areas also get the opportunity to be made whole again, like the
original statute said.
I think it is important to note for a lot of our friends out there
that the current regional forest plans still apply and are not
undermined. We just give flexibility to the Forest Service folks within
the regions to do what they think needs to be done to keep those
forests healthy. We empower good management.
For those of you who are interested in innovation, this bill actually
calls out cross-laminated timber and other thoughtful uses of forests
and timber that can bring environmental and timber groups together like
it should be in the 21st century.
Finally, most important of all for some folks, we actually get
wildfire disaster funding included as a reasonable topic of
conversation and get out of the current fire-borrowing policy that is
preventing the Forest Service and BLM from doing good forest management
to prevent those fires in the first place.
On balance, frankly, this is a very good bill and it is much-needed
at this time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, the Resilient Federal Forests Act
contains many provisions that will give the Forest Service additional
tools to better manage our national forests.
To keep our forests healthy and productive, we must ensure we have
skilled loggers to safely work in those forests. I thank Representative
Westerman for including my bill, the Future Logging Careers Act, in his
bill that is on the floor today.
My bill will allow 16- and 17-year-olds to learn the logging business
by working in family-owned mechanized logging operations under the
supervision of their parents. That will allow the next generation of
loggers to learn valuable skills, prepare to take over family
businesses, and provide the wood products needed to support our
economy.
I learned of the need for this bill after meeting two Idaho loggers
from third-generation logging families, Tim Christopherson from Idaho
County and Tom Mahon from Adams County.
Mahon's 16-year-old son, J.T., was working under his father's
supervision when a Forest Service employee sent him home. J.T. couldn't
work in the woods because logging doesn't have an exemption that has
long been enjoyed by family farms under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. LABRADOR. With help from the families and the Associated Logging
Contractors of Idaho, we crafted a solution that is good for families,
good for rural America, and good for the American economy.
I am grateful for the bipartisan effort on this legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the National Wild
Turkey Federation and a letter from the National Association of
Counties, Western Interstate Region, in support of H.R. 2936.

National Wild Turkey Federation,

Edgefield, SC, June 26, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Natural Resources Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Raul Grijalva,
Ranking Democrat, Natural Resources Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Representative Grijalva: On behalf
of the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) and its 230,000
members, we urge you to take swift Committee action on H.R.
2936 the Resilient Federal Forest Act of 2017. The NWTF is a
leader in wildlife habitat conservation in North America and
is dedicated to the conservation of the wild turkey and
preservation of our hunting heritage. We are currently
working towards our 10-year Save the Habitat. Save the Hunt
initiative in which we aim to conserve or enhance 4 million
acres of critical habitat, recruit 1.5 million hunters and
open 500,000 acres for outdoor enjoyment
Active forest management is crucial to establishing healthy
and sustainable forests and decisions for forest management
should be based on sound science. As such, the common sense
solutions offered in H.R. 2936 are imperative to the health
and future of our nation's forests and important to the NWTF
to help achieve our objectives. In total, H.R. 2936 has many
reasonable solutions to the challenges that the managing
agencies face to increase the pace and efficiency of active
forest management on our nation's federal lands. We take this
opportunity to highlight those solutions that we believe will
make the most immediate difference and offer recommendations
as to how we believe the bill can be further improved.
We support increased availability for Categorical
Exclusions (CE) in order to deal more effectively and
efficiently with threats like pests and disease and for
addressing urgent wildlife needs like critical habitat for
endangered species. We are especially supportive of the CE
that will allow for activities that enhance early
successional forests for wildlife habitat. Unlike some
critics of CEs who will suggest, they do not exempt the
action from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
rather they apply the NEPA review to like or similar actions
to expedite the process. These are administered under Council
on Environmental Quality regulations and other guidance.
Increased use of CEs is one of the best opportunities we have
in the short term to increase the pace of active forest
management.
Funding the cost of fighting catastrophic wildfires outside
of the agency budget is paramount to the agency's ability to
deliver on other aspects of their mission. We are supportive
of a fix that will allow catastrophic wildfires to be
considered a disaster. Until agencies are freed from the
burden of fighting catastrophic wildfires through their
annual budgets we will be unable to make meaningful progress
towards proactive forest management. We recommend capping the
firefighting budget at the current 10-year average to protect
further erosion of the U.S. Forest Service budget in other
important mission delivery areas.
We support the bill's provisions for large scale
reforestation on fire-impacted lands. While public input and
review is essential to public lands management, currently it
can result in delayed action and result in an inability to
accomplish the necessary objectives. We believe the deadlines
set for plan development and public input, as well as the
prohibition on restraining orders and preliminary injunctions
strike a reasonable balance. We recommend that this provision
of the bill clarify that proper ecological restoration is
allowed as a mechanism to salvage forests post catastrophic
events as reforestation may not always be the best action for
the ecological good.
The NWTF strongly supports arbitration as an alternative to
litigation. This will conserve valuable U.S. Forest Service
resources and expedite work getting done on the ground.
Additionally, we support the provision that does not allow
plaintiffs challenging a forest management activity to
receive any award or payment obligated from the Claims and
Judgment Fund.
We support the approach for allowing evaluation of only
action/no-action alternatives for collaborative Forest Plans,
Resource Advisory Committee and Community Wildfire Protection
Plan projects. Limiting the number of alternatives will
expedite the development of environmental assessments and
allow work to get done on the ground more quickly. We also
support the requirement to look at consequences of a no-
action alternative as a no-action decision would still have
an impact on the resource.
We understand budget concerns counties face and are
supportive of a portion of retained receipts from stewardship
contracts going to the counties. Stewardship Contracting is
an important tool for active forest management. Ultimately
this change will remove one impediment to utilizing
Stewardship Contracting and help garner support from the
counties. We recommend modifying this section to reflect that
payment should come only from retained receipts on completed
projects, versus strictly from timber value within ongoing
projects. This will maintain the ``exchange of goods for
services'' function of Stewardship Contracting while also
preserving the balance of timber dollars and the investment
of matching funds from organizations like the NWTF to expand
the scope and scale of projects, thus accomplishing more
active management and fire protection across the landscape
and within counties.
We appreciate the recognition of the importance of funding
planning activities for forest management. We are concerned
that the provision could potentially provide justification
for the U.S. Forest Service staff to refrain from fully
utilizing product value and

[[Page H8332]]

partner match dollars for on the ground work. While we feel
the 25% threshold is too high, the provision of allowing some
of the stewardship project revenues to cover the costs of
planning additional projects could be beneficial and
incentivize project planning.
We also appreciate the common-sense amendments to the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) that will improve the process of
protecting endangered and threatened species and their
habitat. The bill overturns the ``Cottonwood'' court
decision, which directs that if additional critical habitat
is designated under an approved Forest Plan or Resource
Management Plan, a section 7 programmatic re-consultation of
the entire Forest Plan needs to be done. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Obama Administration argued that the
section 7 consultation needs only to be done on the portion
of the project covering the additionally designated acreage
of critical habitat. The remedy in this bill will greatly
reduce the debilitating process that the federal court
decision directs. The bill also affirms current U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service policy that no ESA section 7 consultation is
required if the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land
Management determines through informal consultation that the
proposed action will not likely have an adverse affect on
species or critical habitat. We further support the 90 day
threshold on a CE established by this bill because it will
conserve agency resources and expedite management activities
on the ground.
We commend Congressman Westerman, the co-sponsors, and
Chairman Bishop for their dedication to restoring and
maintaining our federal forests under management informed by
science, and offering the appropriate reforms to management
practices. We respectfully urge that you expeditiously report
H.R. 2936 out of Committee and to the House floor.
Sincerely,
Rebecca A. Humphries,
Chief Executive Officer.
____

June 21, 2017.
Hon. Bruce Westerman,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Westerman: On behalf of the National
Association of Counties (NACo) the only organization
representing the nation's 3,069 counties, parishes, and
boroughs, and the Western Interstate Region (WIR), we write
to express support for H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal
Forests Act of 2017. Thank you for your leadership in
introducing legislation to promote the active management of
our nation's federal lands and forests, reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and promote collaborative approaches to
address natural resource management challenges.
The legislation will improve the health and wellbeing of
forest lands and forest communities by: promoting
collaboration and streamlining regulations for forest health
projects, protecting communities through wildfire risk
reduction, improving flexibility and fairness in forest
revenue sharing, and delegating the authority for Resource
Advisory Committees (RAC) appointments.

Promoting Collaboration and Streamlining Regulations for Forest Health
Projects

Counties believe that active management of federal lands
and forests must be done in a sustainable manner that ensures
the health of our federal lands for generations to come. One
way to help ensure a balanced approach to address natural
resource management challenges is by promoting locally driven
collaborative processes that promote consensus driven
decision making. Counties across the United States have
engaged in collaborative efforts to address their natural
resources challenges. By bringing a broad cross-section of
local stakeholders into collaborative processes, counties,
industry, outdoorsmen, conservationists and federal and state
land managers have built consensus on some of the most
complex natural resource management challenges.
By authorizing limited and reasonable categorical
exclusions for projects that improve forest health and have
been developed through consensus based collaborative
processes, H.R. 2936 builds upon these successes and provides
additional tools to help ensure that collaborative efforts
continue to work, accelerate and expand. Streamlining the
regulatory review of proposed forestry projects will increase
project implementation and the number of acres that are
treated.

Protecting Communities through Wildfire Risk Reduction

For the 26 percent of counties across the United States
that are home to federal forest lands, the health of our
national forests has a direct impact on the health and safety
of county residents. Healthy forests are less prone to
disease, insect infestation, and wildfire. While the causes
of catastrophic wildfire are complex, the status quo of
inaction has exacerbated present forest conditions, which now
present a great risk to both communities and the environment.
Your legislation would help to correct this by requiring the
costs and benefits of a proposed forest project be weighed
against the costs and benefits of doing nothing to address
wildfire threats, disease and insect infestation, and their
impacts on local water supply and wildlife habitat.
Provisions of the legislation expediting regulatory
analysis for timber salvage after major wildfires are also
crucial, and will provide the Forest Service with the revenue
it needs to execute critical and time-sensitive post-fire
reforestation work.

Providing Flexibility and Equitable Sharing of Forest Revenues

In addition to improving forest health and reducing
wildfire risk for forest communities, increased active
management will generate more revenue for the federal
treasury and critical services provided by counties, and
promote job creation and economic growth in counties across
the nation. According to the American Forest and Paper
Association, forest products industries account for 4% of
U.S. manufacturing GDP and over $50 billion annually in wages
for approximately 900,000 employees. These jobs provide a
direct economic impact to many rural and forest counties
across the country.
The growth in stewardship contracting in recent years has
shown that a market-driven approach to forest management
projects can work to achieve both forest management goals and
increased forest production. Counties support and are active
partners in stewardship contracting initiatives across the
United States. NACo and WIR support provisions of H.R. 2936
that authorize the equitable sharing of stewardship
contracting revenues with counties consistent with historic
practices. Forest revenue sharing payments support critical
county services such as transportation infrastructure and
education. America's counties look forward to working with
Congress to further strengthen forest revenue sharing between
counties and the federal government.
Since 2000, due to sharp declines in forest revenues, the
federal government has provided payments to forest counties
through the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program. The SRS
program provides a critical safety-net for forest counties
impacted by declines in forest production and the loss of
forest jobs and it will continue to be a critical program
until the declines in forest production can be fully
addressed. H.R. 2936 reforms Title III of SRS that provide
much needed flexibility for counties to use a portion of SRS
funding to support law enforcement patrols and ensure county
first-responders have the equipment and training they need to
provide high-quality emergency services on forest service
land to county residents and the millions of public lands
visitors each year.

Delegating the Authority for Resource Advisory Committee (RAC)
Appointments

Finally, counties support legislation to ensure rural
counties can actively coordinate with federal agencies
through flexibility in RAC membership and appointments. NACo
and WIR support allowing the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
and U.S. Secretary of the Interior to delegate the authority
for appointing RAC members to agency leaders, such as
Regional Foresters or Bureau of Land Management State
Directors. Counties should be included in the development and
implementation of public lands management plans, and RACs
allow county leaders to actively participate in this process.
Your legislation would allow the Secretary to delegate RAC
appointment authority, and ensure locally-driven efforts to
better manage federal lands can begin in a timely manner.
NACo and WIR stand ready to work with you to promote
locally supported, consensus-driven solutions to address
management challenges, reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildfire, and increase economic activity on our federal
lands. NACo and WIR encourage swift passage of the Resilient
Federal Forests Act of 2017.
Sincerely,
Matthew D. Chase,
Executive Director, National Association of Counties.
Joel Bousman,
President, Western Interstate Region.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, nationwide, this year has been the most
expensive year on record, with over $2 billion spent to combat fires
that have burned almost 9 million acres of land.
As of October 29, State and Federal firefighters responded to 8,300-
plus fires, covering over 1.1 million acres in California alone, nearly
doubling the amount of acres burned in 2016.
A complete lack of forest management in California has left our
forests more combustible than ever, leading to one of the worst
wildfire seasons in our State's history. That is why the bill of my
colleague, Mr. Westerman, H.R. 2936, is very important.
The Resilient Federal Forests Act includes what I believe to be
critically important reforms in forest management, such as expedited
environmental reviews and the availability of categorical exclusions
for forest management activities to help achieve these goals.
Our Federal lands are hurting. They are in desperate need to be
managed in order to not have these disasters each and every year. We
can either thin the trees and the brush out, or watch them

[[Page H8333]]

go up in smoke every year and become part of our brown skies, instead
of the blue skies that we would normally enjoy.
We can't afford this inaction anymore. We need to move this
legislation and clean up California's forests for all.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, this bill is not
perfect, but it has a lot of good provisions.
I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking
member of the Agriculture Committee for his support, and also Mr.
Westerman from Arkansas, the author of this bill.
The Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 is a bipartisan solution to
address the growing economic and environmental threats from
catastrophic wildfires.
As we have heard already, 2017 has had the costliest wildfires on
record, with the Forest Service spending over $2 billion. We have had
the loss of communities and lives lost. The greatest cause of this
uptick in wildfires is the severe lack of forest management.

{time} 1545

This legislation pairs a responsible budget fix with forest
management reforms, improves the health and resiliency of our Nation's
forests and rangelands, and provides Federal Land Management agency
tools to increase the pay scale and cost efficiency of forest
management projects without sacrificing environmental protections.
The bill permanently solves the wildfire borrowing problem by
allowing FEMA to transfer limited funds to the Forest Service or BLM
when the rest of their wildfire suppression funding has been exhausted.
It prevents wildfires by authorizing the tools for the Forest
Service, tools that they are looking for in the Bureau of Land
Management that they can implement immediately to mitigate insect and
disease infestation, prevent damage to municipal watersheds and
critical infrastructure quickly, harvest wildfire, kill trees to pay
for the reforestation, and the bill encourages quick reforestation that
accelerates habitat improvement.
This bill does incentivize collaboration, supports local government,
and modernizes the Secure Rural Schools Act.
Mr. Chairman, I would just ask my colleagues for their support of
H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As we make this transition, let me try and sum up where we are at
this particular time.
This particular bill was done in coordination with the U.S. Forest
Service under both the Obama administration and the Trump
administration. This has the approval of local governments, Tribes,
sportsmen's groups, and labor unions. The last time we had this bill,
it had a good bipartisan vote on it, but these are issues that the
Forest Service needs and they can use on day one of their issue.
What the Forest Service needs are resources, obviously. We know that.
But they also need the tools that they need to actually do their work.
Now, there are some on the fringe who are going to say that
everything is wrong here, but I would encourage them to get rid of the
usual rhetoric and to pocket the dogma for a minute and realize that
what we need to do is come up with a system that affects the planning
process.
The Forest Service admits they have 50 to 60 million acres of
forestland today that is ready to be a catastrophic catastrophe. They
want to treat 25 percent of what they own a year. They are only
treating 2 to 3 percent. That means, of the 50 to 60 million acres they
have that are in dire situations right now, they can only treat 3 a
year. That would take them 20 years to try and get through what needs
to be treated unless we give them new tools to reform the system to
make that process going in, and that is exactly what this bill does: it
rewards collaboration; it tries to stop unnecessary litigation; it
comes up with arbitration concepts that are in there; it expands the
ability of streamlining the process so they can get to work.
Our people need the resources to do their job. They need the tools.
We should make it very clear that money alone is not going to solve the
problem of wildfire catastrophe. What we have to do is solve the
conditions that create the catastrophic wildfires in the first place,
and that means that we need to make sure that we are doing things so we
can prohibit what has happened, which has been devastating to people
and their property; which has destroyed habitat for species, endangered
and unendangered; and which has created conditions of pollution in our
atmosphere.
All that has to take place. Everything in this bill is what the
experts in the Forest Service said they can do on day one after it is
passed. It needs to take place. It needs to be in addition to the
financial solving of the wildfire situation. You need to have these
reforms, and that is what we are pushing in this bill. It is why it is
so desperately needed and why it was worked out with the experts in the
field.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 2936, the so-called Resilient Federal
Forests Act of 2017. Perhaps a better name would be the ``Log America's
Forest Act of 2017.''
But before I address the many concerns with the underlying bill, I
must commend my colleagues across the aisle for attempting to deal with
the biggest barrier to improved management of our national forests: the
enormous cost and impact of wildfire suppression on the Forest Service
budget.
Over 50 percent of the Forest Service budget is eaten up by wildfire,
and if things don't change, the agency predicts that it will increase
to two-thirds in just 5 years. Unfortunately, the budget fix in this
bill falls short.
First, it requires Congress to appropriate an amount equal to the 10-
year average before emergency funding is available. We know that
climate change results in longer and more intense wildfire seasons,
making the 10-year average irrelevant to the ever-increasing need for
funding. Because the average is too low, the real number will keep
growing, meaning the amount of funding that must be taken from the
Forest Service accounts will continue to grow. Fighting fires will
continue squeezing out money for the active management my Republican
colleagues are so eager to prioritize.
Second, requiring the President to declare each fire a national
emergency before releasing funds is unnecessarily bureaucratic and
could delay emergency operations.
We need a holistic fix for the wildfire budget that makes money
available in advance of a critical emergency, but Republicans would
rather play politics with fire to undermine environmental safeguards.
This is not the first time we have seen the bill, this piece of
legislation. House Republicans sent a version to the Senate in the
113th and the 114th Congresses, where it languished on the shelf
because our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol found it too
extreme.
Rather than view that experience as an opportunity to seek compromise
this time around, today we are considering a bill that is even more
extreme and polarizing. They doubled the environmental review waivers,
added language to undermine the Endangered Species Act, and scaled back
protections for national monuments and roadless areas.
We are told that this is all in the name of decreasing wildfire risk
and protecting communities. The truth is that it is just more of the
same from House Republicans who will look for any excuse to advance
their extraction-above-all agenda.
Wildfires are a huge problem in this country due, in large part, to
climate change, something this bill ignores. By the way, they are
becoming more frequent and more intense, and they pose a growing threat
to public safety and local communities.
This bill is not about forest health or wildfire mitigation. It is
about increasing the number of trees removed from our forests.
Republicans would rather scare us into weakening environmental
safeguards than work on a possible bipartisan solution to wildfire
management.

[[Page H8334]]

A serious proposal would recognize the Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior have ample authority within current law to
conduct fire treatment on our public lands. In fact, the 2009
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, established the
last time Democrats controlled the House, has resulted in the treatment
of over 1.45 million acres of national forests to reduce the risk of
catastrophic fire and the improvement of over 1.33 million acres of
wildlife habitat.
In just 5 years, the program generated more than $661 million in
local labor income and an average of 4,300 jobs per year. The projects
have attracted new partners and strengthened community relationships,
leveraging over $76.1 million in partner matching funds. Collaborative
programs like this bring people to the table and result in more acres
treated, more local jobs, and more successful projects. Again, all of
this has taken place within the framework of the current law.
Increased funding for programs like Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration should be a priority for Republicans, but this program was
zeroed out by the Trump administration budget, and extreme proposals
like this bill chip away at the principal pillars of law that make
collaboration possible. Our constituents and our forests deserve
better.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter
from the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
and a letter sent from 40 forestry coalitions that are in support of
this particular bill.

National Conference of State

Historic Preservation Officers,

Washington, DC, October 24, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop: On behalf of the National Conference
of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), we would
like to thank you and Congressman Bruce Westerman for
including language in the manager's amendment to H.R. 2936,
the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. The language,
which calls for the establishment of a Nationwide
Programmatic Agreement to pursue an efficient and effective
solution to historic preservation review, ensures state and
local input on the impact of federal undertakings on historic
resources.
The establishment of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement
is consistent with the principal of states and communities
having a lead role in evaluating the impact of federal
projects on historic resources. This principal was enshrined
in law more than 50 years ago with the passage of the
National Historic Preservation Act and strengthened more than
40 years ago by the creation of the Historic Preservation
Fund.
Wildfires pose a threat to historic resources and NCSHPO
supports your effort to reduce their risk. As the bill moves
forward, NCSHPO and its members remain ready and willing to
help find a solution to any challenges faced in the
management of our nation's forests. Our members are committed
to assisting federal agencies in achieving this goal, while
also ensuring that state and local governments continue to
have say in the impact of federal undertakings on historic
resources.
We look forward to working with you on this important
issue.
Sincerely,
Erik M. Hein,
Executive Director.
____

June 27, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Raul Grijalva,
Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop & Ranking Member Grijalva: We write to
you today in strong support of HR 2936, the bipartisan
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017.
Our federal forests are facing serious threats from fires,
insects, and diseases due to lack of active forest
management. The poor health of our federal forests also
threatens wildlife habitat, watersheds, and neighboring non-
Federal lands, as well as the vitality of rural, forested
communities across the country. HR 2936 contains provisions
intended to both address the disruption caused by fire
borrowing and to expedite needed forest management to improve
the health and vitality of our federal forests.
The Resilient Federal Forests Act provides Categorical
Exclusions (CE's) under the National Environmental Policy Act
will allow needed forest management projects to be more
quickly prepared, analyzed, and implemented. It will also
allow forest recovery projects to proceed more quickly,
addressing a dire need created by recent wildfire seasons.
The Forest Service has long experience with management
techniques to reduce forest pests, thin hazardous fuels,
create and maintain habitat for species, recover damaged
timber and protect water quality. These projects mitigate
risk and help create early successional forest habitat which
is good for wildlife.
The Forest Service does more complex NEPA documentation
than most other Federal agencies, and even after years of
collaboration, frequently finds itself in court where judges
scrutinize procedural issues, delaying needed management,
sometimes for years. The Resilient Federal Forests Act
addresses the complex, court-imposed NEPA burden that has
been forced on the Forest Service, while preserving
collaborative efforts and avoiding sensitive forest lands.
HR 2936 addresses both the excessive analysis requirements
imposed on even modest forest management projects, as well as
the dysfunctional system of funding suppression costs out of
forest management program accounts. Provisions in the bill
limit the acreage of Categorical Exclusions, and prohibits
their use in sensitive areas. The legislation provides access
to the disaster relief fund for wildfire suppression expenses
in excess of the 10-year average.
The House acted on a similar, bipartisan bill in 2015. The
need for action to address forest health conditions on our
national forest system is even higher today. Wildfire
suppression funding mechanisms developed in the past are no
longer adequate to address the conditions we are
experiencing. We urge to take up and pass HR 2936 as quickly
as possible.
We stand ready to work with both of you advance responsible
solutions to these serious national problems.
Alabama Loggers Council; Allegheny Hardwood Utilization
Group, Inc.; American Farm Bureau Federation; American
Forest & Paper Association; American Forest Resource
Council; American Loggers Council; Arkansas Forestry
Association; Arkansas Timber Producers Association;
Associated California Loggers; Associated Logging
Contractors of Idaho; Associated Oregon Loggers;
Association of Consulting Foresters; Black Hills Forest
Resource Association; California Forestry Association;
Carolina Loggers Association; Colorado Timber Industry
Association; Coos County (Oregon) Board of
Commissioners; Deere & Co; Great Lakes Timber
Professionals; Hardwood Federations.
Intermountain Forest Association; Louisiana Forestry
Association; Michigan Association of Timbermen;
Michigan Forest Products Council; Minnesota Forest
Industries; Minnesota Timber Producers Association;
Mississippi Loggers Association; Missouri Forest
Products Association; Montana Logging Association;
Montana Wood Products Association; National Wildfire
Institute; New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association;
New Mexico Coalition of Conservation Districts; New
Mexico Forest Industry Association; Northeastern
Loggers Association; Professional Logging Contractors
of Maine; South Carolina Timber Producers Association;
Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association;
Sustainable Forest Action Coalition; Treated Wood
Council.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2936,
the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, introduced by my friend and
colleague Bruce Westerman.
Our forests and the communities that live, work, and rely on them
desperately need improved management practice to reduce these forest
fire disasters and to increase resiliency.
I was very pleased with the quick work by my friend and former
colleague OMB Director Mick Mulvaney for addressing the wildfire
funding crisis at the United States Forest Service, requesting $576.5
million for wildfire suppression and recommending active management
reforms.
Now, while the Trump administration came through in a big way for
Western communities that have been ravaged by catastrophic wildfires,
Congress must pass H.R. 2936 and get serious about combating
catastrophic wildfires before they get started.
The Resilient Federal Forests Act is a bipartisan, comprehensive
piece of legislation that simplifies the cumbersome planning process
and reduces the cost of implementing proactive forest management
strategies.
H.R. 2936 empowers local communities by getting them involved in the
decisionmaking process. It empowers Tribal communities to be part of
the solution and help reduce the risk of wildfire.
The bill removes incentives for extreme special interest groups to
file frivolous lawsuits. In fact, it requires litigants opposing active
management projects to propose an alternative plan as opposed to just
saying ``no.'' Imagine that, solutions over lawsuits.

[[Page H8335]]

Mismanagement has left our forests vulnerable to insects and disease
and ripe for catastrophic wildfires. It is clear the system is broken.
Western communities are tired of being victims, and this bill allows us
to be proactive and to prevent disasters before they become a risk.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record two letters, one from the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the second from the
National Association of Home Builders, in support of H.R. 2936.
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies,
Washington, DC, June 26, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Raul Grijalva,
Ranking Democrat, House Natural Resources Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Democrat Grijalva: The
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Association) is
pleased to support H.R. 2936, the ``Resilient Federal Forest
Act of 2017'' (RFFA). All 50 state agencies are members of
the Association. Founded in 1902, the Association's mission
is to protect the interests and authorities of the states to
manage fish and wildlife within their borders, including on
federal land. The Association works closely with the federal
land management agencies to deliver on the ground
conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats for our
citizens.
The Association is particularly appreciative of changes
made by the Committee staff at the request of the
Association. These changes make more prominent in federal
statute the states' authority to manage fish and wildlife on
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) lands. Nothing in the amended language is intended to
change any existing federal, state or tribal authority. It
simply makes more evident the state-federal jurisdictional
relationship which Congress has affirmed. Federal-state
cooperation in this arena is compelled because the USFS and
BLM own the land and thus the habitat, and the state fish and
wildlife agencies manage the fish and wildlife. Robust
cooperation will provide that both land/habitat objectives
and fish and wildlife population objectives are met.
The RFFA is vitally needed to restore the health of our
Nation's federal forests on USFS and BLM lands.
Unfortunately, the USFS and BLM have fallen significantly
behind in meeting objectives for early successional stage
forest habitat, for a number of reasons. Significantly,
federal court decisions and increasing uninformed litigation
has created ``paralysis by analysis'' to quote a former USFS
Chief. Congress mandated that the federal forests were to be
managed for water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, and
timber harvest. Active forest management by the federal
professional managers in cooperation with the state fish and
wildlife agency professional managers has been replaced by
natural resource management decisions being made by the
federal courts. A return to active forest management will
facilitate realization of all of the public values of federal
forests.
The Association much appreciates that the fire-borrowing
problem is addressed in HR 2936. While most catastrophic
fires occur in the western United States, this is a national
problem because the funds for every national forest and
public land unit are affected. This remedy will prevent the
USFS and BLM from having to borrow from other appropriated
line-items (for example, wildfire prevention, wildlife,
recreation and water quality) to pay for the cost of
catastrophic fire suppression, which cost consumes over 50%
of the USFS budget. We respectfully urge the Committee to
further protect the USFS budget by capping the 10-year
average cost of catastrophic fire costs at its current level.
The 10-year average is used by the USFS in building their
budget request. The 10-year average continues to rise and
unless it is capped it will continue to erode other important
budget line items such as wildlife, water quality, fire
prevention and recreation in the President's budget.
The Association further appreciates the process relief
provided to National Forest Plans (NFP) and (potentially)
Resource Management Plans (RMP) developed by collaborative
deliberation. It is appropriate that a collaborative-
developed plan, which often takes years to deliberate and
conclude, be subject to only two options under NEPA, proceed
or not proceed. It is very reasonable to assume that the
collaboratively deliberated process has examined and rejected
the other options, and only the action or no action need be
analyzed.
The bill's establishment of a pilot binding arbitration
process as an alternative to litigation in each FS Region is
certainly welcomed by the Association. Not only is the cost
of defending the land management plan a burden on the
agencies, but the planned for management work on the ground
is lost, perhaps never to be resurrected on that site. We
commend Congressman Westerman and the Committee for settling
on this significant improvement to litigation reform that was
in HR 2647 from the last Congress.
We also appreciate the increase in acreage ceilings for the
statutorily endorsed Categorical Exclusions (CEs) under NEPA.
CEs must avoid sensitive areas and must be consistent with
standards and guidelines in Forest Plans. Early forest
successional stage habitat, for instance, cannot be just
incidental to be effective in providing habitat for deer,
elk, wild turkey, neo-tropical migratory songbirds and other
species which are dependent on this habitat type. While an
acreage ceiling is an easy metric to measure success, the
desired forest future condition should really determine the
size of the timber harvest.
Additionally, the Association supports the proposed common-
sense amendments to the Endangered Species Act. First, H.R.
2936 overturns the Cottonwood decision, which directs that if
additional critical habitat is designated under an approved
FP or RMP, a section 7 programmatic re-consultation of the
entire FP needs to be done. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the Obama Administration argued that the
section 7 consultation needs only to be done on the project
covering the additionally designated acreage of critical
habitat. This remedy will greatly reduce the debilitating
process that the federal court decision directs. Second, the
bill affirms that no ESA section 7 consultation is required
if the USFS or BLM determine during informal consultation
that the proposed action is ``not likely to adversely affect
a species or designated critical habitat'', which is already
USFWS policy. And third, if any consultation on a categorical
exclusion established by the bill is not concluded after 90
days, the action shall be considered to have not violated
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
The Association is committed to working with our partners
in the USFS and BLM to manage our federal forests to fulfill
their public values as Congress mandated. HR 2936 makes
significant improvements to and would expedite the process
that governs approval of the USFS and BLM management plans.
We urge that your Committee expeditiously report HR 2936 from
the Committee to the House floor.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to move this
bill quickly through the legislative process. If you have any
questions, please contact AFWA Government affairs Director
Jen Mock Schaeffer.
Sincerely,
Nick Wiley,
President, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies;
Executive Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission.
____

National Association of

Home Builders,

Washington, DC, June 21, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, House of Representatives, Committee on Natural
Resources, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop: On behalf of the more than 140,000
members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB),
I am writing to express NAHB's strong support for The
Resilient National Forests Act of 2017 and express our
appreciation to the House Committee on Natural Resources for
continuing this important discussion on the health of our
nation's forest. Better forest management practices that are
also mindful of environmental considerations will help
strengthen the housing supply chain and promote affordable
housing opportunities for all Americans.
Significant concerns have been raised about the U.S. Forest
Service's current forest management efforts, both in terms of
administrative obstacles and legal obstacles in approving
timber harvesting projects. Consequently, less commercial
harvesting of timber has resulted in overgrown forests and an
increased risk of catastrophic wildfire across the country.
Additional commercial harvesting of timber will promote the
health of our nation's forest system, but also positively
impact housing affordability. NAHB research shows lumber and
wood products account for 15% of the cost of construction for
a single family house. Lumber prices are generally volatile,
and it is common for builders to encounter a large price
swing in a short period of time. As additional supply is
brought into the market, upward pressure on lumber prices
will soften.
NAHB urges the House Natural Resources Committee to support
The Resilient National Forests Act of 2017, which will
encourage multi-use forest management practices for national
forests and provide increases in the supply of federal timber
products.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
James W. Tobin III.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, we need forest management reforms, we need
them now. I thank Mr. Westerman and the committee for their work on
this bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I remember, 13 years ago, after another
spate of catastrophic fires in the Western United States, we came
together in a truly bipartisan fashion and passed something called the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act. It authorized up to 20 million acres
to be treated to remove

[[Page H8336]]

hazard fuels in what is called the WUI, the wildland-urban interface,
and in threats to municipal water supplies. We also authorized $760
million a year.
Well, it has been 13 years. We authorized 20 million acres of work.
What has been done? 2\1/2\ million.
Is it because of litigation, lawsuits, or, you know, obstruction? No.
It is because of this body, the United States Congress, which is
refusing to put up the money to do the work.
In my State alone, there are 1.8 million acres waiting for treatment.
They have gone through all environmental reviews. There is no potential
for litigation or any other blocking, but they don't have the money.
Does this bill fix that? No. We are addressing problems that don't
exist in terms of addressing the wildfire problem.
This is really, you know, kind of a lost opportunity, a missed
opportunity. Yes, it does a partial fix of the wildfire borrowing,
which devastates the Forest Service every year. I appreciate that. But
the fact is, we have got 44 million homes that are now at risk in terms
of wildland-urban interface, and we have only treated 2\1/2\ million
acres because this Congress isn't putting up the money.

{time} 1600

And this year, yet again, they are proposing like one-half of what we
authorized. What does one-half get you? It gets you half the acreage.
So if we had appropriated at the levels we authorized over the last
13 years, they would have treated 5 or 6 million acres. Again, they
weren't blocked by litigation. They weren't blocked by appeals. The
HFRA Act became virtually noncontroversial because it didn't do away
with judicial review, which this bill will do on a certain number of
projects in each region every year.
I wish that this was a bipartisan approach, it isn't, and I cannot
support the legislation.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. McEachin).
Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the goal of forest management should be to make our
forests more resilient--more resilient to the impacts of climate
change, drought, and wildlife--but contrary to its title, H.R. 2936,
the so-called Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, does not achieve
these goals.
This bill includes exemptions from analyses required under the
National Environmental Policy Act, restricts judicial review of certain
forest management activities, amends the Equal Access to Justice Act to
limit payment of attorneys' fees, and scales back the wildlife
conservation efforts of the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Chairman, this bill desperately needs improvement, and I am
disappointed that my commonsense amendment--offered both in committee
and again to Rules, this time with my colleague, Mr. Beyer from
Virginia--is not being considered by the House.
My amendment would have struck two sections of this bill that are
designed to allow approval of timber projects without adequate
consideration of the impacts to some of the most vulnerable living
creatures on Earth: those listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act.
The first offending section would put the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service on a 90-day shot clock to complete consultations required under
section 7 of the ESA. Such a provision is both unnecessary and deeply
harmful.
The second section my amendment would have struck is designed to
prevent ESA consultation from happening altogether when FWS lists a new
species or designates critical habitat for a listed species. This
simply defies logic.
Getting ESA consultation right--and ensuring that it happens in the
first place--is a small price to pay for preserving irreplaceable parts
of our natural heritage.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2936 attacks responsible forest management policy
and promotes commercial logging at the expense of sound environmental
review.
Instead of giving gifts to special interests, Congress should be
addressing the effects of climate change, working to reduce the risk of
wildfire, and fixing the wildfire budget.
Mr. Chairman, this bill takes us many steps in the wrong direction,
and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock), who has sat through 2 years of
discussions of the ideas from the Forest Service in creating this bill.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, 45 years ago, Congress enacted laws,
such as the National Environmental Policy Act, that promised to improve
the health of our forests. They imposed what have become endlessly
time-consuming and, ultimately, cost-prohibitive restrictions on our
ability to properly manage our national forests so that we can match
the tree density with the ability of the land to support it.
I think after 45 years of experience with these laws, we are entitled
to ask: How are our forests doing? The answer is damning. Our forests
are now catastrophically overgrown, often carrying four times the
number of trees that the land can support. In this stressed and
weakened condition, our forests are easy prey for drought, disease,
pestilence, and fire.
There is an old adage that excess timber comes out of the forest one
way or the other--it is either carried out or it burns out. When we
carried it out, we had resilient, healthy forests and a thriving
economy, as excess timber was sold and harvested before it could choke
our forests to death. In the years since then, we have seen an 80
percent decline in timber sales from our Federal lands and a
concomitant increase in acreage destroyed by forest fire. I would
remind my friend from Oregon that timber sales used to generate us
money, not cost us money.
The direct revenues and spin-off commerce generated by these sales
provided a stream of revenues that we could then use to improve our
national forests and share with the local communities affected.
The Resilient Federal Forests Act begins to move us back towards
sound and scientific forest management practices. It requires forest
managers to consider the cost of no action alternatives; it streamlines
fire and disease prevention programs and ensures that fire-killed
timber can be quickly removed to create both revenues and room to
restore fire-damaged lands; it ends the practice of raiding prevention
funds to fight fires; it streamlines onerous environmental review
processes without sacrificing environmental protection; and it provides
our forest managers with alternatives to resolve frivolous lawsuits.
Provisions that streamline the environmental reviews were already
signed into law last year for the Tahoe Basin, and the Forest Service
regional manager told me that is going to take their revenue processes
from 800 pages down to 40 pages and allow them to get their forest
there back to a sustainable level.
We made some very big mistakes 45 years ago, and our forests have
paid the price. This bill starts the long process of correcting those
mistakes and recovering our national forests, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record two letters, one from the South
Tahoe Public Utility District, and the second from the Public Lands
Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, in support of
H.R. 2936.
June 22, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Raul Grijalva,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva: As
entities responsible for delivering sustainable water supply
and renewable hydropower for millions of citizens throughout
the western U.S., we are writing in support of H.R. 2936, the
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. National Forest lands
are the largest single source of water in the U.S. and in
some regions of the west contribute nearly 50% of the overall
water supply that supports our farms and cities. The current,
unhealthy state of these forests, which contain some of the
nation's most valuable watersheds, increases the threat of
catastrophic wildfires. These high intensity wildfires
jeopardize the reliability, volume and quality of water for
tens of millions of

[[Page H8337]]

Americans, along with the wildlife, recreational, and multi-
purpose value of these lands.
The H.R. 2936 supports collaborative forest management,
streamlines the environmental review process, addresses the
unsustainable practice of fire borrowing, and includes an
innovative arbitration process. We believe it is critical
that both forest management reforms and resolution of the
``fire borrowing'' issue are addressed in any legislation to
ensure on-the-ground forest restoration activities can
proceed at the pace and scale of the problem.
We appreciate your leadership on this important issue and
urge prompt passage of H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal
Forests Act of 2017.
Sincerely,
National Water Resources Association.
Utah Water Users Association.
Association of California Water Agencies.
Placer County Water Agency.
South Tahoe Public Utility District.
____

June 27, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
Hon. Raul Grijalva,
Ranking Member, House Natural Resources Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva: The
Public Lands Council (PLC) and the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association (NCBA) strongly support H.R. 2936, the Resilient
Federal Forests Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Bruce
Westerman (R-Ark.). PLC is the only national organization
dedicated solely to representing the roughly 22,000 ranchers
who operate on federal lands. NCBA is the beef industry's
largest and oldest national marketing and trade association,
representing American cattlemen and women who provide much of
the nation's supply of food and own or manage a large portion
of America's private property.
The Resilient Federal Forests Act will expedite
environmental reviews and assessments for the removal of dead
trees and set deadlines for reforestation projects to occur.
Such changes ensure forests are no longer neglected and
establish a healthier management pattern. Further, this
legislation discourages frivolous litigation by requiring
litigants who oppose a management project to come to the
table with an alternative, rather than just tying up agency
time and resources in court. The bill provides an incentive
for collaborative efforts between local governments, local
stakeholders and federal land management agencies. Finally,
the legislation prevents ``fire borrowing'' and stops federal
agencies from raiding accounts necessary for proper forest
and range management.
The severe mismanagement of federally-owned forests and
rangelands, due to outdated environmental laws and
regulations along with the abuse of the legal system by
radical special interest groups, creates devastating economic
hardship and danger for our members and rural communities
across the west. The livestock industry and rural economies
will spend decades attempting to recover from millions of
dollars' worth of infrastructure damage and forage loss that
have been the result of catastrophic wildfires in recent
years, not to mention the loss of valuable wildlife habitats.
It is scientifically proven that proper timber management
and rangeland management through grazing is the key to
maintaining healthy forests and preventing catastrophic
wildfires. However, according to the BLM, livestock grazing
has been reduced on BLM lands by as much as 50 percent since
1971, while the timber industry has been all but destroyed
over the last 30 years, due almost entirely to federal laws
and regulations and predatory environmental groups.
Restrictions have allowed the accumulation of fuel,
increasing risk of wildfires and leading to harm of forest
ecosystems and western communities--the watershed, wildlife,
air quality, rural communities and the taxpayers are all
negatively impacted.
PLC and NCBA believe that H.R. 2936 is a positive step
forward to returning management flexibility and fiscal
responsibility to the federal land management agencies. PLC
and NCBA appreciate the opportunity to provide our input on
behalf of our members--the nation's food and fiber producers.
H.R. 2936 is proactive, common sense legislation, and we
would encourage the committee to pass the bill out of
committee without delay.
Sincerely,
Dave Eliason,
President, Public Lands Council.
Craig Uden,
President, National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this bill that we are debating today has been touted as
Congress' solution to the longstanding issue of fire borrowing that has
plagued the Forest Service.
I represent a district that has experienced a lot of wildfire.
Thankfully, the recent devastating fires in the North Bay were not
caused by this fire-borrowing issue. They did not involve Federal
public lands. However, I have had a lot of wildfire in my district over
the years, and fire borrowing is a top priority for me. Unfortunately,
as it is currently written, this bill introduces more problems than
solutions on this issue. Let me explain.
The title in the bill pertaining to fire borrowing repurposes the
Stafford Act, which Congress enacted to provide assistance to State and
local governments in case of emergencies. This requires Congress to
appropriate the 10-year average for wildfire suppression before the
Forest Service can access emergency funds. That is not the way to solve
this problem. In fact, I saw that just yesterday the administration
issued a SAP because of this problematic provision.
If Congress is serious about fixing the budget issue, we should be
making funds available ahead of an emergency situation, and we should
remove the cost of fighting catastrophic fires from the agency's base
budget. That will enable them to invest in proactive measures to make
our forests more resilient and healthy.
Although the Rules Committee added title XI to this bill, which
increased the overall cap for disaster spending, the problems with
using the Stafford Act approach still remain.
The second point. This bill, essentially, is a gutting of
environmental protections and an attack on sustainable forest
management that threatens equal access to justice. We should just call
it what it is.
Title I of this bill allows intensive logging projects of 10,000 to
30,000 acres each. That is as big as the entire city of San Francisco.
Projects of that size can proceed on Federal public lands without any
environmental review under NEPA, without any compliance with the
Endangered Species Act.
Title II of the bill eliminates the requirement that the Forest
Service consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and, essentially,
let's the Forest Service decide for itself if it wants to follow the
Endangered Species Act consultation requirements regarding any of its
projects on public lands.
Title III further chokes judicial review by prohibiting the recovery
of attorneys' fees for any challenges to forest management activity
under the Equal Access to Justice Act, including meritorious successful
challenges. This severely limits public review of logging projects on
Federal public lands.
How would any of these measures promote forest health? It wouldn't.
So let's call this bill what it is. It is an environmental wrecking
ball that weakens standards and protections, limits public
participation in the review of Federal agency actions, and won't make
our forests any healthier or safer.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a
colloquy with the chairman to seek a clarification on the applicability
of the provisions in title I and title II of this bill to national
forest lands.
As my colleagues know, the State of California has been on fire. We
have all seen the devastation across the State, ranging from the Sierra
Nevada to the Bay area, and even the wine country. Even today, CalFire
and Forest Service personnel remain deployed on fires across the State.
Ensuring that the Forest Service returns to active management of our
forests is critical to promoting forest health and helping reduce the
risks and likeliness of catastrophic wildfires that we have seen
already this year.
The Resilient Federal Forests Act includes what I believe to be
critically important reforms to forest management, such as expedited
environmental reviews and availability of categorical exclusion for
forest management activities, to help achieve these needed goals.
In California, there are six national monuments managed by the Forest
Service or jointly between the Forest Service and BLM. Oftentimes,
management activities in these areas are highly restricted, which only
leads to hazardous fuels buildup and increased risk

[[Page H8338]]

of catastrophic fires. We see the results every year in the West.
H.R. 2936 clearly identifies certain national forest lands that these
provisions do not apply to. This includes wilderness areas, national or
State inventoried roadless areas, or areas where timber harvesting is
prohibited by statute.
However, it is my belief that provisions of this bill, Mr. Chairman--
based on the definition of National Forest System lands in the bill--
apply to all other Forest Service lands not explicitly prohibited in
the bill.
Respectfully, I would like to clarify with the chairman that it is
his intent that provisions in title I and title II of H.R. 2936 apply
to all other Federal lands managed by the United States Forest Service.
This includes national monuments managed by the Forest Service.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his work on this critical
bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from
California for his work on forestry issues and understand the
importance this bill has to forestry management in his state.
It is my intent, and I believe the intent of my colleagues, that all
provisions of H.R. 2936, including title I and title II, unless
explicitly excluded, apply to national monuments and all other lands
managed by the United States Forest Service.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on both sides.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Williams). The gentleman from Arizona has 3
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Arkansas, Mr.
Westerman, for his hard work on the Resilient Federal Forests Act.
I would like to be able to submit that if you actually care about
helping our forests, if you care about our watersheds, if you care
about wildlife habitat, if you care about outdoor recreation, if you
care about responsible job development, if you care about being able to
provide funding for our schools, this is a piece of legislation to be
able to try and achieve a win-win-win, literally, for our communities.
We have seen 7 million acres, Mr. Chairman, burn in the West in 2017
alone. We have seen our forests devastated. We have seen over half of
the budget of the Forest Service being used to fight forest fires.
Is there a better way?
The better way can be found in this piece of legislation, to be able
to not only address what we must address, in terms of fighting forest
fires when they break out, but also to be able to have a responsible,
proactive management forest to be able to make sure that we are
creating healthy forests.
Mr. Chairman, as I travel throughout my district, I am now looking at
forests that my great-grandchildren will not see as I saw them as a
young boy growing up. It is time that we actually have legislation that
doesn't just be reactive to the problem that we face when it comes to
forest management but be proactive. This legislation will achieve that
goal.
And, again, I applaud Mr. Westerman and the Committee on Natural
Resources for their hard work on this.

{time} 1615

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As we have talked about H.R. 2936, this is something that has been
before two previous Congresses and went nowhere; and as a consequence,
we continue to not confront the issue of appropriate and necessary
funding for the Forest Service to conduct wildfire suppression. That is
the gap in this. This flawed attempt to try to fix the funding issue
does not.
In fact, Congress has provided appropriate tools to conduct
restoration, reduce hazardous fuels, and restore ecological balance on
national forest and public lands.
Congress should fix the wildfire budget--that is the issue--not use
this as leverage to subsidize the timber industry and also overturn
essential environmental laws.
This legislation has an attack on NEPA, has an attack on the
Endangered Species Act, has an attack on judicial review and access to
justice, has an attack on the Antiquities Act, and continues the
process of fire borrowing.
H.R. 2936 is not about forest health or reducing wildfire risk. It is
intended to make it easier to advance commercial logging and sales on
our national forests and public lands.
A flawed attempt to fix the wildfire funding problem, it does nothing
to change the anti-environmental provisions in the underlying bill.
We have a serious issue, validated because of all the studies that
have been done, including GAO, which found that climate change is a
contributor, scientists have found that climate change is a
contributor. That is not discussed because that is a hoax, my
Republican colleagues say, created by the Chinese. So we will not talk
about climate change as a major factor, which it is, to the increasing
intensity and length of wildfires across our public lands and across
private and State lands as well.
This legislation is about undermining environmental law. It does
nothing about the funding necessary to fight wildfires in this country.
It does nothing about involving the stakeholders in proactive
restoration and reducing the threat of wildfire in this country.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2936, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at how critical people
have been about the experts of the Forest Service, as if people don't
realize that these provisions in Mr. Westerman's bill weren't coming
out of thin air. Somebody told us the tools they need to deal with
this.
Mr. Chair, may I also add, there are still other issues which we will
work out when we get to the Senate on these, some that Mr. Gohmert
presented. We will still work on those issues.
Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the author of this bill, the only Member on
the floor who has a degree in forestry.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Bishop for his tireless
efforts to see our government do better on our Federal lands.
Mr. Chairman, I recently made a trip out to Montana to visit some of
our National Forests and the rural communities they border. These
forests, much like many areas across our country, have been mismanaged
for decades, and the ones that have not already been destroyed are ripe
to be devastated by insects, disease, or catastrophic wildfire, not
because of some action taken by the Forest Service, but just the
opposite. Because of no actions, our forests are overstocked,
underutilized, and unhealthy.
We have seen nearly 9 million acres of forest, an area larger than
the State of Maryland, go up in flames just this year, spewing tens of
millions of tons of carbon and thick smoke into the atmosphere.
Don't get me wrong. 32,000 full-time Forest Service personnel are
busy and working hard trying to manage the 193 million acres of
timberland across our great country, but they are spinning their wheels
and making very little progress.
Mr. Chairman, that is a forest the size of Texas and South Carolina
combined. According to scientists at the Forest Service, 80 million
acres of that, an area the size of the State of New Mexico, is in a
condition that is subject to catastrophic wildfire.
These fires are not only creating a forest health crisis, they are a
public health crisis. They kill trees, they kill wildlife and
livestock. These fires not only kill livelihoods, they create
unbearable health concerns and living conditions with their thick smoke
and ash. On top of all that, they are killing people.
It shouldn't be this way and it doesn't have to be this way.
This bill simply allows sound, scientifically-based forestry
practices, like the ones I learned at Yale's Forestry School, to be
implemented on our Federal forests. It will result in cleaner air,
cleaner water, better wildlife habitat, better recreational
opportunities, more plant and animal biodiversity, stronger economies,
and fewer fires, resulting in lower fire costs.

[[Page H8339]]

As we traveled through the beautiful countryside of Montana, I saw
the symbol of our Nation perched majestically atop a tree by the bank
of a clear and flowing stream. This bald eagle reminded me of a fable
by Aesop that described our situation today. It goes like this:
An eagle was soaring through the sky, when suddenly it heard the whiz
of an arrow and it felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered
down to the Earth, with its lifeblood pouring out of it. Looking down
upon the arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the haft
of the arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes.

``Alas!'' it cried, as it died, ``We often give our enemies
the means for our own destruction.''

Mr. Chairman, our enemies aren't our colleagues across the aisle.
Many support this bill and some are cosponsors. Our enemies are not
environmental extremists that are impeding science and causing some
people to love our trees to death. Our enemy is not even the United
States Senate.

Mr. Chairman, our enemy is catastrophic wildfire that destroys our
forests. Our enemies are insects and diseases that kill our trees, and
we are feathering their arrows with inaction. We are feathering their
arrows with bureaucratic red tape. We are feathering their arrows with
poor policy that are killing our forests, killing our communities, and
killing us every day.
How much longer will we stand by and do nothing?
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get behind this
bill, pass it out of the House, and join me in relentlessly encouraging
the Senate to take action.
Our forests, our rural communities, our environment, and all those
areas, urban and rural alike, that are breathing the smoke and ash of
our once magnificent forests need us to act.
Every day that we delay, the problem gets worse and the enemies of
the forest are gaining ground. Please join me in this fight and pass
this bill.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters. The first is from
eight groups, including the Archery Trade Association; the second is
from the National Association of State Foresters, both in support of
H.R. 2936.

June 26, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Raul Grijalva,
Ranking Democrat, House Natural Resources Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Cong. Grijalva: Our organizations
which represent millions of hunters, anglers, recreational
shooters and other conservationists express our strong
support for H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of
2017. We respectfully urge you to take expeditious Committee
action on H.R. 2936, which if enacted, will improve the
health of our federal forests and reduce costly wildfires.
Our nation's federal lands play a vital role in maintaining
healthy forests that are resilient to threats at a landscape
level from fire, pests, disease and insects. Through
incentives and expedited process, consistent with informed
science, the bill will help ensure that timber harvest and
the creation of young forest habitat for wildlife remains
viable on US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) lands. Additionally, it remedies the budget
fire-funding problem (borrowing from other line items) that
our country faces when fighting catastrophic wildfires.
Our organizations much appreciate that the fire-funding
problem is addressed in HR 2936. While most catastrophic
fires occur in the western United States, this is a national
problem because the funds for every national forest and
public land unit are affected. This remedy will prevent the
USFS and BLM from having to borrow from other appropriated
budget line-items (for example, wildfire prevention,
wildlife, recreation and water quality) to pay for the cost
of catastrophic fire suppression, which cost now consumes
over 50% of the USFS budget. We respectfully urge the
Committee to further protect the USFS budget by capping the
10-year average of catastrophic fire costs at its current
level. The USFS uses this 10-year average to build their
budget request for the President. The 10-year average
continues to rise and unless it is capped it will continue to
erode other important budget line items such as wildlife,
water quality, fire prevention and recreation as the USFS
constructs its budget request.
All forest management plans are conducted with public
input, and all projects undergo National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) analysis. The bill's use of the Categorical
Exclusion (CE) under the NEPA rules from the Council on
Environmental Quality, will allow routine projects with known
effects to be implemented more efficiently and cost-
effectively to achieve the forest's desired future condition,
as outlined in the forest management plan. Certain forest
management treatments previously analyzed under NEPA in order
to deal with issues such as pests and disease, hazardous
fuels, critical habitats for threatened or endangered
species, salvage facilitation, and water quality, do not need
re-analysis on each similar project. These projects are
routine, reoccurring activities with known effects, already
fully analyzed and therefore qualify for CEs from repeated
analysis.
We also appreciate the increase in acreage ceilings for the
statutorily endorsed CEs. Early successional stage forest
habitat, for instance, cannot be just incidental to be
effective in providing habitat for deer, ruffed grouse, elk,
wild turkey, neo-tropical migratory songbirds and other
species which are dependent on this habitat type. While an
acreage ceiling is an easy metric to measure success, the
desired forest future condition should really determine the
size of the management activity. Additionally, as stated in
the bill, all CEs must avoid sensitive areas and must be
consistent with standards and guidelines in approved Forest
Plans.
Our organizations appreciate changes made to make more
prominent in federal statute the states' authority to manage
fish and wildlife on USFS and BLM lands. Nothing in the bill
language is intended to change any existing federal, state or
tribal authority. It simply makes more evident the state-
federal jurisdictional relationship which Congress has
affirmed. Federal-state cooperation in this arena is
compelled because the USFS and BLM own the land and thus the
habitat, and the state fish and wildlife agencies manage the
fish and wildlife. Robust cooperation will provide that both
land/habitat objectives and fish and wildlife population
objectives are met.
Additionally, our groups support the proposed common-sense
amendments to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). First, the
bill overturns the Cottonwood decision, which directs that if
additional critical habitat is designated under an approved
forest plan or resource management plan, a section 7
programmatic re-consultation of the entire forest plan needs
to be done. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the
Obama Administration argued that the section 7 consultation
needs only to be done on the portion of the project covering
the additionally designated acreage of critical habitat. This
remedy will greatly reduce the debilitating process that the
federal court decision directs. Second, the bill affirms that
no ESA section 7 consultation is required if the USFS or BLM
determine during informal consultation that the proposed
action is ``not likely to adversely affect a species or
designated critical habitat'', which is already USFWS policy.
And third, if any consultation on a categorical exclusion
established by the bill is not concluded after 90 days, the
action shall be considered to have not violated section
7(a)(2) of the ESA.
We also support the bill's provisions expediting large
scale restoration after catastrophic wildfires. We likewise
support the prohibition on restraining orders and preliminary
injunctions. It is imperative that we work to restore
wildfire-impacted lands for the ecological health of the
immediate area and surrounding landscape, protection of the
watershed, and economic vitality of the local communities.
Our organizations further appreciate the process relief
provided to National Forest Plans and potentially Resources
Management Plans developed by collaborative deliberation. It
is appropriate that a collaborative-developed plan, which
often takes years to deliberate and conclude, be subject to
only two options under NEPA, proceed or not proceed. It is
very reasonable to assume that the collaboratively
deliberated process has examined and rejected the other
options, and only the action or no action alternatives need
be analyzed.
The bill's establishment of a pilot binding arbitration
process as an alternative to litigation in each Forest
Service Region is certainly welcomed. Not only is the cost of
defending the land management plan a burden on the agencies,
but the planned for management work on the ground is lost,
perhaps never to be resurrected on that site. We find much
merit in this improved approach as an alternative to the
proposal in H.R. 2647 from the last Congress, and commend
Cong. Westerman and the Committee for settling on this.
Uninformed litigation has led to federal forest management by
the federal courts; we need to return forest management to
the federal and state professionals with public input as
provided for by the established processes.
H.R. 2936 makes significant improvements to and would
expedite the process that governs approval of the USFS and
BLM management plans. We urge that your Committee
expeditiously report this bill from the Committee to the
House floor. We look forward to continuing to work with you
to move this bill quickly through the legislative process.
Thank you for your consideration of our community's
perspectives.
Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, (Boone and Crockett Club, Catch-a-Dream Foundation,
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Conservation Force,
Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports, Delta
Waterfowl, Houston Safari Club, Mule Deer Foundation,
National Association of Forest Service Retirees, National
Rifle Association.
National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Wild Turkey
Federation, Professional Outfitters and Guides Association,
Public

[[Page H8340]]

Lands Foundation, Quality Deer Management Association, Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club
International, Whitetails Unlimited, Wild Sheep Foundation,
Wildlife Forever, Wildlife Management Institute, Wildlife
Mississippi.
____

National Association of

State Foresters,

Washington, DC, June 13, 2017.
Chairman Rob Bishop,
House Natural Resources Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Raul M. Grijalva,
House Natural Resources Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva: The
National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is pleased to
provide comments on the Resilient Federal Forests Act of
2017. NASF represents the heads of state forestry agencies in
all fifty states, the District of Columbia and the US
Territories. Through the development of comprehensive State
Forest Action Plans our members maintain a broad view of the
full set of forestry ownerships within their authority,
including federally owned forest lands. For citizens of the
United States to realize a full set of forest related
benefits, federal lands need to provide a complete and
balanced set of environmental, economic and social values.
In February of 2016 our organization adopted a formal
position on desired reforms to federal land management
policy. Suggestions are organized around:
Reforms that would allow federal lands to develop a more
balanced set of social, environmental and economic benefits;
Reforms that would lower the costs of agency
administration, planning, regulatory compliance and
litigation, and
Reforms that would enable vegetation management to be
carried out at a scope, scale and pace sufficient to create
more sustainable and resilient landscape conditions.
We feel this bill would indeed create the end results our
members support as our members want to see more active
management of federal forest lands. Expedited planning and
analysis, prompt response to catastrophic events, alternative
dispute resolution, greater collaboration and less costly
litigation are all outcomes that for which we strongly
advocate. In addition, we're encouraged to see some desired
modification to Good Neighbor Authority allowing road repair
to be part of cooperative projects, as well as support for
giving the land management agencies the opportunity to make
their own determinations of endangered species jeopardy or
adverse effects. Finally, NASF appreciates that this
discussion draft recognizes the need to solve the wildfire
suppression funding issue. We look forward to working with
the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands and
Congressman Bruce Westerman to ensure that a solution
addresses both fire borrowing and the erosion of the Forest
Service's budget over-time due to increasing wildfire
suppression costs.
We recently provided comments on federal land management
reform to the House Natural Resources Committee's
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. One additional
suggestion we made there and would repeat here is to
``Require that National Forest Management Plans specifically
address how they support State Forest Action Plans. In
addition, encourage regular consultation with State Foresters
by National Forest System leadership to ensure their annual
programs of work are dovetailed where appropriate.''
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We would be
happy to answer any questions or provide any additional
information that might be of assistance.
Sincerely,

Bill Crapser,

Wyoming State Forester,
President of the National Association of State Foresters.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chair, I voted for last Congress' version of this
bill, one of 19 Democrats to do so. It wasn't perfect, but the bill was
step in the right direction. I hoped the Senate would improve it and we
would finally make needed changes forest management and fix ``fire
borrowing.'' But the Senate never acted on it, or on any other forest
management bill.
In the 113th Congress, I worked with Reps. Schrader and Walden and
crafted a bipartisan bill to create a long-term solution to properly
manage statutorily unique forestlands in Western Oregon. It would have
devoted nearly 1.3 million acres for sustainable timber production for
local mills, created thousands of private sector jobs, and provided
much-needed revenue for our rural counties. The legislation was
included in a larger bill which passed the House in September 2014.
Again, the Senate failed to act.
Like last Congress, there are provisions in this bill I support.
However, there are provisions that I cannot support. For example, the
bill doubles the amount of acres exempt from nearly all environmental
analysis for projects up to 10,000 acres, and in some cases 30,000
acres, nearly 47 square miles.
I agree there is a need to need to increase the pace and size of
forest restoration projects. But the Forest Service and BLM already
have many tools to accomplish more management objectives. What they
need is funding to complete projects. In fact, Forest Service NEPA
experts have initiated a comprehensive review to determine
opportunities, already allowed under law, to increase efficiencies and
management tools to expedite environmental review, including proposing
new categorical exclusions.
It's true that in some cases the Forest Service and BLM don't use
authority they have because of legitimate concerns about the threat of
litigation and the accompanying expenses it incurs. But it is
disingenuous for us to claim that this bill, or any forest management
bill, is a miraculous fix to harvest more timber, improve forest
restoration, or reduce fuels to reduce the threat of catastrophic
wildfires, without Congress providing funding to do so. In fact,
according to the Forest Service, in Oregon there are over 1.8 million
acres of treatment projects that are ``shovel ready,'' meaning all
environmental analysis has been completed. But they stay on the shelf,
because the Forest Service doesn't have the funds to complete them.
We've all seen the destruction from this year's severe fire season.
Homes and businesses were destroyed, and dozens of lives were lost in
Northern California. In my district, over 300,000 acres burned. The
Forest Service says that nationally there are now more than 44 million
homes are within the Wildland Urban Interface, at high risk of burning
in a wildfire.
In 2004, Congress passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act, which if properly implemented would go a long way to
reduce the threat of wildfires in our communities. It authorized up to
20 million acres to be treated to remove hazard fuels in the Wildland
and Urban Interface, as well as protect municipal water supplies from
catastrophic wildfires. We authorized $760 million annually to perform
the work. So far, thirteen years later, only 2.5 million acres have
been treated.
Why is that? We have never come close to appropriating enough funding
to get the job done. In Fiscal Year 2017, Congress appropriated $390
million for hazardous fuels reduction.
As always, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to improve forest management and help our rural communities
get back on their feet. But it must be balanced approach.
Unfortunately, this bill is not a balanced approach.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
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 115-36. 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. 2936

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 2017''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Rule of application for National Forest System lands and public
lands.

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

Subtitle A--Analysis of Proposed Collaborative Forest Management
Activities

Sec. 101. Analysis of only two alternatives (action versus no action)
in proposed collaborative forest management activities.

Subtitle B--Categorical Exclusions

Sec. 111. Categorical exclusion to expedite certain critical response
actions.
Sec. 112. Categorical exclusion to expedite salvage operations in
response to catastrophic events.
Sec. 113. Categorical exclusion to meet forest plan goals for early
successional forests.
Sec. 114. Categorical exclusion for road side projects.
Sec. 115. Categorical exclusion to improve or restore National Forest
System Lands or public land or reduce the risk of
wildfire.

Subtitle C--General Provisions for Forest Management Activities

Sec. 121. Compliance with forest plans.
Sec. 122. Consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act.

[[Page H8341]]

Sec. 123. Consultation under the Endangered Species Act.
Sec. 124. Forest management activities considered non-discretionary
actions.

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.

TITLE III--FOREST MANAGEMENT LITIGATION

Subtitle A--General Litigation Provisions

Sec. 301. No attorney fees for forest management activity challenges.
Sec. 302. Injunctive relief.

Subtitle B--Forest Management Activity Arbitration Pilot Program

Sec. 311. Use of arbitration instead of litigation to address
challenges to forest management activities.

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.
Sec. 405. Treatment as supplemental funding.

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.
Sec. 505. Fire liability provision.
Sec. 506. Extension of stewardship contracting maximum term limits.

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.
Sec. 703. Tribal forest management demonstration project.
Sec. 704. Rule of application.

TITLE VIII-- EXPEDITING INTERAGENCY CONSULTATION

Subtitle A--Forest Plans Not Considered Major Federal Actions

Sec. 801. Forest plans not considered major Federal actions.

Subtitle B--Agency Consultation

Sec. 811. Consultation under Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974.
Sec. 812. Consultation under Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976.

TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS

Subtitle A--Forest Management Provisions

Sec. 901. Clarification of existing categorical exclusion authority
related to insect and disease infestation.
Sec. 902. Revision of alternate consultation agreement regulations.
Sec. 903. Revision of extraordinary circumstances regulations.
Sec. 904. Conditions on Forest Service road decommissioning.
Sec. 905. Prohibition on application of Eastside Screens requirements
on National Forest System lands.
Sec. 906. Use of site-specific forest plan amendments for certain
projects and activities.
Sec. 907. Knutson-Vandenberg Act modifications.
Sec. 908. Application of Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage
Mitigation Measure Standard and Guidelines.
Sec. 909. Reconstruction and repair included in good neighbor
agreements.
Sec. 910. Logging and mechanized operations.

Subtitle B--Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands and Coos Bay
Wagon Road Grant Lands

Sec. 911. Amendments to the Act of August 28, 1937.
Sec. 912. Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands and Coos Bay Wagon
Road Grant lands permanent rights of access.
Sec. 913. Management of Bureau of Land Management lands in Western
Oregon.

Subtitle C--Timber Innovation

Sec. 921. Definitions.
Sec. 922. Clarification of research and development program for wood
building construction.

TITLE X--MAJOR DISASTER FOR WILDFIRE ON FEDERAL LAND

Sec. 1001. Wildfire on Federal lands.
Sec. 1002. Declaration of a major disaster for wildfire on Federal
lands.
Sec. 1003. Prohibition on transfers.

TITLE XI--DISASTER RELIEF AND WILDFIRE ADJUSTMENT

Sec. 1101. Increase in maximum adjustment to accommodate wildfire
funding.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In titles I through IX:
(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) 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 forest management 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)).
(3) Community wildfire protection plan.--The term
``community wildfire protection plan'' has the meaning given
that term in section 101 of the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511).
(4) 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).
(5) 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 consistent with the forest plan covering the
lands.
(6) 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).
(7) 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, as
determined by the Secretary concerned.
(8) 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)).
(9) 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).
(10) Public lands.--The term ``public lands'' has the
meaning given that term in section 103 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702), except
that the term includes Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands and
Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands.
(11) Reforestation activity.--The term ``reforestation
activity'' means a project or forest management 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 impacted lands.
(12) Resource advisory committee.--The term ``resource
advisory committee'' has the meaning given that term in
section 201 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7121).
(13) Salvage operation.--The term ``salvage operation''
means a forest management activity and restoration activities
carried out in response to a catastrophic event where the
primary purpose is--
(A) 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) to provide an opportunity for utilization of forest
materials damaged as a result of the catastrophic event; or
(C) 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.
(14) 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.

[[Page H8342]]

SEC. 3. RULE OF APPLICATION FOR NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS
AND PUBLIC LANDS.

Unless specifically provided by a provision of titles I
through IX, 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 a national or State-specific
inventoried roadless area established by the Secretary of
Agriculture through regulation, unless--
(A) the forest management activity to be carried out under
such authority is consistent with the forest plan applicable
to the area; or
(B) the Secretary concerned determines the activity is
allowed under the applicable roadless rule governing such
lands; or
(3) on which timber harvesting for any purpose is
prohibited by Federal statute.

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

Subtitle A--Analysis of Proposed Collaborative 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 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4332) for a forest management activity that--
(1) is developed through a collaborative process;
(2) is proposed by a resource advisory committee;
(3) will occur on lands identified by the Secretary
concerned as suitable for timber production;
(4) will occur on lands designated by the Secretary (or
designee thereof) pursuant to section 602(b) of the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591a(b)),
notwithstanding whether such forest management activity is
initiated prior to September 30, 2018; or
(5) 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.
(2) The alternative of no action.
(c) Elements of No Action Alternative.--In the case of the
alternative of no action, the Secretary concerned shall
consider whether to evaluate--
(1) the effect of no action on--
(A) forest health;
(B) habitat diversity;
(C) wildfire potential;
(D) insect and disease potential; and
(E) timber production; 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 supply in the project area;
(B) wildlife habitat loss; and
(C) other economic and social factors.

Subtitle B--Categorical Exclusions

SEC. 111. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO EXPEDITE CERTAIN CRITICAL
RESPONSE ACTIONS.

(a) Categorical Exclusion Established.--Forest management
activities described in subsection (b) are a category of
actions hereby designated as being categorically excluded
from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement under section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
(b) Forest Management Activities Designated for Categorical
Exclusion.--The forest management activities designated under
this section for a categorical exclusion are forest
management activities carried out by the Secretary concerned
on National Forest System lands or public lands where the
primary purpose of such 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;
(6) produce timber; or
(7) any combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs
(1) through (6).
(c) Availability of Categorical Exclusion.--On and after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
concerned may use the categorical exclusion established under
subsection (a) in accordance with this section.
(d) 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 established
under subsection (a) may not contain treatment units
exceeding a total of 10,000 acres.
(2) Larger areas authorized.--A forest management activity
covered by the categorical exclusion established under
subsection (a) may contain treatment units exceeding a total
of 10,000 acres but not more than a total of 30,000 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. 112. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO EXPEDITE SALVAGE
OPERATIONS IN RESPONSE TO CATASTROPHIC EVENTS.

(a) Categorical Exclusion Established.--Salvage operations
carried out by the Secretary concerned on National Forest
System lands or public lands are a category of actions hereby
designated as being categorically excluded from the
preparation of an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement under section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
(b) Availability of Categorical Exclusion.--On and after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
concerned may use the categorical exclusion established under
subsection (a) in accordance with this section.
(c) Acreage Limitation.--A salvage operation covered by the
categorical exclusion established under subsection (a) may
not contain treatment units exceeding a total of 10,000
acres.
(d) Additional Requirements.--
(1) Stream buffers.--A salvage operation covered by the
categorical exclusion established under 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.
(2) 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 established under subsection (a).

SEC. 113. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO MEET FOREST PLAN GOALS FOR
EARLY SUCCESSIONAL FORESTS.

(a) Categorical Exclusion Established.--Forest management
activities described in subsection (b) are a category of
actions hereby designated as being categorically excluded
from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement under section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
(b) Forest Management Activities Designated for Categorical
Exclusion.--The forest management activities designated under
this section for a categorical exclusion are forest
management activities carried out by the Secretary concerned
on National Forest System lands or public lands where the
primary purpose of such activity is to modify, improve,
enhance, or create early successional forests for wildlife
habitat improvement and other purposes, consistent with the
applicable forest plan.
(c) Availability of Categorical Exclusion.--On and after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
concerned may use the categorical exclusion established under
subsection (a) in accordance with this section.
(d) 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.
(e) Acreage Limitations.--A forest management activity
covered by the categorical exclusion established under
subsection (a) may not contain treatment units exceeding a
total of 10,000 acres.

SEC. 114. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FOR ROAD SIDE PROJECTS.

(a) Categorical Exclusion Established.--Projects carried
out by the Secretary concerned to remove hazard trees or to
salvage timber for purposes of the protection of public
health or safety, water supply, or public infrastructure are
a category of actions hereby designated as being
categorically excluded from the preparation of an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement
under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
(b) Availability of Categorical Exclusion.--On and after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
concerned may use the categorical exclusion established under
subsection (a) in accordance with this section.
(c) Healthy Forests Restoration Act Requirements.--
(1) Administrative review.--A project that is categorically
excluded under this section shall be subject to the
requirements of subsections (d), (e), and (f) of section 603
of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C.
6591).
(2) Hazardous fuel reduction on federal land.--A project
that is categorically excluded under this section shall be
subject to the requirements of sections 102, 104, 105, and
106 of title I of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(16 U.S.C. 6511 et seq.).

SEC. 115. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO IMPROVE OR RESTORE
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS OR PUBLIC LAND OR
REDUCE THE RISK OF WILDFIRE.

[[Page H8343]]

(2) Activities authorized.--The follow activities may be
carried out pursuant to the categorical exclusion established
under subsection (a):
(A) 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.
(B) Performance of hazardous fuels management.
(C) Creation of fuel and fire breaks.
(D) Modification of existing fences in order to distribute
livestock and help improve wildlife habitat.
(E) Installation of erosion control devices.
(F) 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.
(G) Performance of soil treatments, native and non-native
seeding, and planting of and transplanting sagebrush, grass,
forb, shrub, and other species.
(H) 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.
(c) Availability of Categorical Exclusion.--On and after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
concerned may use the categorical exclusion established under
subsection (a) in accordance with this section.
(d) Acreage Limitations.--A forest management activity
covered by the categorical exclusion established under
subsection (a) may not exceed 10,000 acres.
(e) 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.

Subtitle C--General Provisions for Forest Management Activities

SEC. 121. COMPLIANCE WITH FOREST PLANS.

A forest management activity carried out pursuant to this
Act 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.

SEC. 122. CONSULTATION UNDER THE NATIONAL HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ACT.

(a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned shall each
develop, in consultation with relevant consulting parties, a
programmatic agreement or other appropriate program
alternative pursuant to section 800.14 of title 36, Code of
Federal Regulations, or successor regulation, for expediting
reviews under section 306108 of title 54, United States Code,
for forest management activities carried out pursuant to this
Act.
(b) Requirement.--A programmatic agreement or other program
alternative developed under subsection (a) shall incorporate
the concepts of phased identification and evaluation set
forth in section 800.4(b)(2) of title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations, or successor regulation.

SEC. 123. CONSULTATION UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

(a) No Consultation if Action Not Likely To Adversely
Affect a Listed Species or Designated Critical Habitat.--With
respect to a forest management activity carried out pursuant
to this Act, consultation under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536) shall not be required if
the Secretary concerned determines that the such forest
management activity is not likely to adversely affect a
listed species or designated critical habitat.
(b) Expedited Consultation.--
(1) In general.--With respect to a forest management
activity carried out pursuant to this Act, consultation
required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536) shall be concluded within the 90-day
period beginning on the date on which such consultation was
requested by the Secretary concerned.
(2) No conclusion.--In the case of a consultation described
in paragraph (1) that is not concluded within the 90-day
period, the forest management activity for which such
consultation was initiated--
(A) shall be considered to have not violated section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2));
and
(B) may be carried out.

SEC. 124. FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES CONSIDERED NON-
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS.

For purposes of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), a forest management activity carried
out by the Secretary concerned pursuant to this Act shall be
considered a non-discretionary action.

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, an environmental assessment
prepared by the Secretary concerned pursuant to section 102
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332) 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 60 days 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, to
the maximum extent practicable, achieve reforestation of at
least 75 percent of the impacted lands during the 5-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.

TITLE III--FOREST MANAGEMENT LITIGATION

Subtitle A--General Litigation Provisions

SEC. 301. NO ATTORNEY FEES FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY
CHALLENGES.

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 carried out pursuant to this Act.

SEC. 302. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

(a) 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 IX, 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.
(b) Time Limitations for Injunctive Relief.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) the length of any
preliminary injunctive relief and stays pending appeal that
applies to any agency action as part of a forest management
activity under titles I through IX, shall not exceed 60 days.
(2) Renewal.--
(A) In general.--A court of competent jurisdiction may
issue one or more renewals of any preliminary injunction, or
stay pending appeal, granted under paragraph (1).
(B) Updates.--In each renewal of an injunction in an
action, the parties to the action shall present the court
with updated information on the status of the authorized
forest management activity.

Subtitle B--Forest Management Activity Arbitration Pilot Program

SEC. 311. USE OF ARBITRATION INSTEAD OF LITIGATION TO ADDRESS
CHALLENGES TO FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.

(a) Discretionary Arbitration Process Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture, with respect
to National Forest System lands, and the Secretary of the
Interior, with respect to public lands, shall each establish
a discretionary arbitration pilot program as an alternative
dispute resolution process in lieu of judicial review for the
activities described in paragraph (2).
(2) Activities described.--The Secretary concerned, at the
sole discretion of the Secretary, may designate objections or
protests to forest management activities for arbitration
under the arbitration pilot program established under
paragraph (1).
(3) Maximum amount of arbitrations.--Under the arbitration
pilot program, the Secretary concerned may not arbitrate more
than 10 objections or protests to forest management
activities in a fiscal year in--

[[Page H8344]]

(A) each Forest Service Region; and
(B) each State Region of the Bureau of Land Management.
(4) Determining amount of arbitrations.--An objection or
protest to a forest management activity shall not be counted
towards the limitation on number of arbitrations under
paragraph (3) unless--
(A) on the date such objection or protest is designated for
arbitration, the forest management activity for which such
objection or protest is filed has not been the subject of
arbitration proceedings under the pilot program; and
(B) the arbitration proceeding has commenced with respect
to such objection or protest.
(5) Termination.--The pilot programs established pursuant
to paragraph (1) shall terminate on the date that is 7 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Intervening Parties.--
(1) Requirements.--Any person that submitted a public
comment on the forest management activity that is subject to
arbitration may intervene in the arbitration--
(A) by endorsing--
(i) the forest management activity; or
(ii) the modification proposal submitted under subparagraph
(B); or
(B) by submitting a proposal to further modify the forest
management activity.
(2) Deadline for submission.--With respect to an objection
or protest that is designated for arbitration under this
subsection (a), a request to intervene in an arbitration must
be submitted not later than the date that is 30 days after
the date on which such objection or protest was designated
for arbitration.
(3) Multiple parties.--Multiple intervening parties may
submit a joint proposal so long as each intervening party
meets the eligibility requirements of paragraph (1).
(c) Appointment of Arbitrator.--
(1) Appointment.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior shall jointly develop and publish a
list of not fewer than 20 individuals eligible to serve as
arbitrators for the pilot programs under this section.
(2) Qualifications.--In order to be eligible to serve as an
arbitrator under this subsection, an individual shall be, on
the date of the appointment of such arbitrator--
(A) certified by the American Arbitration Association; and
(B) not a registered lobbyist.
(3) Selection of arbitrator.--
(A) In general.--For each arbitration commenced under this
section, the Secretary concerned and each applicable objector
or protestor shall agree, not later than 14 days after the
agreement process is initiated, on a mutually acceptable
arbitrator from the list published under subsection.
(B) Appointment after 14-days.--In the case of an agreement
with respect to a mutually acceptable arbitrator not being
reached within the 14-day limit described in subparagraph
(A), the Secretary concerned shall appoint an arbitrator from
the list published under this subsection.
(d) Selection of Proposals.--
(1) In general.--The arbitrator appointed under subsection
(c)--
(A) may not modify any of the proposals submitted with the
objection, protest, or request to intervene; and
(B) shall select to be conducted--
(i) the forest management activity, as approved by the
Secretary; or
(ii) a proposal submitted by an objector or an intervening
party.
(2) Selection criteria.--An arbitrator shall, when
selecting a proposal, consider--
(A) whether the proposal is consistent with the applicable
forest plan, laws, and regulations;
(B) whether the proposal can be carried out by the
Secretary concerned; and
(C) the effect of each proposal on--
(i) forest health;
(ii) habitat diversity;
(iii) wildfire potential;
(iv) insect and disease potential;
(v) timber production; and
(vi) 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--

(I) domestic water costs;
(II) wildlife habitat loss; and
(III) other economic and social factors.

(e) Effect of Decision.--The decision of an arbitrator with
respect to the forest management activity--
(1) shall not be considered a major Federal action;
(2) shall be binding; and
(3) shall not be subject to judicial review, except as
provided in section 10(a) of title 9, United States Code.
(f) Deadline for Completion.--Not later than 90 days after
the date on which the arbitration is filed with respect to
the forest management activity, the arbitration process shall
be completed.

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(f) of the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of
2000 (16 U.S.C. 7124(f)) is amended to read as follows:
``(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
``2022''.
(b) 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 ``15 members'' and
inserting ``9 members''; and
(2) by striking ``5 persons'' each place it appears and
inserting ``3 persons''.
(c) 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.''.
(d) Appointment of Resource Advisory Committees by
Applicable Designee.--
(1) In general.--Section 205 of the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7125)
is further amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(or applicable
designee)'' after ``The Secretary concerned'';
(ii) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``(or applicable
designee)'' after ``the Secretary concerned''; and
(iii) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``(or applicable
designee)'' after ``the Secretary concerned'' both places it
appears;
(B) in subsection (b)(6), by inserting ``(or applicable
designee)'' after ``the Secretary concerned'';
(C) in subsection (c)--
(i) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``or Applicable
Designee'' after ``by the Secretary'';
(ii) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(or applicable
designee)'' after ``The Secretary concerned'' both places it
appears;
(iii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``(or applicable
designee)'' after ``The Secretary concerned'';
(iv) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``(or applicable
designee)'' after ``The Secretary concerned''; and
(v) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Applicable designee.--In this section, the term
`applicable designee' means--
``(A) with respect to Federal land described in section
3(7)(A), the applicable Regional Forester; and
``(B) with respect to Federal land described in section
3(7)(B), the applicable Bureau of Land Management State
Director.'';
(D) in subsection (d)(3), by inserting ``(or applicable
designee)'' after ``the Secretary concerned''; and
(E) in subsection (f)(1)--
(i) by inserting ``(or applicable designee)'' after ``the
Secretary concerned''; and
(ii) by inserting ``(or applicable designee)'' after ``of
the Secretary''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 201(3) of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000
(16 U.S.C. 7121(3)) is amended by inserting ``(or applicable
designee (as defined in section 205(c)(6)))'' after
``Secretary concerned'' both places it appears.

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.
``(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.

[[Page H8345]]

``(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, 2022.
``(2) Deposits in treasury.--Any funds available for
projects under the RAC program and not obligated by September
30, 2023, shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United
States.''.
(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) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and carry out'' after
``develop'';
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(4) 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.

(a) In General.--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.''.
(b) Continuation of Direct Payments.--Payments to States
made under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) and 25-
percent payments made to States and Territories under the
Acts of May 23, 1908, and March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 500),
shall continue to be made as direct payments.

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.--Notwithstanding section 3903(b)(1) of
title 41, United States Code, the Chief and the Director may
obligate funds in stages that are economically or
programmatically viable 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 million.--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 million, 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--
(1) 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''; and
(2) by striking the last sentence.

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''.

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).''.

SEC. 506. EXTENSION OF STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING MAXIMUM TERM
LIMITS.

(a) Health Forests Restoration Act.--Section 604(d)(3)(B)
of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C.
6591c(d)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``10 years'' and
inserting ``20 years''.
(b) National Forest Management Act.--Section 14(c) of the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a(c)) is
amended by striking ``ten years'' and inserting ``20 years''.

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 of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332)), 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.

[[Page H8346]]

(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;
(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.

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 1 year after the date on which the
Secretary received the request.
``(C) Completion.--Not later than 2 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 agree to 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;
``(E) ensure that all commercial timber removed from the
Federal forest land is sold on a competitive bid basis; and
``(F) cooperate with the appropriate State fish and
wildlife agency to achieve mutual agreement on the management
of fish and wildlife.
``(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).''.

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. 5304 et seq.).

SEC. 704. RULE OF APPLICATION.

Nothing in this title, or the amendments made by this
title, shall be construed as interfering with, diminishing,
or conflicting with the authority, jurisdiction, or
responsibility of any State to exercise primary management,
control, or regulation of fish and wildlife on land or water
within the State (including on public land) under State law.

TITLE VIII-- EXPEDITING INTERAGENCY CONSULTATION

Subtitle A--Forest Plans Not Considered Major Federal Actions

SEC. 801. FOREST PLANS NOT CONSIDERED MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONS.

The development, maintenance, amendment, and revision of a
forest plan shall not be considered a major Federal action
for purposes of section 102 of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Subtitle B--Agency Consultation

SEC. 811. CONSULTATION UNDER FOREST AND RANGELAND RENEWABLE
RESOURCES PLANNING ACT OF 1974.

(a) In General.--Section 6(d) of the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(d))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``(d) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(d) Public Participation and Consultation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) No additional consultation required after approval of
land management plans.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary shall not be required to engage in
consultation under this subsection or any other provision of
law (including section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1536) and section 402.16 of title 50, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation)) with respect to--
``(i) if a land management plan approved by the Secretary--

``(I) the listing of a species as threatened or endangered,
or a designation of critical habitat pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
``(II) whether the amount or extent of taking specified in
the incidental take statement is exceeded;

[[Page H8347]]

``(III) whether new information reveals effects of the
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in
a manner or to an extent not previously considered; or
``(IV) whether the identified action is subsequently
modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed
species or critical habitat that was not considered in the
biological opinion; or

``(ii) any provision of a land management plan adopted as
described in clause (i).
``(B) Effect of paragraph.--Nothing in this paragraph
affects any applicable requirement of the Secretary to
consult with the head of any other Federal department or
agency--
``(i) regarding any project, including a project carried
out, or proposed to be carried out, in an area designated as
critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
``(ii) with respect to the development of an amendment to a
land management plan that would result in a significant
change in the land management plan.
``(3) Land management plan considered a non-discretionary
action.--For purposes of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), a forest management activity
carried out by the Secretary concerned pursuant to this Act
shall be considered a non-discretionary action.''.
(b) Definition of Secretary; Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Definition of secretary.--Section 3(a) of the Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16
U.S.C. 1601(a)) is amended, in the first sentence of the
matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``(referred to
in this Act as the `Secretary')'' after ``Secretary of
Agriculture''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--The Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
seq.) is amended, in sections 4 through 9, 12, 13, and 15, by
striking ``Secretary of Agriculture'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Secretary''.

SEC. 812. CONSULTATION UNDER FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976.

Section 202(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(f) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(f) Public Involvement.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) No additional consultation required after approval of
land use plans.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary shall not be required to engage in
consultation under this subsection or any other provision of
law (including section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1536) and section 402.16 of title 50, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation)), with respect to--
``(i) the listing of a species as threatened or endangered,
or a designation of critical habitat, pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), if a land
use plan has been adopted by the Secretary as of the date of
listing or designation; or
``(ii) any provision of a land use plan adopted as
described in clause (i).
``(B) Effect of paragraph.--
``(i) Definition of significant change.--In this
subparagraph, the term `significant change' means a
significant change within the meaning of section 219.13(b)(3)
of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the
date of enactment of this subparagraph), except that--

``(I) any reference contained in that section to a land
management plan shall be deemed to be a reference to a land
use plan;
``(II) any reference contained in that section to the
Forest Service shall be deemed to be a reference to the
Bureau of Land Management; and
``(III) any reference contained in that section to the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-588; 90
Stat. 2949) shall be deemed to be a reference to this Act.

``(ii) Effect.--Nothing in this paragraph affects any
applicable requirement of the Secretary to consult with the
head of any other Federal department or agency--

``(I) regarding a project carried out, or proposed to be
carried out, with respect to a species listed as threatened
or endangered, or in an area designated as critical habitat,
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.); or
``(II) with respect to the development of a new land use
plan or the revision of or other significant change to an
existing land use plan.

``(3) Land use plan considered non-discretionary action.--
For purposes of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), a forest management activity carried out by
the Secretary concerned pursuant to this Act shall be
considered a non-discretionary action.''.

TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS

Subtitle A--Forest Management Provisions

SEC. 901. 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, Fire Regime IV, or
Fire Regime V''.

SEC. 902. REVISION OF ALTERNATE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT
REGULATIONS.

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this section, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Commerce shall revise section 402.13 of title 50, Code of
Federal Regulations, to--
(1) authorize Federal agencies to enter into alternative
consultation agreements under which the Federal agency may
determine if an action such agency authorizes is likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat; and
(2) if an agency determines such action will not likely
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat pursuant
to paragraph (1), not require such agency to complete a
formal consultation, informal consultation, or written
concurrence of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the
National Marine Fisheries Service with respect to such
action.

SEC. 903. REVISION OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
REGULATIONS.

(a) Determinations of Extraordinary Circumstances.--In
determining whether extraordinary circumstances related to a
proposed action preclude use of a categorical exclusion, the
Forest Service shall not be required to--
(1) consider whether a proposed action is within a
potential wilderness area;
(2) consider whether a proposed action affects a Forest
Service sensitive species;
(3) conduct an analysis under section 220.4(f) of title 36,
Code of Federal Regulations, of the proposed action's
cumulative impact (as the term is defined in section 1508.7
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations);
(4) consider a determination under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536) that a
proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect, threatened, endangered, or candidate species, or
designated critical habitats; or
(5) consider a determination under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536) that a
proposed action may affect, and is likely to adversely affect
threatened, endangered, candidate species, or designated
critical habitat if the agency is in compliance with the
applicable provisions of the biological opinion.
(b) Proposed Rulemaking.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise
section 220.6(b) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations to
conform such section with subsection (a).
(c) Additional Revision.--As part of the proposed
rulemaking described in subsection (b), the Secretary of
Agriculture shall revise section 220.5(a)(2) of title 36,
Code of Federal Regulations, to provide that the Forest
Service shall not be required to consider proposals that
would substantially alter a potential wilderness area as a
class of actions normally requiring environmental impact
statements.
(d) Additional Actions.--Not later than 120 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall issue final regulations to carry out the revisions
described in subsections (b) and (c).

SEC. 904. 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) Period Prior to Decommission.--A Forest Service road
described in subsection (a) may not be decommissioned without
the advance approval of the Regional Forester.

SEC. 905. PROHIBITION ON APPLICATION OF EASTSIDE SCREENS
REQUIREMENTS ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS.

(a) Repeal of Eastside Screens Requirements.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall immediately withdraw the 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.
(b) Effect of Repeal.--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
repealed under subsection (a).

SEC. 906. 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. 907. 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

[[Page H8348]]

``(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. 908. 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. 909. RECONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR INCLUDED IN GOOD NEIGHBOR
AGREEMENTS.

Section 8206(a)(3) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16
U.S.C. 2113a(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'';
(B) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
(C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause:
``(iii) construction, reconstruction, repair or restoration
of roads as necessary to achieve project objectives; and'';
and
(2) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `forest, rangeland, and
watershed restoration services' does not include
construction, alteration, repair or replacement of public
buildings or works.''.

SEC. 910. LOGGING AND MECHANIZED OPERATIONS.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 3 (29 U.S.C. 203)--
(A) in subsection (l), by striking ``well-being.'' and
inserting ``well-being, and that employment of employees ages
sixteen or seventeen years in a logging or mechanized
operation in an occupation that the Secretary of Labor finds
and declares to be particularly hazardous for the employment
of individuals of such ages shall not be deemed to constitute
oppressive child labor if such employee is employed by his
parent or by a person standing in the place of his parent in
a logging or mechanized operation owned or operated by such
parent or person.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(z)(1) `Logging'--
``(A) means--
``(i) the felling, skidding, yarding, loading and
processing of timber by equipment other than manually
operated chainsaws and cable skidders;
``(ii) the felling of timber in mechanized operations;
``(iii) the bucking or converting of timber into logs,
poles, ties, bolts, pulpwood, chemical wood, excelsior wood,
cordwood, fence posts, or similar products;
``(iv) the collecting, skidding, yarding, loading,
transporting and unloading of such products in connection
with logging;
``(v) the constructing, repairing and maintaining of roads
or camps used in connection with logging; the constructing,
repairing, and maintenance of machinery or equipment used in
logging; and
``(vi) other work performed in connection with logging; and
``(B) does not include the manual use of chain saws to fell
and process timber and the use of cable skidders to bring the
timber to the landing.
``(2) `Mechanized operation'--
``(A) means the felling, skidding, yarding, loading and
processing of timber by equipment other than manually
operated chainsaws and cable skidders; and
``(B) includes whole tree processors, cut-to-length
processors, stroke boom delimbers, wheeled and track feller-
bunchers, pull thru delimbers, wheeled and track forwarders,
chippers, grinders, mechanical debarkers, wheeled and track
grapple skidders, yarders, bulldozers, excavators, and log
loaders.''; and
(2) in section 13(c) (29 U.S.C. 211(c)), by adding at the
end the following:
``(8) The provisions of section 12 relating to child labor
shall apply to an employee who is 16 or 17 years old employed
in a logging or mechanized operation in an occupation that
the Secretary of Labor finds and declares to be particularly
hazardous for the employment of children ages 16 or 17,
except where such employee is employed by his parent or by a
person standing in the place of his parent in a logging or
mechanized operation owned or operated by such parent or
person.''.

Subtitle B--Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands and Coos Bay
Wagon Road Grant Lands

SEC. 911. AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1937.

The first section of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat.
874; 43 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), is amended--
(1) by striking ``principal of sustained yield'' and
inserting ``principle of sustained yield'';
(2) by striking ``facilties'' and inserting ``facilities'';
and
(3) by striking ``That timber from said lands in an
amount'' and inserting ``That timber from said lands in the
amount that is the greater of:''.

SEC. 912. OREGON AND CALIFORNIA RAILROAD GRANT LANDS AND COOS
BAY WAGON ROAD GRANT LANDS PERMANENT RIGHTS OF
ACCESS.

(a) Creation of Permanent Rights of Access Required.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on the date of
the enactment of this section, reciprocal road right-of-way
permits, grants, and agreements issued to a private landowner
by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to subpart 2812 of
part 2810 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, or its
predecessor regulation shall become permanent rights of
access that are recordable and that shall run with the land.
(b) Records Updated.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the reciprocal road right-of-
way permits, grants, and agreements described in subsection
(a) shall be amended to reflect the permanent rights of
access required under subsection (a) and recorded by the
Secretary of the Interior in each county where the lands are
located. No other amendments shall be made to such right-of-
way permits, grants, and agreements.

SEC. 913. MANAGEMENT OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS IN
WESTERN OREGON.

(a) In General.--All of the public land managed by the
Bureau of Land Management in the Northwest 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 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. 1181f et seq.).

Subtitle C--Timber Innovation

SEC. 921. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Innovative wood product.--The term ``innovative wood
product'' means a type of building component or system that
uses large panelized wood construction, including mass
timber.
(2) Mass timber.--The term ``mass timber'' includes--
(A) cross-laminated timber;
(B) nail laminated timber;
(C) glue laminated timber;
(D) laminated strand lumber; and
(E) laminated veneer lumber.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Research and Development
deputy area and the State and Private Forestry deputy area of
the Forest Service.
(4) Tall wood building.--The term ``tall wood building''
means a building designed to be--
(A) constructed with mass timber; and
(B) more than 85 feet in height.

SEC. 922. CLARIFICATION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
FOR WOOD BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct performance-
driven research and development, education, and technical
assistance for the purpose of facilitating the use of
innovative wood products in wood building construction in the
United States.
(b) Activities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) after receipt of input and guidance from, and
collaboration with, the wood products industry, conservation
organizations, and institutions of higher education, conduct
research and development, education, and technical assistance
at the Forest Products Laboratory or through the State and
Private Forestry deputy area that meets measurable
performance goals for the achievement of the priorities
described in subsection (c); and
(2) after coordination and collaboration with the wood
products industry and conservation organizations, make
competitive grants to institutions of higher education to
conduct research and development, education, and technical
assistance that meets measurable performance goals for the
achievement of the priorities described in subsection (c).
(c) Priorities.--The research and development, education,
and technical assistance conducted under subsection (a) shall
give priority to--
(1) ways to improve the commercialization of innovative
wood products;
(2) analyzing the safety of tall wood building materials;
(3) calculations by the Forest Products Laboratory of the
life cycle environmental footprint, from extraction of raw
materials through the manufacturing process, of tall wood
building construction;
(4) analyzing methods to reduce the life cycle
environmental footprint of tall wood building construction;
(5) analyzing the potential implications of the use of
innovative wood products in building construction on
wildlife; and
(6) one or more other research areas identified by the
Secretary, in consultation with conservation organizations,
institutions of higher education, and the wood products
industry.
(d) Timeframe.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
measurable performance goals for the research and
development, education, and technical assistance conducted
under subsection (a) shall be achievable within a 5-year
timeframe.

TITLE X--MAJOR DISASTER FOR WILDFIRE ON FEDERAL LAND

SEC. 1001. 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

[[Page H8349]]

(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. 1002. 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:
``(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. 1003. 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.

TITLE XI--DISASTER RELIEF AND WILDFIRE ADJUSTMENT

SEC. 1101. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM ADJUSTMENT TO ACCOMMODATE
WILDFIRE FUNDING.

Section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control of 1985 is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking subclause (I) and inserting
the following:

``(I) the average over the previous 10 years (excluding the
highest and lowest years) of the sum of--

``(aa) funding provided for disaster relief (as that term
is defined on the date immediately before the date of
enactment of the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017);
``(bb) non-emergency funding provided for wildfire
suppression and other wildfire related activities under the
`Wildland Fire Management' and `FLAME Wildfire Suppression
Reserve Fund' accounts of the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of the Interior; and
``(cc) 10 percent of the funding for disaster relief
designated as an emergency under subparagraph (A)(i); and'';
(2) in clause (ii), by striking ``the Budget Control Act of
2011'' and inserting ``the Resilient Federal Forests Act of
2017''; and
(3) by striking clause (iii) and inserting the following:
``(iii) For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term
`disaster relief' means--

``(I) activities carried out pursuant to a determination
under section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)); or
``(II) amounts made available, pursuant to a declaration
under section 802 of such Act that a major disaster for
wildfire on Federal lands exists, to the wildfire suppression
operations account established under section 803 of such
Act.''.

The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 115-
378. 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.

[[Page H8350]]

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Schrader

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 115-378.
Mr. SCHRADER. 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 13, line 6, insert ``or'' after the semicolon.
Page 13, strike line 7 (and redesignate the subsequent
paragraph accordingly).
Page 13, line 9, strike ``through (6)'' and insert
``through (5)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 595, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives
DeFazio and Panetta, for offering this amendment with me today. I think
it is one of the important changes we can make that will help improve
the Resilient Federal Forests Act.
Collaborative forest management activities and categorical exclusions
are an important tool in forest management and are designed to help the
Forest Service and BLM speed the ability of those agencies to get into
areas more quickly to improve forest health.
I believe the use of categorical exclusion should be reserved for
reducing hazardous fuel loads, addressing disease and insect
infestation, protecting water resources or increasing water yield, and
maintaining or enhancing critical habitat. That makes sense. All these
activities are very appropriate as designated activities for
categorical exclusions.
Listing timber production as a designated activity, I believe, does
not work in this context. Timber is a byproduct of all those
activities. Therefore, it is unnecessary to actually include it as a
specific designated activity.
Our amendment simply strikes timber production from the list of
designated activities for categorical exclusion under section 111. It
is a pretty clear-cut issue, in my book.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not totally opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the amendment that has
been presented by the gentleman from Oregon. I think it is a well-
thought-out amendment.
I also appreciate the comments he made, as he is trying to get us
past the rhetoric and the dogma, and to try and come up with a truly
bipartisan effort to solve the problems that the Forest Service has
clearly delineated, giving them the tools that they want to try and
solve these problems in the future.
I think the gentleman is also correct when he said that if you go
through the list of those that are going to use categorical exclusion,
you can't actually do those functions without producing timber. So, at
worst, the language that was put in here is redundant. We are still
after the same goal. We are still after the same game. That is why I
actually will accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
and urge its adoption.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the chairman and Mr.
Westerman for the bill and being congenial and good folks to work with
for a bipartisan piece of legislation we desperately need.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Khanna

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 115-378.
Mr. KHANNA. 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 27, beginning line 19, strike subtitle B.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 595, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Khanna) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 311 from the
bill. This section would create a forced arbitration program for
forestry management. This section of the bill, in my view, usurps
judicial oversight. While many agencies conduct quasi-judicial
proceedings, there are still agency actions that are appealable to the
courts.
Judicial oversight and separation of powers is a core principle of
our democracy. The arbitration would be binding, effectively making the
Secretary of Agriculture the final judge and depriving the courts of
their oversight role.
While the bill terms this as discretionary arbitration, the
discretion ultimately lies only with the Secretary of Agriculture. The
public has no discretion over whether to submit to binding arbitration
or not.
The public's right to challenge an action or inaction in court is an
important check on the executive branch. Shielding an agency from
review by independent Federal courts could harm access to justice.
The Secretary of Agriculture can designate any objection for binding
arbitration up to ten times per year in each of the nine Forest Service
regions and each of the 14 State regions.

{time} 1630

This allows the Secretary of Agriculture to effectively dismiss about
230 cases every year. According to the Department of Justice, in 2016,
the total amount of civil matters and cases brought against the United
States with an environmental or land cause of action was only 350. This
overly broad power would allow the agency to dismiss some of the most
problematic cases every year.
The process also likely violates the nondelegation doctrine. That
doctrine prohibits the exercise of constitutional authority given to
any branch of government by another branch or nongovernmental private
party.
Under the arbitration program set up by this bill, a private party
objecting to a management proposal and forced into arbitration would be
required to write their own proposal. The appointed arbitrator could
then select that private party proposal as the final plan to be carried
out by the agency. The arbitrator is not permitted to modify the
proposal, and the decision would be binding.
I understand the need to streamline the process, but I think the
forced arbitration really deprives people of their access to the
courts, and that is why, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support
the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I have to strenuously oppose this
particular amendment because it strikes one of the core provisions of
this bill.
From 1989 to 2008, there were 1,125 lawsuits filed against the Forest
Service, and hundreds have been filed since that time. Half of the
active management lawsuits of the Federal Forest Service account are
spent, and 40 percent of all Forest Service lawsuits are brought on
this specific point.
In addition to that, the Forest Service, in an effort to try and
mitigate against that, simply tries to delay the processes, which
creates a culture of analysis paralysis going through there, and at the
end they get sued anyway.
This provision is one of few creative efforts we have had that does
not impact people's access to justice, but having a binding arbitration
pilot program allows us to try and give you the merits of a lawsuit and
move forward quickly. This is creative. This is what they need.
If we need to end endless litigation, frivolous lawsuits that impede
the

[[Page H8351]]

work of our land managers and cost taxpayers millions of dollars, this
is the kind of thing that we need to start doing. The Forest Service
recognizes they need this. It is about time we recognize they need
this, too.
Mr. Chairman, keep this creative approach in the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Chairman, I think the point is not that we need to
streamline decisions, or if we have to streamline courts to get rid of
frivolous lawsuits, that would be fine, but the problem is the power
that is being vested in the Secretary of Agriculture where, if the
Secretary of Agriculture shares a view that is not sympathetic to
environmental concerns, they can basically dismiss the lawsuits of
numerous environmental plaintiffs.
I think this is really about the separation of powers. If there is
reform needed in the judiciary, those reforms should be in our courts,
but they shouldn't appropriate the power to the Secretary of
Agriculture who may have his own or her own views and not give a fair
hearing to the environmental groups.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the author of this bill.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have to realize is that
what is happening now is not working. Forest management plans are not
being implemented. Region 1, alone, of the Forest Service spent $1.23
million on the Equal Access to Justice Act, paying plaintiffs to sue
the Forest Service. That is just since January of 2016.
This is an attempt for the pilot program to do arbitration modeled
after baseball arbitration that keeps the ball moving forward. This
results in some kind of action taking place. It is not the Secretary of
Agriculture making the decision; it is one of a team of arbitrators who
are professionals who come together to work for solutions. That is what
we need in our forests, and that is why we don't need to include this
amendment in the bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, once again, I would ask our Members to
reject this particular amendment. It is a core provision, one of the
few creative efforts, and only a pilot project to try and find a
solution. It has received bipartisan support. It has received support
from a broad coalition of outside groups. Admittedly, some of those who
actively litigate and raise money and profit by it don't like this
provision, but most of the other people recognize this is something the
Forest Service can use on day one. They need this tool.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KHANNA. 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 California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. O'Halleran

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 115-378.
Mr. O'HALLERAN. 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 59, beginning line 3, strike subtitle A (and
redesignate the subsequent subtitle and sections
accordingly).
Page 66, beginning line 19, strike section 903.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 595, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Chairman, local communities that have the most at
stake when it comes to the forest in their backyards deserve their
voices to be heard. As someone who lives in a national forest and has
worked to review and provide feedback on proposed forest plans, I can
assure you that these documents that guide the direction of individual
national forests for years are, in fact, a major Federal action.
My firsthand experience is why I propose that we strike the language
of section 801 of the bill before us. Section 801 proposes that forest
plans not be considered major Federal actions under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. If this were to become law, local
input would be reduced. We should be looking for ways to increase local
buy-in, not undermine it.
In addition, section 903 proposes to modify the determination of
extraordinary circumstances so wilderness protections and the
protections of the Endangered Species Act do not have to be considered.
This is a dangerous provision and allows our bedrock environmental laws
to be ignored.
My commonsense amendment would simply remove these concerning
sections that allow bureaucrats to make major decisions without
considering all the facts. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all my colleagues
to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this is another one of the
amendments that basically guts the whole purpose of this entire bill.
There is nobody who is cut out of the process. None of the public is
cut out of the process. What is cut out is redundant, duplicative NEPA
analysis, all of which can result in litigation. It simply says you do
the process the first time. You don't have to redo it again and again
and again and admit the Forest Service to litigation again and again.
In fact, they admit 71 percent of all their lawsuits mention these
types of provisions in there.
As we said before, these provisions were not coming out of thin air.
They are coming from what the Forest Service tells us they need to do
their job, the tools they need so they can take the resources they have
and do it once the first time and get it over with and do it right and
not have to spend it on frivolous litigation.
NEPA is not taken away. The analysis is not taken away. The public is
not taken out of the system. All you are simply doing is saying you
don't have to do it repetitively, in other words, don't have to do it
redundantly. This is one to streamline it. This is what they need
desperately.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that there are
many items within the bill that do allow for the issues to be
addressed. But taking this part of the bill and understanding that,
when our national forest plans are put forward, we are part of it--I
live in the national forest. I have watched three fires outside my
front window. I have lived through watching, time and time again, the
ramifications of not addressing these issues appropriately.
I was co-chair of the Arizona Forest Health Oversight Committee for
3\1/2\ years and have been addressing forestry issues for 20 years. Mr.
Chair, I just simply believe that, when it comes to wilderness areas
and other areas of major concern, we should not disregard it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I will say once again, the tools
the Forest Service needs to do their job are harmed if these sections
do not remain in the bill. It is not talking about public input. It is
talking about redundant, unnecessary public review that goes through
there that creates unnecessary and redundant litigation. There is a
NEPA process that needs to go forward. You just don't have to do it
four and five and six times just because. We have an analysis
paralysis.
I remind you once again, we have 50 to 70 million acres that are in a
desperate, dire situation, ready to explode in catastrophic wildfire.
The Forest Service can only get to 3 million acres a year, and part of
it is the problems they have that we are trying to remove with these
specific provisions. They need these tools. If we don't give them these
tools, we exacerbate our wildfire problems. We don't need to do that.
We shouldn't do that.

[[Page H8352]]

Mr. Chairman, we need to defeat this amendment. It is essential to
defeat this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. O'HALLERAN. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cardenas

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 115-378.
Mr. CARDENAS. 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 subtitle A of title IX, add the following new
section:

SEC. 9__. STUDY ON USE OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES TO SUPPORT
WILDLAND FIRE RESPONSE AND MANAGEMENT.

(a) Study Required.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
conduct a study to evaluate--
(1) the feasibility, safety, and cost effectiveness of
using unmanned aerial vehicles for the purposes of supporting
wildland fire response and suppression and forest restoration
and management; and
(2) the effect that increased use of unmanned aerial
vehicles for such purposes will have on employment.
(b) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
of Agriculture shall consult with the heads of other Federal
agencies involved in wildfire suppression and aviation,
including the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Secretary of Transportation.
(c) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than two years after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall submit to Congress a report containing the
results of the study.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 595, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cardenas) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Chair, this year, wildfires have devastated the
American West. It has been particularly tragic in my home State of
California. Entire neighborhoods are gone, and families have been left
with nothing.
While we know that proper forest management requires burning, we need
to be able to contain wildfires that threaten communities.
This month, wildfires killed 42 people, burned over 245,000 acres,
and destroyed an estimated 8,900 structures, most of them people's
family homes, according to Cal Fire.
The fires aren't just dangerous themselves, they produce thick smoke,
toxic ash, and debris that pose long-lasting risks to our health and to
the environment.
These wildfires continue to grow in frequency and ferocity. We must
ensure that we are using all of the available tools to prevent and
contain these fires. That is why I ask that this amendment, which
promotes innovation in wildfire management, be adopted.
The amendment would require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a
study evaluating the feasibility, safety, and cost effectiveness of
using unmanned aerial vehicles, otherwise known as drones, for the
purposes of fighting wildfires. It will also study the use of drones
for forest restoration and management, which could be effective for
replanting remote areas of forest.
The Secretary of Agriculture would have to work with several other
agencies that also deal with wildfire suppression and aviation. This
amendment would require consultation with the Department of
Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure safety
for our aircraft and the pilots flying in the same airspace.
It would also assess the impact of using drones on employment in the
U.S. Innovation will take us into the future.

{time} 1645

But we need to know, eyes wide open, how this affects the employment
landscape of our communities. And that is why these studies are also
important.
The Department is required to report to Congress within 2 years of
enactment. If implemented, I look forward to seeing the results of this
study. I believe it will help add another tool to the toolkit in
protecting American lives, homes, property, businesses, wildlife, and
forests from devastating fires.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt amendment No. 4, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the
time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. As
the gentleman explained, this amendment does direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to study the use of unmanned vehicles, or drones, in the
responsible forest management wildland firefighting and fire
suppression.
Unmanned aerial vehicles are an emerging technology that should be
harnessed to benefit our Nation's forests. As a matter of fact, these
unmanned vehicles are being used extensively by the private sector to
look at their forests, to manage them, to equip them with remote-
sensing equipment so that they can cover large areas at a large time
and gather much more accurate data than you could actually do on the
ground.
By ensuring that our land management practices utilize the cutting
edge of available technology, we can ensure the prolonged health of our
managed forests, and we can actually use this as a tool to cut down on
the number of forest fires, and a better way to respond to those fires.
I hope the gentleman will support the full bill after we add this
amendment to it so that he can actually see the implementation of his
amendment in practice.
Mr. Chairman, again, I support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Chairman, I like the kind words that my colleagues
have said about this amendment, and I hope that it goes forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment is good for the
bill. I am glad that we can work in a bipartisan way to include it in
the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 115-378.
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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 77, beginning line 4, strike subsection (b) and insert
the following new subsection:
(b) Certain Exclusions.--
(1) Certain lands excluded.--Subsection (a) does not apply
to--
(A) the Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area established
under section 119 of Public Law 96-199 (43 U.S.C. 1783);
(B) lands managed under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16
U.S.C. 1271 et seq.);
(C) lands managed under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131
et seq.); and
(D) lands managed under the National Trails System Act (16
U.S.C. 1241 et seq.).
(2) Certain revenue 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. 2621-2624.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 595, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment introduced
by myself, Greg Walden, and Kurt Schrader.
Section 913 of the bill requires all public lands managed by the BLM
and

[[Page H8353]]

five western Oregon districts to be managed under the O&C California
Lands Act of 1937. These are statutorily unique lands. They are all
contained in the State of Oregon. There are 2.6 million acres in 18
Oregon western counties.
The O&C Act directs the BLM to manage those lands for multiple uses,
including sustainable timber harvest, reforestation, protection of
watersheds. As Federal lands, counties with O&C acres are unable to
collect taxes. The Federal Government realized that put a tremendous
burden on the counties, and the revenues are shared 50 percent with the
counties and 50 percent with the Federal Government. These are critical
revenues for my counties, and we have been trying to enhance management
on those lands to help both with employment and with those revenues.
Without this provision, the bill would seem to open up wilderness,
wild and scenic rivers, the national trail system, and other
statutorily protected areas. It will also protect the Yaquina Head
Outstanding Natural Area on Oregon's coast.
So I would ask--I believe that was an oversight in the drafting of
the bill since similar protections are provided on Forest Service lands
for statutorily reserved areas, and I would urge Members to support
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the
time in opposition to the amendment, although, again, I am not opposed
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and
I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon catching this and pointing it
out. It has never been the intent of this bill to affect wilderness
areas, wild and scenic rivers. I believe we do have protections in
place in the bill, but this reemphasizes that.
I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work as we worked through
the process on this bill. We had some good discussions on ideas, we
were able to agree on some of those, and some of them we didn't agree
on. But this is definitely one that we agree on needs to be in there.
Although H.R. 2936 includes the important sideboards that ensure
appropriate land management practices are implemented on federally
protected and sensitive lands, this is just putting some suspenders on
with the belt.
This amendment, offered by my colleague from Oregon, builds upon the
sideboards already included in the bill, and it ensures that special
landscapes within Oregon's O&C lands are treated similarly to other
lands that are contemplated in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support, and
I do thank him for the conversation we had about a number of concerns
that I had with the bill, and this addresses one, and the Schrader
amendment addressed another.
There are still other concerns. I am hopeful, we have twice passed
management bills out of the House, and I did support last Congress'
version introduced by the gentleman, 1 of 19 Democrats, I believe at
that time, and I am hopeful that, in discussions with the Senate, we
move back in the direction of the bill that we passed in the House 2
years ago.
However, the Senate totally stiffed us on that legislation, and I
fear that moving the bill to a number of the provisions in this bill,
which go further than in the last bill, will make it less likely that
the Senate will negotiate. But, I mean, who knows what works with the
Senate. So I wish the gentleman well in those discussions.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, I support this amendment. I,
again, want to say how much I appreciate the gentleman's work and his
passion for the forest, not only in his home State of Oregon, but
across our country.
I also want to add that, as Americans, we are very passionate about
our wilderness areas, about our wild and scenic rivers. I have some of
those in my State. And the last thing we want to do is do anything to
jeopardize those.
I believe, overall, the bill is going to be great for our forests,
but I am glad the gentleman added this amendment. He has still got time
to change his mind and support the full bill, which will be great for
Oregon and great for other States in the West.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 115-378.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the
rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 80, after line 9, insert the following new subtitle:

Subtitle D--Wildland Firefighter Recognition

SEC. 931. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management.
(2) Employee.--The term ``employee'' has the meaning given
the term in section 2105 of title 5, United States Code.
(3) Federal land management agency.--the term ``Federal
land management agency'' means--
(A) within the Department of the Interior--
(i) the Bureau of Land Management;
(ii) the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
(iii) the National Park Service; and
(iv) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and
(B) within the Department of Agriculture, the Forest
Service.
(4) Wildland fire.--The term ``wildland fire'' means any
non-structure fire that occurs in vegetation or natural
fuels, including prescribed fire and wildfire.
(5) Wildand firefighter.--The term ``wildland firefighter''
means--
(A) an employee of a Federal land management agency, the
duties of whose position are primarily to perform work
directly related to the prevention, control, suppression,
management of wildland fires, or support of wildland fire
activities; and
(B) an employee of a Federal land management agency who is
transferred to a supervisory or administrative position from
a position described in subparagraph (A).

SEC. 2. CLASSIFICATION OF WILDLAND FIREFIGHTERS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Development of occupational series required.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Director, in cooperation with the Federal land management
agencies, shall carry out a distinct wildland firefighter
occupational series that more accurately reflects the variety
of duties performed by wildland firefighters.
(2) Designation.--The official title assigned to any
occupational series established under paragraph (1) shall
include the designation of ``Wildland Firefighter''.
(3) Positions described.--Paragraph (1) shall apply with
respect to any class or other category of positions that
consists primarily or exclusively of forestry technician
positions, range technician positions, or any other positions
the duties and responsibilities of which include--
(A) significant prevention, preparedness, control,
suppression, or management activities for wildland fires; or
(B) activities necessary to meet any other emergency
incident to which assigned.
(4) Consultation.--It is the sense of Congress that the
Director should consult with employee associations and any
other groups that represent wildland firefighters in carrying
out this subsection.
(5) Implementation.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act--
(A) the Director shall complete the development of the
wildland firefighter occupational series required under
paragraph (1); and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall use the wildland firefighter occupational
series developed under paragraph (1) in the advertising and
hiring of a wildland firefighter.
(b) Hazardous Duty Differential Not Affected.--Section
5545(d)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``except in such circumstances as the Office may by
regulation prescribe; and'' and inserting the following:
``except--
``(A) with respect to an employee in an occupational series
covering positions for which the primary duties involve the
prevention, control, suppression, or management of

[[Page H8354]]

wildland fires, as determined by the Office; and
``(B) in such other circumstances as the Office may by
regulation prescribe; and''.
(c) Current Employees.--Any individual employed as a
wildland firefighter on the date on which the occupational
series established pursuant to subsection (a) takes effect
may elect to--
(1) remain in the occupational series in which the
individual is working; or
(2) be included in the wildland firefighter occupational
series established pursuant to subsection (a).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 595, the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, believe it or not, according to Federal
agencies, the wildland firefighter does not exist. That is correct.
There are men and women around this Nation who work daily to protect
our communities from the fires that devastate especially the Western
United States, but they are not allowed to call themselves
firefighters.
Instead of ``firefighter,'' the Forest Service, BLM, and other
agencies use bureaucratic terms like ``forestry technician,'' which
fails to recognize the dangers they face and the sacrifices they make
to protect others.
My amendment, which I am pleased to offer with my colleague,
Representative Mark DeSaulnier from California, represents a bill we
have both sponsored, H.R. 3907, as well; which seeks simply to
designate these brave men and women the title they have earned by
directing the Office of Personnel Management to create employee classes
designated as ``wildland firefighters.''
Mr. Chairman, 15 ``technicians'' have passed away this last year
fighting wildfires. Several of them are from California. It is
unconscionable that, while they perished fighting fires, the agencies
that employ them refuse to call them firefighters. We should take
action to rectify that failure, and I urge Members to consider our
bill, H.R. 3907, to do so.
However, Mr. Chairman, I know that there is additional work to be
done with the very bureaucracies which refuse to use the term
``firefighter'' with last-minute concerns and clarifications needed so
that the firefighters indeed don't lose benefits, and I note that we
will be back.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment from
further consideration at this time.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Pearce

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 115-378.
Mr. PEARCE. 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 75, after line 5, insert the following new section:

SEC. 910A. PILOT PROJECT FOR FOREST HEALTH, WATERSHED
IMPROVEMENT, AND HABITAT RESTORATION IN NEW
MEXICO.

(a) Pilot Project Established.--The Secretary of
Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service,
shall conduct a pilot project within the Lincoln National
Forest, Cibola National Forest, and Gila National Forest in
the State of New Mexico to analyze and demonstrate the
effectiveness of various tools and techniques to address the
following natural resource concerns:
(1) Thinning for forest health.
(2) Watershed improvement.
(3) Habitat restoration.
(b) Authorized Activities.--The Secretary of Agriculture in
carrying out the pilot project established under subsection
(a) may conduct applied silvicultural investigations and
treatments, including--
(1) silvicultural investigations conducted for the purposes
of information gathering and research relating to the natural
resource concerns described in subsection (a); and
(2) mechanical thinning.
(c) Objections to Silvicultural Investigation or
Treatment.-- The Secretary may not carry out a silvicultural
investigation or treatment under this section if a county in
which such investigation or treatment would be conducted
objects to such investigation or treatment.
(d) Environmental Assessment Under the National
Environmental Policy Act.--Forest management activities
carried out by the Secretary of Agriculture under this
section are a category of actions hereby designated as being
categorically excluded from the preparation of an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement
under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
(e) Consultation Under the Endangered Species Act.--Forest
management activities carried out by the Secretary of
Agriculture under this section shall be subject to section
123, including subsection (b) of such section.
(f) Public Participation.--The Secretary shall encourage
meaningful public participation during preparation of a
silvicultural investigation or treatment under this section.
(g) Arbitration Pilot Program Resolution.--
(1) In general.--An objection or protest to a forest
management activity carried out pursuant to this section
shall be addressed through the arbitration program
established under section 311.
(2) Limitation on number of arbitrations.--An arbitration
described in paragraph (1) shall not be counted towards the
limitation on number of arbitrations under section 311(a)(3).
(h) Termination.--The authority to carry out this section
shall terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of
the enactment of this section.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 595, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, our national forests are overgrown, and the
thinning projects which would restore them to health are delayed by
lengthy and costly regulations and litigations. In New Mexico, it takes
a look like this: the top picture is a picture of one of our national
forests, and the bottom picture is a picture from an area that has been
thinned.
Now, take, for example, the Lincoln National Forest near Ruidoso, the
Mescalero Forest is butted right up against it, so we are able to get a
good comparison.
Now, typically, the forests in the West look like this: widely spaced
trees and mostly grass in between, so when the fires came, they were
grass fires. The tree rings show us that every 8 years a fire occurred,
and it would keep the small underbrush and the small diameter trees,
the small, unhealthy ones, it would keep those burned out and our
forests, again, looked like this.
But because all of the thinning projects and all of the timber
projects have been canceled for decades now, our forests, instead, look
like this. When wildfires happen, they burn catastrophically and burn
everything in their sight.
So my amendment today simply allows the Forest Service to move
forward on balanced thinning programs in large scale. Typically, they
do all of the paperwork, all of the studies for small acreage, maybe 30
acres or 50 acres. Since the forests are about a million acres, you
would never get through and never get the forest restored to its
health, and that is the problem.
The Forest Service has been working with me on the language for this
amendment and submitted almost exact language that we have put here on
the floor today. They agree with us that they should restore the forest
to its health, but the environmental groups and the outside litigation
have stopped the programs completely.
Now, in New Mexico, this means jobs, but it also means the health of
our environment, and it means the destruction of endangered species,
because when the fires burn through, we get the effect on the next
page; again, this is that same Lincoln National Forest that we were
looking at just a second ago. This is after the Little Bear fire, which
burned 255 homes and almost 40,000 acres.
We almost lost the entire town of Ruidoso. If the fire had just
capped over the mountain, it would have burned straight down the side.
The winds were exactly the direction which would have caused that.
So the Forest Service is agreeing with us that we need to do some
thinning, and we are not going to be able to do it without legislative
language, so this amendment is being offered here today.

{time} 1700

We used to have 123 mills working in New Mexico clearing timber,
processing it. We have got vast national

[[Page H8355]]

forests, and all of those have been shut down. The spotted owl came
along in 1993, and the findings from the Fish and Wildlife Service was
that logging was the reason that the spotted owl was going extinct.
Over 20 years later, Dan Ashe, the head of Fish and Wildlife Service,
said: Oops, we made a mistake and we burned down the West, and we have
ruined our forests over a mistake. There was actually another predator
out there. We still have the problem to go in and clean up these
forests before they burn and before they look like this.
Another real problem that exists is when we burn our national
forests, then the watersheds are going to be choked up with mud, with
ash, and with everything else.
This is Bonita Lake there in that same Lincoln National Forest near
Ruidoso. It provides the drinking water for several major communities
in the southern part of the State. That lake was about 75 feet deep,
pristine water, had fish in there. It was a recreational area right in
the middle of the national forest.
The Forest Service was alarmed at how much damage was going to occur
to this lake if they didn't log above it, so they put in a project.
They were sued and work grounded to a halt. They did not get to thin
that area above the lake. A fire occurred, this fire that you just saw
in the previous slide. Now, that 75-feet-deep lake is filled with 50-
feet of mud and ash. It killed all of the fish. It is not suitable for
drinking. The community does not have the money in order to drain that
lake and to refill it.
So that is what we find in the West because of these forest
management processes. My amendment would simply allow the Forest
Service to move forward on large-scale projects. They would still have
to do all of the studies, everything. They would just be expedited.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment doubles down on the bad
ideas that are in the underlying bill. The 150,000 acre categorical
exclusion to remove timber from Gila, Lincoln, and Cibola National
Forests has the potential to do more harm than good, and cuts the
American public out of the decisionmaking process.
The Forest Service doesn't need this waiver to harvest trees in New
Mexico. Last year, the Cibola produced 12,000 metric board feet, and
Lincoln and Gila each between 5,000 and 6,000 metric board feet. These
are average production numbers across the region.
So I am not sure what problem this amendment is trying to address or
how exempting 150,000-acre projects from the environmental review helps
the Forest Service meet their mandate of protecting habitat,
watersheds, and providing recreational opportunities.
This amendment also exempts the Forest Service from the consultation
requirements and the Endangered Species Act. Logging projects
untethered from the bedrock environmental protections could potentially
impact several species which depend on these forests for habitat,
including the Mexican spotted owl and the Gila trout.
Active forest management is not a bad thing if it is done
responsibly. If NEPA and the Endangered Species Act are followed, we
get good projects, safe habitat restoration--not clear-cutting and loss
of critical habitat. Unfortunately, this amendment undermines both of
these fundamental laws and should be rejected.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, the problem we are trying to solve--the
gentleman asked the question--is that we are burning our forests down.
We are burning up the habitat. We are burning up the endangered
species. This was 40,000 acres. We had another fire in the Second
District of New Mexico that was over 300,000 acres and they burned
without regard. They burned human life. They burned animal life. They
burned habitat and they contaminate our waterways.
Those are the problems that we are trying to solve. The Forest
Service agrees with us that the restrictions are too great, and they
have worked with us on the language, understanding that they must go
through the studies, they must do the work that is required, but we can
expedite those in order to do larger-scale thinning projects.
Otherwise, we will never get the forests in the West cleared up.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a good amendment. I urge its passage,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, this amendment would not resolve the issue
that my friend from New Mexico has just brought up. The Statement of
Administrative Policy from the executive branch raises the concerns of
H.R. 2936 and of the land management reforms, which are in the
legislation.
It says: ``The administration, however, has concerns about the
legislation's revision to the Stafford Act, which would force
competition for funding between wildfires on Federal land and other
disasters already covered by the Stafford Act, including hurricanes.''
It also says that the legislation doesn't really address the issue of
fire borrowing, which is central to dealing effectively and proactively
with wildfires, both prevention, and suppression, as the resource is
needed.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the Statement of Administrative
Policy by the Trump administration. I also include another Statement of
Administrative Policy dated July 8, 2015, which is on the same
legislation, but by then-President Obama, which mirrors and reflects
the same concerns brought up by the executive branch of President
Trump.

Statement of Administration Policy

h.r. 293--resilient federal forests act of 2017--rep. westerman, r-ar,
and 18 cosponsors

The Administration strongly believes that funding for
wildland fire management must be addressed in order to enable
the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to
better manage the Nation's forests and other public lands.
The Administration's second disaster funding request,
submitted to Congress on October 4, 2017, underscored this
belief. The request also noted the Administration's belief
that land management reforms are critical to solving the
problem of ``fire borrowing''--taking funds from forest
management programs to cover fire costs that exceed
appropriations--in a comprehensive manner, rather than
through a funding-only approach.
The Administration appreciates the intent of H.R. 2936, the
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, and is supportive of
land management reforms like those outlined in the
legislation. The Administration, however, has concerns about
the legislation's revisions to the Stafford Act, which would
force competition for funding between wildfires on Federal
land and other disasters already covered by the Stafford Act,
including hurricanes.
Wildland Fire Management Funding
Last year, Federal wildfire suppression spending reached
$2.9 billion, an amount that signals clearly the need for
Congress to address the rising cost of fire suppression
operations. The dependence on ``fire borrowing'' to cover
funding shortfalls in times of severe wildfire impedes the
missions of our land management agencies, including by taking
critical funding from programs that help reduce the risk of
catastrophic fire, restore and maintain healthy functioning
ecosystems, and yield timber production.
The Administration, however, has concerns with re-purposing
the Stafford Act to address wildfires. The purpose of the
Stafford Act is to assist State, local, tribal, and
territorial (SLTT) governments that become overwhelmed when
responding to and recovering from natural disasters affecting
their jurisdictions. H.R. 2936 would modify the Stafford Act
by creating a new type of disaster declaration to address the
cost of wildfire suppression on Federal land, thereby
changing long-standing principles governing Federal support
to SLTT governments. As we have seen in this year's historic
Atlantic hurricane season, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) must continue to be focused on its existing
mission, and the Stafford Act's Disaster Relief Fund must
remain dedicated solely to that mission.
Instead of the approach outlined in H.R. 2936, the
Administration supports a separate, annual cap adjustment for
wildfire suppression operations, which will resolve concerns
about the sufficiency of funds for wildfire suppression and
avoid unnecessary competition for Stafford Act funds.
Improving Forest Management
The Administration appreciates H.R. 2936's recognition that
fixing the funding component of fire borrowing will not, on
its own, stop the worsening trend of catastrophic wildfires.
Meaningful forest management reforms to strengthen our
ability to restore the Nation's forests and improve their
resilience to destructive wildfires must be a part

[[Page H8356]]

of any permanent solution. H.R. 2936's provisions that
expedite environmental approval for proactive forest
management, including hazardous fuel reduction and post-fire
timber salvage and reforestation actions, are important steps
forward. The Administration supports and will continue to
work with Congress on the details of the forest management
reform proposals.
Although the Administration has concerns with H.R. 2936's
modifications to the Stafford Act, the Administration will
continue working with Congress to enact a sustainable
solution to ``fire borrowing'' that does not adversely affect
FEMA's critical disaster relief funding and that recognizes
the need for a comprehensive solution to the problem of
wildfires.
____

Statement of Administration Policy

h.r. 2647--resilient federal forests act of 2015--rep. westerman, r-ar,
and 13 cosponsors

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2647. The most
important step Congress can take to increase the pace and
scale of forest restoration and management of the national
forests and Department of the Interior (DOI) lands is to fix
fire suppression funding and provide additional capacity for
the Forest Service and DOI to manage the Nation's forests and
other public lands. H.R. 2647 falls short of fixing the fire
budget problem and contains other provisions that will
undermine collaborative forest restoration, environmental
safeguards, and public participation across the National
Forest System and public lands.
Wildland Fire Management Funding
The Administration appreciates that there is bipartisan
agreement that wildland fire management funding needs a
legislative fix. The reasons are clear: in fiscal year (FY)
1995, the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) spent 16 percent of its budget on firefighting. Today
the agency spends more than half of its budget on fire
management activities. This fundamentally impedes its
missions, including taking critical funding from programs
that help reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, maintain
healthy functioning ecosystems, and yield timber production.
The wildland fire funding fix in the President's FY 2016
Budget provides the necessary resources for the Forest
Service as well as DOI to address wildland fire suppression
and rehabilitation needs without resorting to detrimental
transfers from other critical forest landscape resilience
priorities. Under this fix, which includes a discretionary
budget cap adjustment, the Forest Service and DOI could tap
disaster funds once they spend 70 percent of their 10-year
average of suppression spending, which is the amount of
suppression funding requested within the discretionary budget
caps. Providing this certainty would preserve critical
resources for hazardous fuel reduction and other essential
landscape restoration projects, allowing for more acres to be
treated, and thereby reducing the risk of fire, and the
degree of fire destruction.
The Administration's proposal would immediately increase
the Forest Service's capacity to plan and execute restoration
projects--including the FY 2016 Budget projection for timber
volume sold from 2.9 billion board feet in FY 2014 to 3.2
billion board feet.
In contrast, the requirement in H.R. 2647 to fully fund the
ten-year average for wildland fire suppression would mean
that less funding is available each year in the agencies'
budgets for restoration and risk reduction programs as it is
diverted to the ever-increasing ten-year average.
Additionally, the bill repurposes the Stafford Act. The
purpose of the Stafford Act is to provide Federal assistance
to State, local, and tribal governments to alleviate disaster
suffering and facilitate recovery. This bill would instead
establish a sub-account within the Department of Homeland
Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster
Relief Fund (DRF) to provide funding for USDA and DOI to
perform wildland fire suppression operations on Federal land
when suppression funding is exhausted and the President has
issued a disaster declaration for such fires. A proposed sub-
account under the DRF should not be used to redirect DRF
resources in support of non-Stafford responsibilities or to
circumvent existing major disaster declarations processes.
Undermining Fundamental Environmental Safeguards
The Administration takes seriously the management of
Federal lands consistent with the principles of multiple-use
and sustained-yield that are fundamental to the National
Forest Management Act and the Federal Land Management and
Policy Act and in accordance with long-standing environmental
laws including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, among
others. Application of these environmental laws ensures that
management activities recognize the economic benefits of
Federal lands and the wide range of goods and services that
these lands produce.
At the President's direction, Federal agencies, like the
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, are working
diligently to promote efficiencies in the permitting and land
management process. For example, the Forest Service has
established additional categorical exclusions for restoration
work, has expanded the use of focused environmental
assessments, is using adaptive management to allow decisions
to last longer, and is better training employees to take
advantage of new efficiencies. The Forest Service is also
developing new approaches in the wake of catastrophic fires,
such as the response to the Rim Fire, which burned 257,000
acres in the summer of 2013, in which the Stanislaus National
Forest finalized its NEPA work for restoration and salvage in
one year. The Forest Service is also developing projects
across larger areas, thereby utilizing efficiencies and
providing a longer term and more certain timber supply for
local mills. For example, the Black Hills National Forest is
implementing a landscape scale approach across 200,000 acres
for treating current and future pine beetle outbreaks.
H.R. 2647 includes several provisions that will undermine
collaborative, landscape-scale forest restoration by
undermining public trust in forest management projects and by
limiting public participation in decision-making. The
Administration has substantial concerns with the design and
scale of the categorical exclusions, provisions related to
post-fire salvage and restoration (including unrealistic
timelines for environmental assessments), and unrealistic
targets for reforestation given current budgetary resources.
The Administration has serious concerns with provisions in
the bill related to the Resources Advisory Committees (RACs).
The Administration opposes provisions that limit the
discretion of RACs by requiring 50 percent of Secure Rural
Schools Act Title II funding be spent on timber management
projects. H.R. 2647 also assumes RACs can fulfill the role of
local forest collaboratives in designing forest restoration
projects, though the RACs were not specially set up to do
this and in many cases may not have the breadth of
stakeholder interest and expertise to do so effectively.
Additionally, the Administration opposes restrictions in the
bill on the membership of RACs.
Furthermore, the Administration opposes provisions in the
bill that require litigants to post a bond when challenging
forest restoration projects. As the Forest Service has
demonstrated, the best way to address concerns about
litigation is to develop restoration projects in partnership
with broad stakeholder interests through a transparent
process informed by the best available science. Lastly, the
bill should include stronger protections for ecologically
sensitive areas, tribal sacred sites, and other important
lands.
For the reasons set forth above, the Administration
strongly opposes H.R. 2647. The Administration looks forward
to continued engagement with Congress to address forest
management issues, which must begin by providing the Forest
Service and DOI with a comprehensive fix to the fire budget
problem.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rothfus). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, 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 New Mexico
will be postponed.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Williams) having assumed the chair, Mr. Rothfus, 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. 2936) 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, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________