[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 149 (Tuesday, September 24, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5673-H5704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FIX OUR FORESTS ACT
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8790.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486 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. 8790.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1421
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. 8790) 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. Fitzgerald
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 be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Porter) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8790, the Fix Our Forests
Act, a bipartisan forestry package that I am proud to lead with my good
friend and colleague from California (Mr. Peters) and which passed out
of the Natural Resources Committee earlier this year by voice vote.
This comprehensive package is the product of many months of hard work
and bipartisan collaboration. This bill was not formulated in
Washington, D.C. From field hearings in the shadow of Half Dome in
Yosemite National Park to site visits to Tribal reservations in New
Mexico, we have traveled the country to hear from experts and find
consensus on the best approaches to improve the management of our
Nation's forests.
I may be the only licensed forester in Congress, but you don't need a
forestry degree to understand that our Nation's dire forest health
crisis demands our immediate attention. This year alone, wildfires have
burned more than 7.3 million acres nationally. In the past 10 years,
wildfires in the U.S. have burned over 73 million acres, roughly the
same area as the State of Arizona.
Catastrophic wildfires are much more than just statistics. They
destroy lives. They destroy property. They degrade our air and water
quality, turn abundant wildlife habitat into moonscapes, and create
billions of dollars in economic damage.
One of the most tragic consequences of the wildfire crisis is seeing
entire communities in the path of uncontrollable megafires leveled year
after year.
The 2018 Camp fire in California destroyed the towns of Paradise and
Concow, burning over 18,000 structures and killing 85 people. In 2020,
the North Complex fire completely engulfed and demolished the towns of
Berry Creek and Feather Falls, wiping out over 2,300 structures. Just
last year, I saw firsthand the immediate aftermath of the devastating
wildfire in Maui that destroyed the historic town of Lahaina, causing
untold damages.
Behind these examples are real people who are left to pick up the
pieces and communities that will never be the same again. With over 1
billion acres at risk for wildfire across the country, we sadly know
these tragedies will persist without intervention. In fact, the Forest
Service has identified more than 70,000 communities and 44 million
homes that are at risk of experiencing a catastrophic wildfire in the
wildland-urban interface.
The good news is that we know what needs to be done. We must increase
the pace and scale of scientifically proven forest management to
restore health and resiliency to our Nation's forests.
The Fix Our Forests Act will restore forest health, increase
resiliency to catastrophic wildfires, and protect vulnerable
communities. Right now, it takes 3 to 5 years to begin work on a forest
management program. This bill simplifies and streamlines cumbersome and
costly environmental reviews so that, if enacted, land managers could
go into our forests the next day and begin the work we know needs to
happen.
H.R. 8790 empowers States, Tribal, local, and private partners to get
more work done on the ground by strengthening the Good Neighbor
Authority and Stewardship Contracting.
This bill also creates a framework for prioritizing treatments in our
most at-risk areas. By encouraging the adoption of innovative science
and technology, we can improve wildfire suppression capabilities, lower
costs, and protect communities.
The best part is that we will save a pound in cure by investing a
penny in prevention. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that
reducing the risk of wildfires will lower wildfire suppression costs,
allowing us to invest more in proactive, preventative forest
management. If you believe that money is the only thing that will fix
this problem, then you should vote for the Fix Our Forests Act because
the bill will free up financial resources to
[[Page H5674]]
invest in critical forest management work.
This is a good bill that will help us finally turn the tide against
the historic forest health crisis. I thank Members on both sides of the
aisle who have contributed their input and ideas to this bipartisan
product. I am proud to support even more bipartisan amendments offered
by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today.
They say the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best
time is today. While we can't reverse the decades of inadequate forest
management that have led us to this dire juncture, we can take a
positive step today that will ensure healthier forests and communities
for our children far into the future.
Mr. Chair, I support the bill and reserve the balance of my time.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, September 3, 2024.
Hon. Bruce Westerman,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 8790, the ``Fix Our Forests
Act''. Thank you for collaborating with the Committee on
Agriculture on the matters within our jurisdiction.
The Committee on Agriculture will forego any further
consideration of this bill. However, by foregoing
consideration at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction
over any subject matter contained in this or similar
legislation. The Committee on Agriculture also reserves the
right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of
conferees should it become necessary and ask that you support
such a request.
We would appreciate a response to this letter confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 8790 and request a
copy of our letters on this matter be published in the
Congressional Record during Floor consideration.
Sincerely,
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, September 11, 2024.
Hon. Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 8790, the ``Fix
Our Forests Act,'' which was ordered reported by the
Committee on Natural Resources on June 26, 2024.
I recognize that the bill contains provisions that fall
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture and
appreciate your willingness to forgo any further
consideration of this bill. I acknowledge that the Committee
on Agriculture will not formally consider H.R. 8790 and agree
that the inaction of your Committee with respect to the bill
does not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter
contained therein.
I am pleased to support your request to name members of the
Committee on Agriculture to any conference committee to
consider such provisions. I will ensure that our exchange of
letters is included in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration of the bill. I appreciate you cooperation
regarding this legislation.
Sincerely,
Bruce Westerman,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 10, 2024.
Hon. Bruce Westerman,
Chair, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Westerman: H.R. 8790, the ``Fix Our Forests
Act'', was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural
Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology.
H.R. 8790 contains provisions within the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology's Rule X jurisdiction. As a
result of your having consulted with the Committee and to
expedite this bill for floor consideration, the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology will forego action on the
bill. This is being done based on our mutual understanding
that doing so will in no way diminish or alter the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology with respect to the appointment of conferees, or
to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters
contained in the bill or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming
this understanding, and would request that you include a copy
of this letter and your response in the committee report or
in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of
this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Frank D. Lucas,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2024.
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 8790, the ``Fix
Our Forests Act,'' which was ordered reported by the
Committee on Natural Resources on June 26, 2024.
I recognize that the bill contains provisions that fall
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology and appreciate your willingness to forgo any
further consideration of this bill. I acknowledge that the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will not formally
consider H.R. 8790 and agree that the inaction of your
Committee with respect to the bill does not waive any
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained therein.
I will ensure that our exchange of letters is included in
the committee report and the Congressional Record during
floor consideration of the bill. I appreciate your
cooperation regarding this legislation.
Sincerely,
Bruce Westerman,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, I rise in opposition to this bill, the so-called Fix Our
Forests Act.
This bill is anything but a fix for our forests, and it threatens to
intensify not just the wildfire crisis but also the biodiversity and
climate crises.
We appreciate the focus and leadership that Chair Westerman has shown
on these issues, and it is clear to me and so many others that our
forests are a genuine passion of his. Unfortunately, this bill
completely misses the mark and has the potential to do serious damage.
Last Congress, Democrats delivered. We secured more than $15 billion
in historic investments through the infrastructure law and the
Inflation Reduction Act to help keep communities safe, restore healthy
ecosystems, and promote healthy and sustainable forest management
techniques.
We provided resources for the Forest Service so they could treat a
record-breaking number of acres without gutting environmental
protections. We provided planning resources for at-risk communities. We
provided more than $1 billion for staffing and resources in our
permitting offices, funds that have already shortened project timelines
by an average of 6 months. In addition, we supported better pay and
benefits for wildland firefighters, an issue that I personally and
consistently championed.
{time} 1430
It is critical that our Federal land management agencies and their
partners have the resources and staff capacity that is required to
promote resilient forests and safe communities.
It is shocking that most House Republicans voted against those two
successful, popular laws: the Inflation Reduction Act and the
bipartisan infrastructure law. It is also shocking that right at the
moment when a lot of those investments are close to needing
reauthorization, the majority is turning its back once again, and it is
in stark contrast with the bill today.
That is not for lack of trying on our side, but unfortunately, our
Republican counterparts in the House Committee on Natural Resources
have refused to work with committee Democrats on changes to the most
egregious sections of this bill.
I was optimistic at seeing several amendments filed by Democrats that
highlight the missing pieces of this legislation. These included an
effort to consider climate change in the bill, add authorizations for
much-needed funding throughout an otherwise unfunded bill, and to rid
this bill of the unprecedented and dangerous sections that strip
Americans of access to the courts under the guise of litigation reform.
Of course, these amendments were not ruled in order, supposedly due
to Republican floor rules and procedure, rules and procedures that
apparently apply only selectively because this bill has a slew of
violations throughout, including numerous violations of the CutGo rules
that are allegedly so important to the far-right Freedom Caucus.
I hope those Freedom Caucus members know what they are being asked to
vote for. What is in this bill that is so important that CutGo no
longer applies? Well, the heart and soul of this bill is a longstanding
Republican wish list of priorities that undermine science-based
management decisions, bedrock environmental protections, and
opportunities for community input.
The so-called Fix Our Forests Act inappropriately stretches the
credulity of
[[Page H5675]]
NEPA's emergency authorities. It undercuts the popular and bipartisan
Endangered Species Act and even makes it more difficult for communities
to challenge proposed projects in their own backyards.
The climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis, and the safety of our
communities all converge in our Nation's forests. Unfettered
backcountry logging is not the answer. We need to support communities,
not silence them.
Do you know what else is not in this bill? Unlike the fire response
laws that Democrats passed last Congress, there is nothing here about
firefighter pay. What kind of fire response bill doesn't include pay
for our firefighters in it? Are you kidding me?
H.R. 8790 sets a dangerous precedent. The climate crisis is now. The
wildfire crisis is now. We shouldn't be wasting our time on rushed
bills with no real solutions.
Many of the Republican initiatives here have already stalled in the
2025 farm bill process. A better strategy to address the wildfire
crisis would be to work across jurisdictional boundaries and with our
Senate colleagues to find true consensus.
We should be passing regular appropriation bills this week so that
agencies like FEMA and the Forest Service have the resources they need
and are not scrambling at the end of the fiscal year to find ways to
fulfill their existing mandates, let alone the new and unfunded ones in
this bill.
This is a live issue, by the way. The chief of the Forest Service has
warned us explicitly that they are facing budget shortfalls due to
Republican-led appropriations bills. In fact, just on Friday, the
Forest Service announced that it had to halt 2025 seasonal hires amid
the budget crunch.
We also need to work on providing relief and support for the
communities that have been devastated by wildfire instead of trying to
have Federal agencies undertake extensive management projects in their
backyard without any true consent.
We should be passing legislation that pays our Federal wildland
firefighters and gives them the benefits that they deserve, another
major priority that this bill fails to advance.
The Forest Service is already stretched dangerously thin, and Federal
firefighters are chronically underpaid. If we genuinely want to protect
our communities and environment from devastating wildfires, we must
prioritize people, ecosystems, and the economy. This bill fails to do
each of those things.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, as I stated earlier, if forest health was about spending
more money, then we would have the healthiest forests we have ever had,
as my friends across the aisle interjected $12 billion into the Forest
Service budget through the IRA and the IIJA, but their own goal of
managing 6 million acres a year is going down--not going up but going
down. It shows us that money is not the problem.
On the subject of firefighter pay, I think we can agree that our
firefighters need higher pay. That is why, in the appropriations bill
on the Interior, we had an increase in firefighter pay. There was only
one Democrat who voted for that bill on the House floor.
Republicans have voted to increase the pay for firefighters, but
again, it is not about money. If it was about money, then my colleagues
would support this bill because the CBO has said this bill would
actually save money. If we are not spending all this money fighting
forest fires, we will be saving money coming out of the Treasury that
we can spend on proactive things, like management.
Again, it is about the policy. This is good policy. It is bipartisan
policy. We have worked hard to try to make it that.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse), the chairman of the Western Caucus.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Westerman for yielding me time
to debate on this very important issue and bill.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Fix Our Forests Act. As chairman
of the Congressional Western Caucus, I can tell you that wildfire risk
remains top of mind as States across the West are ravaged by wildfires
year after year.
In fact, as we heard, just this year alone, over 7 million acres have
burned due to out-of-control fires, and get this: Fire season is not
over yet. We are already above our 10-year average of acres affected,
with fires burning larger and hotter than ever before.
We need proactive forest management now, and the Fix Our Forests Act
will help us achieve that goal. This bipartisan effort will enable
desperately needed active forest management by expediting permitting
reviews and limiting senseless lawsuits from extreme environmentalists.
With more proactive forest management, we can prevent the risk of
fires raging out of control and save our communities from devastating
damage.
Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) for
his leadership on this legislation. I am very proud to support this
victory for rural Western America.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, bad process leads to bad policy. Unfortunately, the
process for this bill has been a chaotic mess from the start.
We never had a hearing on an introduced bill, just the discussion
draft, and that is despite, or maybe because of, the longstanding
administration policy of not spending limited time and resources
testifying on draft bills.
We raced to markup without testimony from the Department of the
Interior. The administration nevertheless went above and beyond and
provided extensive technical assistance and edits from both the
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service.
I am not talking about policy differences here. I am talking about
serious concerns with the bill not making sense. Unfortunately, the
sponsor ignored those red flags.
Let me give you an example. The bill sets a timeline based on when a
categorical exclusion is published in the Federal Register. I would
like to make a point that was brought to our attention by the Forest
Service itself: Categorical exclusions are not published in the Federal
Register.
That is how sloppy the drafting is in this bill, and the process
defects have continued.
This bill has numerous violations of the Freedom Caucus' floor
protocols requiring offsets for authorized spending. I guess the CutGo
protocols are out the window now.
It is convenient that, as of this morning, we still don't have a
score from the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, on the bill. Maybe
the Freedom Caucus just isn't aware of the problem.
The cherry on top? Republicans accidentally made in order an
amendment drafted so badly that it would strike out the bill entirely
and replace it with a noncontroversial bill that Democrats support.
Republicans had to come to Democrats this morning to ask for our help
in fixing that mistake.
I will end where it started: Bad process leads to bad policy.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms.
Lee).
Ms. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chair, I am not sure how familiar everyone is
with the committee proceedings on this legislation, but just in case, I
want to offer a little refresher.
This is not the first time that I have spoken out on the majority's
either inability or outright refusal to do what is right by our
Nation's firefighters.
In August 2023, my friend and colleague, Representative Joe Neguse,
who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands,
introduced the Wildland Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act of 2023.
This bipartisan legislation would permanently fix the pay cliff that
our firefighters, our hometown heroes who are actually out there fixing
our forests, are facing at the end of this week.
We have known about this pay cliff for well over a year, but here we
are, nearing the end of 2024, and the majority has still failed to
enact a permanent fix. There is certainly not one in this bill, the Fix
Our Forests Act.
Right now, the Wildland Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act of 2023
has over two dozen champions on both sides of the aisle, evenly divided
by Democrats and Republicans, myself included. Yet, all we have to
show for this is yet another temporary fix in this week's CR, with
Republican leadership once again stringing along these
[[Page H5676]]
men and women in uniform for another few months without a permanent
solution.
As appropriators on both sides of the aisle have emphasized, these
temporary patches end up costing taxpayers more than simply locking in
a permanent pay fix. Strangely, this all comes after the House
Republicans actually did vote for a permanent fix, as the chairman has
stated.
Let me clear this up: It was part of the fiscal year 2025 Interior
appropriations bill, which stands no chance of making it to the
President's desk because of the majority's insistence on including over
80 poison pill policy riders to appease partisan extremists. If they
were serious, they would have dropped these partisan riders.
Now, in spite of the bipartisan support for both the Wildland
Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act and my own amendment to this bill
to achieve the same goal, the majority is now claiming that that
permanent pay fix is somehow not germane to the Fix Our Forests Act.
I ask, again, who exactly are the people on the front lines doing the
work of fixing our forests? Answer: Our wildland firefighters.
Men and women are being paid less than a living wage in one of the
wealthiest countries in the world to literally jump out of planes and
contain fires before they burn down our homes and businesses.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Nevada.
Ms. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chair, instead, we are going to slap a Band-
Aid on this and revisit the pay issue after another congressional
recess, which just got longer.
Meanwhile, these firefighters will hold their breath for another
torturous 3 months, or even worse, they will get fed up and walk off
the job, and our country will be less safe as a result.
What is happening is not just wrong, but it is nonsensical. We have
firefighters risking their lives, needing a fix, with Republicans and
Democrats both supporting a fix. Either a standalone bill or an
amendment to this bill would provide that permanent fix, yet we don't
have one. No more excuses.
{time} 1445
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, you know, I hate to spend time in debate
laying out how the procedures of the House work, but, number one, the
majority doesn't determine what is germane. The Parliamentarian
determines what is germane.
Number two, wildland firefighters actually support our bill. We gave
our friends across the aisle an opportunity to vote for a pay increase
for wildland firefighters that is in an appropriations bill. This is an
authorization bill. It is not an appropriations bill. They chose to
vote against the increased pay in the appropriations bill, but again,
we are working on an authorization bill, and it does meet House floor
protocol.
There is not a CutGo because we are not cutting. Actually, the only
thing we are cutting are expenses to the Federal Government.
I just wanted to clarify those few things.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Duarte).
Mr. DUARTE. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Westerman for yielding, and I
rise in support of the Fix Our Forests Act.
As someone who farms on the edge of the forest in California, I can
tell you, bad policies coming out of Washington and Sacramento,
exacerbated by frivolous litigation, have led to failed outcomes in
Federal forest management. There is no doubt about it: This is
abandonment of one of our natural resources.
As we see with government-imposed droughts in California, laws and
regulations are being twisted to block forest management and timber
harvesting in our national forests, which peaked in the 1980s, but
steadily declined and have not recovered. This has been exacerbated by
the designation of over 111 million acres of preservation wilderness
areas that severely limit access, ban timber harvests, and make even
firefighting difficult in our forests.
This resource abandonment is also hurting our communities. Countless
jobs are lost, and insurance companies are seeking to cancel policies
and refusing to even provide fire insurance coverage in areas of
California because of the risk of out-of-control forest fires.
These fires also devalue our national forest habitat and watersheds.
For example, we are now learning that some of these fires burn so hot
that they may be changing the soil chemistry to create cancer-causing
hexavalent chromium. That is the Erin Brockovich compound. This raises
serious concerns about the toxic chemical getting into our groundwater
when runoff from burn areas occurs.
That raises another serious concern: sedimentation of our rivers.
When our forests burn, debris washes off the Sierra Nevadas and settles
into our waterways, silting up our rivers, streams, and reservoirs and
hurts fish species. This increases flood risks and decreases our
ability to store water.
These fires also release millions of tons of pollution into the air
that we breathe that can cause respiratory issues.
This resource abandonment is hurting Californians, which is
unacceptable, and that is why I am proud to support the Fix Our Forests
Act.
This commonsense legislation will make necessary reforms to expedite
forest management projects and reduce frivolous lawsuits designed to
slow or block action. This bill will help protect our forests, the
environment, and will create jobs, and I urge my colleagues to support
this bill.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, this year, wildfires have already burned over
7 million acres of forests and over 1,000 homes and other structures.
Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to evacuate, often
with just minutes to pack their most important belongings, not knowing
if they will ever return to their homes.
Many have done all the right things to protect their property, but
because of the magnitude of the wildfire crisis, they cannot get
insurance for their homes. Every day of fire season feels like they are
gambling with everything they own.
After decades of mismanagement and misguided fire suppression
tactics, there is now a scientific consensus on the solution: active
forest management, State, local, Federal, and Tribal collaboration; and
continued research and development on next-generation technologies and
solutions.
The problem is that forest management projects like clearing dead
trees and dry vegetation that fuel fires often require multiyear
environmental reviews followed by years of litigation in many cases.
While we wait for analysis, forests burn down, air pollution worsens,
and the threats posed by climate change to our local communities are
exacerbated.
Places like Jimtown, Montana, know the consequences of inaction,
where the Forest Service proposed treating at-risk land near people's
homes. They conducted a comprehensive environmental review, and they
gained community support. Then an outside group decided that they knew
better than the experts and the Forest Service and the residents, and
they sued. They claimed the NEPA analysis did not do enough to study
the impact on a particular bird of prey, the goshawk--not that they
didn't study it, but they didn't study it enough. Locals pleaded with
the group to drop that lawsuit, but the group decided to go through
with the appeal anyway.
A hearing was set for October of 2003, but unfortunately, in July of
2003, the exact type of fire the Forest Service warned about burned
down that forest. The fire caused evacuations, took out power to a
nearby community, and cost over $1 million to suppress.
When the case was finally heard 2 years later, the Ninth Circuit
ruled in the Forest Service's favor and found the reviews were
sufficient.
That is the problem. The community and its needs were ignored. The
community wasn't helped. It was ignored. Lives, homes, and businesses
were all needlessly put in harm's way. The goshawks' habitat was
destroyed.
The Fix Our Forests Act that I cosponsored with Mr. Westerman is a
[[Page H5677]]
comprehensive bill to simplify and expedite the most critical forest
management projects while maintaining strong environmental standards.
It will reduce the threat of litigation that delays these projects,
and it adds new opportunities for communities to engage early in the
process. It also creates new programs to protect homes and communities
from fires and makes it easier for them to access Federal assistance.
This is a bipartisan bill with cosponsors from both sides of the
aisle, and it passed out of the committee by a voice vote. It is
endorsed by the wildland firefighters, who we all agree, it seems to
me, deserve a raise, and we should make that happen.
I worked with groups like The Nature Conservancy and the
Environmental Defense Fund, and others to write this bill. The Nature
Conservancy has decided to stay neutral on the bill because of one
provision they find problematic. To Chair Westerman's credit, he
accepted The Nature Conservancy's other edits. The Nature Conservancy
has the luxury of staying neutral as an outside group, but we all need
in this body to decide where we stand.
I have spoken with colleagues on my side of the aisle, Democrats, who
tell me that they will oppose the bill, although they agree with 18 out
of 22 things in the text. Compromise is about accepting the 4 things
you don't like so you can get the 18 things you do like. Mr. Westerman
has worked with me and other Democratic offices to adopt Democratic
amendments to improve the legislation.
We don't have the time to wait for perfect. Every day we wait, more
land burns down. Let's get this bill passed and provide some hope for
Americans.
Mr. Chair, this Fix Our Forests Act establishes a national Fireshed
Center as the central information hub of our wildfire strategy.
I introduced an amendment with Representative Harder to clarify the
center's role, which was not made in order due to a misunderstanding
about germaneness. Our amendment would have clarified the purposes of
the center, provided it with specific direction for its implementation,
and provided safeguards for the protection of sensitive propriety
information, while ensuring representation from non-Federal entities.
I look forward to working with the gentleman, Mr. Westerman, in
conference to get these changes made.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I sincerely thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters)
for his remarks and for his partnership on this legislation. As he
mentioned, due to some procedural issues, we were not able to consider
an amendment he was offering to make improvements to the bill's
Fireshed Center. This is an effort that I support, and I regret we were
unable to get this amendment made in order.
I do look forward to working with the gentleman on incorporating the
amendment in the future discussions with the Senate.
I also thank Matt Weiner and the entire team at Megafire Action for
working with us tirelessly on this important amendment and for their
support of this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Tiffany), the subcommittee chair on Federal Lands.
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Chairman
Westerman's bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act.
This bill is the culmination of the House Committee on Natural
Resources' efforts this Congress to advance innovative solutions to
increase the pace and scale of forest management, protect vulnerable
communities from catastrophic wildfires, and restore health and
resiliency to our Nation's ailing forests and Federal lands.
Addressing the health of our forests and rangelands is not an issue
that will be solved by simply throwing more dollars at it. We need
substantive changes in our land management practices.
Undermining active forest management has caused damage to our
Nation's forests and Federal lands, and we have seen the consequences
of this mismanagement out West, resulting in year after year of bad
wildfire seasons.
We can act right now to reverse this trend, and that starts with
passing this bill.
This bill contains streamlined tools to expedite bureaucratic
environmental reviews, ending frivolous litigation that delays
important projects, expanding Good Neighbor Authority, prioritizing
high-risk forests, and a fix to the Cottonwood decision, which is
responsible for doubling the cost of some projects.
It also includes my bill, the ACRES Act, which requires land managers
to produce yearly hazardous fuels reduction reports based on the actual
number of acres that they treated, and I will note that this proposal
already passed the House with robust bipartisan support.
The provisions included in this bill will lead to better management,
which in turn, will result in better outcomes for our land managers and
our local communities with fewer wildfires and a cleaner environment.
To one of the comments, Mr. Chair, that was shared previously about
the firefighter problem we have and the danger they are being put in,
the number one thing we can do to protect firefighters' health and life
is to manage our forests.
Take a look at this chart here to my right where you see forest
management. The amount of wood that is being harvested, all from our
Federal forests, steadily declined since the 1980s.
What happened with wildfires? They increased significantly. There is
a direct correlation. Manage our forests, take timber off from it, and
we will not have these wildfires as we have seen since 1988.
I thank the chairman, Mr. Westerman, for his tireless work on this in
the Natural Resources Committee, which I sit on, and I urge passage of
this bill.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for his leadership on the subcommittee and for
his work going into this bill to make the bill better and to add some
of the things that he mentioned.
When we talk about taking timber off of the forests, we are not
talking about clear-cutting. It always gets misconstrued that we want
to clear-cut the forests. I challenge anyone to show me where the U.S.
Forest Service is clear-cutting because you won't find that. I have
asked them: Is there any place you still clear-cut? And they said: No.
What we are talking about is forest management, where we go in and we
thin out, we create growing space, we allow these trees to be
healthier, more vibrant. We allow them to have access to sunlight,
access to soil moisture and nutrients, and it gives them an opportunity
to grow. It also creates space when the fire comes through it can drop
down to the forest floor where it can easily be put out if it needs to
be put out.
Some fire is beneficial to the forest, but certainly not fire that
gets up in the crown of the trees and destroys everything in its path.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I want to briefly address a claim that we
heard earlier that this bill was written by The Nature Conservancy or
written with them. I am sure that that would come as a surprise to the
bill's author, Chairman Westerman, but moreover, we have checked with
the group, and not only did they not write it, The Nature Conservancy
says they have not even endorsed this bill.
I just want to clear that up for everyone.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Kamlager-Dove).
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R.
8790, the Fix Our Forests Act.
This bill had real potential, potential that could have been realized
if committee Democrats had been meaningfully involved in its
development.
Wildfires are a crisis that demands our collective attention across
party lines. We have seen firsthand how it devastates communities,
including in southern California where the Post fire continues to burn
in the rugged hills of East L.A.
Hot, dry, and windy conditions intensified by the climate crisis are
fueling more frequent and severe wildfires. These fires are spreading
faster, lasting longer, and growing more intense.
[[Page H5678]]
Let me be clear: While this may seem like the new normal, it is
anything but. The wildfire crisis is linked directly to the climate
crisis, and if we are serious about protecting our communities, we must
tackle both head-on.
That means reducing emissions and committing to a clean, renewable
economy, something that, sadly, this Congress under Republican
leadership refuses to address.
{time} 1500
We must also ensure that our Federal land management agencies have
the resources, personnel, and tools to promote resilient forests and
safe communities.
That is why House Democrats took bold action in the last Congress.
Through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we secured $28
billion for the Department of the Interior and $5.5 million for the
Forest Service to address wildfire management and resilience.
Let's not forget: every single Natural Resources Committee Republican
voted ``no.'' Then came the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided an
additional $2.5 billion for ecosystem resilience and $500 million for
wildfire workforce needs. Once again, Republicans opposed these
critical investments.
Thanks to these historic actions, the Biden-Harris administration has
made significant progress. The national wildfire strategy is delivering
record-breaking restoration efforts to strengthen our landscapes and
keep communities safe.
We also established the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management
Commission, which released 148 consensus recommendations. I am pleased
to see that the Fix Our Forests Act incorporates several of these
recommendations.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. In fact, Mr. Chair, we support 18 of the 22
sections of the bill. However, without additional changes, the bill
includes harmful provisions that go beyond what the wildfire commission
recommended.
Despite 148 opportunities for consensus, my colleagues across the
aisle couldn't resist undermining our bedrock environmental protections
like NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic
Preservation Act.
This is unnecessary because the evidence is clear: the Forest Service
has achieved record-breaking results in reducing wildfire risks, thanks
to the investments Democrats made last Congress over Republican
opposition.
Instead of weakening vital environmental laws, we should focus on
building on the progress we have already made.
The wildfire crisis is, and should be, a bipartisan priority.
Democrats stand ready to work together on consensus-based solutions
that provide our land management agencies with the tools they need.
Unfortunately, H.R. 8790 is not that solution.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, if the minority truly were concerned about carbon in the
atmosphere, their number one priority would be to keep forests healthy,
to keep massive amounts of carbon dioxide from going up in wildfires,
and to keep dead and decaying wood from being digested by
microorganisms and being released as methane into the atmosphere.
If we want to make less carbon in the atmosphere and if we want to
keep it in the trees, then we should utilize the greatest carbon
capture and sequestration device ever known to man, and that is a tree.
It is on a wide scale a low-cost and economical way to capture and
sequester carbon. However, when we let our forests become subject to
bug and infestation attacks and to catastrophic wildfire, then we are
going in the opposite direction.
If somebody wants to make the argument that we need healthy forests
for a better climate, then they should vote for this bill because that
is what this bill would do.
Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Bentz).
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chair Westerman for the work he has
done in creating the Fix Our Forests Act.
The path to solving any problem starts with an understanding of
scale. The Western United States has millions upon millions of acres of
trees, over 85 million acres of forests on the West Coast alone. In my
State of Oregon, there are 30 million acres; Washington, 22.5 million;
and California, 33 million. There are 85 million acres of forest,
132,000 square miles, an area bigger than New Mexico.
Now, it is not a problem to have forests. When they are managed well,
they are an incredible, essential, and an irreplaceable asset. However,
our forests are growing faster and faster, building up huge amounts of
potential energy which, without any doubt whatsoever, will burn as
things are currently situated.
Fires are perhaps started by an arsonist, a lightning bolt, or the
negligence of a camper. When this happens, the overgrown and dry
forests will burn like paper. If there is even a moderate wind, these
fires spread just like wildfire because they are burning up and
destroying land, animals, structures, homes, and even people.
Just this year in Oregon, in my home State, almost 2 million acres
burned. A huge amount of these 2 million acres was forestland. The
Forest Service says that about 250 million of our tax dollars were
spent fighting these fires. At least 32 homes were destroyed. That is
in addition to hundreds of homes that have been lost in previous fires.
The value of timber burned up on private ground, 330,000 acres,
caught up in this year's fires, just in Oregon, is in the tens of
millions of dollars.
Because of forest fire risk, the cost of fire insurance on thousands
of homes across Oregon is skyrocketing and in some cases is not even
available.
The amount of CO2, smoke, ash, dust, and permanent
environmental harm is enormous. The old-growth timber burned up and
forever lost is unforgivable. This is just a sample of what has
happened in Oregon.
The same thing on an even greater and more damaging scale happened in
California this year, Washington, Montana, and so on.
The causes of overgrown and dry forests burning up are many, but one
of the obvious things we should be doing, and something that all
rational people agree upon, is to reduce the amount of fuel in our
forests, to actually go in and remove woody material from these 85
million acres that are not essential to the forest.
So why isn't this happening?
Why are we dragging our feet when it comes to getting brush and
understory of small trees out of our forests?
Why are we failing to clean up our forests and protecting them?
Of course, the reason is our laws and the haystack of regulations
that get in the way. They create delays, they create roadblocks, they
create litigation paralysis, and they create endless bureaucratic
efforts to write the perfect management plan. It is this set of
problems and obstacles that the Fix Our Forests Act, brought to us
today by Chair Westerman, would help significantly resolve.
The summary of the Fix Our Forests Act calls out the fact that we
would be simplifying the approach to this, and that would be an
excellent idea, revitalizing our rural economies, and renewing and
prioritizing our science. All of these are excellent things.
I just want to say that when I was young, living on a ranch in
eastern Oregon on the border of the Malheur National Forest, a fire in
our forest was rare. In fact, in the 15 years I lived in that beautiful
place, I remember only one forest fire in that forest. Now horrific
fires are an annual and all too predictable occurrence. These are not
small fires. These are terrible, destructive, and awful fires.
Just this summer, I received a call from a terrified constituent
begging me to call airplanes with fire retardant to save their home. It
is a miracle that only one person, and that was bad enough, was killed
this year in fighting these fires. Next year we may be not so lucky.
Let's pass this bill so we can get into the forests now, not years
from now, reduce fuel loads and make our communities and our people
safer and our forests more resilient.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Panetta), who is a cosponsor of the bill and has been a
tireless advocate on improving forest health.
[[Page H5679]]
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Chair, I appreciate this opportunity. I think we
have seen why we are here today. It is because in the past decade,
America has witnessed firsthand the devastation, the death, and the
massive destruction from wildfires.
In my home State of California, this year alone, wildfires have
burned almost 1 million acres. That is just one-fourth of the acres
that burned back in 2020.
In my congressional district along the coast of California, we have
endured some of the most extreme wildfires in our Nation's history in
the Los Padres National Forest, Santa Cruz Mountains, and the Big Sur
coastline.
Now, unfortunately, 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans.
What really makes us vulnerable to these extreme fires in this time of
extreme weather and, yes, in this time of extreme climate change, is
that we are doing what we can to fight the fires, but we just aren't
doing enough to prevent the fires.
Decades of dereliction when it comes to doing anything to manage
wildlands is a persistent cause of why the Western United States is so
susceptible to the devastating conflagrations we are experiencing.
That is why we need to do something, anything, when it comes to the
management of our forests and to be proactive when it comes to
protecting our wetlands and the lives and livelihoods of those who live
in the wildland-urban interface.
The Fix Our Forests Act is a big step in the right direction to
restore the health of forests, to bolster their resiliency, and, yes,
to reduce the threat of wildfires.
This legislation would allow all levels of government to play their
part with community wildfire risk reduction programs, a national
Fireshed Center, and, yes, to fix our flawed permitting system, not by
getting rid of NEPA but with the flexibility necessary so that those on
the ground can implement prevention projects, manage our forests, and
therefore protect our forests.
Another key part of this legislation would also expand and encourage
the use of prescribed burns in fireshed areas that would not only help
prevent fires, it would help my congressional district keep on track
with our management plan.
As wildfire seasons have turned into wildfire years, we have learned
our lesson and have done an excellent job fighting fires, but now it is
time we must do something to prevent wildfires.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the National Environmental Policy Act, or
NEPA, and litigation are not the reason that we have catastrophic
wildfires. In fact, a 2020 study showed that only one out of every 450
NEPA reviews are ever challenged in court.
Plus, the Forest Service already conducts over 85 percent of its work
through existing categorical exclusions, which allows proceeding
without a NEPA environmental assessment or an environmental impact
statement.
The reality is that the Forest Service has a wide range of tools and
policies designed to expedite the forest management projects.
Here is the actual problem: The Forest Service is chronically
underfunded. Gaps in funding are directly tied to project delays and
management challenges across the agency. A review conducted by the
``Columbia Journal of Environmental Law'' found that many sources of
delay attributed to NEPA are caused by external factors, and they point
to inadequate staffing, insufficient funding, and delays of obtaining
information from permittees.
The Forest Service doesn't need us to roll back our environmental
laws. It needs sustainable funding and additional staff capacity.
However, the Republicans who keep voting against that funding would
rather scapegoat our environmental laws and the public's right to
access the courthouse.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, it was insinuated earlier that my good friend, Mr. Peters,
did not work with The Nature Conservancy.
It begins by saying that: ``TNC, which has decades of experience in
wildfire mitigation and resilience work, was at the table with
Representatives Peters and Westerman to improve this bill from its
initial draft form.''
They go on to say that they are not endorsing the bill because of
some issues they have, but they also list several things that they
approve of in the bill.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the Nature Conservancy statement.
TNC New Statement
TNC's position: TNC, which has decades of experience in
wildfire mitigation and resilience work, was at the table
with Reps. Peters and Westerman to improve this bill from its
initial draft form, and while it has certainly improved since
that point due in part to our advocacy, we are not endorsing
the bill due to a remaining problematic provision in the
litigation reform section that TNC believes could damagingly
limit community engagement.
However, we also believe there are beneficial provisions in
the bill, such as the Good Neighbor Authority provisions, the
inclusion of Tribal priorities in the fireshed management
section, the Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program, and
the Seeds of Success cross agency coordination.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Kim).
Mrs. KIM of California. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Westerman for
yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8790, the Fix Our Forests
Act.
The fear facing many of my constituents during California's peak
wildfire season, especially in the canyon communities close to the
Cleveland National Forest, became a reality in recent weeks as multiple
wildfires burn simultaneously in southern California, including the
Airport fire in my district.
The Airport fire has burned over 23,500 acres, and still counting, in
Orange and Riverside Counties.
I am grateful to the first responders who are working day and night
to keep our communities safe. Times like these also show us that first
responders need all tools available to protect our communities and
respond to the ever-changing threat that wildfires pose.
The Fix Our Forests Act includes legislation that I introduced called
the Wildfire Technology Demonstration, Evaluation, Modernization, and
Optimization, or DEMO, Act, that would address this need.
I introduced the DEMO Act after hearing from firefighting agencies
and companies developing innovative technologies.
This bipartisan legislation aims to deploy more emerging technologies
to fight wildfires by allowing private entities to partner with Federal
land management agencies to test wildfire technologies in a 7-year
pilot program.
This is a win-win for private entities looking to test their
technologies at scale and Federal land management agencies working to
deploy emerging technologies to help combat wildfires.
I thank my friend, Representative Crow, for his partnership on the
DEMO Act, as well as Chairman Westerman and Representative Peters for
including my legislation in this important and timely bill to keep our
communities and forests safe from wildfires.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 8790.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her efforts
in helping make this a better bill. She knows all too well the
devastation of catastrophic wildfires like what are happening in her
district.
Mr. Chair, I have no further requests for time, I am prepared to
close, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 8 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1515
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, we need to clear up the record about this idea that the
Forest Service supports expanded categorical exclusions, often called
CEs.
The Fix Our Forests Act would massively expand categorical exclusions
for fireshed management projects, including activities like logging and
pesticide application, which would have significant impacts on forest
ecosystems.
Typically, categorical exclusions are developed by the agencies with
the
[[Page H5680]]
input of experts. They are detailed and specific with appropriate
guardrails that prevent unnecessary harm, and they are a useful tool.
In fact, 82 percent of Forest Service projects are executed using
categorical exclusions.
The so-called Fix Our Forests Act takes a sledgehammer to that track
record. The Forest Service has said that they would use any new
authorities Congress grants to them, but they are not advocating for
any larger categorical exclusions.
We are not here to try and stop the Forest Service from using the
tools that it has. What we are trying to do is avoid complicating the
processes that the Forest Service has, and that is a real issue.
The Forest Service has explicitly told us in technical assistance
that this bill's directives around the creation and implementation of
fireshed management projects are duplicative and confusing. Why aren't
we listening to them?
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Chair, I know that conversations about wildfire can be very
difficult for Members on both sides. The fires this year and in recent
years have been devastating, and I have seen it firsthand with
wildfires in my district.
I close with the same message that I started with: Republican
leadership is using the very real and painful wildfire crisis as a
Trojan horse for a longstanding wish list of harmful environmental
policies. Our forests are critical carbon reserves, majestic
destinations for outdoor recreation, and habitats for a range of
wildlife, including many threatened and endangered species. All of that
will be put at risk by this bill's overzealous approach to logging and
other destructive management practices.
This bill codifies and expands the use of emergency authorities
dramatically, bending the protections provided by the successful,
popular, and iconic laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and NEPA.
There is nothing discrete or cute about opening this many acres to
management without proper review.
Mr. Chair, confronting the wildfire crisis is hard work that requires
smart planning and broad collaboration. We won't get there through
shortcuts and rollbacks.
Relying on rushed planning for routine forest management undermines
community involvement. We shouldn't be undercutting the people who are
most at risk.
The Forest Service has been asking us to help them with consistent,
reliable budgets. They have been warning us that the appropriations
numbers from our Republican colleagues are causing extreme budget
shortfalls. They announced just last week that the Forest Service
cannot afford to hire nonfire temporary staff anymore.
Let me repeat that: The Republican inability to fund the government
on time and with sufficient resources has caused the Forest Service to
place a freeze on hiring the very staff who hike into the backcountry
to maintain the trails that so many of us use and love.
Finally, this bill fails to provide a permanent and much-needed fix
for wildland firefighter pay. That should be one of our top priorities
when it comes to confronting the wildfire crisis. Yet, it is completely
sidestepped by this legislation.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Chair, what we are doing is not working. Our forests are not
getting healthier. Our environment is not getting better. The climate
is not getting better. Wildlife habitats are not getting better. Water
quality is not getting better. It is all getting worse from the things
that we have been doing the last 30 years.
If that is not enough evidence to say it is time for a change, I
don't know what is. The time to fix our forests is now. This is a good,
commonsense, bipartisan bill for our forest health and our Nation's
benefit. The Fix Our Forests Act will end the status quo of overgrown,
fire-prone tinderboxes.
Mr. Chair, again, this bill will make our forests healthier and more
resilient. It will protect our communities, save taxpayer money, and
cut red tape. I urge the adoption of this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
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.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, modified by the
amendment printed in part C of House Report 118-705, shall be
considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as
read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 8790
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 ``Fix Our
Forests Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--LANDSCAPE-SCALE RESTORATION
Subtitle A--Addressing Emergency Wildfire Risks in High Priority
Firesheds
Sec. 101. Designation of fireshed management areas.
Sec. 102. Fireshed center.
Sec. 103. Fireshed registry.
Sec. 104. Shared stewardship.
Sec. 105. Fireshed assessments.
Sec. 106. Emergency fireshed management.
Sec. 107. Sunset.
Subtitle B--Expanding Collaborative Tools to Reduce Wildfire Risk and
Improve Forest Health
Sec. 111. Modification of the treatment of certain revenue and payments
under good neighbor agreements.
Sec. 112. Fixing stewardship end result contracting.
Sec. 113. Intra-agency strike teams.
Sec. 114. Locally-led restoration.
Sec. 115. Joint Chiefs landscape restoration partnership program.
Sec. 116. Collaborative forest landscape restoration program.
Subtitle C--Litigation Reform
Sec. 121. Commonsense litigation reform.
Sec. 122. Consultation on forest plans.
TITLE II--PROTECTING COMMUNITIES IN THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
Sec. 201. Community wildfire risk reduction program.
Sec. 202. Community wildfire defense research program.
Sec. 203. Vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and
maintenance relating to electric transmission and
distribution facility rights-of-way.
Sec. 204. Categorical exclusion for electric utility lines rights-of-
way.
Sec. 205. Seeds of success.
TITLE III--TRANSPARENCY AND TECHNOLOGY
Sec. 301. Biochar innovations and opportunities for conservation,
health, and advancements in research.
Sec. 302. Accurate hazardous fuels reduction reports.
Sec. 303. Public-private wildfire technology deployment and
demonstration partnership.
Sec. 304. GAO study on Forest Service policies.
Sec. 305. Forest Service Western headquarters study.
Sec. 306. Keeping forest plans current and monitored.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Fireshed Center appointed under section 102.
(2) Fireshed.--The term ``fireshed'' means a landscape-
scale area that faces similar wildfire threat where a
response strategy could influence the wildfire outcome.
(3) Fireshed management project.--The term ``fireshed
management project'' means a project under section 106.
(4) Fireshed registry.--The term ``Fireshed Registry''
means the fireshed registry established under section 103.
(5) 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);
(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); or
(C) a forest management plan (as defined in section 304 of
the National Indian Forests Resources Management Act (25
U.S.C. 3104)) with respect to Indian forest land or
rangeland.
(6) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor or
any other appropriate executive official of an affected State
or Indian Tribe or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(7) Hazardous fuels management activities.--The term
``hazardous fuels management activities'' means any
vegetation management
[[Page H5681]]
activities (or combination thereof) that reduce the risk of
wildfire, including mechanical thinning, mastication,
prescribed burning, cultural burning (as determined by the
applicable Indian Tribe), timber harvest, and grazing.
(8) HFRA terms.--The terms ``at-risk community'',
``community wildfire protection plan'', and ``wildland-urban
interface'' have the meanings given such terms, respectively,
in section 101 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(16 U.S.C. 6511).
(9) Indian forest land or rangeland.--The term ``Indian
forest land or rangeland'' means land that--
(A) is held in trust by, or with a restriction against
alienation by, the United States for an Indian Tribe or a
member of an Indian Tribe; and
(B)(i)(I) is Indian forest land (as defined in section 304
of the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (25
U.S.C. 3103)); or
(II) has a cover of grasses, brush, or any similar
vegetation; or
(ii) formerly had a forest cover or vegetative cover that
is capable of restoration.
(10) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the
meaning given that term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).
(11) National forest system lands.--The term ``National
Forest System lands'' has the meaning given the term in
section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609).
(12) 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.
(13) Relevant congressional committees.--The term
``relevant Congressional Committees'' means--
(A) the Committees on Natural Resources and Agriculture of
the House of Representatives; and
(B) the Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.
(14) Responsible official.--The term ``responsible
official'' means an employee of the Department of the
Interior or Forest Service who has the authority to make and
implement a decision on a proposed action.
(15) Secretaries.--The term ``Secretaries'' means each of--
(A) the Secretary of the Interior; and
(B) the Secretary of Agriculture.
(16) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(17) 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.
(18) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, and each territory of the
United States
TITLE I--LANDSCAPE-SCALE RESTORATION
Subtitle A--Addressing Emergency Wildfire Risks in High Priority
Firesheds
SEC. 101. DESIGNATION OF FIRESHED MANAGEMENT AREAS.
(a) Designation of Fireshed Management Areas.--
(1) Initial designations.--For the period beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act and ending on the date that is
5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, there are
designated fireshed management areas, which--
(A) shall be comprised of individual landscape-scale
firesheds identified as being a high risk fireshed in the
``Wildfire Crisis Strategy'' published by the Forest Service
in January 2022;
(B) shall be comprised of individual landscape-scale
firesheds identified by the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior, as being in the top 20 percent
of the 7,688 firesheds published by the Rocky Mountain
Research Station of the Forest Service in 2019 for wildfire
exposure based on the following criteria--
(i) wildfire exposure and corresponding risk to
communities, including risk to structures and life;
(ii) wildfire exposure and corresponding risk to municipal
watersheds, including tribal water supplies and systems; and
(iii) risk of forest conversion due to wildfire;
(C) shall not overlap with any other fireshed management
areas;
(D) may contain Federal and non-Federal land, including
Indian forest lands or rangelands; and
(E) where the Secretary concerned shall carry out fireshed
management projects.
(2) Further fireshed management area designations.--
(A) In general.--On the date that is 5 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act and every 5 years thereafter,
the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, shall submit to the relevant Congressional
Committees an updated map of firesheds based on the Fireshed
Registry maintained under section 103.
(B) Designation.--Not later than 60 days after submitting
an updated fireshed map under subparagraph (A), the Secretary
shall, based on such map, designate additional fireshed
management areas that are identified as being in the top 20
percent of firesheds at risk of wildfire exposure based on
the criteria specified in subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and
(E) of paragraph (1).
(b) Applicability of Nepa.--The designation of fireshed
management areas under this section shall not be subject to
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
SEC. 102. FIRESHED CENTER.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief of
the Forest Service, and the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, shall
jointly establish a Fireshed Center (hereinafter referred to
as the ``Center'') comprised of at least one career
representative from each of the following:
(A) The Forest Service.
(B) The Bureau of Land Management.
(C) The National Park Service.
(D) The Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(E) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(F) The U.S. Geological Survey.
(G) The Department of Defense.
(H) The Department of Homeland Security.
(I) The Department of Energy.
(J) The Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(K) The National Science Foundation.
(L) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(M) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(N) The National Institute of Standards and Technology.
(2) Director.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief of
the Forest Service, and the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, shall
jointly appoint a Director of the Center, who--
(A) shall be an employee of the U.S. Geological Survey or
the Forest Service;
(B) shall serve an initial term of not more than 7 years;
and
(C) may serve one additional term of not more than 7 years
after the initial term described in subparagraph (B).
(3) Additional representation.--The Secretary, acting
through the Chief of the Forest Service and the Secretary of
the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S.
Geological Survey, may jointly appoint additional
representatives of Federal agencies to the Center, as the
Secretaries determine necessary.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Center are to--
(1) comprehensively assess and predict fire and smoke in
the wildland and built environment interface across
jurisdictions to inform--
(A) land and fuels management;
(B) community, public health, and built environment risk
reduction; and
(C) fire response and post-fire recovery;
(2) provide data aggregation, real-time land and fuels
management services, and science-based decision support
services;
(3) reduce fragmentation and duplication across Federal
land management agencies with respect to predictive service
and decision support functions related to wildland fire and
smoke;
(4) promote coordination and sharing of data regarding
wildland fire and smoke decision making between Federal
agencies, States, Indian Tribes, local governments, academic
or research institutions, and private entities;
(5) streamline procurement processes and cybersecurity
systems related to addressing wildland fire and smoke;
(6) amplify and distribute existing, and develope as
necessary, publicly accessible data, models, technologies
(including mapping technologies), assessments, and National
Weather Service fire weather forecasts to support short- and
long-term planning regarding wildland fire and smoke risk
reduction and post-fire recovery while avoiding duplicative
efforts; and
(7) maintain the Fireshed Registry established under
section 103.
(c) Memoranda of Understanding.--The Center may enter into
memorandums of understanding, contracts, or other agreements
with State governments, Indian Tribes, local governments,
academic or research institutions, and private entities to
improve the information and operations of the Center.
(d) Administrative Support, Technical Services, and Staff
Support.--
(1) USGS support.--The Secretary of the Interior shall make
personnel of the U.S. Geological Survey available to the
Center for such administrative support, technical services,
and development and dissemination of data as the Secretary
determines necessary to carry out this section.
(2) USFS support.--The Secretary shall make personnel of
the Forest Service available to the Center for such
administrative support, technical services, and the
development and dissemination of information related to
fireshed management and the Fireshed Registry as the
Secretary determines necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 103. FIRESHED REGISTRY.
(a) Fireshed Registry.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Fireshed Center appointed under section 102,
shall maintain a Fireshed Registry on a publicly accessible
website that provides interactive geospatial data on
individual firesheds, including information on--
(1) wildfire exposure delineated by ownership, including
rights-of-way for utilities and other public or private
purposes;
(2) any hazardous fuels management activities that have
occurred within an individual fireshed in the past 10 years;
(3) wildfire exposure with respect to such fireshed
delineated by--
(A) wildfire exposure and corresponding risk to
communities, including risk to structures and life;
(B) wildfire exposure and corresponding risk to municipal
watersheds, including tribal water supplies and systems; and
(C) risk of forest conversion due to wildfire;
[[Page H5682]]
(4) the percentage of the fireshed that has burned in
wildfires in the past 10 years, including, to the extent
practicable, delineations of acres that have burned at a high
severity;
(5) spatial patterns of wildfire exposure, including
plausible extreme fire events; and
(6) any hazardous fuels management activities planned for
the fireshed, including fireshed management projects.
(b) Community Wildfire Protection Plans.--The Director
shall make data from the Fireshed Registry available to local
communities developing or updating community wildfire
protection plans.
(c) Requirement to Maintain.--As part of the website
containing the Fireshed Registry, the Director shall--
(1) publish fireshed assessments created under section 105;
and
(2) maintain a searchable database to track--
(A) the status of Federal environmental reviews, permits,
and authorizations for fireshed management projects,
including--
(i) a comprehensive permitting timetable;
(ii) the status of the compliance of each lead agency,
cooperating agency, and participating agency with the
permitting timetable with respect to such fireshed management
projects;
(iii) any modifications of the permitting timetable
required under clause (i), including an explanation as to why
the permitting timetable was modified; and
(iv) information about project-related public meetings,
public hearings, and public comment periods, which shall be
presented in English and the predominant language of the
community or communities most affected by the project, as
that information becomes available;
(B) the projected cost of such fireshed management
projects; and
(C) in the case of completed fireshed management projects,
the effectiveness of such projects in reducing the wildfire
exposure within an applicable fireshed, including wildfire
exposure described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of
subsection (a)(3).
(d) Reliance on Existing Assessments.--In carrying out this
section, the Director may rely on assessments completed or
data gather through existing partnerships, to the extent
practicable.
SEC. 104. SHARED STEWARDSHIP.
(a) Joint Agreements.--Not later than 90 days after
receiving a written request from a Governor of a State or an
Indian Tribe, the Secretary concerned shall enter into a
shared stewardship agreement (or similar agreement) with such
Governor or Indian Tribe to jointly--
(1) promote the reduction of wildfire exposure, based on
the criteria in section 101(a)(1)(B), in fireshed management
areas across jurisdictional boundaries; and
(2) conduct fireshed assessments under section 105.
(b) Additional Fireshed Management Areas.--With respect to
a shared stewardship agreement (or similar agreement) with a
Governor of a State or an Indian Tribe entered into under
subsection (a), the Secretary concerned, if requested by such
Governor or Indian Tribe, may--
(1) designate additional fireshed management areas under
such agreement; and
(2) update such agreement to address new wildfire threats.
SEC. 105. FIRESHED ASSESSMENTS.
(a) Fireshed Assessments.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date on
which the Secretary concerned enters into an agreement with a
Governor of a State or an Indian Tribe under section 104, the
Secretary concerned and such Governor or Indian Tribe shall,
with respect to the fireshed management areas designated in
such State, jointly conduct a fireshed assessment that--
(A) identifies--
(i) using the best available science, wildfire exposure
risks within each such fireshed management area, including
scenario planning and wildfire hazard mapping and models; and
(ii) each at-risk community within each fireshed management
area;
(B) identifies potential fireshed management projects to be
carried out in such fireshed management areas, giving
priority--
(i) primarily, to projects with the purpose of reducing--
(I) wildfire exposure and corresponding risk to
communities, including risk to structures and life;
(II) wildfire exposure and corresponding risk to municipal
watersheds, including tribal water supplies and systems;
(III) risk of forest conversion due to wildfire; or
(IV) any combination of purposes described in subclauses
(I) through (III); and
(ii) secondarily, to projects with the purpose of
protecting--
(I) critical infrastructure, including utility
infrastructure;
(II) wildlife habitats, including habitat for species
listed under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.);
(III) the built environment, including residential and
commercial buildings;
(IV) resources of an Indian Tribe, as defined by the Indian
Tribe; or
(V) any combination of purposes described in subclauses (I)
through (IV);
(C) includes--
(i) a strategy for reducing the threat of wildfire to at-
risk communities in the wildland-urban interface on both
Federal and non-Federal land;
(ii) a timeline for the implementation of fireshed
management projects;
(iii) long-term benchmark goals for the completion of
fireshed management projects in the highest wildfire exposure
areas so that such projects contribute to the development and
maintenance of healthy and resilient landscapes; and
(iv) policies to ensure fireshed management projects comply
with applicable forest plans and incorporate the best
available science;
(D) shall be regularly updated based on the best available
science, as determined by the Secretary concerned; and
(E) shall be publicly available on a website maintained by
the Secretary concerned.
(2) Local government participation.--Upon the written
request of a local government, the Secretary concerned and
the Governor of the State in which the local government is
located may allow such local government to participate in
producing the fireshed assessment under paragraph (1) for
such State.
(3) Information improvement.--
(A) Memorandums of understanding.--In carrying out a
fireshed assessment under this subsection, the Secretary
concerned may enter into memorandums of understanding with
other Federal agencies or departments (including the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), States, Indian
Tribes, private entities, or research or educational
institutions to improve, with respect to such assessment, the
use and integration of--
(i) advanced remote sensing and geospatial technologies;
(ii) statistical modeling and analysis; or
(iii) any other technology or combination of technologies
and analyses that the Secretary concerned determines will
benefit the quality of information of such an assessment.
(B) Best available science.--In using the best available
science for the fireshed assessments completed under
subsection (a)(1), the Secretary concerned and Governor
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate--
(i) traditional ecological knowledge from Indian Tribes;
(ii) data from State forest action plans and State wildfire
risk assessments;
(iii) data from the Fireshed Registry maintained under
section 103; and
(iv) data from other Federal, State, Tribal, and local
governments or agencies.
(b) Applicability of NEPA.--Fireshed assessments conducted
under this section shall not be subject to the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.).
SEC. 106. EMERGENCY FIRESHED MANAGEMENT.
(a) Fireshed Management Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary concerned, acting through a
responsible official, shall carry out fireshed management
projects in fireshed management areas designated under
section 101 in accordance with this section.
(2) Fireshed management projects.--The responsible official
shall carry out the following forest and vegetation
management activities as fireshed management projects under
this section:
(A) Conducting hazardous fuels management activities.
(B) Creating fuel breaks and fire breaks.
(C) Removing hazard trees, dead trees, dying trees, or
trees at risk of dying, as determined by the responsible
official.
(D) Developing, approving, or conducting routine
maintenance under a vegetation management, facility
inspection, and operation and maintenance plan submitted
under section 512(c)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(1)).
(E) Removing trees to address overstocking or crowding in a
forest stand, consistent with the appropriate basal area of
the forest stand as determined by the responsible official.
(F) Using chemical or re-seeding and planting treatments to
address insects and disease and control vegetation
competition or invasive species.
(G) Any activities recommended by an applicable fireshed
assessment carried out under section 105.
(H) Any activities recommended by an applicable community
wildfire protection plan.
(I) Any combination of activities described in this
paragraph.
(3) Emergency fireshed management.--
(A) In general.--For any fireshed management area
designated under section 101, the following shall have the
force and effect of law:
(i) Section 220.4(b) of title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act), with respect to lands under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary.
(ii) Section 46.150 of title 43, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act), with respect to lands under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the Interior.
(iii) Section 402.05 of title 50, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act).
(iv) Section 800.12 of title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act).
(B) Utilization of existing streamlined authorities in
fireshed management areas.--
(i) In general.--Fireshed management projects carried out
under this section shall be considered authorized projects
under the following categorical exclusions:
(I) Section 603(a) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591b(a)).
(II) Section 605(a) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591d(a)).
(III) Section 606(b) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591e(b)).
(IV) Section 40806(b) of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (16 U.S.C. 6592b(b)).
(V) Section 4(c)(4) of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act
(Public Law 106-506; 114 Stat. 2353).
(VI) Subject to subsection (d) of section 40807 of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (16 U.S.C. 6592c) in
the same manner as authorized emergency actions (as defined
in subsection (a) of such section) are subject to such
subsection.
(ii) Use of expedited authorities.--In carrying out a
fireshed management project, the
[[Page H5683]]
Secretary shall apply a categorical exclusion under clause
(i)--
(I) in a manner consistent with the statute establishing
such categorical exclusion; and
(II) in any area--
(aa) designated as suitable for timber production within
the applicable forest plan; or
(bb) where timber harvest activities are not prohibited.
(iii) Fiscal responsibility act requirements.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary concerned shall ensure
compliance with the amendments made to the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) by the
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-5).
(iv) Use of other authorities.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the Secretary concerned shall use the
authorities provided under this section in combination with
other authorities to carry out fireshed management projects,
including--
(I) good neighbor agreements entered into under section
8206 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a) (as
amended by this Act);
(II) stewardship contracting projects entered into under
section 604 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(16 U.S.C. 6591c) (as amended by this Act);
(III) self-determination contracts and self-governance
compact agreements entered into under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5301 et
seq.); and
(IV) agreements entered into under the Tribal Forest
Protection Act of 2004 (25 U.S.C. 3115a et seq.).
(b) Expansion.--
(1) HFRA amendments.--The Healthy Forests Restoration Act
of 2003 is amended--
(A) in section 603(c)(1) (16 U.S.C. 6591b(c)(1)), by
striking ``3000 acres'' and inserting ``10,000 acres'';
(B) in section 605(c)(1) (16 U.S.C. 6591d(c)(1)), by
striking ``3000 acres'' and inserting ``10,000 acres''; and
(C) in section 606(g) (16 U.S.C. 6591e(g)), by striking
``4,500 acres'' and inserting ``10,000 acres''.
(2) Infrastructure investment and jobs act amendment.--
Section 40806(d)(1) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (16 U.S.C. 6592b(d)(1)), by striking ``3,000 acres'' and
inserting ``10,000 acres''.
(3) Lake tahoe restoration act amendments.--Section
4(c)(4)(C) of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law 106-
506; 114 Stat. 2353) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit''; and
(B) by inserting ``applicable to the area'' before the
period at the end.
SEC. 107. SUNSET.
The authority under this subtitle shall terminate on the
date that is 7 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Subtitle B--Expanding Collaborative Tools to Reduce Wildfire Risk and
Improve Forest Health
SEC. 111. MODIFICATION OF THE TREATMENT OF CERTAIN REVENUE
AND PAYMENTS UNDER GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENTS.
(a) Good Neighbor Authority.--Section 8206 of the
Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(6), by striking ``or Indian tribe'';
and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``, Indian tribe,''
after ``Governor'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(C)--
(i) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--Funds received from the sale of timber
or forest product by a Governor, an Indian tribe, or a county
under a good neighbor agreement shall be retained and used by
the Governor, Indian tribe, or county, as applicable--
``(I) to carry out authorized restoration services under
the good neighbor agreement; and
``(II) if there are funds remaining after carrying out
subclause (I), to carry out authorized restoration services
under other good neighbor agreements and for the
administration of a good neighbor authority program by a
Governor, Indian tribe, or county.''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``2024'' and inserting
``2029'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, Indian tribe,''
after ``Governor''; and
(D) by striking paragraph (4).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 8206(a) of the
Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``, Indian tribe,''
after ``Governor''; and
(2) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``, Indian tribe,''
after ``Governor''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to any project initiated pursuant to a good neighbor
agreement (as defined in section 8206(a) of the Agricultural
Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a(a)))--
(1) before the date of enactment of this Act, if the
project was initiated after the date of enactment of the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-334; 132
Stat. 4490); or
(2) on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 112. FIXING STEWARDSHIP END RESULT CONTRACTING.
Section 604 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(16 U.S.C. 6591c) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by inserting ``, including retaining
and expanding existing forest products infrastructure''
before the period at the end;
(2) in subsection (d)(3)(B), by striking ``10 years'' and
inserting ``20 years''; and
(3) in subsection (h), by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Special rule for long-term stewardship contracts.--
``(A) In general.--A long-term agreement or contract
entered into with an entity under subsection (b) by the Chief
or the Director shall provide that in the case of the
cancellation or termination by the Chief or the Director of
such long-term agreement or contract, the Chief or the
Director, as applicable, shall provide 10 percent of the
agreement or contract amount to such entity as cancellation
or termination costs.
``(B) Definition of long-term agreement or contract.--In
this paragraph, the term `long-term agreement or contract'
means an agreement or contract under subsection (b)--
``(i) with a term of more than 5 years; and
``(ii) entered into on or after the date of the enactment
of this paragraph.''.
SEC. 113. INTRA-AGENCY STRIKE TEAMS.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary concerned shall establish
intra-agency strike teams to assist the Secretary concerned
with--
(1) any reviews, including analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
consultations under the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and consultations under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), with
the intent to accelerate and streamline interagency
consultation processes;
(2) the implementation of any necessary site preparation
work in advance of or as part of a fireshed management
project;
(3) the implementation of fireshed management projects
under such section; and
(4) any combination of purposes under paragraphs (1)
through (3).
(b) Members.--The Secretary concerned may appoint not more
than 10 individuals to serve on an intra-agency strike team
comprised of--
(1) employees of the Department under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary concerned;
(2) employees of a different Federal agency, with the
consent of that agency's Secretary;
(3) private contractors from any nonprofit organization,
State government, Indian Tribe, local government, quasi-
governmental agency, academic institution, or private
organization; and
(4) volunteers from any nonprofit organization, State
government, Indian Tribe, local government, quasi-
governmental agency, academic institution, or private
organization.
(c) Sunset.--The authority provided under this section
shall terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 114. LOCALLY-LED RESTORATION.
(a) Threshold Adjustment.--Section 14(d) of the National
Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a(d)) is amended
by--
(1) striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$55,000''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``Beginning on
January 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, the amount in the
first sentence of this subsection shall be adjusted by the
Secretary for changes in the Consumer Price Index of All
Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of the Department of Labor.''.
(b) Fireshed Management Projects.--Beginning on the date
that is 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall solicit bids under section 14 of the National
Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a(d)) for
fireshed management projects under section 106.
SEC. 115. JOINT CHIEFS LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM.
Section 40808 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(16 U.S.C. 6592d) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) to recover from wildfires; or
``(E) to enhance soil, water, and related natural
resources.'';
(2) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and post-wildfire
impacts'' after ``wildfire risk''; and
(B) in subparagraph (F), by inserting ``, as identified in
the corresponding State forest action plan or similar
priority plan (such as a State wildlife or water plan)''
before the semicolon;
(3) in subsection (g)(2), by inserting ``and at least once
every 2 fiscal years thereafter'' after ``and 2023''; and
(4) in subsection (h)(1), by striking ``and 2023'' and
inserting ``through 2028''.
SEC. 116. COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM.
Section 4003 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of
2009 (16 U.S.C. 7303) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(3)--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``species;'' and
inserting ``species or pathogens;'';
(B) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in subparagraph (H), by adding ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(I) address standardized monitoring questions and
indicators;'';
(2) in subsection (c)(3)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in clause (ii), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) include a plan to provide support to collaborative
processes established pursuant to subsection (b)(2);'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page H5684]]
``(G) proposals that seek to use innovative implementation
mechanisms, including good neighbor agreements entered into
under section 8206 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C.
2113a);
``(H) proposals that seek to reduce the risk of
uncharacteristic wildfire or increase ecological restoration
activities--
``(i) within areas across land ownerships, including State,
Tribal, and private land; and
``(ii) within the wildland-urban interface (as defined in
section 101 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(16 U.S.C. 6511)); and
``(I) proposals that seek to enhance watershed health and
drinking water sources.''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(A) 4 proposals in any 1 region of the National Forest
System to be funded during any fiscal year; and'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(iii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph
(B); and
(4) in subsection (f)(6), by striking ``2019 through 2023''
and inserting ``2023 through 2029''.
Subtitle C--Litigation Reform
SEC. 121. COMMONSENSE LITIGATION REFORM.
(a) In General.--A court shall not enjoin a covered agency
action if the court determines that the plaintiff is unable
to demonstrate that the claim of the plaintiff is likely to
succeed on the merits.
(b) Balancing Short-and Long-term Effects of Covered Agency
Action in Considering Injunctive Relief.--As part of its
weighing the equities while considering any request for an
injunction that applies to a covered agency action, the court
reviewing such action shall balance the impact to the
ecosystem likely affected by such action of--
(1) the short- and long-term effects of undertaking such
action; against
(2) the short- and long-term effects of not undertaking
such action.
(c) Limitations on Judicial Review.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(except this section), in the case of a claim arising under
Federal law seeking judicial review of a covered agency
action--
(A) a court shall not hold unlawful, set aside, or
otherwise limit, delay, stay, vacate, or enjoin such agency
action unless the court determines that--
(i) such action poses or will pose a risk of a proximate
and substantial environmental harm; and
(ii) there is no other equitable remedy available as a
matter of law; and
(B) if a court determines that subparagraph (A) does not
apply to the covered agency action the only remedy the court
may order with regard to such agency action is to remand the
matter to the agency with instructions to, during the 180-day
period beginning on the date of the order, take such
additional actions as may be necessary to redress any legal
wrong suffered by, or adverse effect on, the plaintiff,
except such additional actions may not include the
preparation of a new agency document unless the court finds
the agency was required and failed to prepare such agency
document.
(2) Effect of remand.--In the case of a covered agency
action to which paragraph (1)(B) applies, the agency may--
(A) continue to carry out such agency action to the extent
the action does not impact the additional actions required
pursuant to such paragraph; and
(B) if the agency action relates to an agency document, use
any format to correct such document (including a supplemental
environmental document, memorandum, or errata sheet).
(d) Limitations on Claims.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law (except this section), a claim arising under
Federal law seeking judicial review of a covered agency
action shall be barred unless--
(1) with respect to an agency document or the application
of a categorical exclusion noticed in the Federal Register,
such claim is filed not later than 120 days after the date of
publication of a notice in the Federal Register of agency
intent to carry out the fireshed management project relating
to such agency document or application, unless a shorter
period is specified in such Federal law;
(2) in the case of an agency document or the application of
a categorical exclusion not described in paragraph (1), such
claim is filed not later than 120 days after the date that is
the earlier of--
(A) the date on which such agency document or application
is published; and
(B) the date on which such agency document or application
is noticed; and
(3) in the case of a covered agency action for which there
was a public comment period, such claim--
(A) is filed by a party that--
(i) participated in the administrative proceedings
regarding the fireshed management project relating to such
action; and
(ii) submitted a comment during such public comment period
and such comment was sufficiently detailed to put the
applicable agency on notice of the issue upon which the party
seeks judicial review; and
(B) is related to such comment.
(e) Definitions.--ln this section:
(1) Agency document.--The term ``agency document'' means,
with respect to a fireshed management project, a record of
decision, environmental document, or programmatic
environmental document.
(2) Covered agency action.--The term ``covered agency
action'' means--
(A) the establishment of a fireshed management project by
an agency;
(B) the application of a categorical exclusion to a
fireshed management project;
(C) the preparation of any agency document for a fireshed
management project; or
(D) any other agency action as part of a fireshed
management project.
(3) NEPA terms.--The terms ``categorical exclusion'',
``environmental document'', and ``programmatic environmental
document'' have the meanings given such terms, respectively,
in section 111 of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336e).
SEC. 122. CONSULTATION ON FOREST PLANS.
(a) Forest Service Plans.--Section 6(d)(2) of the Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16
U.S.C. 1604(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) No additional consultation required under certain
circumstances.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary shall not be required to reinitiate
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) or section 402.16 of title
50, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation),
on a land management plan approved, amended, or revised under
this section when--
``(A) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
designated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
``(B) new information reveals effects of the land
management plan that may affect a species listed or critical
habitat designated under that Act in a manner or to an extent
not previously considered.''.
(b) Bureau of Land Management Plans.--Section 202 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1712) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) No Additional Consultation Required Under Certain
Circumstances.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary shall not be required to reinitiate
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) or section 402.16 of title
50, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation),
on a land use plan approved, amended, or revised under this
section when--
``(1) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
designated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
``(2) new information reveals effects of the land use plan
that may affect a species listed or critical habitat
designated under that Act in a manner or to an extent not
previously considered.''.
TITLE II--PROTECTING COMMUNITIES IN THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
SEC. 201. COMMUNITY WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretaries shall jointly
establish an interagency program to be known as the
``Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program'' that shall
consist of at least one representative from each of the
following:
(1) The Office of Wildland Fire of the Department of the
Interior.
(2) The National Park Service.
(3) The Bureau of Land Management.
(4) The United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(5) The Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(6) The Forest Service.
(7) The Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(8) The United States Fire Administration.
(9) The National Institute of Standards and Technology.
(10) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program established under
subsection (a) is to support interagency coordination in
reducing the risk of, and the damages resulting from,
wildfires in communities (including tribal communities) in
the wildland-urban interface through--
(1) advancing research and science in wildfire resilience
and land management, including support for non-Federal
research partnerships;
(2) supporting adoption by Indian Tribes and local
governmental entities of fire-resistant building methods,
codes, and standards;
(3) supporting efforts by Indian Tribes or local
governmental entities to address the effects of wildland fire
on such communities, including property damages, air quality,
and water quality;
(4) encouraging public-private partnerships to conduct
hazardous fuels management activities in the wildland-urban
interface;
(5) providing technical and financial assistance targeted
towards communities, including tribal communities, through
streamlined and unified technical assistance and grant
management mechanisms, including the portal and grant
application established under subsection (c), to--
(A) encourage critical risk reduction measures on private
property with high wildfire risk exposure in such
communities; and
(B) mitigate costs for and improve capacity among such
communities.
(c) Portal and Uniform Grant Application.--
(1) In general.--As part of the program established under
subsection (a), the Secretaries and the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency shall establish a portal
through which a person may submit a single, uniform
application for any of the following:
(A) A community wildfire defense grant under section
40803(f) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (16
U.S.C. 6592(f)).
(B) An emergency management performance grant under section
662 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of
2006 (6 U.S.C. 761).
(C) A grant under section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention
and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229).
[[Page H5685]]
(D) A grant under section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention
and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229a).
(E) Financial or technical assistance or a grant under
sections 203, 205, 404, 406, or 420 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133,
5135, 5170c, 5172, 5187).
(2) Simplification of application.--In establishing the
portal and application under paragraph (1), the Secretaries
and the Administrator shall seek to reduce the complexity and
length of the application process for the grants described in
paragraph (1).
(3) Technical assistance.--The Secretaries shall provide
technical assistance to communities or persons seeking to
apply for financial assistance through the portal using the
application established under paragraph (1).
(d) Collaboration and Nonduplication.--In carrying out hte
program established under section (a), the Secretaries shall
ensure collaboration and nonduplication of activities with
the Building Technologies Office of the Department of Energy.
(e) Sunset.--The program established under this section
shall terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 202. COMMUNITY WILDFIRE DEFENSE RESEARCH PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretaries shall, acting jointly,
expand the Joint Fire Science Program to include a
performance-driven research and development program known as
the ``Community Wildfire Defense Research Program'' for the
purpose of testing and advancing innovative designs to create
or improve the wildfire-resistance of structures and
communities.
(b) Program Priorities.--In carrying out the program
established under subsection (a), the Secretaries shall
evaluate opportunities to create wildfire-resistant
structures and communities through--
(1) different affordable building materials, including mass
timber;
(2) home hardening, including policies to incentivize and
incorporate defensible space;
(3) subdivision design and other land use planning and
design;
(4) landscape architecture; and
(5) other wildfire-resistant designs, as determined by the
Secretary.
(c) Community Wildfire Defense Innovation Prize.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program established
under subsection (a), the Secretaries shall carry out a
competition through which a person may submit to the
Secretaries innovative designs for the creation or
improvement of an ignition-resistant structure or fire-
adapted communities.
(2) Prize.--Subject to the availability of appropriations
made in advance for such purpose, the Secretaries may award a
prize under the competition described in paragraph (1), based
on criteria established by the Secretaries and in accordance
with paragraph (3).
(3) Scale.--In awarding a prize under paragraph (2), the
Secretaries shall prioritize for an award designs with the
most potential to scale to existing infrastructure.
(d) Sunset.--The program established under subsection (a)
shall terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 203. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT, FACILITY INSPECTION, AND
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RELATING TO ELECTRIC
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY RIGHTS-
OF-WAY.
(a) Hazard Trees Within 150 Feet of Electric Power Line.--
Section 512(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(a)(1)(B)(ii)) is
amended by striking ``10'' and inserting ``150''.
(b) Consultation With Private Landowners.--Section
512(c)(3)(E) of such Act (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(3)(E)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) consulting with a private landowner with respect to
any hazard trees identified for removal from land owned by
the private landowner.''.
(c) Review and Approval Process.--Section 512(c)(4)(A)(iv)
of such Act (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(4)(A)(iv)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(iv) ensures that--
``(I) a plan submitted without a modification under clause
(iii) shall be automatically approved 120 days after being
submitted; and
``(II) with respect to a plan submitted with a modification
under clause (iii), if not approved within 120 days after
being submitted, the Secretary concerned shall develop and
submit a letter to the owner and operator describing--
``(aa) a detailed timeline (to conclude within 165 days
after the submission of the plan) for completing review of
the plan;
``(bb) any identified deficiencies with the plan and
specific opportunities for the owner and operator to address
such deficiencies; and
``(cc) any other relevant information, as determined by the
Secretary concerned.''.
SEC. 204. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY LINES
RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
(a) Categorical Exclusion Established.--Forest management
activities described in subsection (b) are a category of
activities 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
subsection (a) for a categorical exclusion are--
(1) the development and approval of a vegetation
management, facility inspection, and operation and
maintenance plan submitted under section 512(c)(1) of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1772(c)(1)) by the Secretary concerned; and
(2) the implementation of routine activities conducted
under the plan referred to in paragraph (1).
(c) Availability of Categorical Exclusion.--On and after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned
may use the categorical exclusion established under
subsection (a) in accordance with this section.
(d) Exclusion of Certain Areas From Categorical
Exclusion.--The categorical exclusion established under
subsection (a) shall not apply to any forest management
activity conducted--
(1) in a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System; or
(2) on National Forest System lands on which the removal of
vegetation is restricted or prohibited by an Act of Congress.
(e) Permanent Roads.--
(1) Prohibition on establishment.--A forest management
activity designated under subsection (b) shall not include
the establishment of a permanent road.
(2) Existing roads.--The Secretary concerned may carry out
necessary maintenance and repair on an existing permanent
road for the purposes of conducting a forest management
activity designated under subsection (b).
(3) Temporary roads.--The Secretary concerned shall
decommission any temporary road constructed for carrying out
a forest management activity designated under subsection (b)
not later than the date that is 3 years after the date on
which the forest management activity is completed.
(f) Applicable Laws.--Clauses (iii) and (iv) of section
106(a)(3) shall apply to forest management activities
designated under subsection (b).
SEC. 205. SEEDS OF SUCCESS.
(a) Strategy Established.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaries and the
Secretary of Defense shall jointly develop and implement a
strategy, to be known as the ``Seeds of Success strategy'',
to enhance the domestic supply chain of seeds.
(b) Elements.--The strategy required under subsection (a)
shall include a plan for each of the following:
(1) Facilitating sustained interagency coordination in, and
a comprehensive approach to, native plant materials
development and restoration.
(2) Promoting the re-seeding of native or fire-resistant
vegetation post-wildfire, particularly in the wildland-urban
interface.
(3) Creating and consolidating information on native or
fire-resistant vegetation and sharing such information with
State governments, Indian Tribes, and local governments.
(4) Building regional programs and partnerships to promote
the development of materials made from plants native to the
United States and restore such plants to their respective,
native habitats within the United States, giving priority to
the building of such programs and partnerships in regions of
the Bureau of Land Management where such partnerships and
programs do not already exist as of the date of enactment of
this Act.
(5) Expanding seed storage and seed-cleaning
infrastructure.
(6) Expanding the Warehouse System of the Bureau of Land
Management, particularly the cold storage capacity of the
Warehouse System.
(7) Shortening the timeline for the approval of permits to
collect seeds on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management.
(c) Report.--The Secretaries and the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the relevant Congressional Committees the
strategy developed under paragraph (1).
TITLE III--TRANSPARENCY AND TECHNOLOGY
SEC. 301. BIOCHAR INNOVATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
CONSERVATION, HEALTH, AND ADVANCEMENTS IN
RESEARCH.
(a) Demonstration Projects.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations made in advance for such purpose, not later
than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the
covered Secretaries shall establish a program to enter into
partnerships with eligible entities to carry out
demonstration projects to support the development and
commercialization of biochar in accordance with this
subsection.
(B) Location of demonstration projects.--In carrying out
the program established under subparagraph (A), the covered
Secretaries shall, to the maximum extent practicable, enter
into partnerships with eligible entities such that not fewer
than one demonstration project is carried out in each region
of the Forest Service and each region of the Bureau of Land
Management.
(2) Proposals.--To be eligible to enter into a partnership
to carry out a biochar demonstration project under paragraph
(1)(A), an eligible entity shall submit to the covered
Secretaries a proposal at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the covered Secretaries may
require.
(3) Priority.--In selecting proposals under paragraph (2),
the covered Secretaries shall give priority to entering into
partnerships with eligible entities that submit proposals to
carry out biochar demonstration projects that--
(A) have the most carbon sequestration potential;
(B) have the most potential to create new jobs and
contribute to local economies, particularly in rural areas;
(C) have the most potential to demonstrate--
(i) new and innovative uses of biochar;
(ii) market viability for cost effective biochar-based
products;
[[Page H5686]]
(iii) the ecosystem services created or supported by the
use of biochar;
(iv) the restorative benefits of biochar with respect to
forest heath and resiliency, including forest soils and
watersheds; or
(v) any combination of purposes specified in clauses (i)
through (iv); and
(D) are located in areas that have a high need for biochar
production, as determined by the covered Secretaries, due
to--
(i) nearby lands identified as having high or very high or
extreme risk of wildfire;
(ii) availability of sufficient quantities of feedstocks;
(iii) a high level of demand for biochar or other
commercial byproducts of biochar; or
(iv) any combination of purposes specified in subparagraphs
(A) through (D).
(4) Use of funds.--In carrying out the program established
under paragraph (1)(A), the covered Secretaries may enter
into partnerships and provide funding to such partnerships to
carry out demonstration projects to--
(A) acquire and test various feedstocks and their efficacy;
(B) develop and optimize commercially and technologically
viable biochar production units, including mobile and
permanent units;
(C) demonstrate--
(i) the production of biochar from forest residue; and
(ii) the use of biochar to restore forest health and
resiliency;
(D) build, expand, or establish biochar facilities;
(E) conduct research on new and innovative uses of biochar;
(F) demonstrate cost-effective market opportunities for
biochar and biochar-based products;
(G) carry out any other activities the covered Secretaries
determine appropriate; or
(H) any combination of the purposes specified in
subparagraphs (A) through (F).
(5) Feedstock requirements.--To the maximum extent
practicable, an eligible entity that carries out a biochar
demonstration project under this subsection shall, with
respect to the feedstock used under such project, derive at
least 50 percent of such feedstock from forest thinning and
management activities, including mill residues, conducted on
National Forest System lands or public lands.
(6) Review of biochar demonstration.--
(A) In general.--The covered Secretaries shall conduct
regionally-specific research, including economic analyses and
life-cycle assessments, on any biochar produced from a
demonstration project carried out under the program
established in paragraph (1)(A), including--
(i) the effects of such biochar on--
(I) forest health and resiliency;
(II) carbon capture and sequestration, including increasing
soil carbon in the short-term and long-term;
(III) productivity, reduced input costs, and water
retention in agricultural practices;
(IV) the health of soil and grasslands used for grazing
activities, including grazing activities on National Forest
System land and public land;
(V) environmental remediation activities, including
abandoned mine land remediation; and
(VI) other ecosystem services created or supported by the
use of biochar;
(ii) the effectiveness of biochar as a co-product of
biofuels or in biochemicals; and
(iii) the effectiveness of other potential uses of biochar
to determine if any such use is technologically and
commercially viable.
(B) Coordination.--The covered Secretaries shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, provide data, analyses, and other
relevant information collected under subparagraph (A) with
recipients of a grant under subsection (b).
(7) Limitation on funding for establishing biochar
facilities.--If the covered Secretaries provide to an
eligible entity that enters into a partnership with the
covered Secretaries under paragraph (1)(A) funding for
establishing a biochar facility, such funding may not exceed
35 percent of the total capital cost of establishing such
biochar facility.
(b) Biochar Research and Development Grant Program.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish or
expand an existing applied biochar research and development
grant program to make competitive grants to eligible
institutions to carry out the activities described in
paragraph (3).
(2) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this subsection, an eligible institution shall submit to the
Secretary a proposal at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require.
(3) Use of funds.--An eligible institution that receives a
grant under this subsection shall use the grant funds to
conduct applied research on--
(A) the effect of biochar on forest health and resiliency,
accounting for variations in biochar, soil, climate, and
other factors;
(B) the effect of biochar on soil health and water
retention, accounting for variations in biochar, soil,
climate, and other factors;
(C) the long-term carbon sequestration potential of
biochar;
(D) the best management practices with respect to biochar
and biochar-based products that maximize--
(i) carbon sequestration benefits; and
(ii) the commercial viability and application of such
products in forestry, agriculture, environmental remediation,
water quality improvement, and any other similar uses, as
determined by the Secretary;
(E) the regional uses of biochar to increase productivity
and profitability, including--
(i) uses in agriculture and environmental remediation; and
(ii) use as a co-product in fuel production;
(F) new and innovative uses for biochar byproducts; and
(G) opportunities to expand markets for biochar and create
related jobs, particularly in rural areas.
(c) Reports.--
(1) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the covered Secretaries shall
submit to Congress a report that--
(A) includes policy and program recommendations to improve
the widespread use of biochar;
(B) identifies any area of research needed to advance
biochar commercialization; and
(C) identifies barriers to further biochar
commercialization, including permitting and siting
considerations.
(2) Materials submitted in support of the president's
budget.--Beginning with the second fiscal year that begins
after the date of enactment of this Act and annually
thereafter until the date described in subsection (d), the
covered Secretaries shall include in the materials submitted
to Congress in support of the President's budget pursuant to
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, a report
describing, for the fiscal year covered by the report, the
status of each demonstration project carried out under
subsection (a) and each research and development grant
carried out under subsection (b).
(d) Sunset.--The authority to carry out this section shall
terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Biochar.--The term ``biochar'' means carbonized biomass
produced by converting feedstock through reductive thermal
processing for non-fuel uses.
(2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
(A) a State, local, or Tribal government;
(B) an eligible institution; or
(C) a private, non-private, or cooperative entity or
organization;
(D) a National Laboratory (as such term is defined in
section 2 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
15801)); or
(E) a partnership or consortium of two or more entities
described in subparagraphs (A) through (D).
(3) Eligible institution.--The term ``eligible
institution'' means land-grant colleges and universities,
including institutions eligible for funding under the--
(A) Act of July 2, 1862 (12 Stat. 503, chapter 130; 7
U.S.C. 301 et seq.);
(B) Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 417, chapter 841; 7
U.S.C. 321 et seq.), including Tuskegee University;
(C) Public Law 87-788 (commonly known as the ``McIntire-
Stennis Act of 1962''); or
(D) Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 301 note; Public Law 103-382).
(4) Feedstock.--The term ``feedstock'' means excess biomass
in the form of plant matter or materials that serves as the
raw material for the production of biochar.
(5) Covered secretaries.--The term ``covered Secretaries''
means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief
of the Forest Service;
(B) the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management; and
(C) the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Director of
the Office of Science.
SEC. 302. ACCURATE HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION REPORTS.
(a) Inclusion of Hazardous Fuels Reduction Report in
Materials Submitted in Support of the President's Budget.--
(1) In general.--Beginning with the first fiscal year that
begins after the date of enactment of this Act, and each
fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary concerned shall include
in the materials submitted to Congress in support of the
President's budget pursuant to section 1105 of title 31,
United States Code, a report on the number of acres of
Federal land on which the Secretary concerned carried out
hazardous fuels reduction activities during the preceding
fiscal year.
(2) Requirements.--For purposes of the report required
under paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall--
(A) in determining the number of acres of Federal land on
which the Secretary concerned carried out hazardous fuels
reduction activities during the period covered by the
report--
(i) record acres of Federal land on which hazardous fuels
reduction activities were completed during such period; and
(ii) record each acre described in clause (i) once in the
report, regardless of whether multiple hazardous fuels
reduction activities were carried out on such acre during
such period; and
(B) with respect to the acres of Federal land recorded in
the report, include information on--
(i) which such acres are located in the wildland-urban
interface;
(ii) the level of wildfire risk (high, moderate, or low) on
the first and last day of the period covered by the report;
(iii) the types of hazardous fuels activities completed for
such acres, delineating between whether such activities were
conducted--
(I) in a wildfire managed for resource benefits; or
(II) through a planned project;
(iv) the cost per acre of hazardous fuels activities
carried out during the period covered by the report;
(v) the region or system unit in which the acres are
located; and
(vi) the effectiveness of the hazardous fuels reduction
activities on reducing the risk of wildfire.
(3) Transparency.--The Secretary concerned shall make each
report submitted under paragraph (1) publicly available on
the websites of
[[Page H5687]]
the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the
Interior, as applicable.
(b) Accurate Data Collection.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned shall
implement standardized procedures for tracking data related
to hazardous fuels reduction activities carried out by the
Secretary concerned.
(2) Elements.--The standardized procedures required under
paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) regular, standardized data reviews of the accuracy and
timely input of data used to track hazardous fuels reduction
activities;
(B) verification methods that validate whether such data
accurately correlates to the hazardous fuels reduction
activities carried out by the Secretary concerned;
(C) an analysis of the short- and long-term effectiveness
of the hazardous fuels reduction activities on reducing the
risk of wildfire; and
(D) for hazardous fuels reduction activities that occur
partially within the wildland-urban interface, methods to
distinguish which acres are located within the wildland-urban
interface and which acres are located outside the wildland-
urban interface.
(3) Report.--Not later than 2 weeks after implementing the
standardized procedures required under paragraph (1), the
Secretary concerned shall submit to Congress a report that
describes--
(A) such standardized procedures; and
(B) program and policy recommendations to Congress to
address any limitations in tracking data related to hazardous
fuels reduction activities under this subsection.
(c) GAO Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall--
(1) conduct a study on the implementation of this section,
including any limitations with respect to--
(A) reporting hazardous fuels reduction activities under
subsection (a); or
(B) tracking data related to hazardous fuels reduction
activities under subsection (b); and
(2) submit to Congress a report that describes the results
of the study under paragraph (1).
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Hazardous fuels reduction activity.--The term
``hazardous fuels reduction activity''--
(A) means any vegetation management activity to reduce the
risk of wildfire, including mechanical treatments and
prescribed burning; and
(B) does not include the awarding of contracts to conduct
hazardous fuels reduction activities.
(2) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means lands
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or
the Secretary of Agriculture.
(e) No Additional Funds Authorized.--No additional funds
are authorized to carry out the requirements of this section,
and the activities authorized by this section are subject to
the availability of appropriations made in advance for such
purposes.
SEC. 303. PUBLIC-PRIVATE WILDFIRE TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION PARTNERSHIP.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered agency.--The term ``covered agency'' means--
(A) each Federal land management agency (as such term is
defined in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16
U.S.C. 6801));
(B) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
(C) the United States Fire Administration;
(D) the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
(E) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
(F) the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
(G) the Department of Defense;
(H) a State, Tribal, county, or municipal fire department
or district operating through the United States Fire
Administration or pursuant to an agreement with a Federal
agency; and
(I) any other Federal agency involved in wildfire response.
(2) Covered entity.--The term ``covered entity'' means--
(A) a private entity;
(B) a nonprofit organization; or
(C) an institution of higher education (as defined in
section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001)).
(b) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretaries, in coordination with
the heads of the covered agencies, shall establish a
deployment and demonstration pilot program (in this section
referred to as ``Pilot Program'') for new and innovative
wildfire prevention, detection, communication, and mitigation
technologies.
(c) Functions.--In carrying out the Pilot Program, the
Secretaries shall--
(1) incorporate the Pilot Program into the National
Wildfire Coordinating Group;
(2) in consultation with the heads of covered agencies,
identify and advance the demonstration and deployment of key
technology priority areas with respect to wildfire
prevention, detection, communication, and mitigation
technologies, including--
(A) hazardous fuels reduction treatments or activities;
(B) dispatch communications;
(C) remote sensing, detection, and tracking;
(D) safety equipment; and
(E) common operating pictures or operational dashboards;
and
(3) connect each covered entity selected to participate in
the Pilot Program with the appropriate covered agency to
coordinate real-time and on-the-ground testing of technology
during wildland fire mitigation activities and training.
(d) Applications.--To be eligible to be selected to
participate in the Pilot Program, a covered entity shall
submit to the Secretaries an application at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretaries may require, including a proposal to demonstrate
technologies specific to the key technology priority areas
identified pursuant to subsection (c)(2).
(e) Prioritization of Emerging Technologies.--In selecting
covered entities to participate in the Pilot Program, the
Secretaries shall give priority to covered entities--
(1) that have participated in the Fire Weather Testbed of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; or
(2) developing and applying emerging technologies for
wildfire mitigation, including artificial intelligence,
quantum sensing, computing an dquantum-hybrid applications,
augmented reality, 5G private networks, and device-to-device
communications supporting nomadic mesh networks.
(f) Outreach.--The Secretaries, in coordination with the
heads of covered agencies, shall make public the key
technology priority areas identified pursuant to subsection
(c)(2) and invite covered entities to apply under subsection
(d) to test and demonstrate their technologies to address
such priority areas.
(g) Reports and Recommendations.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually
thereafter for the duration of the Pilot Program, the
Secretaries shall submit to the relevant Congressional
Committees, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report
that includes, with respect to the Pilot Program, the
following:
(1) A list of participating covered entities.
(2) A brief description of the technologies deployed and
demonstrated by each such covered entity.
(3) An estimate of the cost of acquiring each such
technology and applying the technology at scale.
(4) Outreach efforts by Federal agencies to covered
entities developing wildfire technologies.
(5) Assessments of, and recommendations relating to, new
technologies with potential adoption and application at-scale
in Federal land management agencies' wildfire prevention,
detection, communication, and mitigation efforts.
(6) A description of the relationship and coordination
between the Pilot Program and the activities of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including the Fire
Weather Testbed.
(h) Sunset.--The authority to carry out this section shall
terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 304. GAO STUDY ON FOREST SERVICE POLICIES.
Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall--
(1) conduct a study evaluating--
(A) the effectiveness of Forest Service wildland
firefighting operations;
(B) transparency and accountability measures in the Forest
Service's budget and accounting process; and
(C) the suitability and feasibility of establishing a new
Federal agency with the responsibility of responding and
suppressing wildland fires on Federal lands; and
(2) submit to Congress a report that describes the results
of the study required under paragraph (1).
SEC. 305. FOREST SERVICE WESTERN HEADQUARTERS STUDY.
Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Chief of the Forest Service shall--
(1) conduct a study evaluating--
(A) potential locations for a Western headquarters for the
Forest Service, including potential locations in at least 3
different States located west of the Mississippi river; and
(B) the potential benefits of creating a Western
headquarters for the Forest Service, including expected--
(i) improvements to customer service;
(ii) improvements to employee recruitment and retention;
and
(iii) operational efficiencies and cost savings; and
(2) submit to Congress a report that describes the results
of the study required under paragraph (1).
SEC. 306. KEEPING FOREST PLANS CURRENT AND MONITORED.
(a) In General.--The Secretary--
(1) to the greatest extent practicable and subject to the
availability of appropriations made in advance for such
purpose--
(A) ensure forest plans comply with the requirements of
section 6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and Rangeland Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A)); and
(B) prioritize revising any forest plan not in compliance
with such section 6(f)(5)(A);
(2) not be considered to be in violation of section
6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A)) solely because
more than 15 years have passed without revision of the plan
for a unit of the National Forest System;
(3) not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, submit to the relevant Congressional Committees
the date on which each forest plan required by such section 6
was most recently revised, amended, or modified;
(4) seek to publish a new, complete version of a forest
plan that the Secretary has been directed to amend, revise,
or modify by a court order within 60 days of such amendment,
revision, or modification, subject to the availability of
appropriations made in advance for such purpose; and
(5) maintain a central, publicly accessible website with
links to--
(A) the most recently available forest plan adopted,
amended, or modified by a court order as a single document;
and
[[Page H5688]]
(B) the most recently published forest plan monitoring
report for each unit of the National Forest System.
(b) Good Faith Updates.--If the Secretary is not acting
expeditiously and in good faith, within the funding available
to revise, amend, or modify a plan for a unit of the National
Forest System as required by law or a court order, subsection
(a) shall be void with respect to such plan and a court of
proper jurisdiction may order completion of the plan on an
accelerated basis.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to
the relevant Congressional Committees summarizing the
implementation of this section.
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed
in the report, by the Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Molinaro
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Mr. MOLINARO. 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:
Page 21, line 10, strike ``and''.
Page 21, line 14, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
Page 21, after line 14, insert the following:
(v) a strategy for reducing the threat of wildfire to
improve the effectiveness of wildland firefighting,
particularly the effectiveness of fuels treatments that would
improve wildland firefighter safety during wildfires;
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Molinaro) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support and speak briefly
on my amendment, which seeks to highlight the importance of protecting
our wildland firefighters by considering strategies to mitigate health
risks to them.
As we witness the increasing devastation caused by wildfires across
our country, we cannot and should not overlook the heroic efforts of
those brave men and women who fight them. They risk their lives on the
front lines, protect their communities and natural landscapes, facing
extreme danger in unpredictable environments, and often working long
hours in extremely hazardous conditions.
Unfortunately, though, there are times that their protection and
well-being can be seen as an afterthought. I extend my appreciation to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Harder) for his work on this
amendment. Our bipartisan amendment seeks to consider strategies that
would enhance wildland firefighter safety in the fireshed assessment.
Providing Federal assistance to States to augment these plans will
only reduce wildfire exposure risks. As a member of my own local fire
department, I too understand the great sacrifice that too many
certainly make on our behalf. Addressing firefighter safety is not
something we can do in isolation. It requires cooperation from all
levels of government.
Our amendment is just one step forward. We need to continue to push
for bipartisan solutions that prioritize the safety of wildland
firefighters, and this is a fight that transcends, of course, party
lines because the lives of those brave men and women who fight the
fires and their safety are at stake.
I express my appreciation to Chairman Westerman and Representative
Harder for their work on this bill.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment.
I congratulate my colleague, Representative Harder, for getting it
made in order for consideration today, but I do want to take this
opportunity to comment on the overall process we have seen on the
underlying bill.
This amendment is an example of the sort of thing we could have
figured out months ago if Republican leaders had not insisted on such a
rushed, chaotic process for this bill.
The hearing was on a discussion draft, which meant that it happened
without testimony from one of the affected Federal departments. Then my
Republican colleagues ignored extensive technical assistance and red
flags provided by the Department of the Interior and by the Forest
Service.
I emphasize again: I am not even talking about policy differences
here. I am talking about serious concerns that the bill doesn't make
sense.
Unfortunately, the sponsor ignored those red flags. Throughout the
process, committee Democrats have asked to be included so that we could
try to reach consensus on this bill.
We could have made suggestions, such as this amendment before us. We
could have offered improvements to address the administration's
concerns, but we were excluded. Now we are here with a bill that
doesn't comply with the Republican Conference's own CutGo protocols and
that, as of this morning, didn't even have a CBO score.
Finally, for anyone who missed this earlier, Republicans accidentally
made in order an amendment drafted so badly that it would strike the
bill entirely and replace it with a noncontroversial bill that
Democrats support. That sounded good to me, but Republicans had to come
to us this morning to ask for our help in fixing that mistake.
Here is the bottom line: I am not opposed to this amendment, but,
unfortunately, it won't be enough to make a bad bill, created through a
bad process, into a good one. Maybe we could have gotten there with an
inclusive process, but that is not the path my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle chose, and that is where we are today.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's support for
our amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan
amendment offered by my colleague from New York (Mr. Molinaro), and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Harder).
This amendment ensures that each fireshed assessment required by the
bill also includes consideration of a strategy to reduce the threat
that wildfires pose to wildfire firefighters' health and safety.
Specifically, the amendment requires that fireshed assessments
analyze the effectiveness of fuel treatments that would improve both
the efficacy of wildland firefighting and the safety of wildland
firefighters.
Fireshed assessments are a strategic tool for gauging or reducing the
risk of wildfire in high-risk areas. By targeting treatments in the
right areas, we can protect communities and put firefighters into
winnable situations where they can effectively battle wildfires.
This amendment focuses on a crucial dimension of the wildfire crisis;
namely, the safety of the brave men and women who regularly put
themselves in danger to combat raging wildfires.
The amendment correctly identifies fuel treatments as a meaningful
way to accomplish this goal, as proactively treated areas can slow the
advancing wildfires and give firefighters precious time to safely
combat an approaching blaze.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the bipartisan collaboration reflected in
this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
[[Page H5689]]
Mr. LaMalfa. 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:
After section 116 insert the following:
SEC. 117. UTILIZING GRAZING FOR WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION.
The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of
the Forest Service, in coordination with holders of permits
to graze livestock on Federal land, shall develop a strategy
to increase opportunities to utilize livestock grazing as a
wildfire risk reduction strategy, including--
(1) completion of reviews (as required under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)) to
allow permitted grazing on vacant grazing allotments during
instances of drought, wildfire, or other natural disasters
that disrupt grazing on allotments already permitted;
(2) use of targeted grazing;
(3) increased use of temporary permits to promote targeted
fuels reduction and reduction of invasive annual grasses;
(4) increased use of grazing as a postfire recovery and
restoration strategy, where appropriate; and
(5) use of all applicable authorities under the law.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, 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, for my colleague from California (Ms.
Porter), I have an amendment that should raise the balance to loving
this bill.
Mr. Chair, as part of the Fix Our Forests Act, I have been able to
add my amendment, which is contained in H.R. 7666. It directs the
Forest Service to expand the use of utilizing targeted animal grazing
in fuels management programs to reduce wildfire risk.
It will make the use of grazing to reduce fine fuels found in forest
floors and the meadows near them, which make fires burn hotter, faster,
and more dangerously. Utilizing livestock for fire fuel management is
common sense, and it has been practiced for many years. It is being
curtailed by more and more difficult permitting processes in more
recent years.
It is a very important tool that, unfortunately, is not being
utilized enough, whether it is cattle on the vast plains and areas
around our forested areas, sheep, or, as we have seen success, even in
urban areas, people hiring goatherds to come in and clean those
difficult areas that are hard for people themselves to get in, such as
along riverbanks and places like that.
{time} 1530
We know this tool works well in order to curb that flammable
material.
The West continues to face a wildfire and a forest health crisis. In
California, as we have listed out here today, we have seen many
firsthand instances of fire that are just unbelievably large and
devastating. It is even more increasing in later fire seasons here.
I can talk about my district itself and the catastrophic damage we
have had. The Camp fire in Paradise was over 100,000 acres, but key to
that argument is the loss of 85 lives in that devastating fire. The
North Complex, my colleague from Arkansas mentioned earlier, has
consumed portions of Forbestown and Berry Creek, and it was over
318,000 acres. Then, we had, later on, the million-acre Dixie fire.
Most recently, the Park fire, which started in a park near Chico, ended
up consuming right under 430,000 acres.
These are all six- and seven-digit numbers that have burned right in
my backyard, in just one district, and over 2 million acres in just a
few short years, with the Park fire being now the fifth largest in
California history.
Seven million acres have burned in the Western States this year. This
legislation is important across many fire-prone areas.
Herd agencies are limited in the scope of tools they can consider,
and often the post-fire teams bear the burden of suggesting creative
tools, like livestock grazing.
This isn't creative. This is actually well-known. If they want to
call it creative, I am for anything that will get us to use this tool
even more.
My amendment would enhance the intent of the Fix Our Forests Act and
help with preventing more catastrophic and preventable fires. It is
known to work.
Mr. Chair, I also thank my friend, Mr. Vasquez, for his support with
this legislation as we partner on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Perry). Is there objection to the request of
the gentlewoman?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment, and I have
worked collaboratively with my colleague, Mr. LaMalfa, across the aisle
on wildfire issues. I will also congratulate my Democratic colleague,
Representative Vasquez, for getting this amendment made in order.
I do want to register the same concerns that I have expressed before.
The process on the Fix Our Forests Act has been a total black box. A
good amendment or two does not change the overall bill, which would gut
bedrock environmental laws.
Committee Democrats have asked again and again to try to work
together to reach consensus on this bill, and it would have been a
great opportunity to talk about this amendment, which, again, I do not
oppose.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Vasquez), my colleague.
Mr. VASQUEZ. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment with
Representative LaMalfa.
New Mexicans know all too well how disastrous wildfires can be for
our families, homes, private property, culture, and tradition. We need
to use every tool in our toolbox to lessen the frequency and severity
of wildfires.
Livestock grazing can help us accomplish that goal. Grazing targeted
areas can help slow the spread of an intense burn and control the
temperature of a fire by reducing the amount of flammable organic fuel.
This bipartisan amendment adds the text of our bill, the Utilizing
Grazing for Wildfire Risk Reduction Act, to the proposed legislation.
This amendment ensures that grazing is a tool that can be used
proactively to prevent wildfires and keep New Mexicans safe. It helps
cut through red tape and makes it easier for ranchers to assist in
preventing devastating wildfires that destroy our lands, culture, and
livelihood.
I appreciate Congressman LaMalfa for working with me on this
important bipartisan amendment that uses a commonsense approach to
reduce the threat of wildfires. We know that the cost of fighting
wildland fires is astronomical, so we must use every available resource
to prevent future natural and human-caused disasters.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Valadao
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3, as
modified, printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment, as
modified.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 3, AS MODIFIED, OFFERED BY MR. VALADAO OF CALIFORNIA
At the end of Title III add the following:
SEC. 307 CONTAINER AERIAL FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM (CAFFS).
(a) Evaluation.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the
National Interagency Aviation Committee and the Interagency
Airtanker Board, shall jointly conduct an evaluation of the
container aerial firefighting system to assess the use of
such system to mitigate and suppress wildfires.
(b) Report.--Not Later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the National
Interagency Aviation Committee and the Interagency Airtanker
Board, shall jointly submit to the appropriate committees a
report that includes the results of the evaluation required
under subsection (a).
(c) Appropriate Committees Defined.--In this section, the
term ``appropriate committees'' means--(1) the Committees on
Agriculture and Natural Resources of the House
[[Page H5690]]
of Representatives; and (2) the Committees on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry and Energy and Natural Resources of
the Senate.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Valadao) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Westerman and his staff at
the Natural Resources Committee for their work on this very important
bill. I appreciate his partnership and work to ensure my amendment was
included today.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would
dramatically increase the number of airlift assets available for
wildfire emergencies.
Containerized Aerial Firefighting Systems, or CAFFS, are airdrop-
capable disposable containers for water or fire retardant, which can be
dropped from much higher altitudes and with less visibility than
current aerial firefighting operations. Current aerial firefighting
operations depend on single-mission aircraft, but CAFFS can be used by
any standard cargo plane.
The use of CAFFS provides more coverage for firefighters on the
ground and allows teams to quickly respond to prevent smaller fires
from becoming uncontrollable. These systems are being used in other
countries, but not here in the United States. We have the technology
that we can deploy to stop the devastation these fires cause, and we
should be using it.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of this
amendment to help combat and contain wildfires in a quicker and more
efficient way.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment. As
corrected, it would add a bill that we previously passed in the Natural
Resources Committee by unanimous consent and then here on the floor on
suspension by a voice vote.
I say I am not opposed to this amendment as corrected because this is
the amendment that I referenced earlier. The amendment that Republicans
accidentally made in order, a version of this amendment that was
drafted so badly that would have deleted the entire text of the Fix Our
Forests Act.
In other words, it wouldn't have just added Mr. Valadao's bill to the
overall legislation. It would have deleted the overall bill and
replaced it with Mr. Valadao's bill, which, as I noted, is a
noncontroversial bill that Democrats support.
Republicans came to Democrats this morning to ask for our help in
fixing that mistake. My concern here is that that is reflective of a
process problem: the sloppy drafting in the underlying bill, the
refusal to incorporate well-intentioned feedback from the
administration, and the exclusion of committee Democrats from
developing this bill.
This is bad process.
I am not opposed to this amendment, which already passed the House
floor on suspension, but one good amendment is not enough to fix the
bad bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Mr.
Valadao of California.
This amendment does require the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to conduct an evaluation of the container
aerial firefighting system to assess the use of such a system to
mitigate and suppress wildfires. The Secretaries must conduct this
evaluation in consultation with the National Interagency Aviation
Committee and the Interagency Airtanker Board.
As we attempt to combat the devastating wildfire crisis, it is
essential that agencies like the U.S. Forest Service are utilizing all
available technologies to suppress wildfires. The technology supported
by this amendment involves disposable containers that are dropped with
water or fire retardant, which could potentially decrease the response
time to fires and increase the number of aircraft available for
firefighting duties.
While the technology is not new, the wildland firefighting agencies
have not actively studied it. This amendment, therefore, would ensure
that our wildland firefighting agencies are fully informed about both
the effectiveness and potential cost savings of this important
technology.
Mr. Chair, again, I thank Representative Valadao for his work on this
amendment. Throughout the drafting process, he has continually
advocated for the interests of those in his district and correctly
emphasized the importance of leveraging all available technology and
resources to better protect vulnerable communities.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Mr. GARAMENDI. 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:
Page 8, after line 8, insert the following (and redesignate
subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
(18) Special district.--The term ``special district'' means
a political subdivision of a State that--
(A) has significant budgetary autonomy or control;
(B) was created by or pursuant to the laws of the State for
the purpose of performing a limited and specific governmental
or proprietary function; and
(C) is distinct from any other local government unit within
the State.
Page 29, before line 1, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent subparagraphs accordingly):
(A) in section 3 (16 U.S.C. 6502), by inserting at the end
the following:
``(3) Local government.--The term `local government' means
a county, municipality, or special district.
``(4) Special district.--The term `special district' means
a political subdivision of a State that--
``(A) has significant budgetary autonomy or control;
``(B) was created by or pursuant to the laws of the State
for the purpose of performing a limited and specific
governmental or proprietary function; and
``(C) is distinct from any other local government unit
within the State.''.
Page 30, line 15, strike ``and''.
Page 30, after line 15, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
(2) in subsection (a), by inserting the following:
``(11) Special district.--The term `special district' means
a political subdivision of a State that--
``(A) has significant budgetary autonomy or control;
``(B) was created by or pursuant to the laws of the State
for the purpose of performing a limited and specific
governmental or proprietary function; and
``(C) is distinct from any other local government unit
within the State.''.
Page 30, line 18, insert ``special district,'' after
``tribe,''.
Page 30, line 24, insert ``a special district,'' after
``Indian tribe,''.
Page 31, line 2, insert ``special district,'' after
``tribe,''.
Page 31, line 12, insert ``special district,'' after
``Indian tribe,''.
Page 31, line 17, insert ``special district,'' after
``tribe,''.
Page 31, line 23, insert ``special district,'' after
``tribe,''.
Page 31, line 25, insert ``special district,'' after
``tribe,''.
Page 65, line 11, insert ``special district,'' after
``local,''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
[[Page H5691]]
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment and the
underlying bill.
I thank Mr. Westerman as well as Mr. Peters for presenting the bill
to us. It is a necessary fix to an ongoing challenge that we have in
our national forests and in the urban-wildland interface areas.
I also thank Congressman Fallon, who is the cosponsor of this
amendment.
Now, what we are trying to do here is to include special districts.
Right now, special districts are not included in the legislation.
Tribes and local governments are, and that is all to the good, however,
in California, special districts often provide the necessary control of
the areas in the wildland areas as well as in the urban-wildland
interface.
Specifically, in my district, we have the East Bay Regional Park
District. Most of the wildland in the East Bay of San Francisco Bay is
controlled and owned by the park district.
Right now, they would not be able to participate in the programs of
this legislation, so we clarified that special districts are eligible
to participate in the wildfire-prevention programs authorized under the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, as well in this new
legislation, the Fix Our Forests Act. This would provide opportunities
for the special districts to help reduce the wildfire risk, support
responsible environmental stewardship, and facilitate emergency
response and all of the other elements in the legislation.
Secondly, the amendment expands the Good Neighbor Authority to
include special districts. The Good Neighbor Authority allows the
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to collaborate with
States, counties, and federally recognized Indian Tribes to plan and
implement cross-jurisdictional restoration work.
Since special districts are not currently included in the Good
Neighbor Authority, they must collaborate with the State government or
other eligible entity to participate. Our amendment would finally allow
the special districts to enter into Good Neighbor Authority agreements
and use their local expertise and partnerships to advance restoration
projects in their communities.
As Western States face an increasingly severe year-round fire season,
we will need every tool in the toolbox to implement proper forest
management practices and reduce the risk that wildfires pose to our
communities.
Our amendment would put special districts on par with other forms of
government and allow them to be a strong partner in protecting their
communities.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt our commonsense, bipartisan
amendment that would enable the special districts to participate in
existing conservation efforts and further use their specialized
expertise to uphold the health and safety of our community.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1545
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although 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. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan
amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Representative
Garamendi, and the gentleman from Texas, Representative Fallon.
This is a thoughtful amendment that will enable special districts to
participate in the biochar research and development program established
in section 301 of the bill. This amendment would also make special
districts eligible to participate in the Good Neighbor Authority.
Across the Nation, there are over 39,000 special districts and
political subdivisions within States, such as resource conservation
districts or water districts.
Both the biochar and Good Neighbor Authority sections of this bill
already allow participation from States, Tribes, and local governments.
Providing eligibility for special districts is a commonsense change
to ensure more non-Federal partners can participate in these vitally
important programs that promote forest health.
I particularly support expanding access for special districts to the
biochar projects authorized by section 301 of the bill.
Biochar is an emerging technology that has shown enormous potential
as an additive to improve soil health and as a significant carbon
sequestration tool, and it also helps the water retention ability of
soil.
A key barrier to expanding active forest management is a lack of
market access for low-value hazardous fuels that must be removed from
overgrown Federal forests.
Biochar is an innovative solution that could create new markets for
these low-value materials, thus increasing the pace and scale of forest
management. I also support adding special districts to the Good
Neighbor Authority.
Since 2014, there have been 490 Good Neighbor projects in 34 States,
and every year, over 273 million board feet of timber is being sold.
Adding special districts to this program creates new opportunities
for even more forest management projects that could further increase
Good Neighbor Authority for forest management activities.
I thank Representatives Garamendi and Fallon for their efforts to
improve this legislation by thoughtfully including special districts.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, 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. Garamendi).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Obernolte
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Mr. OBERNOLTE. 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:
Page 73, line 12, strike ``and''.
Page 73, after line 14, insert the following:
(F) interoperable commercial data; and
Page 74, line 8, insert ``thermal mid-wave infrared
equipped low earth orbit satellites,'' after
``applications,''.
Page 74, line 10, insert ``and detection'' before the
period.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Obernolte) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Modification to Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Obernolte
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be modified with the form I have placed at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
MODIFICATION TO AMENDMENT NO. 5
BY MR. OBERNOLTE
Modify the amendment so as to read as follows:
Page 73, line 12, strike ``and''.
Page 73, after line 14, insert the following:
``(F) interoperable commercial data; and''
Strike and replace Section 303, subsection (e) to read as
follows:
``(e) Prioritization of Emerging Technologies.--
``In selecting covered entities to participate in the Pilot
Program, the Secretaries shall give priority to covered
entities--
``(1) that have participated in the Fire Weather Testbed of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; or
``(2) developing and applying emerging technologies for
wildfire mitigation, including artificial intelligence,
quantum sensing, computing and quantum-hybrid applications,
thermal mid-wave infrared equipped low earth orbit
satellites, augmented reality, 5G private networks, and
device-to-device communications supporting nomadic mesh
networks and detection.''
Mr. OBERNOLTE (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the modification.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the original request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
[[Page H5692]]
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to present my
amendment to the Fix Our Forests Act.
Mr. Chair, I represent a very mountainous region of California, and
every year we have wildfires burn in my region.
The problem is particularly acute this year. We have two major
wildfires that are still burning in my district, the Bridge fire and
the Line fire. Mr. Chair, together, these fires have consumed nearly
100,000 acres.
Thankfully, relatively few structures have been affected this year,
but Mr. Chair, I was convinced 2 weeks ago that we were going to lose
over 1,000 homes in my district.
This problem is particularly acute because the fires spread so
quickly. Unfortunately, the Line fire that caused the evacuation of
parts of my hometown in California was started by arson, and that
arsonist started three different fires that day.
Two of them, Mr. Chair, firefighters were able to jump on quickly and
extinguish. It is the third one that spread quickly enough that it
became the conflagration that threatened many communities in my
district.
This amendment prioritizes emerging technology, such as early-
detection technology and the artificial intelligence techniques
required to process it in the pilot program that this bill establishes.
Mr. Chair, there is a lot of promise in early-detection technologies.
Conventional satellite detection relies on satellites and geostationary
orbits that are far away from the Earth, and therefore, have very poor
spatial resolution. Those satellites can only detect a fire when it is
already quite large.
Mr. Chair, new low-Earth orbit satellites with thermal detection
technology have much better spatial resolution, and they can detect a
forest fire when it just begins.
Moreover, these new technologies can be transmitted to the Earth in
minutes instead of hours. If you combine that with the artificial
intelligence processing technology that looks at these images and can
distinguish between a campfire and a tree that is hit by lightning that
is the potential source of a forest fire, that is a game-changing
development in wildfire technology.
Combine that with fast, aerial, firefighting platforms, and we will
be able to put out fires before they get started and avoid some of the
catastrophes that have afflicted my district in recent years.
I think this is a commonsense amendment. I am thankful it is
bipartisan. I thank my bipartisan sponsor, Congresswoman Pettersen from
Colorado, who shares my concern about this, and I urge adoption of my
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Valadao). Is there objection to the request of
the gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment, but I
remain opposed to the underlying bill, which is filled with
environmental poison pills and which the administration has warned us
is so poorly drafted that they do not and will not know how to
implement parts of it. Nothing in this otherwise sound amendment
addresses these concerns.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chair of the Natural
Resources Committee and my friend.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the bipartisan
amendment offered by Representatives Obernolte of California and
Pettersen of Colorado, which supports the use of thermal, midwave,
infrared-equipped, low-Earth orbit satellites.
It is a mouthful, but it is a good addition to the Fix Our Forests
Act, and it shows that we are trying to incorporate the latest
technology. We are trying to incorporate AI technology and more remote
sensing technology so that we can be on the cutting edge of the fight
against wildland fire.
Again, I commend my colleagues for their dedication and willingness
to work together to ensure that the best solutions can be brought to
bear on addressing the wildfire crisis.
I urge everyone to support the amendment and the underlying bill.
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On September 24, 2024, page H5692, in the second column, the
following appeared: on the amendment offered by the gen- . . . .
The amendment was agreed to.
The online version has been corrected to read: on the amendment,
as modified, offered by the gen- . . . . The amendment, as
modified, was agreed to.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Harder of California
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Mr. HARDER of California. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On September 24, 2024, page H5692, in the second column, the
following appeared: AMENDMENT NO. 6 OFFERED BY MR. HARDER The
Acting CHAIR. It is now in order . . . . Mr. HARDER. Mr. Chair, I
have an
The online version has been corrected to read: AMENDMENT NO. 6
OFFERED BY MR. HARDER of California The Acting CHAIR. It is now in
order . . . . Mr. HARDER of California. Mr. Chair, I have an
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill add the following:
TITLE IV--ENSURING CASUALTY ASSISTANCE FOR OUR FIREFIGHTERS
SEC. 401. WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT CASUALTY ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.
(a) Development of Program.--Not later than 6 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Interior shall develop a Wildland Fire Management Casualty
Assistance Program (referred to in this section as the
``Program'') to provide assistance to the next-of-kin of--
(1) firefighters who, while in the line of duty, suffer
illness or are critically injured or killed; and
(2) wildland fire support personnel critically injured or
killed in the line of duty.
(b) Aspects of Program.--The Program shall address the
following:
(1) The initial and any subsequent notifications to the
next-of-kin of a firefighter or wildland fire support
personnel who--
(A) is killed in the line of duty; or
(B) requires hospitalization or treatment at a medical
facility due to a line-of-duty injury or illness.
(2) The reimbursement of next-of-kin for expenses
associated with travel to visit a firefighter or wildland
fire support personnel who--
(A) is killed in the line of duty; or
(B) requires hospitalization or treatment at a medical
facility due to a line-of-duty injury or illness.
(3) The qualifications, assignment, training, duties,
supervision, and accountability for the performance of
casualty assistance responsibilities.
(4) The relief or transfer of casualty assistance officers,
including notification to survivors of critical injury or
illness in the line of duty and next-of-kin of the
reassignment of such officers to other duties.
(5) Centralized, short-term and long-term case management
procedures for casualty assistance, including rapid access by
survivors of firefighters or wildland fire support personnel
and casualty assistance officers to expert case managers and
counselors.
(6) The provision, through a computer accessible website
and other means and at no cost to survivors and next-of-kin
of firefighters or wildland fire support personnel, of
personalized, integrated information on the benefits and
financial assistance available to such survivors from the
Federal Government.
(7) The provision of information to survivors and next-of-
kin of firefighters or wildland fire support personnel on
mechanisms for registering complaints about, or requests for,
additional assistance related to casualty assistance.
(8) Liaison with the Department of the Interior, the
Department of Justice, and the Social Security Administration
to ensure prompt and accurate resolution of issues relating
to benefits administered by those agencies for survivors of
firefighters or wildland fire support personnel.
(9) Data collection, in consultation with the United States
Fire Administration and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, regarding the incidence and
quality of casualty assistance provided to survivors of
firefighters or wildland fire support personnel.
(c) Line of Duty Death Benefits.--The Program shall not
affect existing authorities for Line of Duty Death benefits
for Federal firefighters and wildland fire support personnel.
(d) Next-of-Kin Defined.--In this section, the term ``next-
of-kin'' means person or persons in the highest category of
priority as determined by the following list (categories
appear in descending order of priority):
(1) Surviving legal spouse.
(2) Children (whether by current or prior marriage) age 18
years or older in descending precedence by age.
(3) Father or mother, unless by court order custody has
been vested in another (adoptive parent takes precedence over
natural parent);
[[Page H5693]]
(4) Siblings (whole or half) age 18 years or older in
descending precedence by age.
(5) Grandfather or grandmother.
(6) Any other relative (precedence to be determined in
accordance with the civil law of descent of the deceased
former member's State of domicile at time of death).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Harder) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HARDER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my
amendment to the Fix Our Forests Act.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On September 24, 2024, page H5693, in the first column, the
following appeared: Mr. HARDER. Mr. Chair, I rise today . . . .
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. HARDER of
California. Mr. Chair, I rise today . . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
Our wildland firefighters are heroes. They are at the front lines of
combating this wildfire crisis every day.
They work in hazardous conditions, inhaling toxic smoke and enduring
temperatures of up to 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit, all the while working
up to 18 hours a day.
Our wildland firefighters put their lives on the line to keep our
families safe, a job that is so often thankless.
When a tragic accident occurs and a wildland firefighter is harmed,
it is our responsibility to provide them with everything they need.
My amendment will ensure that ill, injured, or deceased firefighters
and their loved ones have support and resources through establishing a
Casualty Assistance Program at the Department of the Interior.
Currently, only a few agencies have this program. For example, the
Forest Service. Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior does not.
That means that almost 5,000 Department of the Interior firefighters
are left out of a program that will provide them and their families
with these critical resources during the hardest moments in their life.
These firefighters are trained the same, they are paid the same, and
most importantly, they do the same work, putting their lives on the
line every single day as their Forest Service colleagues. Yet, they
don't receive the same benefits today. My amendment would immediately
fix this and start giving them the resources that they deserve.
I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment to ensure all wildland
firefighters and their families have support and access to the
resources they deserve.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, we cannot prevent the spread of megafires
without prioritizing the needs of wildland firefighters and their
families.
Wildland firefighters play a critical role managing our forests and
protecting communities from the threats posed by wildfires.
We are so grateful to have their support for the underlying bill.
This is dangerous work, and Congress can and must do more to protect
these public servants.
One component of this is providing respectful notification and
helping families navigate their options when tragedy occurs.
Congress can take a big step toward that end right now by
establishing a Casualty Assistance Program at the Department of the
Interior to provide support for all the critically ill, injured, or
deceased wildland firefighters and their loved ones.
While this program already exists for some Federal firefighters,
almost 5,000 Department of the Interior firefighters and their families
lack access to this aid, leaving them unsupported during some of the
hardest, most painful times in their lives.
Creating a Casualty Assistance Program through the Department of the
Interior will ensure support for all our Federal wildland firefighters
and their families.
We have to provide for those who risk life and limb to protect our
communities from devastating wildfires. This program is one small way
that we show gratitude for our firefighters and their loved ones, by
making sure that they have what they need when the unimaginable
happens.
I strongly support the inclusion of Mr. Harder's amendment and the
inclusion of this necessary program in the Fix Our Forests Act. This is
only one step toward ensuring our firefighters receive every bit of
support that they deserve.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
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. Chair, I join my colleague, Mr. Peters, rising in
support today of Representative Harder's amendment, which does
authorize the Department of the Interior to create a Casualty
Assistance Program to provide support for wildland firefighters and the
families of the firefighters who have been critically injured or killed
in the line of duty.
As was mentioned, the Forest Service already has a Casualty
Assistance Program, which provides travel expenses for next of kin to
visit a wildland firefighter hospitalized due to a line-of-duty injury,
or worse, killed in action.
It also provides directions for short- and long-term case management
procedures for casualty assistance. This commonsense amendment will
make the same services available to wildland firefighters at the
Department of the Interior, providing critical support to the families
of these firefighters.
As wildfire seasons have grown in both length and severity, the job
of wildland firefighter has become increasingly dangerous.
Between 2013 and 2022, 96 wildland firefighter fatalities occurred.
While Congress works to address the forest conditions that are putting
wildland firefighters into increasingly dire situations, we must also
ensure that we are providing adequate support to them and their
families.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. HARDER of California. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On September 24, 2024, page H5693, in the third column, the
following appeared: Mr. HARDER. Mr. Chair, I yield back
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. HARDER of
California. Mr. Chair, I yield back
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Harder).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1600
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Barr
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Mr. BARR. 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 the bill insert the following:
TITLE IV--WHITE OAK RESILIENCE
SEC. 401. WHITE OAK RESTORATION INITIATIVE COALITION.
(a) In General.--The White Oak Restoration Initiative
Coalition shall be established--
(1) as a voluntary collaborative group of Federal, State,
Tribal, and local governments and private and non-
governmental organizations to carry out the duties described
in subsection (b); and
(2) in accordance with the charter titled ``White Oak
Initiative Coalition Charter'' adopted by the White Oak
Initiative Board of Directors on March 21, 2023 (or a
successor charter).
(b) Duties.--In addition to the duties specified in the
charter described in subsection (a)(2), the duties of the
White Oak Restoration Initiative Coalition are--
(1) to coordinate Federal, State, Tribal, local, private,
and non-governmental restoration of white oak in the United
States; and
(2) to make program and policy recommendations, consistent
with applicable forest management plans, with respect to--
(A) changes necessary to address Federal and State policies
that impede activities to improve the health, resiliency, and
natural regeneration of white oak;
(B) adopting or modifying Federal and State policies to
increase the pace and scale of white oak regeneration and
resiliency of white oak;
(C) options to enhance communication, coordination, and
collaboration between forest land owners, particularly for
cross-boundary projects, to improve the health, resiliency,
and natural regeneration of white oak;
(D) research gaps that should be addressed to improve the
best available science on white oak;
(E) outreach to forest landowners with white oak or white
oak regeneration potential; and
(F) options and policies necessary to improve the quality
and quantity of white oak in tree nurseries.
(c) Administrative Support, Technical Services, and Staff
Support.--The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall make such personnel available to the White
Oak Restoration Initiative Coalition for administrative
support, technical services, and development and
dissemination of educational materials as the Secretaries
determine necessary to carry out this section.
[[Page H5694]]
(d) Private Funding of White Oak Restoration Projects.--
Subject to the availability of appropriations made in advance
for such purpose, the Secretary of Agriculture may make funds
available to the White Oak Restoration Initiative Coalition
to carry out this section from the account established
pursuant to section 1241(f) of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3841(f)).
SEC. 402. FOREST SERVICE PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting
through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall establish and
carry out 5 pilot projects in national forests to restore
white oak in such forests through white oak restoration and
natural regeneration practices that are consistent with
applicable forest management plans.
(b) National Forests Reserved or Withdrawn From the Public
Domain.--At least 3 pilot projects required under subsection
(a) shall be carried out on national forests reserved or
withdrawn from the public domain.
(c) Authority To Enter Into Cooperative Agreements.--The
Secretary of Agriculture may enter into cooperative
agreements to carry out the pilot projects required under
subsection (a).
(d) Sunset.--The authority under this section shall
terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 403. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WHITE OAK REVIEW AND
RESTORATION.
(a) Assessment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry
out an assessment of land under the administrative
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, including
fish and wildlife refuges and abandoned mine land, to
evaluate--
(A) whether white oak is present on such land; and
(B) the potential to restore white oak forests on such
land.
(2) Use of information.--In carrying out the assessment
under paragraph (1), the Secretary may use information from
sources other than the Department of the Interior, including
from the White Oak Initiative and the Forest Service.
(3) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress, and make publicly available on the website of the
Department of the Interior, a report regarding the results of
the assessment carried out under this subsection.
(b) Pilot Projects.--After the date on which the report
required under subsection (a)(3) is submitted, the Secretary
shall establish and carry out 5 pilot projects in different
areas of land described in subsection (a)(1) to restore and
naturally regenerate white oak.
(c) Authority to Enter Into Cooperative Agreements.--The
Secretary of the Interior may enter into cooperative
agreements to carry out the pilot projects required under
subsection (b).
(d) Sunset.--The authority under this section shall
terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 404. WHITE OAK REGENERATION AND UPLAND OAK HABITAT.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture
(in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
establish a non-regulatory program to be known as the ``White
Oak and Upland Oak Habitat Regeneration Program'' (in this
section referred to as the ``Program'').
(b) Duties.--In carrying out the Program, the Secretary
shall--
(1) draw upon the best available science and management
plans for species of white oak to identify, prioritize, and
implement restoration and conservation activities that will
improve the growth of white oak within the United States;
(2) collaborate and coordinate with the White Oak
Restoration Initiative Coalition to prioritize white oak
restoration initiatives;
(3) adopt a white oak restoration strategy that--
(A) supports the implementation of a shared set of science-
based restoration and conservation activities developed in
accordance with paragraph (1);
(B) targets cost effective projects with measurable
results; and
(C) maximizes restoration outcomes with no net gain of
Federal full-time equivalent employees; and
(4) establish the voluntary grant and technical assistance
programs in accordance with subsection (e).
(c) Coordination.--In establishing the Program the
Secretary, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service,
shall consult with--
(1) the heads of Federal agencies, including--
(A) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service; and
(B) the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service; and
(2) the Governor of each State in which restoration efforts
will be carried out pursuant to the Program.
(d) Purposes.--The purposes of the Program include--
(1) coordinating restoration and conservation activities
among Federal, State, local, and Tribal entities and
conservation partners to address white oak restoration
priorities;
(2) improving and regenerating white oak and upland oak
forests and the wildlife habitat such forests provide;
(3) carrying out coordinated restoration and conservation
activities that lead to the increased growth of species of
white oak in native white oak regions on Federal, State,
Tribal, and private land;
(4) facilitating strategic planning to maximize the
resilience of white oak systems and habitats under changing
climate conditions;
(5) engaging the public through outreach, education, and
citizen involvement to increase capacity and support for
coordinated restoration and conservation activities for
species of white oak; and
(6) increasing scientific capacity to support the planning,
monitoring, and research activities necessary to carry out
such coordinated restoration and conservation activities.
(e) Grants and Assistance.--
(1) In general.--To the extent that funds are available to
carry out this section, the Secretary shall establish a
voluntary grant and technical assistance program (in this
section referred to as the ``grant program'') to achieve the
purposes of the Program described in subsection (d).
(2) Administration.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (in this subsection referred to as the
``Foundation'') to manage and administer the grant program.
(B) Funding.--Subject to the availability of appropriations
made in advance for such purpose, after the Secretary enters
into a cooperative agreement with the Foundation under
subparagraph (A), the Foundation shall for each fiscal year,
receive amounts to carry out this subsection in an advance
payment of the entire amount on October 1, or as soon as
practicable thereafter, of that fiscal year.
(3) Application of national fish and wildlife foundation
establishment act.--Amounts received by the Foundation to
carry out the grant program shall be subject to the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act (16 U.S.C.
3701 et seq.), excluding section 10(a) of that Act (16 U.S.C.
3709(a)).
(f) Sunset.--The authority under this section shall
terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 405. TREE NURSERY SHORTAGES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture,
acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall--
(1) develop and implement a national strategy to increase
the capacity of Federal, State, Tribal, and private tree
nurseries to address the nationwide shortage of tree
seedlings; and
(2) coordinate such strategy with--
(A) the national reforestation strategy of the Forest
Service; and
(B) each regional implementation plan for National Forests.
(b) Elements.--The strategy required under subsection (a)
shall--
(1) be based on the best available science and data; and
(2) identify and address--
(A) regional seedling shortages of bareroot and container
tree seedlings;
(B) regional reforestation opportunities and the seedling
supply necessary to fulfill such opportunities;
(C) opportunities to enhance seedling diversity and close
gaps in seed inventories; and
(D) barriers to expanding, enhancing, or creating new
infrastructure to increase nursery capacity.
SEC. 406. WHITE OAK RESEARCH.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture may enter
into a memorandum of understanding with a Tribe or
institution, including a covered land grant college, to
collaboratively conduct research on--
(1) white oak genes with resistance or tolerance to stress;
(2) white oak trees that exhibit vigor for the purpose of
increasing survival and growth;
(3) establishing a genetically diverse white oak seeds bank
capable of responding to stressors;
(4) providing a sustainable supply of white oak seedlings
and genetic resources;
(5) improved methods for aligning seed sources with the
future climate at planting sites;
(6) reforestation of white oak through natural and
artificial regeneration;
(7) improved methods for retaining and increasing white oak
trees in forests;
(8) improved methods for reforesting abandoned mine land
sites; and
(9) economic and social aspects of white oak forest
management across land ownerships.
(b) Consult.--In carrying out the research under subsection
(a), the Tribe or institution, including a covered land grant
college, that enters into the memorandum of understanding
under such subsection may consult with such States, nonprofit
organizations, institutions of higher education, and other
scientific bodies, as the entity subject to such memorandum
determines appropriate.
(c) Sunset.--The authority under this section shall
terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(d) Covered Land Grant College Defined.--In this section,
the term ``covered
[[Page H5695]]
land grant college'' means an 1862 Institution, an 1890
Institution, or a 1994 Institution (as such terms are
defined, respectively, in section 2 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7
U.S.C. 7601)).
SEC. 407. USDA FORMAL INITIATIVE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting
through the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service and in coordination with the Chief of the Forest
Service, shall establish a formal initiative on white oak
to--
(1) re-establish white oak forests where appropriate;
(2) improve management of existing white oak forests to
foster natural regeneration of white oak;
(3) provide technical assistance to private landowners to
re-establish, improve management of, and naturally regenerate
white oak;
(4) improve and expand white oak nursery stock; and
(5) adapt and improve white oak seedlings.
(b) Sunset.--The authority under this section shall
terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 408. AUTHORITIES.
To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall use the
authorities provided under this title in combination with
other authorities to carry out projects, including--
(1) good neighbor agreements entered into under section
8206 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113); and
(2) stewardship contracting projects entered into under
section 604 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(16 U.S.C. 6591).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my bipartisan amendment to
the Fix Our Forests Act, a terrific piece of bipartisan legislation,
and I compliment both Chairman Westerman and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Peters) for their leadership on this.
My amendment would, if enacted, secure the future of the American
white oak, which is one of the most important tree species in the
Eastern United States. It occupies 104 million acres in this country
and is vital for biodiversity, wildlife, and our economy.
American white oak is used in almost every forest product, including
furniture, flooring, cabinetry, barrels for aging wine, American
whiskey and, yes, Kentucky bourbon, which is America's native spirit by
the definition passed by Congress, and which must be aged in new
charred white oak barrels.
Kentucky's Sixth District is home to some of the world's most
renowned distilleries. The industry as a whole produces over $9 billion
and more than 23,000 jobs for the Commonwealth annually. Additionally,
Kentucky distillers exported over $500 million worth of products abroad
in 2022.
The problem is that while there is ample mature white oak now, there
will not be in the future unless immediate and widespread action is
taken. Young stands of white oak simply don't exist in the amount
needed to support wildlife and sustainable forestry and do not exist
for the future of the bourbon industry.
Reforestation of white oak is challenging because without some
additional assistance here, white oak is extremely slow growing. Over
the next 20 years, the population of white oak is expected to drop
considerably, which will have a significant negative impact on
Kentucky's ability to age and produce bourbon.
My amendment addresses this specifically by establishing the White
Oak Restoration Initiative Coalition to encourage the Forest Service to
work alongside private and State partners at no cost to the taxpayer.
Additionally, the amendment asks the U.S. Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior to regenerate white oak through a series of
pilot projects in national parks and on volunteered private lands.
Lastly, it allows the Forest Service to enter into memorandums of
understanding with land grant institutions to conduct much-needed
research on white oak.
This bipartisan amendment does not authorize any new spending or
programs but instead would work within existing programs and agency
budgets to preserve our heritage and fortify an industry that is
critical to Kentucky's economy and is America's native spirit.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I think you know what I am about to say. I am
not opposed to this amendment, but I continue to strongly oppose the
underlying bill. It is full of poison pills that harm the environment
and will spread our Forest Service even thinner right when we need them
more than ever. Unfortunately, nothing in this amendment addresses
those concerns.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I would just say to my friend from California
that former Speaker Henry Clay, who was famous for bringing barrels of
white oak filled with Kentucky whiskey up to the Capitol Building, used
to famously say that Kentucky bourbon could lubricate the wheels of
government. I would hope that the gentlewoman would take that into
consideration in withdrawing her opposition to this very important
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Westerman), the sponsor of the legislation and the chairman of the
Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in strong support of his amendment.
This amendment will add to the underlying legislation key pieces of
Representative Barr's bipartisan White Oak Resilience Act, which passed
out of the Natural Resources Committee unanimously this year.
While the Fix Our Forests Act primarily addresses the dire state of
our overgrown and fire-prone forests in the West, this amendment
addresses an urgent challenge confronting our Eastern forests.
At current trends, we face an imminent shortage of white oak trees
throughout their native range of the Eastern United States. Because of
a lack of necessary forest management practices and shifts in the
forest environment, we have created a situation where white oak
seedlings and saplings are not growing at a sustainable rate.
Presently, roughly 75 percent of white oaks in the U.S. are classified
as mature. The lack of younger trees is very troubling. Without
intervention, the white oak population will drastically decline in the
next 10 to 15 years. White oaks are a keystone species that provide
immense ecosystem benefits to the many forests within the species' 104-
million-acre range. This iconic American tree is especially important
for wildlife that is both a preferred food source and habitat for many
species.
As Representative Barr mentioned, there are many uses for white oak,
many uses that are especially important to the great State of Kentucky.
This is a good amendment that will help restore the long-term viability
of this beautiful and important tree. I urge my colleagues to support
the amendment.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation. It is a win-win. It is a win for reforestation, it is a
win for the Kentucky bourbon industry, and it certainly will help this
important bipartisan legislation, Fix Our Forests Act, pass.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Pettersen
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Ms. PETTERSEN. 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 B of title I add the following:
[[Page H5696]]
SEC. 117. PROGRAM TO SUPPORT PRIORITY REFORESTATION AND
RESTORATION PROJECTS OF DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior, in
coordination with the heads of covered Federal agencies,
shall establish a program to provide support for priority
projects identified under subsection (c)(2), in accordance
with this section.
(b) Support.--In carrying out the program under subsection
(a), the Secretary may provide support through--
(1) cooperative agreements entered into in accordance with
processes established by the Secretary; and
(2) contracts, including contracts established pursuant to
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
(c) Annual Identification of Priority Projects.--Not later
than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act and
annually thereafter, the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the heads of covered Federal agencies,
shall--
(1) identify lands of the United States administered by, or
under the jurisdiction of, the Secretary of the Interior that
require reforestation and restoration due to unplanned
disturbances and that are unlikely to experience natural
regeneration without assistance; and
(2) establish a list of priority projects for reforestation
and restoration for the upcoming year, which may include
activities to ensure adequate and appropriate seed and
seedling availability to further the objectives of other
priority projects.
(d) Consultation.--In carrying out the program under
subsection (a) and the requirements under subsection (c), the
Secretary shall consult or collaborate with, as appropriate,
and inform the following:
(1) State and local governments.
(2) Indian Tribes.
(3) Covered institutions of higher education.
(4) Federal agencies that administer lands of the United
States that adjoin or are proximal to lands that are the
subject of priority projects and potential priority projects.
(5) Other stakeholders, as determined by the Secretary.
(e) Annual Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the relevant
Congressional Committees a report that includes the
following:
(1) An accounting of all lands identified under subsection
(c)(1) for the period covered by the report.
(2) A list of priority projects identified under subsection
(c)(2) for the period covered by the report and, with respect
to each such priority project, any support issued under the
program under subsection (a) and any progress made towards
reforestation and restoration.
(3) An accounting of each contract and cooperative
agreement established under the program under subsection (a).
(4) A description of the actions taken in accordance with
subsection (d).
(5) Assessments with respect to--
(A) gaps in--
(i) the implementation of the program under subsection (a);
and
(ii) the progress made under the program with respect to
priority projects; and
(B) opportunities to procure funding necessary to address
any such gaps.
(f) Nonduplication.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary of the Interior shall collaborate with the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Defense to
ensure the nonduplication of activities carried out under
section 205.
(g) Sunset.--The authority provided under this section
shall terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered federal agency.--The term ``covered Federal
agency'' means the National Park Service, the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the
Bureau of Reclamation, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(2) Covered institution of higher education.--The term
``covered institution of higher education'' has the meaning
given the term ``eligible institutions'' in section
301(e)(3)).
(3) Natural regeneration; reforestation.--The terms
``natural regeneration'' and ``reforestation'' have the
meanings given such terms in section 3(e)(4)(A) of the Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16
U.S.C. 1601(3)(4)(A))
(4) Restoration.--The term ``restoration'' means activities
that facilitate the recovery of an ecosystem that has been
degraded, damaged, or destroyed, including the
reestablishment of appropriate plant species composition and
community structure.
(5) Unplanned ecosystem disturbance.--The term ``unplanned
ecosystem disturbance'' means any unplanned disturbance that
disrupts the structure or composition of an ecosystem,
including a wildfire, an infestation of insects or disease,
and a weather event.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Over 3 million people in my home State of Colorado live in areas at
moderate to high risk of wildfires, which is over 50 percent of our
State's population. Since 2001, 20 of the largest wildfires in our
recorded history have occurred in Colorado, resulting in the loss of
more than 2,500 homes over the past two decades.
Wildfires have not only threatened lives but also damaged ecosystems
and disrupted communities.
Coloradans feel the devastating impacts of climate change every
single day. This is our new normal: Fires are burning more frequently
and more fiercely than ever before.
It is essential that we recognize the urgency of addressing this
crisis to protect our communities. While recognizing that this bill
doesn't include everything that we want to see, it is an important step
moving forward.
We need a holistic approach, and this includes investing in
predisaster mitigation measures, such as strengthening our
infrastructure in housing and enhancing early detection capabilities,
supporting our wildland firefighting workforce, and focusing on post-
disaster resilience.
My amendment is a piece of this comprehensive response. Specifically,
my amendment will require the Department of the Interior, in
coordination with States, local governments, Tribes, and colleges to
identify critical lands in need of reforestation and restoration due to
natural disasters, and to support projects in those areas.
By investing in restoration and reforestation projects, we can ensure
that our communities not only recover but also rebuild in a way that
enhances their resilience against future disasters.
Unfortunately, wildfires leave lasting scars on our landscapes and
can permanently alter our environment, heightening the risk of deadly
flash flooding and mud flows. I hear from my constituents about their
concerns regarding wildfires but also, unfortunately, flooding is close
behind.
That is why it is important that we pass this amendment to strengthen
the provisions in the underlying bill and ensure our communities are
equipped to face the challenges head-on.
Recovery after a wildfire is a lengthy and challenging process.
However, my amendment, together with the provisions in the bill,
represents a step toward building stronger, more resilient communities
against the threat of wildfires.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although 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. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment,
which seeks to expand nursery and seed capacity, support reforestation
efforts by State, Tribal, and local governments, as well as
institutions of higher education on lands managed by the Department of
the Interior.
I thank the amendment's sponsor for her engagement on this important
issue. I greatly appreciate her and her staff's willingness to work
with us on some revisions to the amendment. This amendment will help
improve badly needed reforestation and restoration activities across
the Nation by engaging non-Federal partners, including Tribes, who are
critical partners as we seek to improve the health of our Nation's
forests.
The magnitude of our wildfire and forest health crisis demands an
all-hands-on-deck approach. I am encouraged that this amendment will
empower non-Federal partners to assist in vital work.
The Department of the Interior has identified a reforestation backlog
of roughly 2.4 million acres across their land management agencies.
This total is likely to grow considering the massive numbers of acres
lost to wildfires
[[Page H5697]]
in recent years. This is a good amendment and will help tackle the
enormous reforestation and restoration backlog affecting Department of
the Interior lands. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Mullin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Mr. MULLIN. 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:
Page 13, line 1, strike ``predict'' and insert ``predict,
using data tools (including artificial intelligence) and
other decision support products,''.
Page 13, line 5, strike ``community'' and insert
``community (including at-risk communities identified in
fireshed assessments conducted under section 105)''.
Page 14, line 2, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 14, line 4, strike the period at the end and insert
``; and''.
Page 14, after line 4, insert the following new paragraph:
(8) disseminate data tools (including artificial
intelligence) and other decision support products, for use in
manners consistent with the purposes described paragraphs (1)
through (7), to the following:
(A) Federal agencies.
(B) Indian Tribes.
(C) State and local governments.
(D) Academic or research institutions.
(E) Other entities, public or private, identified by the
Director.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Mullin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My California congressional district sits on the San Francisco
peninsula and is home to a vibrant innovation economy that supports
every sector of American industry.
The leading-edge technologies being developed and improved in the bay
area have the potential to help keep the rest of California and our
Western States safe from the risk of wildfire.
My amendment today seeks to ensure that we are using the best
technologies available to understand wildfire risk. Artificial
intelligence, with its potential to analyze large datasets and improve
predictive models, can and should play an important role in informing
land management decisions.
These data tools will be vital for enabling the proposed Fireshed
Center in the Fix Our Forests Act. This should be an easy vote for
those who support using the best available technologies to protect
communities and inform land management activities.
Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
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. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment,
which would clarify that the Fireshed Center created by this
legislation can use artificial intelligence and other decision support
tools to assess fire risk to communities and landscapes.
The Fix Our Forests Act establishes a new Fireshed Center for
relevant land management and science-focused agencies to
comprehensively assess and predict fire across the landscape and in the
wildland-urban interface. This will reduce fragmentation and create a
one-stop shop for predictive services that can help inform suppression
and management decisions across jurisdictional landscapes.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Mullin).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1615
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Valadao
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Boebert). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 10 printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Mr. VALADAO. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee for the gentleman
from California (Mr. Costa).
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill add the following:
TITLE IV--EXPANSION OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS UNDER WATER SOURCE
PROTECTION PROGRAM
SEC. 401. WATER SOURCE PROTECTION PROGRAM.
Section 303 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(16 U.S.C. 6542(g)(4)(B)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as
paragraphs (2) through (8), respectively;
(B) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(1) Adjacent land.--The term `adjacent land' means non-
Federal land, including State, local, and private land, that
is adjacent to, and within the same watershed as, National
Forest System land on which a watershed protection and
restoration project is carried out under this section.''; and
(C) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated--
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (G) and (H) as
subparagraphs (K) and (L), respectively; and
(ii) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
``(G) an acequia association;
``(H) a local, regional, or other public entity that
manages stormwater or wastewater resources or other related
water infrastructure;
``(I) a land-grant mercedes;
``(J) a local, regional, or other private entity that has
water delivery authority;'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``The Secretary shall'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Requirements.--A watershed protection and restoration
project under the Program shall be designed to--
``(A) protect and restore watershed health, water supply
and quality, a municipal or agricultural water supply system,
and water-related infrastructure;
``(B) protect and restore forest health from insect
infestation and disease or wildfire; or
``(C) advance any combination of the purposes described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B).
``(3) Priorities.--In selecting watershed protection and
restoration projects under the Program, the Secretary shall
give priority to projects that would--
``(A) provide risk management benefits associated with:
drought; wildfire; post-wildfire conditions; extreme weather;
flooding; resilience to climate change; and watershed and
fire resilience, including minimizing risks to watershed
health, water supply and quality, and water-related
infrastructure, including municipal and agricultural water
supply systems;
``(B) support aquatic restoration and conservation efforts
that complement existing or planned forest restoration or
wildfire risk reduction efforts; or
``(C) provide quantifiable benefits to water supply or
quality and include the use of nature-based solutions, such
as restoring wetland and riparian ecosystems.
``(4) Conditions for projects on adjacent land.--
``(A) In general.--No project or activity may be carried
out under this section on adjacent land unless the owner of
the adjacent land agrees in writing that the owner is a
willing and engaged partner in carrying out that project or
activity.
``(B) Effect.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to authorize any change in--
``(i) the ownership of adjacent land on which a project or
activity is carried out under this section; or
``(ii) the management of adjacent land on which a project
or activity is carried out under this section, except during
the carrying out of that project or activity.'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``with end water users''
and inserting ``with end water users to protect and restore
the condition of National Forest watersheds and adjacent land
that provide water--
``(A) to the end water users subject to the agreement; or
``(B) for the benefit of another end water user.'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E);
and
(iii) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
[[Page H5698]]
``(D) a good neighbor agreement entered into under section
8206 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a); or'';
and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Cooperation with non-federal partners.--The Secretary
shall cooperate with non-Federal partners in carrying out
assessments, planning, project design, and project
implementation under this section.'';
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) Requirement.--A water source management plan shall
be--
``(A) designed to protect and restore ecological integrity
(as defined in section 219.19 of title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
subparagraph));
``(B) based on the best available scientific information;
and
``(C) conducted in a manner consistent with the forest plan
applicable to the National Forest System land on which the
watershed protection and restoration project is carried
out.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Reducing redundancy.--An existing watershed plan,
such as a watershed protection and restoration action plan
developed under section 304(a)(3), or other applicable
watershed planning documents as approved by the Secretary may
be used as the basis for a water source management plan under
this subsection.''; and
(5) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``primary purpose
of'' and all that follows through the period at the end and
inserting ``primary purpose of advancing any of the purposes
described in subsection (b)(2).''.
SEC. 402. WATERSHED CONDITION FRAMEWORK TECHNICAL
CORRECTIONS.
Section 304(a) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of
2003 (16 U.S.C. 6543(a)) is amended in paragraphs (3) and (5)
by striking ``protection and''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Valadao) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. VALADAO. Madam Chair, my amendment would add the text of my bill,
the bipartisan Headwaters Protection Act, to the Fix Our Forests Act.
This commonsense language is led by my colleague from California (Mr.
Costa) and myself, and it has bipartisan support. It was included in
the House Committee on Agriculture's farm bill.
This amendment expands public and private partnerships in forestry
and watershed management projects under the Water Source Protection
Program. These projects can improve access to clean drinking water,
provide for greater downstream water availability, and prevent future
wildfires.
My amendment makes changes to improve the program, including
expanding the number of entities that are eligible to participate in
the program to include local, regional, and public entities that have
water management and delivery expertise; allowing non-Federal partners
to input their knowledge and expertise in the design and implementation
of forestry and watershed management projects; and allowing for the use
of existing watershed condition frameworks to reduce bureaucracy and
deploy projects faster.
Overall, this amendment would support efforts in the San Joaquin
Valley like the Olam project, a series of wildlife prevention and
restoration projects in the Pine Flat watershed between public and
private partners. This amendment would build off of the good work done
in the Fix Our Forests Act, and I urge its adoption.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this
bipartisan amendment being offered by Representatives Costa and Valadao
of California.
The Committee on Natural Resources held a field hearing this Congress
in Representative Valadao's district on the importance of water, and
this amendment is a bipartisan, good faith effort to help address
concerns raised at that hearing.
This bipartisan amendment would expand public and private forestry
and watershed management partnerships and reduce redundancies under the
existing Water Source Protection Program.
Representatives Costa and Valadao's amendment includes good
governance changes to the Water Source Protection Program. It expands
the number of eligible lands and entities under the program and reduces
duplicative application materials and red tape for existing watershed
restoration action plans.
Finally, this amendment establishes clear program priorities that
help align the program to its core mission.
These changes align with the spirit of the Fix Our Forests Act.
Oftentimes, we hear calls for more funding to solve a problem. However,
oftentimes, by focusing on a program's priorities and reducing red
tape, the cost goes down and funding can be shifted away from
bureaucracy and toward getting work done on the ground.
Again, I commend Representatives Valadao and Costa for reaching
across the aisle to work together on this amendment. I have had the
pleasure of working with both of these gentlemen on the Save Our
Sequoias Act.
Mr. Chair, I encourage support of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mooney). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Boebert
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Valadao). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 11 printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee for the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Zinke).
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 31, line 5, strike ``and''.
Page 31, after line 5, insert the following:
``(II) to carry out reconstruction, repair, and restoration
of non-National Forest System roads necessary to implement
projects on Federal lands;
``(III) to construct new permanent roads on Federal lands
that are--
``(aa) necessary to implement authorized restoration
activities; and
``(bb) approved by the Federal agency through an
environmental analysis or categorical exclusion decision;
``(IV) to complete new permanent road construction to
replace and decommission an existing permanent road that is
adversely impacting forest, rangeland, or watershed health;
and''.
Page 31, line 6, strike ``(II)'' and insert ``(V)''.
Page 31, line 7, strike ``subclause (I)'' and insert
``subclauses (I) through (IV)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer the amendment on behalf
of my friend from Montana, Representative Zinke, which will improve the
effectiveness of the Good Neighbor Authority.
The Good Neighbor Authority program enables cross-boundary forest
management activities with States, Tribes, and counties. Collaborative
tools like this program are critical to confronting the wildfire crisis
as raging wildfires don't respect man-made borders that separate
forests into different jurisdictions.
Since 2014, over 490 Good Neighbor Authority projects have been
started in 34 States, and more than 273 million board feet of timber is
sold yearly through this program.
Currently, funds from the sale of timber from Good Neighbor Authority
projects can be used to treat insect-and disease-infested trees, reduce
hazardous fuels, improve forest health, and restore and repair
decommissioned Forest Service roads necessary to implement restoration
activities.
This amendment would expand the permissible uses of timber receipts
derived from Good Neighbor Authority projects to include the
reconstruction, repair, and restoration of roads on non-Forest Service
lands when such activities are needed to implement forest management
projects on Federal land.
New road construction on Federal lands would also be a permitted use
under this amendment to facilitate authorized restoration projects.
However, these new road projects would still be required to comply with
the applicable environmental review processes.
[[Page H5699]]
Further, this amendment would allow timber receipts to be used to
construct new roads to replace existing roads that adversely impact
forest, rangeland, or watershed health.
Access to areas urgently needing treatment remains a huge challenge
to improving forest health. Roads are beneficial for forest management,
provide the public with access to outdoor recreation opportunities, and
enable safer and more effective wildland firefighting.
This thoughtful amendment from Representative Zinke will improve
forest management activities under Good Neighbor Authority by
empowering partners to overcome some of the access challenges
preventing badly needed work in our forests.
Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Zinke for his leadership on this
issue.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, this amendment would permit the use of Good
Neighbor Authority revenues for the construction of new roads.
Currently, the Forest Service manages 372,000 miles of roads across
193 million acres that they manage. Due to such a large inventory, the
Forest Service often faces financial difficulties in operation and
maintenance.
Over half, over 58 percent, of the Forest Service's $7.66 billion of
deferred maintenance is related to roads. The Forest Service has a
colossal network of roads that is already far too big for them to
maintain.
For this reason, it is hard to support an amendment that would allow
the construction of even more roads but doesn't provide any resources
for the future maintenance of those new Forest Service roads.
Our Forest Service is spread dangerously thin due to Republican
budget cuts. This amendment would make the problem even worse.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, this is a good amendment that allows for
good use of our resources.
It allows Tribes and local communities to take care of the roads that
are necessary to access, to be able to do these forest management
projects, and also to be able to fight fires when they break out and
stop them before they get too big.
Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Boebert
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Ms. BOEBERT. 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:
Page 29, after line 3, insert the following:
(B) in section 603(c)(2)(B) (16 U.S.C. 6591b(c)(2)(B)), 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''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that clarifies
existing authorities may be utilized to prevent wildfires in Fire
Regimes IV and V, thereby expanding the acres of at-risk forests that
would be eligible for streamlined management authorities.
This important amendment is critical to fire mitigation efforts
across the States of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona,
California, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, New York, Maine, West Virginia, New Jersey, Rhode Island,
Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Indiana, Ohio, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Florida, and
Texas.
The Forest Service estimates 63 million acres are currently at risk
of catastrophic wildfire, and each year, nearly 10 million acres in the
U.S. catch on fire. Colorado also had the three largest recorded
wildfires in State history in 2020.
Federal agencies have chosen to spend billions on the back end,
putting out wildfires as opposed to prioritizing active management
upfront that would reduce the size and number of wildfires.
According to the Colorado State Forest Service, more than 24.4
million acres of Colorado forestland impact Colorado's water supply,
where 80 percent of the State's population relies on those forested
watersheds for municipal water supplies.
Healthy forests act as a natural water filter and storage system and
are critical to maintaining healthy watersheds. In the United States,
forests are a source of drinking water for over 180 million people.
We can reduce the size and severity of wildfires through active
forest management, which will also help protect our watersheds and
municipal water supplies.
Let's actively manage our forests, be good stewards of the land that
we have been blessed with, and pass this important amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, this amendment would further expand a
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for
projects completed in two additional fire management regimes.
For context, one of the new regimes, Fire Regime V, applies to
vegetation types that rarely burn, typically due to a lack of moisture
or fuel. The fire return interval in those landscapes is more than 200
years.
Because of the categorization of these fire regimes, hazardous fuels
management is not as high of a priority and does not need a legislative
categorical exclusion expansion.
This follows the trend that my Republican colleagues have been
setting. They have been legislatively expanding categorical exclusions,
and the Committee on Natural Resources Democrats remain opposed.
During our debate today, we have shown how meddling in the National
Environmental Policy Act process is dangerous and how it sets a
precedent that will do more harm than good. Categorical exclusions are
most effective when they are developed with expert input by agencies
and the Council on Environmental Quality instead of mandated by
Congress.
This amendment simply continues to build on the slew of National
Environmental Policy Act waivers that the Fix Our Forests Act advances,
and it is no surprise that my Republican counterparts have chosen to
make this amendment in order.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
{time} 1630
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I seem to recall just yesterday that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle had no problem meddling in
NEPA to get their leftwing projects through CHIPS authorized.
Mr. Chair, I would like to just highlight the drought that has caused
these catastrophic wildfires.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's
amendment, and I appreciate the hard work that Representative Boebert
has put into this thoughtful amendment, which does include Fire Regimes
IV and V, and as we have these very dry, fire-prone areas out West, it
is important to include these two fire regimes.
Again, I support the amendment.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, the proposal of utilizing existing
authorities to prevent wildfires in Fire Regimes IV and V is crucial as
it focuses on
[[Page H5700]]
proactive management and streamlining of forest health.
As someone who prioritizes humans flourishing, I see the value in
taking measures that can prevent environmental disasters that have
devastating impacts on human beings and their property.
It is important to remember that we have the power to shape our
environment and neutralize dangers through human innovation powered by
cost-effective energy. In the case of wildfire prevention, this could
mean better forest management practices, controlled burns to reduce
fuel load, and advanced fire detection and suppression technologies.
Again, Mr. Chair, I would urge the adoption of my amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Ellzey). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Boebert
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Ms. BOEBERT. 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:
Page 71, line 1, strike ``treatments'' and insert
``treatments, grazing,''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that will ensure
grazing as one of the hazardous fuels reduction activities authorized
by the bill.
Our Federal lands are overgrown and poorly managed, making them more
susceptible to wildfire and disease. Catastrophic wildfires have taken
a tremendous toll on Coloradans. These incidents have threatened the
lives of millions of people and accounted for millions of dollars of
damages each year.
Farmers and ranchers have lost crops, livestock, and structures, have
been evacuated, and had their operations disrupted by smoke, public
safety power shutoffs, or loss of insurance.
There are Federal lands in Colorado and the West where we once had 50
to 100 trees per acre, but now we see 500 to 1,000 trees per acre.
There are also 6 billion standing dead trees in the Western United
States. Some people call that a problem. I call it a tinderbox waiting
to burn.
Fuel treatments are effective, and Federal agencies have made clear
that over 90 percent of the fuel treatments are effective in changing
fire behavior and/or helping with the control of wildfire.
Grazing animals play an important part in maintaining healthy
ecosystems by controlling the ecological balance of vegetative species,
reducing fire fuels that result from the accumulation of nonnative
plant biomass, and improving the soil health by trampling plant residue
and their own waste into the soil profile.
Cattle, sheep, and goats can play a regenerative wildfire mitigation
role that also provides for our food and fiber needs.
Let's support our Nation's ranchers and encourage innovative and
cost-effective hazardous fuel reductions like grazing.
I urge passage of my amendment that ensures the grazing activities
are recognized as hazardous fuels reduction work when the agency
calculates the number of acres treated to reduce hazardous fuels,
improving transparency and accountability.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although 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. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment
being offered by Representative Boebert.
This amendment ensures that livestock grazing activities are
considered as hazardous fuels reduction work when Federal land
management agencies calculate the number of acres treated to reduce
hazardous fuels.
Section 302 of the Fix Our Forests Act requires land management
agencies to submit a yearly hazardous fuels reduction report to
Congress based on the actual number of acres the respective agencies
treated over the past year. The goal is to improve transparency and
accountability.
Livestock grazing is beneficial for land. Just last month, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture released research showing livestock grazing
can lower wildfire risk and limit invasive grasses. The rangeland
scientists who published this report include researchers from
Representative Boebert's home State of Colorado.
I, again, thank her for her leadership and for supporting our
ranching and farming families.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman of the House Natural
Resources Committee for supporting this important amendment that
supports our farmers and ranchers back home and reduces the hazardous
fuels by allowing grazing to take place on our public lands.
Again, I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Boebert
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Ms. BOEBERT. 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:
Page 38, after line 12, insert the following:
``(H) proposals that seek to remove or treat insects or
diseases, including the removal of trees killed by, or
infested with, bark beetles in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South
Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming;''.
Page 38, line 13, strike ``(H)'' and insert ``(I)''.
Page 38, line 23, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(J)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that will
require regional foresters to submit a plan through the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program for the treatment and removal of
trees killed by or infested with bark beetles in Western States.
The bark beetle epidemic has caused significant damage to roughly
100,000 square miles of forest in the Western United States alone.
There are 600 different species of bark beetles in the United States.
Several species, such as the mountain pine beetle, attack and kill live
trees. Most species of bark beetles live in dead, weakened, or dying
hosts.
Along the West Coast and through the Rocky Mountains, bark beetles
have affected tens of millions of acres of forests. While bark beetles
are native to U.S. forests and play important ecological roles, they
can cause extensive tree mortality and negative economic and social
impacts.
Spruce beetles have killed millions of trees on more than 1.8 million
acres in Colorado since 2000 and provided increased fuels for
wildfires. In Colorado, 2021 was one of the worst wildfire seasons our
State has ever endured with the three largest fires in State history.
Bark beetle epidemics and catastrophic wildfires are a significant
threat. This can be minimized by thinning overgrown forests and
removing hazardous fuels produced by beetle
[[Page H5701]]
overpopulation. This process is sure to create jobs and increase
overall forest health.
I urge passage of my amendment that would prioritize Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program activities that address the bark
beetle epidemic, a major contributor to wildfires in Colorado and the
West.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, this amendment was summarized by Republicans
as requiring the regional foresters to develop plans for the treatment
and removal of dead or dying trees due to insect disease.
However, I want to clarify that this amendment actually doesn't
require anything of regional foresters at all. Instead, it requires
special consideration for project proposals under the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program that seek to remove or treat
insects or diseases.
The purpose of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
is to encourage the collaborative science-based ecosystem restoration
of priority forest landscapes.
Insect treatments are already eligible under the program and are
executed often as restoration treatments. However, they are also often,
and should be, used in tandem with other collaborative strategies as
part of a broader landscape treatment plan.
I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, let the beetle battle begin. The bark kill
epidemic in Colorado and the western United States is a problem that we
must address. I drive by these dying forests on a regular basis, and
seeing the tinderbox that it has created is a huge devastation.
The carbon emissions that are released from a catastrophic wildfire
are very harmful and impactful to my State of Colorado and the West, so
I say it is time to do something about the beetle kill, beetle kill,
beetle kill.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman),
the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
thank her for bringing this amendment, which is important. I support
the amendment.
Unfortunately, our forests out West are overstocked. They compete
with each other. They get weak. They invite disease and insect
infestation. These insects and diseases kill the trees, and then you
have dry kindling for a lightning strike or a wildfire that gets out,
and it creates the perfect storm for catastrophic wildfires.
Again, I thank Representative Boebert for her efforts to improve the
health of our western forests, and I support the amendment.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Boebert
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Ms. BOEBERT. 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:
Page 38, after line 12, insert the following:
``(H) proposals that seek to facilitate the sale of
firewood and Christmas trees on lands under the jurisdiction
of the Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior;''.
Page 38, line 13, strike ``(H)'' and insert ``(I)''.
Page 38, line 23, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(J)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment that
requires regional foresters to submit a plan on the sale of Christmas
trees and firewood on Federal land.
Under current law, American families can purchase a permit from the
Forest Service to cut Christmas trees from their favorite national
forest, as well as harvest any firewood, transplants, posts, and poles,
and other forest products to improve forest health.
We have seen successful Christmas tree and firewood harvesting
operations in my home State of Colorado, and this program has served as
a locally based solution to help thin our overgrown forests.
{time} 1645
According to the Forest Service: ``The permit system helps to thin
densely populated stands of small-diameter trees. Local forest health
experts identify areas that benefit from thinning trees and tend to be
the perfect size for Christmas trees. Removing these trees in
designated areas helps other trees grow larger and can open areas that
provide food for wildlife.''
My constituents are struggling right now as they deal with the
disastrous effects of the Democrats' destructive economic policies.
They unleashed record inflation on Americans that has raised utility
bills, driven up energy costs, and made it harder to live for most
Americans.
My amendment provides an affordable fuel alternative for families
across the Nation to heat their homes as well as create lasting holiday
memories for families to interact with their local forests.
I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to
prioritize collaborative foster landscape restoration program
activities to allow for the removal of firewood and Christmas trees.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, similar to Ms. Boebert's last amendment,
this amendment was summarized by Republicans as requiring that regional
foresters develop plans, in this case the plans for the sale of
Christmas trees and firewood.
Once again, I would like to clarify that this amendment does not do
that. It does not require anything of regional foresters.
Instead, it requires special consideration for project proposals
under the collaborative forest landscape restoration program that seek
to facilitate the sale of Christmas trees and firewood on lands under
the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of
the Interior.
The landscape restoration program was not created for the sole
purpose of revenue building by removing trees from public lands. The
program is meant to do what it says in its program title: promote
collaboration among Federal land management agencies and the public for
the purposes of restoring forest landscapes.
Tree harvesting for anything other than the purpose of landscape
restoration is not in the spirit of the program. By placing a
preference on projects that are related to Christmas tree harvest, this
amendment would limit the landscape restoration program by prioritizing
a marketable product over landscape restoration. To be extra clear, the
Forest Service already has broad authority to conduct the sale of
firewood and Christmas trees. They don't need it under this restoration
program.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, it is so sad to hear my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle hate Christmas.
This would allow restoration of our forests. As I said, our forests
are overgrown. This would allow a fun way for families to participate
in healthy forest management by thinning some of the living trees that
are overgrown on our forestland.
Mr. Chair, I, again, urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and
for her amendment.
Mr. Chair, I note that over 2.3 million households rely on firewood
to heat
[[Page H5702]]
their homes. I didn't say they enjoy a nice evening by the fire. They
rely on firewood to heat their homes. It is even more common in
western, rural communities near Federal lands, especially in counties
with significant Native American communities.
The Forest Service has made some positive efforts with programs like
Wood For Life, which provides firewood from forest restoration projects
in northern Arizona to local Tribal communities that otherwise could
not afford to heat their homes.
Providing ample firewood sources to these communities is an essential
and cost-effective service the Forest Service should be helping to
provide.
Also, for as little as $5, more than 300,000 American families
receive a Christmas tree permit from Forest Service properties each
year. This not only helps Americans celebrate the Christmas season, but
it also helps manage our forests through the removal of forest products
that may otherwise fuel the next wildland fire.
I commend Representative Boebert for her work on this creative and
thoughtful amendment that can make a big difference in the lives of
rural Americans, and I urge its support.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 1 minute
remaining.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, this legislative proposal is an excellent
example of how local solutions can make a big difference in managing
our environment and mitigating risk. The success of Christmas tree and
firewood harvesting operations in Colorado are a testament to the power
of human ingenuity when it is coupled with a deep understanding of
local environments and needs. These operations help to thin overgrown
forests, reducing the fuel load and therefore the risk of
uncontrollable wildfires. They also provide valuable resources to the
local communities turning what could be a negative, overgrown forests,
into a positive, holiday trees and firewood for heating.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment in the spirit of
Christmas and heating homes efficiently, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, as a Christian, I am offended that my
colleague on the other side of the aisle would suggest that I hate
Christmas.
This bill is not about and has nothing to do with inhibiting people
from celebrating their religious holidays, including through having a
Christmas tree.
This bill is about this amendment, and this debate is about the fact
that this amendment does not do what the gentlewoman from Colorado
claims that it does.
This bill does not require regional foresters to do anything.
I support the Forest Service using its existing authority to permit
the harvesting of Christmas trees and trees for firewood, but that is
not what this amendment actually does.
I close by observing to my colleague that many of us make happy
family memories with trees that are living. We have ways to enjoy trees
without cutting them down or burning them.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. LaLota
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in part D of House Report 118-705.
Mr. LaLOTA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title III add the following:
SEC. 307. STUDY ON PINE BEETLE INFESTATION.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the
Chief of the Forest Service, shall--
(1) carry out a study on the causes and effects of, and
solutions for, the infestation of pine beetles in the North
Eastern region of the United States; and
(2) submit to the relevant Congressional Committees a
report that includes the results of the study required under
paragraph (1).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. LaLota) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LaLOTA. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, the southern pine beetle, a pest no larger than a grain
of rice, has emerged as one of the most significant threats to our
forests in the eastern United States. Nowhere is this issue more
evident than in my home district on Long Island, where Suffolk County
has been hit especially hard.
Since the pine beetle first appeared on Long Island in 2014, it has
destroyed approximately 5,000 acres of forest, including an estimated
800 acres this year alone.
The pine barrens region in Suffolk County is suffering devastation,
as countless once-green trees have turned yellow and orange, clear
evidence that they are dying. This damage doesn't just affect the
trees. It threatens an ecosystem that is home to dozens of animals and
plants, including endangered species.
These forests are crucial for preserving clean drinking water, and if
we don't take action now, we risk irreparable harm to this vital
resource. State officials have been working tirelessly to manage the
spread of the beetle through surveillance and the removal of dead and
infested trees. However, this problem is growing exponentially due to
warmer winters and drought conditions, and we need a more comprehensive
approach to understand and combat this threat.
That is why my amendment here today is so important.
Mr. Chairman, my commonsense amendment would direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to conduct a comprehensive study on the impact of beetle
infestations in the northeastern region of the United States.
The detailed study will investigate the causes, effects, and
potential solutions to this growing problem, with a particular focus on
our forests in the northeast.
This amendment is about more than just studying a pest. It is about
protecting the natural heritage of the northeast, securing clean water,
and ensuring the health and resiliency of our forests for future
generations.
A comprehensive study will help us understand why these beetles have
moved north and how we can mitigate their impact. It will provide the
scientific foundation needed to implement effective management
strategies, preserve our forests, and maintain the ecological balance
that is so vital to the region.
Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Westerman for his support on this
amendment and his leadership on the Fix Our Forests Act, and I urge my
colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I am going to close out my comments on all of
these amendments by reiterating what I have been saying.
I strongly oppose the underlying bill. It is full of poison pills
that harm the environment and will spread our Forest Service even
thinner right when we need them most.
If Republicans had listened to the administration's concerns about
how this bill is poorly drafted, and if they hadn't excluded committee
Democrats from the drafting process then maybe we could have a
consensus set of solutions in front of us.
Instead, we have a bill full of environmental rollbacks, new unfunded
programs that will spread our Forest Service thin, and no pay fix for
our firefighters. It is a supposed wildfire response bill, but it
doesn't have firefighter pay in it.
It is a bill that is being offered by Republicans who style
themselves as fiscally conservative. Yet, as we approach a final vote
on this legislation in a
[[Page H5703]]
matter of minutes, we do not know the costs of the bill because
Republicans through a rushed process made sure that the Congressional
Budget Office did not have a chance to score the bill.
Nothing in this amendment addresses any of these extensive and
serious concerns.
I strongly oppose the bill, as does Ranking Member Grijalva, as does
the White House.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaLOTA. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding.
Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, Representative LaLota, for filing this
amendment which seeks to address the serious threat to forests in the
American northeast. The amendment does require the Forest Service to
conduct a study on the causes and effects of the infestation of pine
beetles in the northeastern region of the U.S. and offer solutions to
the pressing problem.
The southern pine beetle is an invasive species that has been
expanding into northeastern forests in recent years. As a southerner, I
wish all the southern pine beetles would leave the South, but I don't
wish them on my friends in the North.
It is an invasive species that poses a serious threat to the health
of pine forests in the North.
Concerning tree mortality has been documented in recent years in
pitch pine stands in several northeastern States, including New York,
New Jersey, and Connecticut.
The expansion of this invasive species into northern forests is
concerning and warrants our attention.
This is a good amendment that addresses a very real threat to forests
in the northeast. Examining this threat further and developing
solutions to prevent, treat, and detect insect infestations is an
important endeavor.
I, again, applaud Representative LaLota for his leadership in this
effort, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaLOTA. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mooney). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Ellzey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Mooney, 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. 8790) 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, and, pursuant to
House Resolution 1486, he reported the bill, as amended by that
resolution, back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 268,
nays 151, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 448]
YEAS--268
Aderholt
Aguilar
Alford
Allen
Allred
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Auchincloss
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bera
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budzinski
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Caraveo
Cardenas
Carey
Carl
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyburn
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Correa
Costa
Craig
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davids (KS)
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Eshoo
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, V.
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harder (CA)
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Himes
Hinson
Houchin
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (NC)
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lee (NV)
Lesko
Letlow
Lopez
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Manning
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Mrvan
Mullin
Murphy
Newhouse
Nickel
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Perry
Peters
Pettersen
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Ruiz
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Scholten
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spanberger
Spartz
Stanton
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Suozzi
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Torres (CA)
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Vasquez
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
NAYS--151
Adams
Amo
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Beyer
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Carbajal
Carson
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Courtney
Crockett
Crow
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Espaillat
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Hayes
Horsford
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Bowman
Carter (GA)
DesJarlais
Evans
Frost
Granger
[[Page H5704]]
Greene (GA)
Grijalva
Luetkemeyer
Meeks
Nehls
Wexton
Zinke
{time} 1737
Ms. ESHOO and Messrs. THOMPSON of Mississippi, SCHWEIKERT, and BISHOP
of Georgia changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call No. 443, Yea on Roll
Call No. 444, Yea on Roll Call No. 445, Yea on Roll Call No. 446, Yea
on Roll Call No. 447, and Yea on Roll Call No. 448.
____________________