Highly Rural Veteran Transportation Program Extension Act

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we make this transition, let me try and sum up where we are at this particular time.

This particular bill was done in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service under both the Obama administration and the Trump administration. This has the approval of local governments, Tribes, sportsmen's groups, and labor unions. The last time we had this bill, it had a good bipartisan vote on it, but these are issues that the Forest Service needs and they can use on day one of their issue.

What the Forest Service needs are resources, obviously. We know that. But they also need the tools that they need to actually do their work.

Now, there are some on the fringe who are going to say that everything is wrong here, but I would encourage them to get rid of the usual rhetoric and to pocket the dogma for a minute and realize that what we need to do is come up with a system that affects the planning process.

The Forest Service admits they have 50 to 60 million acres of forestland today that is ready to be a catastrophic catastrophe. They want to treat 25 percent of what they own a year. They are only treating 2 to 3 percent. That means, of the 50 to 60 million acres they have that are in dire situations right now, they can only treat 3 a year. That would take them 20 years to try and get through what needs to be treated unless we give them new tools to reform the system to make that process going in, and that is exactly what this bill does: it rewards collaboration; it tries to stop unnecessary litigation; it comes up with arbitration concepts that are in there; it expands the ability of streamlining the process so they can get to work.

Our people need the resources to do their job. They need the tools. We should make it very clear that money alone is not going to solve the problem of wildfire catastrophe. What we have to do is solve the conditions that create the catastrophic wildfires in the first place, and that means that we need to make sure that we are doing things so we can prohibit what has happened, which has been devastating to people and their property; which has destroyed habitat for species, endangered and unendangered; and which has created conditions of pollution in our atmosphere.

All that has to take place. Everything in this bill is what the experts in the Forest Service said they can do on day one after it is passed. It needs to take place. It needs to be in addition to the financial solving of the wildfire situation. You need to have these reforms, and that is what we are pushing in this bill. It is why it is so desperately needed and why it was worked out with the experts in the field.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and a letter sent from 40 forestry coalitions that are in support of this particular bill.

National Conference of State

Historic Preservation Officers,

Washington, DC, October 24, 2017.

Hon. Rob Bishop,

Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington,

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who has sat through 2 years of discussions of the ideas from the Forest Service in creating this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for his work on forestry issues and understand the importance this bill has to forestry management in his state.

It is my intent, and I believe the intent of my colleagues, that all provisions of H.R. 2936, including title I and title II, unless explicitly excluded, apply to national monuments and all other lands managed by the United States Forest Service.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at how critical people have been about the experts of the Forest Service, as if people don't realize that these provisions in Mr. Westerman's bill weren't coming out of thin air. Somebody told us the tools they need to deal with this.

Mr. Chair, may I also add, there are still other issues which we will work out when we get to the Senate on these, some that Mr. Gohmert presented. We will still work on those issues.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the author of this bill, the only Member on the floor who has a degree in forestry.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chair, I voted for last Congress' version of this bill, one of 19 Democrats to do so. It wasn't perfect, but the bill was step in the right direction. I hoped the Senate would improve it and we would finally make needed changes forest management and fix ``fire borrowing.'' But the Senate never acted on it, or on any other forest management bill.

In the 113th Congress, I worked with Reps. Schrader and Walden and crafted a bipartisan bill to create a long-term solution to properly manage statutorily unique forestlands in Western Oregon. It would have devoted nearly 1.3 million acres for sustainable timber production for local mills, created thousands of private sector jobs, and provided much-needed revenue for our rural counties. The legislation was included in a larger bill which passed the House in September 2014. Again, the Senate failed to act.

Like last Congress, there are provisions in this bill I support. However, there are provisions that I cannot support. For example, the bill doubles the amount of acres exempt from nearly all environmental analysis for projects up to 10,000 acres, and in some cases 30,000 acres, nearly 47 square miles.

I agree there is a need to need to increase the pace and size of forest restoration projects. But the Forest Service and BLM already have many tools to accomplish more management objectives. What they need is funding to complete projects. In fact, Forest Service NEPA experts have initiated a comprehensive review to determine opportunities, already allowed under law, to increase efficiencies and management tools to expedite environmental review, including proposing new categorical exclusions.

It's true that in some cases the Forest Service and BLM don't use authority they have because of legitimate concerns about the threat of litigation and the accompanying expenses it incurs. But it is disingenuous for us to claim that this bill, or any forest management bill, is a miraculous fix to harvest more timber, improve forest restoration, or reduce fuels to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires, without Congress providing funding to do so. In fact, according to the Forest Service, in Oregon there are over 1.8 million acres of treatment projects that are ``shovel ready,'' meaning all environmental analysis has been completed. But they stay on the shelf, because the Forest Service doesn't have the funds to complete them.

We've all seen the destruction from this year's severe fire season. Homes and businesses were destroyed, and dozens of lives were lost in Northern California. In my district, over 300,000 acres burned. The Forest Service says that nationally there are now more than 44 million homes are within the Wildland Urban Interface, at high risk of burning in a wildfire.

In 2004, Congress passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which if properly implemented would go a long way to reduce the threat of wildfires in our communities. It authorized up to 20 million acres to be treated to remove hazard fuels in the Wildland and Urban Interface, as well as protect municipal water supplies from catastrophic wildfires. We authorized $760 million annually to perform the work. So far, thirteen years later, only 2.5 million acres have been treated.

Why is that? We have never come close to appropriating enough funding to get the job done. In Fiscal Year 2017, Congress appropriated $390 million for hazardous fuels reduction.

As always, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve forest management and help our rural communities get back on their feet. But it must be balanced approach. Unfortunately, this bill is not a balanced approach.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not totally opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the amendment that has been presented by the gentleman from Oregon. I think it is a well- thought-out amendment.

I also appreciate the comments he made, as he is trying to get us past the rhetoric and the dogma, and to try and come up with a truly bipartisan effort to solve the problems that the Forest Service has clearly delineated, giving them the tools that they want to try and solve these problems in the future.

I think the gentleman is also correct when he said that if you go through the list of those that are going to use categorical exclusion, you can't actually do those functions without producing timber. So, at worst, the language that was put in here is redundant. We are still after the same goal. We are still after the same game. That is why I actually will accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I have to strenuously oppose this particular amendment because it strikes one of the core provisions of this bill.

From 1989 to 2008, there were 1,125 lawsuits filed against the Forest Service, and hundreds have been filed since that time. Half of the active management lawsuits of the Federal Forest Service account are spent, and 40 percent of all Forest Service lawsuits are brought on this specific point.

In addition to that, the Forest Service, in an effort to try and mitigate against that, simply tries to delay the processes, which creates a culture of analysis paralysis going through there, and at the end they get sued anyway.

This provision is one of few creative efforts we have had that does not impact people's access to justice, but having a binding arbitration pilot program allows us to try and give you the merits of a lawsuit and move forward quickly. This is creative. This is what they need.

If we need to end endless litigation, frivolous lawsuits that impede the

work of our land managers and cost taxpayers millions of dollars, this is the kind of thing that we need to start doing. The Forest Service recognizes they need this. It is about time we recognize they need this, too.

Mr. Chairman, keep this creative approach in the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the author of this bill.

Mr. Chair, once again, I would ask our Members to reject this particular amendment. It is a core provision, one of the few creative efforts, and only a pilot project to try and find a solution. It has received bipartisan support. It has received support from a broad coalition of outside groups. Admittedly, some of those who actively litigate and raise money and profit by it don't like this provision, but most of the other people recognize this is something the Forest Service can use on day one. They need this tool.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is another one of the amendments that basically guts the whole purpose of this entire bill.

There is nobody who is cut out of the process. None of the public is cut out of the process. What is cut out is redundant, duplicative NEPA analysis, all of which can result in litigation. It simply says you do the process the first time. You don't have to redo it again and again and again and admit the Forest Service to litigation again and again. In fact, they admit 71 percent of all their lawsuits mention these types of provisions in there.

As we said before, these provisions were not coming out of thin air. They are coming from what the Forest Service tells us they need to do their job, the tools they need so they can take the resources they have and do it once the first time and get it over with and do it right and not have to spend it on frivolous litigation.

NEPA is not taken away. The analysis is not taken away. The public is not taken out of the system. All you are simply doing is saying you don't have to do it repetitively, in other words, don't have to do it redundantly. This is one to streamline it. This is what they need desperately.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will say once again, the tools the Forest Service needs to do their job are harmed if these sections do not remain in the bill. It is not talking about public input. It is talking about redundant, unnecessary public review that goes through there that creates unnecessary and redundant litigation. There is a NEPA process that needs to go forward. You just don't have to do it four and five and six times just because. We have an analysis paralysis.

I remind you once again, we have 50 to 70 million acres that are in a desperate, dire situation, ready to explode in catastrophic wildfire. The Forest Service can only get to 3 million acres a year, and part of it is the problems they have that we are trying to remove with these specific provisions. They need these tools. If we don't give them these tools, we exacerbate our wildfire problems. We don't need to do that. We shouldn't do that.

Mr. Chairman, we need to defeat this amendment. It is essential to defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2936, the so-called Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. Perhaps a better name would be the ``Log America's Forest Act of 2017.''

But before I address the many concerns with the underlying bill, I must commend my colleagues across the aisle for attempting to deal with the biggest barrier to improved management of our national forests: the enormous cost and impact of wildfire suppression on the Forest Service budget.

Over 50 percent of the Forest Service budget is eaten up by wildfire, and if things don't change, the agency predicts that it will increase to two-thirds in just 5 years. Unfortunately, the budget fix in this bill falls short.

First, it requires Congress to appropriate an amount equal to the 10- year average before emergency funding is available. We know that climate change results in longer and more intense wildfire seasons, making the 10-year average irrelevant to the ever-increasing need for funding. Because the average is too low, the real number will keep growing, meaning the amount of funding that must be taken from the Forest Service accounts will continue to grow. Fighting fires will continue squeezing out money for the active management my Republican colleagues are so eager to prioritize.

Second, requiring the President to declare each fire a national emergency before releasing funds is unnecessarily bureaucratic and could delay emergency operations.

We need a holistic fix for the wildfire budget that makes money available in advance of a critical emergency, but Republicans would rather play politics with fire to undermine environmental safeguards.

This is not the first time we have seen the bill, this piece of legislation. House Republicans sent a version to the Senate in the 113th and the 114th Congresses, where it languished on the shelf because our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol found it too extreme.

Rather than view that experience as an opportunity to seek compromise this time around, today we are considering a bill that is even more extreme and polarizing. They doubled the environmental review waivers, added language to undermine the Endangered Species Act, and scaled back protections for national monuments and roadless areas.

We are told that this is all in the name of decreasing wildfire risk and protecting communities. The truth is that it is just more of the same from House Republicans who will look for any excuse to advance their extraction-above-all agenda.

Wildfires are a huge problem in this country due, in large part, to climate change, something this bill ignores. By the way, they are becoming more frequent and more intense, and they pose a growing threat to public safety and local communities.

This bill is not about forest health or wildfire mitigation. It is about increasing the number of trees removed from our forests. Republicans would rather scare us into weakening environmental safeguards than work on a possible bipartisan solution to wildfire management.

A serious proposal would recognize the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have ample authority within current law to conduct fire treatment on our public lands. In fact, the 2009 Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, established the last time Democrats controlled the House, has resulted in the treatment of over 1.45 million acres of national forests to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and the improvement of over 1.33 million acres of wildlife habitat.

In just 5 years, the program generated more than $661 million in local labor income and an average of 4,300 jobs per year. The projects have attracted new partners and strengthened community relationships, leveraging over $76.1 million in partner matching funds. Collaborative programs like this bring people to the table and result in more acres treated, more local jobs, and more successful projects. Again, all of this has taken place within the framework of the current law.

Increased funding for programs like Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration should be a priority for Republicans, but this program was zeroed out by the Trump administration budget, and extreme proposals like this bill chip away at the principal pillars of law that make collaboration possible. Our constituents and our forests deserve better.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we have talked about H.R. 2936, this is something that has been before two previous Congresses and went nowhere; and as a consequence, we continue to not confront the issue of appropriate and necessary funding for the Forest Service to conduct wildfire suppression. That is the gap in this. This flawed attempt to try to fix the funding issue does not.

In fact, Congress has provided appropriate tools to conduct restoration, reduce hazardous fuels, and restore ecological balance on national forest and public lands.

Congress should fix the wildfire budget--that is the issue--not use this as leverage to subsidize the timber industry and also overturn essential environmental laws.

This legislation has an attack on NEPA, has an attack on the Endangered Species Act, has an attack on judicial review and access to justice, has an attack on the Antiquities Act, and continues the process of fire borrowing.

H.R. 2936 is not about forest health or reducing wildfire risk. It is intended to make it easier to advance commercial logging and sales on our national forests and public lands.

A flawed attempt to fix the wildfire funding problem, it does nothing to change the anti-environmental provisions in the underlying bill.

We have a serious issue, validated because of all the studies that have been done, including GAO, which found that climate change is a contributor, scientists have found that climate change is a contributor. That is not discussed because that is a hoax, my Republican colleagues say, created by the Chinese. So we will not talk about climate change as a major factor, which it is, to the increasing intensity and length of wildfires across our public lands and across private and State lands as well.

This legislation is about undermining environmental law. It does nothing about the funding necessary to fight wildfires in this country. It does nothing about involving the stakeholders in proactive restoration and reducing the threat of wildfire in this country.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2936, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment doubles down on the bad ideas that are in the underlying bill. The 150,000 acre categorical exclusion to remove timber from Gila, Lincoln, and Cibola National Forests has the potential to do more harm than good, and cuts the American public out of the decisionmaking process.

The Forest Service doesn't need this waiver to harvest trees in New Mexico. Last year, the Cibola produced 12,000 metric board feet, and Lincoln and Gila each between 5,000 and 6,000 metric board feet. These are average production numbers across the region.

So I am not sure what problem this amendment is trying to address or how exempting 150,000-acre projects from the environmental review helps the Forest Service meet their mandate of protecting habitat, watersheds, and providing recreational opportunities.

This amendment also exempts the Forest Service from the consultation requirements and the Endangered Species Act. Logging projects untethered from the bedrock environmental protections could potentially impact several species which depend on these forests for habitat, including the Mexican spotted owl and the Gila trout.

Active forest management is not a bad thing if it is done responsibly. If NEPA and the Endangered Species Act are followed, we get good projects, safe habitat restoration--not clear-cutting and loss of critical habitat. Unfortunately, this amendment undermines both of these fundamental laws and should be rejected.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would not resolve the issue that my friend from New Mexico has just brought up. The Statement of Administrative Policy from the executive branch raises the concerns of H.R. 2936 and of the land management reforms, which are in the legislation.

It says: ``The administration, however, has concerns about the legislation's revision to the Stafford Act, which would force competition for funding between wildfires on Federal land and other disasters already covered by the Stafford Act, including hurricanes.''

It also says that the legislation doesn't really address the issue of fire borrowing, which is central to dealing effectively and proactively with wildfires, both prevention, and suppression, as the resource is needed.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the Statement of Administrative Policy by the Trump administration. I also include another Statement of Administrative Policy dated July 8, 2015, which is on the same legislation, but by then-President Obama, which mirrors and reflects the same concerns brought up by the executive branch of President Trump.

Statement of Administration Policy

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

and 18 cosponsors

The Administration strongly believes that funding for

wildland fire management must be addressed in order to enable

the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to

better manage the Nation's forests and other public lands.

The Administration's second disaster funding request,

submitted to Congress on October 4, 2017, underscored this

belief. The request also noted the Administration's belief

that land management reforms are critical to solving the

problem of ``fire borrowing''--taking funds from forest

management programs to cover fire costs that exceed

appropriations--in a comprehensive manner, rather than

through a funding-only approach.

The Administration appreciates the intent of H.R. 2936, the

Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, and is supportive of

land management reforms like those outlined in the

legislation. The Administration, however, has concerns about

the legislation's revisions to the Stafford Act, which would

force competition for funding between wildfires on Federal

land and other disasters already covered by the Stafford Act,

including hurricanes.

Wildland Fire Management Funding

Last year, Federal wildfire suppression spending reached

$2.9 billion, an amount that signals clearly the need for

Congress to address the rising cost of fire suppression

operations. The dependence on ``fire borrowing'' to cover

funding shortfalls in times of severe wildfire impedes the

missions of our land management agencies, including by taking

critical funding from programs that help reduce the risk of

catastrophic fire, restore and maintain healthy functioning

ecosystems, and yield timber production.

The Administration, however, has concerns with re-purposing

the Stafford Act to address wildfires. The purpose of the

Stafford Act is to assist State, local, tribal, and

territorial (SLTT) governments that become overwhelmed when

responding to and recovering from natural disasters affecting

their jurisdictions. H.R. 2936 would modify the Stafford Act

by creating a new type of disaster declaration to address the

cost of wildfire suppression on Federal land, thereby

changing long-standing principles governing Federal support

to SLTT governments. As we have seen in this year's historic

Atlantic hurricane season, the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) must continue to be focused on its existing

mission, and the Stafford Act's Disaster Relief Fund must

remain dedicated solely to that mission.

Instead of the approach outlined in H.R. 2936, the

Administration supports a separate, annual cap adjustment for

wildfire suppression operations, which will resolve concerns

about the sufficiency of funds for wildfire suppression and

avoid unnecessary competition for Stafford Act funds.

Improving Forest Management

The Administration appreciates H.R. 2936's recognition that

fixing the funding component of fire borrowing will not, on

its own, stop the worsening trend of catastrophic wildfires.

Meaningful forest management reforms to strengthen our

ability to restore the Nation's forests and improve their

resilience to destructive wildfires must be a part

of any permanent solution. H.R. 2936's provisions that

expedite environmental approval for proactive forest

management, including hazardous fuel reduction and post-fire

timber salvage and reforestation actions, are important steps

forward. The Administration supports and will continue to

work with Congress on the details of the forest management

reform proposals.

Although the Administration has concerns with H.R. 2936's

modifications to the Stafford Act, the Administration will

continue working with Congress to enact a sustainable

solution to ``fire borrowing'' that does not adversely affect

FEMA's critical disaster relief funding and that recognizes

the need for a comprehensive solution to the problem of

wildfires.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, the Resilient Federal Forests Act contains many provisions that will give the Forest Service additional tools to better manage our national forests.

To keep our forests healthy and productive, we must ensure we have skilled loggers to safely work in those forests. I thank Representative Westerman for including my bill, the Future Logging Careers Act, in his bill that is on the floor today.

My bill will allow 16- and 17-year-olds to learn the logging business by working in family-owned mechanized logging operations under the supervision of their parents. That will allow the next generation of loggers to learn valuable skills, prepare to take over family businesses, and provide the wood products needed to support our economy.

I learned of the need for this bill after meeting two Idaho loggers from third-generation logging families, Tim Christopherson from Idaho County and Tom Mahon from Adams County.

Mahon's 16-year-old son, J.T., was working under his father's supervision when a Forest Service employee sent him home. J.T. couldn't work in the woods because logging doesn't have an exemption that has long been enjoyed by family farms under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

With help from the families and the Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho, we crafted a solution that is good for families, good for rural America, and good for the American economy.

I am grateful for the bipartisan effort on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the National Wild Turkey Federation and a letter from the National Association of Counties, Western Interstate Region, in support of H.R. 2936.

National Wild Turkey Federation,

Edgefield, SC, June 26, 2017.

Hon. Rob Bishop,

Chairman, Natural Resources Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Raul Grijalva,

Ranking Democrat, Natural Resources Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bishop and Representative Grijalva: On behalf

of the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) and its 230,000

members, we urge you to take swift Committee action on H.R.

2936 the Resilient Federal Forest Act of 2017. The NWTF is a

leader in wildlife habitat conservation in North America and

is dedicated to the conservation of the wild turkey and

preservation of our hunting heritage. We are currently

working towards our 10-year Save the Habitat. Save the Hunt

initiative in which we aim to conserve or enhance 4 million

acres of critical habitat, recruit 1.5 million hunters and

open 500,000 acres for outdoor enjoyment

Active forest management is crucial to establishing healthy

and sustainable forests and decisions for forest management

should be based on sound science. As such, the common sense

solutions offered in H.R. 2936 are imperative to the health

and future of our nation's forests and important to the NWTF

to help achieve our objectives. In total, H.R. 2936 has many

reasonable solutions to the challenges that the managing

agencies face to increase the pace and efficiency of active

forest management on our nation's federal lands. We take this

opportunity to highlight those solutions that we believe will

make the most immediate difference and offer recommendations

as to how we believe the bill can be further improved.

We support increased availability for Categorical

Exclusions (CE) in order to deal more effectively and

efficiently with threats like pests and disease and for

addressing urgent wildlife needs like critical habitat for

endangered species. We are especially supportive of the CE

that will allow for activities that enhance early

successional forests for wildlife habitat. Unlike some

critics of CEs who will suggest, they do not exempt the

action from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

rather they apply the NEPA review to like or similar actions

to expedite the process. These are administered under Council

on Environmental Quality regulations and other guidance.

Increased use of CEs is one of the best opportunities we have

in the short term to increase the pace of active forest

management.

Funding the cost of fighting catastrophic wildfires outside

of the agency budget is paramount to the agency's ability to

deliver on other aspects of their mission. We are supportive

of a fix that will allow catastrophic wildfires to be

considered a disaster. Until agencies are freed from the

burden of fighting catastrophic wildfires through their

annual budgets we will be unable to make meaningful progress

towards proactive forest management. We recommend capping the

firefighting budget at the current 10-year average to protect

further erosion of the U.S. Forest Service budget in other

important mission delivery areas.

We support the bill's provisions for large scale

reforestation on fire-impacted lands. While public input and

review is essential to public lands management, currently it

can result in delayed action and result in an inability to

accomplish the necessary objectives. We believe the deadlines

set for plan development and public input, as well as the

prohibition on restraining orders and preliminary injunctions

strike a reasonable balance. We recommend that this provision

of the bill clarify that proper ecological restoration is

allowed as a mechanism to salvage forests post catastrophic

events as reforestation may not always be the best action for

the ecological good.

The NWTF strongly supports arbitration as an alternative to

litigation. This will conserve valuable U.S. Forest Service

resources and expedite work getting done on the ground.

Additionally, we support the provision that does not allow

plaintiffs challenging a forest management activity to

receive any award or payment obligated from the Claims and

Judgment Fund.

We support the approach for allowing evaluation of only

action/no-action alternatives for collaborative Forest Plans,

Resource Advisory Committee and Community Wildfire Protection

Plan projects. Limiting the number of alternatives will

expedite the development of environmental assessments and

allow work to get done on the ground more quickly. We also

support the requirement to look at consequences of a no-

action alternative as a no-action decision would still have

an impact on the resource.

We understand budget concerns counties face and are

supportive of a portion of retained receipts from stewardship

contracts going to the counties. Stewardship Contracting is

an important tool for active forest management. Ultimately

this change will remove one impediment to utilizing

Stewardship Contracting and help garner support from the

counties. We recommend modifying this section to reflect that

payment should come only from retained receipts on completed

projects, versus strictly from timber value within ongoing

projects. This will maintain the ``exchange of goods for

services'' function of Stewardship Contracting while also

preserving the balance of timber dollars and the investment

of matching funds from organizations like the NWTF to expand

the scope and scale of projects, thus accomplishing more

active management and fire protection across the landscape

and within counties.

We appreciate the recognition of the importance of funding

planning activities for forest management. We are concerned

that the provision could potentially provide justification

for the U.S. Forest Service staff to refrain from fully

utilizing product value and

partner match dollars for on the ground work. While we feel

the 25% threshold is too high, the provision of allowing some

of the stewardship project revenues to cover the costs of

planning additional projects could be beneficial and

incentivize project planning.

We also appreciate the common-sense amendments to the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) that will improve the process of

protecting endangered and threatened species and their

habitat. The bill overturns the ``Cottonwood'' court

decision, which directs that if additional critical habitat

is designated under an approved Forest Plan or Resource

Management Plan, a section 7 programmatic re-consultation of

the entire Forest Plan needs to be done. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the Obama Administration argued that the

section 7 consultation needs only to be done on the portion

of the project covering the additionally designated acreage

of critical habitat. The remedy in this bill will greatly

reduce the debilitating process that the federal court

decision directs. The bill also affirms current U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service policy that no ESA section 7 consultation is

required if the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land

Management determines through informal consultation that the

proposed action will not likely have an adverse affect on

species or critical habitat. We further support the 90 day

threshold on a CE established by this bill because it will

conserve agency resources and expedite management activities

on the ground.

We commend Congressman Westerman, the co-sponsors, and

Chairman Bishop for their dedication to restoring and

maintaining our federal forests under management informed by

science, and offering the appropriate reforms to management

practices. We respectfully urge that you expeditiously report

H.R. 2936 out of Committee and to the House floor.

Sincerely,

Rebecca A. Humphries,

Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, introduced by my friend and colleague Bruce Westerman.

Our forests and the communities that live, work, and rely on them desperately need improved management practice to reduce these forest fire disasters and to increase resiliency.

I was very pleased with the quick work by my friend and former colleague OMB Director Mick Mulvaney for addressing the wildfire funding crisis at the United States Forest Service, requesting $576.5 million for wildfire suppression and recommending active management reforms.

Now, while the Trump administration came through in a big way for Western communities that have been ravaged by catastrophic wildfires, Congress must pass H.R. 2936 and get serious about combating catastrophic wildfires before they get started.

The Resilient Federal Forests Act is a bipartisan, comprehensive piece of legislation that simplifies the cumbersome planning process and reduces the cost of implementing proactive forest management strategies.

H.R. 2936 empowers local communities by getting them involved in the decisionmaking process. It empowers Tribal communities to be part of the solution and help reduce the risk of wildfire.

The bill removes incentives for extreme special interest groups to file frivolous lawsuits. In fact, it requires litigants opposing active management projects to propose an alternative plan as opposed to just saying ``no.'' Imagine that, solutions over lawsuits.

Mismanagement has left our forests vulnerable to insects and disease and ripe for catastrophic wildfires. It is clear the system is broken. Western communities are tired of being victims, and this bill allows us to be proactive and to prevent disasters before they become a risk.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record two letters, one from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the second from the National Association of Home Builders, in support of H.R. 2936.

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies,

Washington, DC, June 26, 2017.

Hon. Rob Bishop,

Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Raul Grijalva,

Ranking Democrat, House Natural Resources Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Democrat Grijalva: The

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Association) is

pleased to support H.R. 2936, the ``Resilient Federal Forest

Act of 2017'' (RFFA). All 50 state agencies are members of

the Association. Founded in 1902, the Association's mission

is to protect the interests and authorities of the states to

manage fish and wildlife within their borders, including on

federal land. The Association works closely with the federal

land management agencies to deliver on the ground

conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats for our

citizens.

The Association is particularly appreciative of changes

made by the Committee staff at the request of the

Association. These changes make more prominent in federal

statute the states' authority to manage fish and wildlife on

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) lands. Nothing in the amended language is intended to

change any existing federal, state or tribal authority. It

simply makes more evident the state-federal jurisdictional

relationship which Congress has affirmed. Federal-state

cooperation in this arena is compelled because the USFS and

BLM own the land and thus the habitat, and the state fish and

wildlife agencies manage the fish and wildlife. Robust

cooperation will provide that both land/habitat objectives

and fish and wildlife population objectives are met.

The RFFA is vitally needed to restore the health of our

Nation's federal forests on USFS and BLM lands.

Unfortunately, the USFS and BLM have fallen significantly

behind in meeting objectives for early successional stage

forest habitat, for a number of reasons. Significantly,

federal court decisions and increasing uninformed litigation

has created ``paralysis by analysis'' to quote a former USFS

Chief. Congress mandated that the federal forests were to be

managed for water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, and

timber harvest. Active forest management by the federal

professional managers in cooperation with the state fish and

wildlife agency professional managers has been replaced by

natural resource management decisions being made by the

federal courts. A return to active forest management will

facilitate realization of all of the public values of federal

forests.

The Association much appreciates that the fire-borrowing

problem is addressed in HR 2936. While most catastrophic

fires occur in the western United States, this is a national

problem because the funds for every national forest and

public land unit are affected. This remedy will prevent the

USFS and BLM from having to borrow from other appropriated

line-items (for example, wildfire prevention, wildlife,

recreation and water quality) to pay for the cost of

catastrophic fire suppression, which cost consumes over 50%

of the USFS budget. We respectfully urge the Committee to

further protect the USFS budget by capping the 10-year

average cost of catastrophic fire costs at its current level.

The 10-year average is used by the USFS in building their

budget request. The 10-year average continues to rise and

unless it is capped it will continue to erode other important

budget line items such as wildlife, water quality, fire

prevention and recreation in the President's budget.

The Association further appreciates the process relief

provided to National Forest Plans (NFP) and (potentially)

Resource Management Plans (RMP) developed by collaborative

deliberation. It is appropriate that a collaborative-

developed plan, which often takes years to deliberate and

conclude, be subject to only two options under NEPA, proceed

or not proceed. It is very reasonable to assume that the

collaboratively deliberated process has examined and rejected

the other options, and only the action or no action need be

analyzed.

The bill's establishment of a pilot binding arbitration

process as an alternative to litigation in each FS Region is

certainly welcomed by the Association. Not only is the cost

of defending the land management plan a burden on the

agencies, but the planned for management work on the ground

is lost, perhaps never to be resurrected on that site. We

commend Congressman Westerman and the Committee for settling

on this significant improvement to litigation reform that was

in HR 2647 from the last Congress.

We also appreciate the increase in acreage ceilings for the

statutorily endorsed Categorical Exclusions (CEs) under NEPA.

CEs must avoid sensitive areas and must be consistent with

standards and guidelines in Forest Plans. Early forest

successional stage habitat, for instance, cannot be just

incidental to be effective in providing habitat for deer,

elk, wild turkey, neo-tropical migratory songbirds and other

species which are dependent on this habitat type. While an

acreage ceiling is an easy metric to measure success, the

desired forest future condition should really determine the

size of the timber harvest.

Additionally, the Association supports the proposed common-

sense amendments to the Endangered Species Act. First, H.R.

2936 overturns the Cottonwood decision, which directs that if

additional critical habitat is designated under an approved

FP or RMP, a section 7 programmatic re-consultation of the

entire FP needs to be done. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) and the Obama Administration argued that the

section 7 consultation needs only to be done on the project

covering the additionally designated acreage of critical

habitat. This remedy will greatly reduce the debilitating

process that the federal court decision directs. Second, the

bill affirms that no ESA section 7 consultation is required

if the USFS or BLM determine during informal consultation

that the proposed action is ``not likely to adversely affect

a species or designated critical habitat'', which is already

USFWS policy. And third, if any consultation on a categorical

exclusion established by the bill is not concluded after 90

days, the action shall be considered to have not violated

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

The Association is committed to working with our partners

in the USFS and BLM to manage our federal forests to fulfill

their public values as Congress mandated. HR 2936 makes

significant improvements to and would expedite the process

that governs approval of the USFS and BLM management plans.

We urge that your Committee expeditiously report HR 2936 from

the Committee to the House floor.

We look forward to continuing to work with you to move this

bill quickly through the legislative process. If you have any

questions, please contact AFWA Government affairs Director

Jen Mock Schaeffer.

Sincerely,

Nick Wiley,

President, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies;

Executive Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission.

Mr. Chairman, we need forest management reforms, we need them now. I thank Mr. Westerman and the committee for their work on this bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Bishop for his tireless efforts to see our government do better on our Federal lands.

Mr. Chairman, I recently made a trip out to Montana to visit some of our National Forests and the rural communities they border. These forests, much like many areas across our country, have been mismanaged for decades, and the ones that have not already been destroyed are ripe to be devastated by insects, disease, or catastrophic wildfire, not because of some action taken by the Forest Service, but just the opposite. Because of no actions, our forests are overstocked, underutilized, and unhealthy.

We have seen nearly 9 million acres of forest, an area larger than the State of Maryland, go up in flames just this year, spewing tens of millions of tons of carbon and thick smoke into the atmosphere.

Don't get me wrong. 32,000 full-time Forest Service personnel are busy and working hard trying to manage the 193 million acres of timberland across our great country, but they are spinning their wheels and making very little progress.

Mr. Chairman, that is a forest the size of Texas and South Carolina combined. According to scientists at the Forest Service, 80 million acres of that, an area the size of the State of New Mexico, is in a condition that is subject to catastrophic wildfire.

These fires are not only creating a forest health crisis, they are a public health crisis. They kill trees, they kill wildlife and livestock. These fires not only kill livelihoods, they create unbearable health concerns and living conditions with their thick smoke and ash. On top of all that, they are killing people.

It shouldn't be this way and it doesn't have to be this way.

This bill simply allows sound, scientifically-based forestry practices, like the ones I learned at Yale's Forestry School, to be implemented on our Federal forests. It will result in cleaner air, cleaner water, better wildlife habitat, better recreational opportunities, more plant and animal biodiversity, stronger economies, and fewer fires, resulting in lower fire costs.

As we traveled through the beautiful countryside of Montana, I saw the symbol of our Nation perched majestically atop a tree by the bank of a clear and flowing stream. This bald eagle reminded me of a fable by Aesop that described our situation today. It goes like this:

An eagle was soaring through the sky, when suddenly it heard the whiz of an arrow and it felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the Earth, with its lifeblood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the haft of the arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes.

``Alas!'' it cried, as it died, ``We often give our enemies

the means for our own destruction.''

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

Mr. Chairman, our enemy is catastrophic wildfire that destroys our forests. Our enemies are insects and diseases that kill our trees, and we are feathering their arrows with inaction. We are feathering their arrows with bureaucratic red tape. We are feathering their arrows with poor policy that are killing our forests, killing our communities, and killing us every day.

How much longer will we stand by and do nothing?

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get behind this bill, pass it out of the House, and join me in relentlessly encouraging the Senate to take action.

Our forests, our rural communities, our environment, and all those areas, urban and rural alike, that are breathing the smoke and ash of our once magnificent forests need us to act.

Every day that we delay, the problem gets worse and the enemies of the forest are gaining ground. Please join me in this fight and pass this bill.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters. The first is from eight groups, including the Archery Trade Association; the second is from the National Association of State Foresters, both in support of

Mr. Chairman, I think what we have to realize is that what is happening now is not working. Forest management plans are not being implemented. Region 1, alone, of the Forest Service spent $1.23 million on the Equal Access to Justice Act, paying plaintiffs to sue the Forest Service. That is just since January of 2016.

This is an attempt for the pilot program to do arbitration modeled after baseball arbitration that keeps the ball moving forward. This results in some kind of action taking place. It is not the Secretary of Agriculture making the decision; it is one of a team of arbitrators who are professionals who come together to work for solutions. That is what we need in our forests, and that is why we don't need to include this amendment in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. As the gentleman explained, this amendment does direct the Secretary of Agriculture to study the use of unmanned vehicles, or drones, in the responsible forest management wildland firefighting and fire suppression.

Unmanned aerial vehicles are an emerging technology that should be harnessed to benefit our Nation's forests. As a matter of fact, these unmanned vehicles are being used extensively by the private sector to look at their forests, to manage them, to equip them with remote- sensing equipment so that they can cover large areas at a large time and gather much more accurate data than you could actually do on the ground.

By ensuring that our land management practices utilize the cutting edge of available technology, we can ensure the prolonged health of our managed forests, and we can actually use this as a tool to cut down on the number of forest fires, and a better way to respond to those fires.

I hope the gentleman will support the full bill after we add this amendment to it so that he can actually see the implementation of his amendment in practice.

Mr. Chairman, again, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment is good for the bill. I am glad that we can work in a bipartisan way to include it in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although, again, I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon catching this and pointing it out. It has never been the intent of this bill to affect wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers. I believe we do have protections in place in the bill, but this reemphasizes that.

I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work as we worked through the process on this bill. We had some good discussions on ideas, we were able to agree on some of those, and some of them we didn't agree on. But this is definitely one that we agree on needs to be in there.

Although H.R. 2936 includes the important sideboards that ensure appropriate land management practices are implemented on federally protected and sensitive lands, this is just putting some suspenders on with the belt.

This amendment, offered by my colleague from Oregon, builds upon the sideboards already included in the bill, and it ensures that special landscapes within Oregon's O&C lands are treated similarly to other lands that are contemplated in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, I support this amendment. I, again, want to say how much I appreciate the gentleman's work and his passion for the forest, not only in his home State of Oregon, but across our country.

I also want to add that, as Americans, we are very passionate about our wilderness areas, about our wild and scenic rivers. I have some of those in my State. And the last thing we want to do is do anything to jeopardize those.

I believe, overall, the bill is going to be great for our forests, but I am glad the gentleman added this amendment. He has still got time to change his mind and support the full bill, which will be great for Oregon and great for other States in the West.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.