Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2936) to expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National Forest System lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 595 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, just yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 595, providing for consideration of an important piece of legislation, H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2936 under a structured rule, with four Democratic amendments made in order and two bipartisan amendments and one Republican-led amendment made in order.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, a bill that is critically important to my district in central Washington State and to rural, forested districts like it across the United States who continue to face devastation from catastrophic wildfires as we have seen, just this last year, a great example of.

This bipartisan, comprehensive legislation is aimed at addressing the disastrous consequences of wildfires by utilizing the tools the Forest Service and other agencies have to reduce the threats posed by these wildfires, by insects, by disease infestation, and by dangerous old forest overgrowth that serves as a literal tinderbox for wildfires. This legislation will expedite and improve forest management activities in Federal forests to counteract these threats.

This legislation, spearheaded by my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Representative Bruce Westerman, who is a trained forester himself, is comprised of a truly comprehensive effort developed here in the people's House. It is bipartisan. This bipartisan support demonstrates that the threat of catastrophic wildfires does not just impact a red or a blue district, but, rather, it poses a threat to communities across the United States.

H.R. 2936 would provide Federal land management agencies immediate tools to increase the pace and the scale of forest management projects to dramatically improve the health and resiliency of our national forests, ensuring robust protection of the environment. Active management leads to healthier forests. It is that simple.

This legislation also allows expedited review for collaborative projects in Federal forests and removes incentives for special interest groups to file frivolous lawsuits. By requiring litigants opposing active management projects to propose an alternative management option, we can instill accountability into a system that is wrought with litigation.

Additionally, the legislation bolsters locally led forest management and hazardous fuel reduction projects to improve forest health.

By engaging local stakeholders, we can lessen the severity and the costs of wildfires, while protecting the communities and the environment.

Mr. Speaker, another major component of our Nation's wildfire crisis is the broken system with which we fund firefighting suppression. When these firefighting costs exceed the existing budget, the U.S. Forest Service transfers funds from other vital forest management program accounts in order to pay for wildfire suppression. I and a lot of other people in this Chamber have been outspoken critics of this dangerous broken cycle known as fire borrowing. That also is a very bipartisan position that is taken. H.R. 2936 provides a major step forward in ending this cycle. By raiding accounts that provide for forest management programs which help prevent wildfires, we tie one hand behind our back in an effort to both prevent and suppress these catastrophic wildfires. This legislation will help to put an end to this longstanding problem.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents know as well as anyone the immense threat that wildfires pose to local communities. In just the past 4 years, the fourth district of my State, my district, has seen the two largest fires in Washington State's history. We have lost hundreds of homes and businesses and structures. My constituents are still struggling to recover from the Carlton Complex Fire of 2014 and the Okanogan Complex Fire of 2015. We lost three firefighters that year. That truly is a high cost.

Active forest management is a matter of saving lives and livelihoods, of protecting our communities, and ensuring our constituents' health and safety, which is why I am proud to support this rule and the underlying legislation that it represents today.

Mr. Speaker, as I have often said, we cannot continue to limp from one devastating fire season to the next. We must take significant steps toward reforestation, rehabilitation, and overall forest management. This legislation will allow us to do just that. We must begin to prevent, to suppress, to mitigate the threat of catastrophic wildfires, and the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 will be a momentous opportunity to turn around our diseased and overgrown Federal forests. This legislation is essential and desperately needed to change the current path of forest management on public lands. It is outdated, unsustainable, and dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward rule allowing for consideration of this critical piece of legislation that will help protect our rural communities and ensure that we are prepared to respond to devastating and catastrophic wildfires that have plagued many areas of our country in the last few years.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule's adoption, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleague from Florida, I would like to share one last note. Just a few weeks ago, the new chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Tony Tooke, came to Capitol Hill and briefed some of my colleagues, including me, regarding this year's devastating wildfire season.

He reported to us that over 8 million acres, just this year, have burned. We have also lost dozens of lives, thousands of homes. Chief Tooke left us with the stark fact that while more than 8 million acres burned this year, another 80 million acres across the United States are at high risk of catching fire--80 million acres. Mr. Speaker, if that does not show how dire this problem is, then I certainly can't tell you what does.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the admonition of my friend from Florida, that to bring bipartisan proposals forward, this absolutely is a bipartisan bill; support from both sides of the aisle, because, as I said in my opening comments, these kind of fires know no political boundaries, know no political lines. So I am very happy to report that we have a strong bipartisan effort right here in front of us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

Mr. Speaker, we do deal with a lot of important issues on this floor. Today we are talking about something that, in this country, people are losing property, we are losing our natural resources, and, certainly, people are losing their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) to talk further on this important topic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the prime sponsor of the bill in question today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, to demonstrate the importance of this particular piece of legislation to the whole country.

Mr. Speaker, most all Western States were impacted in one way or another by catastrophic fires this summer. Particularly hard hit was the great State of Oregon.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for his passionate words about the impact of catastrophic fires in his State.

He is right. The fire from Oregon did jump the Columbia River into Washington, but that is not the only thing that they shared with us this summer. My own community, the Yakima Valley, was filled with smoke for probably 6 weeks this summer, causing all kinds of health issues for the citizens of central Washington, not just from Oregon, but smoke also from as far away as Montana and Idaho, and other parts of the Northwest.

In fact, I was just handed a news article, I would like to note, from the Methow Valley News, which if you have never been to the Methow Valley, it is one of the most pristine, beautiful places on the face of the Earth. They are talking about the quality of air in the Methow Valley in the community of Twisp.

The air pollution in Twisp, Washington, is considered among the worst in the State, if you can imagine that, in some of the most beautiful, clean, pristine areas that you can imagine. The air quality, largely due to these catastrophic fires year round, has been impacted negatively. That is something that, thanks to the Methow Valley News, they are making very clear to all of us that we need to do something to address this particularly important issue.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), my neighbor to the east, the Congressperson from the Fifth Congressional District of the State of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the good gentlewoman from Washington State for her remarks.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly show this is an example of some of the fire damage. If you can see that, this is from the Carlton Complex Fire that happened 3 years ago in my district in central Washington, taken just yesterday.

The Carlton Complex burned through State, private, and Federal lands. So you can see that these dead, fire-damaged trees have not been logged, they have not been removed, and what they do is provide the kindling for the next catastrophic fire.

So that is what we are talking about here, not disarming local communities but actually arming them and giving them the ability and the tools that they need in order to prevent these catastrophic fires.

I would invite the good gentleman from Florida to come with me to witness firsthand the devastation and the potential devastation that we have and to really understand the nature of the issue. I would reciprocate with a visit to his State to see the damage done by the devastating hurricanes as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the newspaper article from the Methow Valley News, dated October 27.

[From the Methow Valley News, Oct. 27, 2017]

Smoke Is a Year-Round Problem in the Valley

(By Ann McCreary)

Autumn in the Methow Valley brings cool, crisp weather,

bright days and colorful foliage. And smoke. Just like every

other season of the year.

The Methow Valley's clean, clear air--one of its key

attractions--is anything but clean and clear for extended

periods of the year. In fact, the Methow Valley has four

seasons of smoke, said Liz Walker, head of the Methow Valley

Clean Air Project.

And it is not insignificant amounts of smoke, Walker said.

Air pollution in Twisp is among the worst in the state, based

on data from the Washington Department of Ecology.

Each season in the Methow Valley brings its own source of

air pollution. In recent years, the all-too-familiar pall of

wildfire smoke has hung over the valley for days or weeks

during summer. As wildfires are put out by cooler, wet

weather of fall, the valley enters another phase of smoke

produced by prescribed burning in national forests, outdoor

burn piles and wood stoves for home heating.

In spring, prescribed burning begins again, as well as more

burn piles. ``Maybe a respite in June and early July, and

then wildfire season will be upon us,'' Walker said.

Although wildfire season can bring health-threatening

amounts of smoke to the valley, like last summer's Diamond

Creek Fire, poor air quality is a real concern in winter as

well, Walker said. ``We're susceptible to inversions and

stagnation in the winter months'' that trap wood stove smoke

on the valley floor, she said.

Smoke is the air pollutant of greatest concern in the

Methow Valley, and is monitored by the Department of Ecology.

It is known as PM2.5, which means particulate matter that is

2.5 microns or smaller. These tiny particles are most

frequently caused by incomplete combustion, and can stay

airborne and can travel long distances, increasing the

likelihood that humans and animals will inhale them.

Data collected by a Department of Ecology air monitor in

Twisp ranked air quality at that site among the eight most-

polluted places in the state in 2016, Walker said. ``By

several of the measures the Department of Ecology uses to

look at PM2.5 pollution reported at air quality monitors

across the state, Twisp ranks among the worst in air

pollution--worse than metro Seattle or Tacoma. This is even

after PM2.5 from wildfire smoke is subtracted out,'' Walker

said.

There was insufficient data from the air pollution monitor

in Winthrop to assess air quality there last year, ``but it

is typically only slightly better than Twisp,'' Walker said.

Public cost

``Our valley cares a lot about this, and we're working

together to improve it. There's a real public health cost to

air pollution. Anyone who has sat around a campfire, or gone

for a strenuous hike on a smoky day has had a firsthand

lesson in the toxicity of smoke,'' Walker said.

Walker's concern about health impacts come from her

training as an environmental health toxicologist. Harmful

effects range from the inability to exercise outdoors, to

respiratory distress and infections, to increased risk of

cancer.

``For vulnerable populations--babies, children, pregnant

women, elders, and anyone with heart or lung issues--bad air

days can mean serious health repercussions. For everyone,

chronic exposure to high levels of PM2.5 can potentially

trigger or exacerbate conditions such as headaches, asthma,

bronchitis and cardiovascular disease.''

There are economic costs of air pollution in the Methow

Valley as well, she said. ``We're a tourist economy,

dependent on the natural beauty of the valley,'' Walker said.

The Methow Valley Clean Air Project was launched in 2015 by

Raleigh Bowden, a local physician, after she saw people

suffering health effects of poor winter air quality, Walker

said. A key goal of the project is improving air quality

during the home heating season, October through March.

``Due to our valley's frequent winter inversions, smoke

from woodstoves and outdoor burning pollutes our air to

frequently unhealthy levels,'' Walker said. ``We've focused

on the home heating season because this is when we can make

behavioral changes to improve our air quality. This is a

controllable source of pollution, as contrasted with

pollution from wildfires.''

The Clean Air Project outlines measures residents can take

to reduce pollution from wood stoves, including: Properly

season wood so that it is dry and burns cleaner; clean

chimneys yearly; build small, hot fires and don't damp them

down; comply with burn bans; upgrade to certified stoves or a

wood-burning alternative; weatherize homes.

The organization is also working to reduce outdoor burning

of yard waste and provide alternatives, including

``vegetation drives'' sponsored by the Clean Air Project,

Walker said.

Successful drives

Vgetation drives, supported by grants and partnerships,

were held in the fall of 2016 and spring of 2017, and another

drive is scheduled next spring. Past drives have collected

about 20 tons of vegetation, which prevented hundreds or

thousands of hours of smoke, Walker said.

The yard waste was dropped off by residents and hauled to

the county landfill during the first drive, conducted over

two days. During the second drive, conducted over eight days

in partnership with the Town of Twisp, residents delivered

vegetation to a site near the Twisp wastewater treatment

plant, where it was chipped and offered free for landscaping

and mulching.

``The most unusual community participant brought his load

strapped to the back of his bicycle--now that's commitment to

clean air!'' Walker said.

The Clean Air Project also partnered this year with the

Pine Forest Homeowners Association to provide support for

chipping branches and slash created when underbrush and trees

were thinned and limbed as part of Pine Forest's ongoing

Firewise efforts. The debris would otherwise have been

burned.

Next spring's vegetation drive will be conducted in

partnership with the Okanogan Conservation District, Walker

said. She suggested that residents who have been accumulating

yard waste cover their piles this fall instead of burning

them, and haul them to the vegetation drive in the spring to

be chipped.

Walker acknowledged that it takes extra effort, and a

different mindset, to participate in a vegetation drive

rather than burn yard waste. ``It's hard. Our valley is long.

It requires a truck, loading it up and hauling it in,'' she

said. ``People have been outdoor burning in the valley

forever. It's how you get rid of your stuff when you live out

in the country.''

However, Walker said, many valley residents have been

supportive of the vegetation drives. ``People really

appreciate this as an option. They don't want to impact the

health of families and the community,'' she said.

For people who want to continue the longstanding local

tradition of burning yard waste, the Clean Air Project

suggests ``best practices for burning outdoors in the most

safe and clean way,'' Walker said.

``Make sure the pile is as bone dry as possible. Make sure

you know what is a good day, with good ventilation, but not

too much wind. We've interacted with Fire District 6 and

smokejumpers. There are lots of folks with tons of knowledge

about how to build a hot, clean pile,'' she said.

The Clean Air Project is overseen by a volunteer advisory

group. The Methow Valley Citizens' Council is fiscal sponsor

for the organization. More information is available on the

Methow Valley Clean Air Project Facebook page.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for today's debate.

The issue of proactive management of our Nation's Federal forests is critically important to the future and economic well-being of our whole country as well as to the health of our Federal lands and safety of our rural communities.

Let me say that, if you have never been through a rural community that has had to face the devastation of a catastrophic fire, you are welcome to come to the State of Washington and see firsthand exactly the kind of damage that these fires can do.

This is of the highest priority, and I urge all my colleagues to support this rule as well as the underlying bill in order to combat these catastrophic wildfires and reform the way in which we manage our forests.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. This is bipartisan, it is comprehensive, and it aims at addressing the disastrous consequences of catastrophic wildfires by utilizing the tools the Forest Service and other agencies have to reduce the threats posed by these fires, by insects, by disease infestation, and by dangerous old forest overgrowth.

As I said, my district in central Washington and millions of acres across our great country continue to face this threat. We must take steps to prevent and address these fires, which this bill will do by reforming the way we prepare for, respond to, and fund wildfire response and mitigation efforts. These threats will only continue to worsen not only for my constituents, but for people all around the country.

We are recognizing sustained drought conditions. Mismanagement and failure to conduct maintenance of our forests on Federal lands will continue to plague this issue. The underlying legislation is essential and desperately needed to change the outdated, unsustainable, and untimely dangerous system of Federal forest management on these lands.

Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward rule allowing for consideration of a critical piece of legislation that will help protect our rural communities and ensure we are prepared to respond to these devastating, catastrophic fires.

I appreciate the discussion we have had today. I believe that this is a critical measure, and I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 595 and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my remarks, I would offer condolences to the grieving families who lost loved ones in yesterday's terrorist attack in New York City, and to have the people of New York know--and I know I speak for all of us, and there will be a more appropriate recognition at a time in the future, I am sure, but to have them know that all of us grieve with them and are concerned not only for those who lost their lives, but to assist in preventing measures of this type in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

This bill is a sweeping attack on responsible forest management policy that upends key environmental safeguards, limits public participation in land management decisions, and prioritizes commercial timber harvest over transparent, science-based management. In other words, this is business as usual for this Republican majority when it comes to protecting our environment.

A footnote right there, my friend from the State of Washington does highlight, rightly, concerns not only for his congressional district, but areas throughout the country that have experienced wildfires.

Many of us have talked about this in conjunction with other disasters and a need for this Congress to be able to address the shortfall in funding for such important measures.

During this Congress alone, my Republican friends have brought to the floor bills that undermine the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue independent and objective scientific conclusions, weaken regulations of pesticides, and repeal rulemakings aimed at effective, science-based management of public lands, just to name a few things.

Repeatedly, my Republican friends ignore science and attack environmental protections all in an all-too-obvious attempt to help commercial interests over sound conservation policy. This focus not only undermines our public lands, but it also harms the health and safety of the American people.

This bill continues the assault on our Nation's environmental protections, and it may be one of the most irresponsible examples yet.

Under the guise of responding to the recent tragic wildfires in California and elsewhere in this Nation, this legislation attacks the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, which requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their actions.

The bill also attacks the Endangered Species Act by requiring redundant and unnecessary reporting requirements. It blocks access to the courts and limits recovery in environmental justice cases. Just for good measure, this bill effectively overturns President Obama's administration's monument expansion.

The bill does little to fix the true problem of wildfire management, namely the chronic underfunding of wildfire management. Any serious proposal must address the constant funding shortages at the U.S. Forest Service by increasing the amount of Federal funding available for wildfire suppression. A successful solution needs to provide advanced access to emergency funding.

Unfortunately, today's legislation does no such thing. Yesterday, the administration offered its statement of administration policy, and, at best, it is tepid. It says, ``The administration appreciates the intent of H.R. 2936 . . . and is supportive of land management reforms like those outlined in the legislation,'' and then comes the however. ``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.''

It goes on to say, `` . . . 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.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy.

Statement Of Administration Policy

H.R. 2936--Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017--Rep. Westerman R-AR,

and 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 appropriations 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. Speaker, as I indicated, the bill does little to fix the true problem of wildfire management. Any serious proposal, as I have said, must address the constant funding shortages, and that is what, among other things, the administration suggested.

Mr. Speaker, this year has been a wake-up call. We must do more to respond to the natural disasters that face our Nation. After three major hurricanes and devastating wildfires in my friend from Washington's State, in California, in Montana, and even in the Everglades of Florida we have experienced some wildfires, albeit not at the magnitude of loss of life or property as existed in some of the others, our resources and agencies are stretched to the brink.

Weeks after the storms, millions of people across the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are without power and without reliable access to clean drinking water. FEMA Administrator Brock Long testified just yesterday that the response to these storms and wildfires and other disasters--we have had tornadoes that have come along as well--is costing the Federal Government $200 million a day.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Office of Management and Budget is currently working to send a proposal to Congress for a third supplemental spending package to address the recovery needs in the affected areas. I urge them and my colleagues here in Congress to act swiftly to provide the resources that so many people desperately need. In the meantime, what have we gotten from Republicans? Bipartisanship? Sound science-based proposals? No. Instead, the Republican majority has ignored bipartisanship, and, yesterday, in the Rules Committee, a bipartisan measure was offered that was a thoughtful proposal on this topic, and was rejected, and presented this bill that we have here now that doesn't address the real issues facing public land and wildfire management, but, rather, guts environmental protection and overturns President Obama's monument expansion.

Mr. Speaker, this is business as usual for House Republicans. But if we are going to seriously address natural disasters and how we respond to them, I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to put aside their partisanship, reconsider their denial of climate change and its effects on our environment, and join Democrats in working together to address this and other important issues faced by all Americans.

There were two amendments that were offered yesterday by my colleagues from California. Both of those amendments were not made in order. I don't think it is right when people offer legislation, particularly those that have just been damaged, as our colleagues, Congressmen Thompson and Matsui, and others in the northern California region. They at least should have had an opportunity to offer up their amendment and have it voted against if people felt so here in this body.

I would hope, in the future, we would make a correction of that kind of undertaking. I would hope all Members of this body would have an opportunity to present their ideas on any legislation, and something as important as this could have allowed for an open rule, rather than for partisan activity to reign supreme.

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

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

If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I might add, attendant to this, on yesterday, my colleagues, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Carlos Curbelo, Frederica Wilson, and myself, introduced legislation calling for giving 300,000 migrants in this country, from a variety of countries, an opportunity for permanent residence--those from El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), my good friend, to speak to the issue that I just talked about, the Dream Act.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would advise my good friend from Washington that I have no further speakers and I will be prepared to close whenever he is. Until such time, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend that I am prepared to close. I have no additional speakers, and I will go forward with your permission.

In the wake of the worst wildfires, as have been mentioned here by so many

of our colleagues, that the U.S. has experienced in quite a while, House Republicans, however, have responded by bringing to the floor, really, a tired bill passed last Congress that went nowhere in the Senate, a bill that does not fix the true problem of chronically underfunding wildfire prevention but, instead, doubles down in creating an unworkable system for wildfire suppression funding, a bill that rolls back environmental protection and limits access to the courts.

It is dismaying to see the response to natural disasters in this country hinge on the same thing so many other important debates do: partisanship and ignoring facts and science.

Despite a year in which we have seen historic hurricanes and wildfires, my Republican colleagues have yet again resorted to continuing to push policies that repeal environmental regulations, all the while denying the effects climate change is having on our communities and our country's economy.

My friend from Oregon, a moment ago--and he is my friend--spoke about the thunderstorms that we receive in Florida. In his version, it is accompanied by rain, and that is true a lot. But we, too, have droughts in Florida, and Florida is known as the lightning capital of the world. Very occasionally, particularly in central Florida and in the Everglades, those lightning strikes produce wildfires in the congressional district that I serve and many others. Our response to these events needs to improve, and it needs to happen quickly.

These disasters do not recognize congressional districts. These disasters do not target one area of our country over another and do not care about Republican or Democratic partisan gamesmanship. If we are going to adequately respond to the needs of millions of American citizens in the wake of these and future storms and future wildfires, we need to be advocating for sound policies based on science. This is the only way to protect future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.