Saline Lake Ecosystems in the Great Basin States Program Act of 2021

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

Madam Chair, I am glad we are finally here on the floor today talking about an issue that is important to our whole country. I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado and his concerns about wildfires. I wish that we could work together on actually solving these issues in a manner and with policy that would actually do something.

I learned in engineering school that expending effort is not work. For example, you can push on a boulder all day, but until something moves, no work has been accomplished.

To put it another way, there is a saying that you should never confuse motion with action, which is exactly what the legislation before us today does. This bill is more than 550 pages yet does absolutely nothing to prevent wildfires or significantly improve our resiliency to drought.

This bill will actually make our wildfire crisis worse. Perhaps that is why my Democrat colleagues named it the Wildfire Response Act, instead of naming it the wildfire prevention act, which is what we should be focusing on because we will have to respond to all the wildfires that are going to happen anyway and the new ones that this bill creates.

Here is a little bit of forestry 101. There are two ways to reduce wildfire risk: thinning and controlled burning. This bill mentions thinning zero times. Not once does it mention thinning, but it mentions environmental justice 165 times. That should tell you what this bill is really about.

Instead of streamlining environmental regulations and addressing frivolous litigation, which delay vital forest management projects across the country, this bill would add mountains of new red tape on our Federal agencies that will grind their already glacial pace of treatments to a complete halt.

It would throw out the Forest Service's 10-year strategy to reduce hazardous fuels and make them completely redo this work less than 6 months after they started implementing their current strategy.

This makes you wonder if congressional Democrats disagree with the work of the Biden administration or if they have found the administration's work product is deficient and unreliable.

It would lock up 58 million acres of land into new roadless areas, despite research showing that more than half of all fires, including most of the largest fires on Western U.S. national forest lands, burn primarily in roadless areas, areas where land use restrictions mean that we can't thin and can't do management.

Instead, the bill would fund environmental volunteerism and provide N-95 masks and smoke inhalation equipment for homes, which I am sure will be of little comfort to people as their homes are burning to the ground.

Democrats will tell you this legislation raises wildland firefighter pay to $20 per hour. The only problem with that is that firefighters already make at least $20 per hour, meaning this so-called raise is an empty promise.

In the long term, the bill would write a check that it can't cash by setting up this new minimum pay rate with no actual money to back it up. The Forest Service has told us this means they would have to lay off over 610 wildland firefighters. Let me say that again: The Democrats' bill could result in the firing of more than 610 wildland firefighters who are putting their lives on the line to protect communities. This is a disgrace and will hurt our fire preparedness and response.

As if that weren't enough, the bill would create new pay disparities by leaving out 10,000 brave men and women fighting fires from receiving new benefits. That is roughly 40 percent of the Federal firefighting workforce.

Some of my Western colleagues will soon speak about the water provisions in this bill, but I want to say that the bill misses the mark on drought as well by proposing $4 billion in new authorizations and has unlimited mandatory spending.

Once again, the other side of the aisle is passing on more debt to our future generations, and we see what uncontrolled spending has done to our economy with inflation, high energy prices, high food prices, and, really, higher prices across the board.

According to conventional economics, we have had two quarters of economic decline, and we are in a recession. Why would we want to put more government funding and debt on our constituents? I do not understand.

It would also devote some of these dollars to studies, research, and environmental water restoration projects that will not provide any water in the near term.

It picks winners and losers in water projects, ignoring the need for expanded water storage reservoirs, the kind of infrastructure investment that has made the West what it is today and is necessary to ensure a drought-resilient future.

This bill offers a one-dimensional approach to solving the Western drought that has impacted the entire country through decreased agricultural production. Reservoirs operated by the Bureau of Reclamation provide needed water to 10 million acres of farmland that collectively grow 60 percent of the Nation's vegetables and one quarter of our fresh fruit and nut crops.

By throwing money at an issue and not recognizing that regulatory streamlining to expand water storage and efficiency of operations to promote drought resiliency should be part of this equation, this bill fails not only the West but everyone who buys food nationwide. Put another way, this bill fails every American household. This is bad policy and bad process.

Democrats cobbled together this 550-plus-page bill behind closed doors, and not one wildfire provision was marked up in the Committee on Natural Resources.

Republican Members made real attempts to provide alternatives and additions to this bill. Dozens of regulatory streamlining amendments that could have helped provide water or immediately prevented wildfires were submitted to the Rules Committee by Republicans, only to be ignored. Even the majority of bipartisan amendments were rejected.

This is an abomination of process, but it is nothing new that we are seeing on this House floor. If you were here last night, you know that a Senate NEPA streamlining bill was parachuted in at the last minute. It was put on the suspension calendar.

I hope this bill passes during the next voting series, but we should be doing NEPA revisions through hearings, through markups, and through regular order. If it takes getting one dropped in on the suspension calendar by the Senate, I guess we will have to take what we have got. But it would be nice if we could actually debate these and come up with more NEPA streamlining.

In the midst of historic drought conditions and what is on track to be the most devastating wildfire season on record, we simply cannot afford to confuse motion with action.

Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this partisan package and, instead, work together on real solutions to prevent wildfires.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to point out those weren't my words. That was the information we got from the U.S. Forest Service that said there is no funding in this bill. If this bill passes without additional funding in the future, they will have to lay off 610 wildland firefighters.

Maybe there is going to be a bill in the future to pour more money into the Forest Service, but this bill doesn't do it.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.

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

I know there is a lot of talk about the IIJA and what a great bill it was. It was the largest infrastructure bill passed in the history of the world. It was so important that it never even went through a committee here in the House. It came right to the House floor, and it seems like all we are doing is fixing it. We have a suspension bill we will be voting on later that fixes a problem that was in the IIJA.

I am confused why my colleague is pushing this bill that would undo much of the core work in the IIJA, including the $170 million that would go to his district under the current 10-year strategy.

I think it is another example of why we have to do regular order and why we have to bring these bills to committee.

We want to solve these problems, but you have to have real solutions to solve a problem. There are examples of how we can do bipartisan work to fix forestry.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), who is working on bipartisan forestry legislation.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chair, many of the water and power users in the Colorado basin were not consulted on this $500 million Colorado River provision and don't even know what it would be used for. That is another reason why we should actually work on these issues in committee and have a bipartisan markup.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Madam Chair, I know the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Hoyer, has left the Chamber, but I did want to personally thank him for putting the Senate NEPA streamlining bill on the suspension calendar today. I hope we can work on more issues like that in the future.

Madam Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

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

A poet named Joyce Kilmer wrote his most famous poem called ``Trees,'' and it begins with, ``I think that I shall never see a poem as lovely as a tree.''

Trees and forests are poetic. They tug at our heartstrings. They evoke emotion. And I sincerely appreciate the emotion that my colleagues across the aisle have. I really believe we want to get to the same place of having healthy trees and healthy forests.

It was that that motivated me to go to forestry school and study forestry. Little did I know that I would have the honor and the huge responsibility of standing on the floor of this august body and speaking for the trees.

We want to do the right thing. We know how to do the right thing. We know how to take care of these trees and take care of these forests.

Unfortunately, what is in this bill doesn't do that. What is in this bill doesn't help the water situation. We should not pass this bill.

Let's work together, come up with real solutions, pass them out of this House, and get them signed into law to help our forests, our firefighters, and our drought conditions.

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

Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), I offer amendment No. 1.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

Madam Chair, Leader McCarthy's amendment presents a commonsense solution. As he knows all too well from his efforts resolving water issues, communities in California and elsewhere in the West are running out of water for families, farms, communities, and many other needs thanks to natural and manmade drought.

This has a dramatic impact not only to those areas, but it negatively impacts food production which affects every one of us. In the case of some California communities, wells that are used to provide drinking water have or will run dry.

This amendment seeks to provide some relief to rural communities through the creation of a new grant program aimed at constructing new wells and waterlines designed to deliver drinking water to these communities. I thank Leader McCarthy for introducing this amendment and for his longstanding leadership on bringing balance back to western water policies.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's kind words about the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Conway).

Madam Chair, this is a commonsense, good amendment that the leader has offered. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to Schrier amendment No. 2 which would fund additional research for post-fire weather assessments.

This amendment suffers from the same shortcomings as the underlying package because it is overly focused on wildfire response rather than even making an attempt at wildfire prevention.

We know what is causing catastrophic wildfires, and it is not a lack of government agencies studying wildfires, tracking weather, and producing additional reports. Our forests are burning now, and we need to focus on real solutions; namely, accelerating, thinning, and prescribed burning. Adding more duplicative bureaucracy and unnecessary research will do nothing to stop our forests from going up in flames year after year.

Madam Chair, the forests really don't care what we say in this body. They are out there doing what Teddy Roosevelt said they do. They are the lungs of the Earth. They breathe in the carbon dioxide and they breathe out oxygen. We produce a lot of carbon dioxide in this Chamber, but it is not doing anything to help our forests.

Frankly, it is unserious that, out of the dozens of substantive wildfire amendments that were offered to the Rules Committee, this is the only one that was made in order. The Rules Committee even rejected bipartisan amendments such as the bipartisan Save Our Sequoias Act. We have lost 20 percent of the world's giant sequoias in the last 2 years, and perhaps the most famous giant sequoia grove, the Mariposa Grove in Yosemite National Park, was on fire earlier this month.

What saved that grove? It wasn't weather assessments. It was proactive treatments from land managers that we need to use as a model across all 76 giant sequoia groves.

Unfortunately, the underlying bill and amendment before us would do nothing to help protect our giant sequoias or move the needle on the wildfire crisis at all.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, more and more of or forests are going up in flames. More forests are being categorized as subject to catastrophic wildfire.

We are losing this fight. We need a new game plan. We need work on this in a bipartisan manner. There are a lot of areas that need to be addressed, but this bill, and this amendment doesn't address those.

I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, even though I might not necessarily oppose it.

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

Madam Chair, I support this amendment and appreciate the solution it presents for a pressing problem. Currently, the Small Business Administration only requires collateral for disaster loans if the loan amount is above $25,000. This authority is set to sunset in November, and the minimum amount will revert to $14,000. This amendment would permanently lock in the amount at $25,000.

I thank the ranking member of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Garret Graves, for his leadership on disaster issues. His home State of Louisiana has suffered through many disasters, and he has been an unwavering champion for his constituents.

And it is a good thing he is leading on this issue. Affordable disaster loans could be in high demand because the underlying bill does nothing to protect the landscape, people, or property from devastating wildfires. I would like to emphasize, the underlying bill would only respond to wildfires, not work to prevent them.

Throughout this debate, my colleagues have tried to claim that this is not the case and that their bill will actually support increased forest management practices like thinning and prescribed burning.

But look no further than their own one-pager, which says derisively: ``We can't simply cut our way out of wildfire risk.'' This should tell you everything you need to know about how they feel about scientific forest management.

The truth is that thinning is not only an essential tool to reduce wildfire risk, but there is a scientific consensus that we must increase thinning in our forests to turn the tide of this crisis.

The fact that this bill mentions thinning zero times is no mistake. It is because Democrats refuse to agree with the scientific consensus that both thinning and prescribed burning are essential tools to reduce wildfire risk.

Affordable disaster loans provided by this amendment will also be necessary because of the wildfires that will occur as a result of throwing out the Forest Service's current 10-year strategy.

My colleagues have claimed that their bill would simply codify this current 10-year strategy. They have also said that the infrastructure bill made historic investments in that strategy and have funded its initial projects.

This simply makes no sense. My colleagues think the infrastructure bill is so nice that they want to pass it twice, but that is not how any of this works. If we funded a project in the infrastructure bill, we don't need to authorize funding for it here because that money has already gone out the door.

And if the administration released a strategy 6 months ago and started implementing it, they don't need this bill to codify it.

Truth be told, the plain reading of the text shows that the current wildfire strategy is getting thrown out the window, and nothing in this text codifies it or even mentions the projects currently happening.

Unfortunately, if this bill passes, a lot of small business owners will be able to make good use of affordable disaster loans provided by this amendment as they recover their businesses from the impacts of catastrophic wildfire. The least we can do is help them with disaster loans after these fires inevitably occur.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, I support the amendment. It is going to be needed as these fires continue to rage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5118.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5118, the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act. This legislation represents another major effort to act on climate by responding to record-setting wildfires and drought that are impacting communities across our country.

I represent Colorado's Second Congressional District, and it was barely over 6 months ago, in December, when the Marshall Fire burned through Boulder County and became the most destructive fire in Colorado history. The fire destroyed a 30-acre subdivision in a matter of hours; nearly 200 homes burned to the ground and caused over $1 billion in damages.

This comes on the heels of my district experiencing the first and second largest wildfires in the history of Colorado in Larimer and Grand Counties in 2020, and as parts of the western United States is currently experiencing their driest drought conditions in over 1,000 years.

Fires have become the primary occupation of so many of our offices. Countless constituents come to us, grieving the loss of their homes, but also seeking the resources that they deserve from the Federal Government. We have a duty to provide our constituents with the support that they need to rebuild and to recover.

The reality is that we are living with a new normal as climate change results in a hotter, drier, planet where historic drought and record- setting wildfires are not merely a possibility, but an inevitability. Wildfires no longer occur in a season, but throughout the entire year.

I am grateful to my colleagues, to Chairman Grijalva, Chairman Scott, Chairwoman Maloney, Chairwoman Johnson, Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Pallone, Chairman Nadler, Chairwoman Velazquez, Chairwoman Waters, Chairwoman Lofgren, and House leadership for helping bring this package to the floor. This is exactly the kind of response that our constituents desperately want to see from Congress.

H.R. 5118 provides a whole-of-government response to the droughts and the wildfires impacting American communities across the country, and it combines more than 50 standalone pieces of legislation originating from nine different House committees, including Republican and Democratic bills.

We began this important work last year, as my colleagues know, working with President Biden to pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which included historic investments to reduce wildfire risks, improve ecosystem resilience, and ensure reliable water supplies.

The Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act builds on those investments. It provides an increased starting wage for our brave and courageous Federal wildland firefighters. It invests in water security and in drought resilience and advancing wildfire science.

As climate-change-induced drought means long-term reductions in rain, snow, and necessary water supplies, this legislation invests in drought-proof water projects like water recycling, modern desalination, advancing water data management and technology, protecting and restoring ecosystems.

The bill also advances projects to deliver reliable water across Indian Country, including by incorporating key provisions from my bill, the Tribal Access to Clean Water Act. And it provides significant resources to prevent key Colorado River reservoirs from declining to critically low water levels, protecting the supplies of a river that 40 million Americans, 40 million, rely on.

H.R. 5118 also includes several other important pieces of legislation introduced by many Members in the body today. Provisions from Tim's Act, named after a heroic smoke jumper, Tim Hart, who tragically lost his life fighting a wildfire in New Mexico, would increase pay and benefits for Federal wildland firefighters, and that provision is part of this bill.

Finally, the bill includes provisions that would provide flexibility in Federal FEMA cost shares to support our local communities and to protect watersheds impacted by wildfire.

Madam Chair, this bill is a good bill, and it meets the moment for the American West. And for that reason, I will encourage my colleagues today to support it. I look forward to hearing from many of my colleagues who will speak on the bill.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me just say this: The gentleman is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts, and I take great umbrage at his reference to the word ``disgrace.''

He knows and my colleagues know just as well as anyone in this Chamber that the pay increase that was authorized by the bipartisan infrastructure law, which, by the way, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against, all but 13 of them, that pay increase expires a year from now.

Every wildland firefighter in the United States will receive a pay diminution if this bill isn't passed, if we don't authorize the pay increases that are in this bill. It is a disgrace to suggest anything otherwise.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

I would, again, simply say the irony is rich. My colleagues will vote against the authorization for more wildland firefighter pay, and then when we fight for the appropriation, they will vote against it, too. So, it is a bit difficult to hear them make those claims.

I also would say that the 10-year Forest Service management plan is something we support, I support. I am glad to hear my colleagues support it because they all voted against it.

Literally, a year ago, when we passed a bill in this Chamber to authorize the Forest Service to spend $20 million to invest in forest management in Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada, where were they? They voted against it. Now, they claim to support it, yet they will vote against a bill that authorizes more projects along those same lines.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

I have just a few key points.

First, I understand why there is some confusion on the other side regarding the firefighter pay provision because, again, my colleagues voted against increasing firefighter pay a year ago when the bipartisan infrastructure bill was before this body, so I understand that they are prepared to vote against it again.

I would just simply say with respect to the provisions of this bill, and whether they are bipartisan, partisan or not, I suspect that Representative LaMalfa, whose H.R. 4505 is in this bill, would disagree. I suspect H.R. 5345, a bill introduced by Mr. Moore which is also in this bill, I think tends to refute that fact.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Madam Chair, I say thank you to my Republican colleague and neighbor from Utah and that we are glad we can get his bill into this important bipartisan Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act package.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).

Madam Chair, I have great respect for my colleague from Washington, and we have worked together closely in the past.

I would just say that we are considering a number of amendments today, including an amendment from the Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy, who spent a great deal of time on the floor just a few moments ago talking about his particular amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Madam Chair, I would say first, we are glad that we got Mr. LaMalfa's H.R. 4505 into this bill, and I am looking forward to supporting it today. I have to, again, respond to this argument that has been made about the 10-year plan.

I would hope that my colleagues and I could agree to argue the merits of the bill based on the text of the bill. The bill makes clear that the activities that the Forest Service is mandated to implement include the Wildfire Crisis Landscape Investments plan titled: ``Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: Initial Landscape Investments to Protect Communities and Improve Resilience in American's Forests'' dated April 2002. What is that document? That is

the 10-year plan that the Forest Service authorized that we voted for back last November. So this codifies that and builds upon it by giving the Forest Service more resources to do even more landscape restoration and forest management across the country.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), who has become a real leader here in our caucus and in the Congress on forestry and forest management.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.

Madam Chair, might I inquire how much time is remaining for the respective sides.

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

Madam Chair, I heard with great interest my colleague from California's remarks. I have to say I did take umbrage with his characterization of the bills within this omnibus package, as I think he put it, as ``political messaging bills.''

I don't think that Mr. LaMalfa, a Republican from California, would characterize his bill, the Tribal Biochar Promotion Act, as a political messaging bill. His bill is in this bill.

I don't think that Mr. Moore, a Republican of Utah, would characterize his bill, the Saline Lake Ecosystems in the Great Basin States Program Act, as a political messaging bill. His bill is in this bill.

I don't think that Ms. Lofgren would characterize her bill, the Wildland Firefighter Fair Pay Act, as a political messaging bill. That bill is before the House today.

That is probably the best place for me to begin to close.

We have heard a lot from the other side about various mischaracterization's of firefighter pay and wildland firefighter pay and what this bill does and does not do. For the benefit of every American watching, I would encourage you to read the bill.

This body approved a pay increase for wildland firefighters a year ago. All but 13 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against it. You can check the Record. That pay increase expires a year from now. This bill seeks to make that pay increase permanent.

One could only hope that my colleagues who have made much about appropriating language will join me. I look forward to asking the ranking member after this vote to join me on

the bill to appropriate the firefighter pay increase that this bill will authorize.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have great respect for the ranking member. We work together and have had rigorous and robust debates about forest management. We have partnered on some bills, and we have opposed each other's respective positions on others. But the signs that the other side have been using during this debate about firefighter pay and the like are simply not true.

I understand if my colleagues on the other side believe that the firefighter pay increase that is authorized by this bill and that makes the pay increases that were authorized last year permanent, I understand if they believe that it is too expensive. They are welcome to make that argument. I disagree.

But I hope that every Member of this Chamber can, again, adhere to substantive debate on the text of the bill that is before the House, and the text of this bill authorizes an increase for wildland firefighters who are bravely sacrificing so much for our country. It authorizes additional dollars for the Forest Service to do incredibly important forest management work to prevent the next fire in Colorado, in Utah, in New Mexico, and in Arizona. The bill authorizes significant investments to ensure that the drought we are experiencing at record levels in the West can be addressed.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not necessarily opposed.

I would simply say, Madam Chair, in the spirit of bipartisanship--which I think has been reflective of so many of the bills that are included within this important and critical package that has been brought to the floor today--that I appreciate the arguments that were made with respect to this particular amendment. I imagine that Members are going to consider it thoughtfully and make a judgment that is in the best interests of their constituents and their respective States on this particular amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's support, her attention, and her description about the need for funding to help rural communities recover from natural disasters and emergencies. I certainly share the desire to ensure that rural communities have access to clean and reliable drinking water.

I am looking forward to the House considering Mr. McCarthy's amendment as well as the many Republican bills and bipartisan bills that are included within this Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Colorado for yielding, and I thank this body for recognizing the cruciality of where we are today as it relates to fires.

I know the gentleman's territory, but many people might not know that Texas also is impacted by wildfires. So, I rise in strong support for H.R. 5118, the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act for many reasons.

One, I support my firefighters. As anyone has seen firefighters who fight these fires being interviewed, they are in the midst of the fire. As anyone has heard the families that look and say there is nothing here; but for firefighters, I would not be here.

So Houston is no stranger to these weather conditions. Fifty-one trillion gallons of water fell from Hurricane Harvey, yet wildfires are another type of extreme weather that imperils our community, and it is attributable to climate change, as Hurricane Harvey was.

Wildfires are often unplanned fires, which burn in a natural area such as a forest. Along with the destruction and loss of forests caused by blazes, there are immediate and long-term environmental impacts that dramatically affect vital resources. Expanded areas of high-severity fire can impact tree regeneration, soil erosion, and water quality, and, yes, the quality of life. It can cause major destruction of property and loss of life, and this legislation is a recognition of attempting to address this question and address it now.

Madam Chair, this bill would boost pay and benefits for firefighters, help the U.S. Forest Service fill gaps in fire management staff, expand forest management projects, and reduce hazardous fuels.

I ask my colleagues to support the underlying bill.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5118, also known as the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act.

Climate change is the most important existential challenge of our lifetime. It is not simply an issue, but a threat with credible and uncompromising dangers to our world.

Climate change degrades living conditions, human security, and our government's ability to meet the basic needs of their populations.

For too many years, we have heard warnings from scientists regarding the danger to people if nothing is done to reverse the amounts of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

One of the most devastating consequences of climate change is the frequency and intensity of extreme weather disasters.

Houston is no stranger to these intense weather incidents. On August 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey, a Category 4 storm hit Texas, causing $125 billion in damages and affecting over 13 million people from Texas through Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

Climatologists agree that global warming contributed to Hurricane Harvey's impact. Studies found the amount of rainfall was between 15 to 38 percent higher because of global warming.

Rising sea levels as a result of climate change also made flooding more likely near Gulf Coast cities. The sea levels around Houston were six inches higher than 20 years ago. This is partly because warmer global temperatures have been melting the ice caps in Antarctica. They have been shrinking at 1.6 meters per year, compared to 3.8 centimeters annually before 1992.

Global warming also stalled weather patterns in the region. That allowed Harvey to hover over Houston instead of moving back out into the ocean.

Wildfires are another type of extreme weather event that imperils many regions of the country. Wildfires are often unplanned fires which burn in a natural area such as a forest, grassland or prairie. They have devastating consequences on a region by decimating an environment, while weakening a community's health and economy.

Along with the destruction and loss of forest caused by blazes, there are immediate and long-term environmental impacts that dramatically affect vital resources. Expanded areas of high-severity fire can impact tree regeneration, soil erosion, and water quality.

Wildfires can affect the physical, chemical, and biological quality of streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs. These changes are noticeable for years and even decades after a fire.

The smoke from wildfires can cause eye and respiratory tract irritation and in more severe cases, reduced lung function, bronchitis, and an exacerbation of asthma and heart failure. Air pollution can spread up to thousands of miles away, not just in the surrounding region.

Property loss and damage is another consequence of wildfires. In 2020 alone, fires in the U.S. caused $21.9 billion in property damage. What's more, eight of the 10 costliest wildfires ever in the U.S. have taken place in the past five years.

Climate change exacerbates these conditions. Long periods of record high temperatures as a result of climate change intensify droughts that contribute to dry conditions and drive wildfires, which, in turn, reinforce the cycle of environmental peril.

Wildfire risk depends on a number of factors such as temperature, soil moisture, and the presence of trees, shrubs, and other potential fuel. All these factors have strong direct or indirect ties to climate variability and climate change.

Climate change enhances the drying of organic matter in forests (the material that burns and spreads wildfire) and has doubled the number of large fires between 1984 and 2015 in the western United States.

The stress that extreme weather is placing on the nation cannot be understated.

H.R. 5118 would boost pay and benefits for firefighters, help the U.S. Forest Service fill gaps in fire management staff, and expand forest management projects to reduce hazardous fuels.

The provisions and purpose of this bill are not new. Historically, Congress has made numerous investments to fight drought, wildfire and the climate crisis.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, passed in November 2021, dedicated $7.81 billion under Title VIII to the DOI and the Forest Service to reduce wildfire risk and support ecosystem restoration. In total, the bill allotted $3.369 billion aimed at reducing wildfire risks. This amount was allocated to supporting firefighters, research dedicated to risk mapping, satellite wildfire detection, etc.

The measure would provide $1.6 billion in annual spending on firefighter salaries and expenses at the Forest Service, and just under $2.4 billion annually for salaries and expenses for forest stewardship and management in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

Forest management projects, which mainly involve reducing hazardous fuels such as dead trees, are part of the bill, authorizing $500 million annually for that purpose. The Department of Agriculture would select up to 20 large, landscape-scale restoration projects over five years.

H.R. 5118 represents a continuation of bipartisan efforts to support the reduction of wildfire risk. It is essential in order to protect communities from the devastating consequences of wildfires and to actively fight against the impending climate crisis. The provisions within H.R. 5118 are essential to the protection of our ecosystems and to the brave first responders who are tasked with wildfire recovery efforts.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5118.

I include in the Record ``North Texas wildfire continues to grow amid high heat'' and ``Bottle-magnified sunlight ignited paper and started a 500-acre Texas wildfire, officials say.''

[From ABC News, July 19, 2022)]

North Texas Wildfire Continues To Grow Amid High Heat

Graford, Texas.--A North Texas wildfire continued to grow

Tuesday amid sweltering temperatures and dry conditions after

burning at least a dozen structures, officials said.

The Chalk Mountain Fire about 50 miles (80 kilometers)

southwest of Fort Worth was the largest active Texas wildfire

as of Tuesday afternoon after blackening 6,000 acres (2,400

hectares), an increase from 4,000 acres (1,600 hectares)

Tuesday morning, the Texas A&M Forest Service said. The fire,

which began Monday afternoon, was just 10% contained, and

crews using bulldozers were digging containment lines while

fire trucks and aircraft worked to extinguish the flames, the

Forest Service said.

Late Tuesday afternoon, Hood County Judge Ron Massingill

ordered the mandatory evacuation of a rural area south of

Tolar, about 45 miles (72 kilometers) southwest of Fort

Worth.

It was not yet clear how many, if any, of the 12 structures

lost as of Tuesday afternoon were residences or businesses,

Forest Service spokeswoman Mary Leathers said.

Meanwhile, crews continued to battle a wildfire that has

burned at least 10 structures, five of them homes, around a

lake in North Texas, authorities said.

The fire at Possum Kingdom Lake about 70 miles (113

kilometers) west of Fort Worth, which began Monday afternoon,

had burned about 500 acres (202 hectares) and was 10%

contained Tuesday, Forest Service spokesman Adam Turner said.

Firefighting crews were working around the clock, focusing on

protecting threatened homes in resort subdivisions along the

lake's western shore.

The area remained under a voluntary evacuation notice, the

Forest Service said.

No injuries have been reported from the fires, and their

causes were under investigation. A combination of near-

record- and record-high temperatures approaching 110 degrees

Fahrenheit (43 degrees Celsius) combined with breezes gusting

as high as 30 mph (40-50 kph) and drought conditions leave

the region ripe for fire, the forest service said.

The National Weather Service has issued a red flag fire

warning for northern and central Texas and western and

eastern Oklahoma for Tuesday.

``We are experiencing dry fuels to a level that we haven't

seen in the past 10 years,'' Turner said. ``Any spark that

lands in tall grass or even lands in some short grass right

now is liable to spark.''

Wildfires and intense heat in Texas and some other parts of

the United States come as unusually hot, dry weather has

gripped large swaths of Europe since last week, triggering

wildfires from Portugal to the Balkans and leading to

hundreds of heat-related deaths.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his work. This is probably one of the areas we work on where his knowledge when it comes to the forest, healthy forests, and making sure they are there for the future is so important.

I rise today in support of my amendment, which would simply establish a program to incentivize larger communities to integrate nearby smaller, rural communities into their drinking water systems when the smaller communities' drinking water wells run dry.

In my district, the community of Tooleville has run out of water, as the groundwater table drops, and aging infrastructure fails or becomes obsolete. While the long-term solution is to connect Tooleville to the city of Exeter's drinking water system, that can be expensive for both Exeter and Tooleville.

This amendment would reduce connection costs for Tooleville residents while also enabling Exeter to increase its water supply to meet increased demands with its customers.

Tulare County advises me that if California's droughts continue, more small and rural communities in my district with older infrastructure could meet the exact same fate as groundwater tables drop, making this amendment even more important. We cannot leave our Western communities vulnerable to drought and aging infrastructure.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record letters supporting my amendment from the county of Tulare, county of Kern, and city of Exeter, all of which are located in my congressional district.

County of Tulare,

Visalia, CA, July 26, 2022.

Re H.R. Conway/McCarthy Amendment to H.R. 5118, Wildfire

Response and Drought Resiliency Act--Support.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Connie Conway,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear House Minority Leader McCarthy and Representative

Conway: On behalf of the Tulare County Board of Supervisors,

I write in support of House Minority Leader McCarthy and

Congresswoman Conway's proposed amendment to H.R. 5118, the

Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act. The proposed

amendment will address critical water supply challenges faced

by our County's most vulnerable and underserved populations.

Tulare County oversees more than 50 census designated

places and unincorporated communities across California's

Central Valley. The majority of these sparsely populated

districts rely upon groundwater to sustain daily life which

continues to be adversely affected by drought induced water

quality and quantity issues. Every community and municipality

in Tulare County depend upon a system of wells to guarantee

the water needs of their residents. As the California drought

persists, water service providers of our economically dis-

advantaged communities struggle to find the required funding

to excavate deeper wells or upgrade the infrastructure

required to connect with nearby water systems.

The proposed amendment to H.R. 5118 would authorize

significant grant funding that would fully fund water

projects for our small unincorporated communities eliminating

the current funding barriers in place that delay sustainable

water solutions for up to six years before any ground can be

broken. Our most vulnerable residents should not have to wait

that long to have access to clean and sufficient drinking

water.

For these reasons and more, the County of Tulare supports

this proposed amendment and urges its adoption by the House.

Eddie Valero,

Chair, Tulare County Board of Supervisors.

Madam Chair, now, why are we asking for this amendment?

The one thing you would have to see, there have been no major reservoirs built in California since 1979. Think of the population difference in between that time.

California is very blessed. We get snow in the north, we grow the agriculture for the world in the Central Valley--my good friend from the other side of the aisle, I believe that is where his family used to be from--and in the

south, we have major population. But no new reservoirs.

Now we have got challenges where cities are actually running out of water, but it is not that we don't have enough water. In those wet years, we can save it. We can even pump it out of the ground to bring it back out. But in California, at times they care more about a fish and the water goes out to the ocean.

Now, we talk about desalinization. So we would spend billions of dollars to create a desalinization plant for the freshwater we put into the ocean to make it saltwater to bring it back into freshwater.

Why wouldn't we just store more water for those dry years?

We have worked on this issue for quite some time. We actually think the greatest return on investment would be to just lift Shasta Dam, the reservoir. If you simply enlarged it, it could store more.

We got to a bipartisan bill, the WIIN Act, working with Dianne Feinstein. It passed this House with big numbers. It passed the Senate with more than 70 votes.

But you know what happened after it passed?

Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats fought it, actually killed the ability that California could determine their own destiny.

And now today we come down, and this is supposed to be a wildfire bill. In my State, we have wildfires all the time. We have one raging right now. We have a very large one in Yosemite.

Also in California, we are blessed to be the only State in the world that grows giant sequoias. You all know that iconic tree. You all know and have seen it before. It grows for 2,000 to 3,000 years. History tells us that the only major time we have ever seen a giant sequoia die was in 1297 from a fire. Normally they just die because they get so large and they topple over.

But do you realize in the last 2 years we have lost 20 percent of all the giant sequoias? There is a warning right now that we can lose them all just in the next couple years. Firefighters right now are risking their lives to protect them.

But you know what? This body can be very proud of the fact that there is a bipartisan bill, Save Our Sequoias, with the same number of Democrats and Republicans on that piece of legislation. They would go into these groves, clean out, and protect them where firefighters wouldn't have to risk their lives, or even when fires came, these giant sequoias would continue to live.

It has been introduced. How did that bill get introduced?

Because a bipartisan group went to the giant sequoias, studied what needed to happen, and came together. Everybody didn't get what they want, but at the end of the day they could save the giant sequoias.

You know what is not in this bill?

Save Our Sequoias.

This is a wildfire bill that won't even save the sequoias, even though the President talked about this just last week, that it was a big concern to him.

Why wouldn't it get put in?

It is not that it hasn't been through committee because the committee won't bring it up. But that is not the pattern of the Democrats. It doesn't matter if a bill has been through committee or not; they will drop anything in.

This is a bill that both sides agree upon. I have to give credit to the Democrats--Congressmen Peters, Panetta, Costa, and others--who went to the giant sequoias to study the issue to know what needs to happen, to work toward it, and save them.

Why would we want to destroy them?

Why would we not use this opportunity and put it in this bill?

Is it because it is bipartisan?

Can you only bring bills to the floor that are partisan?

It is interesting when my constituents ask--all the challenges on this floor, when my constituents were going to ask me about a firefighter bill to help save our forests, but it would eliminate 610 firefighters?

Only a Democrat Congress could think that is a wildfire bill, that you are going to eliminate 610 firefighters.

How is that going to protect them more?

It is only in this Congress that you could have a bill that is called the American Rescue Plan that creates inflation.

It is only in the American Rescue Plan that you could tell the American public, can you afford to lose a month's salary?

No one will say yes, but that is exactly what you took from them. That is what inflation has done.

This bill is needed, not the bill you have written, but on this issue. You have Save the Sequoias, it is a crisis before us, and you will not even put it in the bill when it is bipartisan.

I cannot imagine that you would bring a bill forward that would eliminate firefighters that we need when we are on fire.

And I cannot imagine that you wouldn't work to build more reservoirs so people can store water in the wet years so it will be there in the dry years.

Madam Chair, in September of 2020, as the El Dorado fire raged through California, Big Bear hotshot firefighter Charlie Morton said to his loved ones what he always said when there was a fire in the area: ``I've got to go protect my mountains.''

Hotshots like Morton serve in the Vanguard. They are tasked with making the area safe for other firefighters to operate. As one hotshot explained: ``We do not get to turn around and walk away.''

I am hopeful that the Congress today does not turn around and walk away. This bill is a step to deal with the extraordinary consequences of climate change that is afflicting our country. Yes, it is the West of our country, but it is afflicting us all, in particularly, the West.

Firefighter Morton knew his work was extremely dangerous, but he did it anyway because he believed in the importance of protecting our Nation's forests and the communities they sustain.

On September 17, 2020, backed into a corner by the encroaching flames, Morton laid down his life in defense of that conviction. It was a noble sacrifice but one that no one should have to make.

Much like Morton and his fellow hotshots, America cannot afford to turn around and walk away from the issue of wildfires.

We must do everything we can to ensure that other brave firefighters do not have to give the full measure of their devotion as Morton did. That is why I am proud to serve as co-chair of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus and to bring this Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act to the floor today.

Exacerbated, as we know, by the climate crisis, parts of the American West are experiencing the worst drought in 1,200 years, and this is fueling deadly and damaging wildfires affecting millions of Americans.

These disasters, Madam Chair, tear through communities and inflict untold destruction and grief.

This issue doesn't just affect those living in the West, however. As I have said, the effects of drought and wildfires cost our country tens of billions of dollars each year. We all pay a price; not the price that Morton paid, but we pay a price.

To my friends on the other side of the aisle who constantly deride our attempts to address the climate crisis as too expensive, I would remind them that the cost of inaction in the form of more frequent, more severe fires, droughts, and other natural disasters is far greater.

From time to time, I quote a former Governor of our State, Ted Agnew, who, in his inaugural address in 1967, on the east front of the capitol in Annapolis, where I was just entering as a new State senator, said: ``The cost of failure far exceeds the price of progress.'' That is true here.

We must not fail, and we must respond. And we must respond effectively.

This legislation will help us prevent and fight future wildfires by making investments to support our firefighting response and to protect vulnerable communities from wildfire. This bill, for instance, would establish a minimum basic pay of roughly $20 an hour for wildland firefighters and ensure they have access to other benefits, such as at least 1 week of mental health leave.

Additionally, this legislation will authorize a 10-year national wildfire response plan, building on actions already taken by the Biden administration, and it will expand the role of Tribes and conservation corps programs in reducing wildfire risks.

This bill, Madam Chair, also includes $500 million in Federal funding to programs to preserve key Colorado River reservoirs, an absolutely critical objective for us all. Tens of millions of Americans rely on that water.

All of these provisions will help us build on the progress we made with the fire and drought protection measures, including the bipartisan infrastructure law, which included close to $17 billion for wildfire and drought prevention and response.

As an aside, Madam Chair, I am told some say this is an authorizing bill. It is an authorizing bill. That is regular order. It will be our responsibility to then appropriate the funds that are necessary to carry out the objectives of this bill, and I hope we can do so in a bipartisan way.

I thank House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva for his leadership and Mr. Neguse, the ranking member, as well, for the work that they have done. Whether they agree or not, there has been joint work on this bill. I thank Chairs David Scott, Frank Pallone, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Carolyn Maloney for their committees' contributions.

We can take meaningful action to address these wildfires and drought by voting ``yes'' on this bill.

Madam Chair, although Charlie Morton perished in the El Dorado fire, his courageous efforts and those of his fellow firefighters made it possible to extinguish, ultimately, the flames. They were able to protect Morton's mountains, including a pristine meadow now named in his memory.

They did their part to defend our forest and our communities. Today, Madam Chair, we must do our part.