To require the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a strategy to increase opportunities to utilize livestock grazing as a means of wildfire risk reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8790.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8790, the Fix Our Forests Act, a bipartisan forestry package that I am proud to lead with my good friend and colleague from California (Mr. Peters) and which passed out of the Natural Resources Committee earlier this year by voice vote.

This comprehensive package is the product of many months of hard work and bipartisan collaboration. This bill was not formulated in Washington, D.C. From field hearings in the shadow of Half Dome in Yosemite National Park to site visits to Tribal reservations in New Mexico, we have traveled the country to hear from experts and find consensus on the best approaches to improve the management of our Nation's forests.

I may be the only licensed forester in Congress, but you don't need a forestry degree to understand that our Nation's dire forest health crisis demands our immediate attention. This year alone, wildfires have burned more than 7.3 million acres nationally. In the past 10 years, wildfires in the U.S. have burned over 73 million acres, roughly the same area as the State of Arizona.

Catastrophic wildfires are much more than just statistics. They destroy lives. They destroy property. They degrade our air and water quality, turn abundant wildlife habitat into moonscapes, and create billions of dollars in economic damage.

One of the most tragic consequences of the wildfire crisis is seeing entire communities in the path of uncontrollable megafires leveled year after year.

The 2018 Camp fire in California destroyed the towns of Paradise and Concow, burning over 18,000 structures and killing 85 people. In 2020, the North Complex fire completely engulfed and demolished the towns of Berry Creek and Feather Falls, wiping out over 2,300 structures. Just last year, I saw firsthand the immediate aftermath of the devastating wildfire in Maui that destroyed the historic town of Lahaina, causing untold damages.

Behind these examples are real people who are left to pick up the pieces and communities that will never be the same again. With over 1 billion acres at risk for wildfire across the country, we sadly know these tragedies will persist without intervention. In fact, the Forest Service has identified more than 70,000 communities and 44 million homes that are at risk of experiencing a catastrophic wildfire in the wildland-urban interface.

The good news is that we know what needs to be done. We must increase the pace and scale of scientifically proven forest management to restore health and resiliency to our Nation's forests.

The Fix Our Forests Act will restore forest health, increase resiliency to catastrophic wildfires, and protect vulnerable communities. Right now, it takes 3 to 5 years to begin work on a forest management program. This bill simplifies and streamlines cumbersome and costly environmental reviews so that, if enacted, land managers could go into our forests the next day and begin the work we know needs to happen.

H.R. 8790 empowers States, Tribal, local, and private partners to get more work done on the ground by strengthening the Good Neighbor Authority and Stewardship Contracting.

This bill also creates a framework for prioritizing treatments in our most at-risk areas. By encouraging the adoption of innovative science and technology, we can improve wildfire suppression capabilities, lower costs, and protect communities.

The best part is that we will save a pound in cure by investing a penny in prevention. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that reducing the risk of wildfires will lower wildfire suppression costs, allowing us to invest more in proactive, preventative forest management. If you believe that money is the only thing that will fix this problem, then you should vote for the Fix Our Forests Act because the bill will free up financial resources to

invest in critical forest management work.

This is a good bill that will help us finally turn the tide against the historic forest health crisis. I thank Members on both sides of the aisle who have contributed their input and ideas to this bipartisan product. I am proud to support even more bipartisan amendments offered by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today.

They say the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is today. While we can't reverse the decades of inadequate forest management that have led us to this dire juncture, we can take a positive step today that will ensure healthier forests and communities for our children far into the future.

Mr. Chair, I support the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, September 3, 2024.

Hon. Bruce Westerman,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 8790, the ``Fix Our Forests

Act''. Thank you for collaborating with the Committee on

Agriculture on the matters within our jurisdiction.

The Committee on Agriculture will forego any further

consideration of this bill. However, by foregoing

consideration at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction

over any subject matter contained in this or similar

legislation. The Committee on Agriculture also reserves the

right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of

conferees should it become necessary and ask that you support

such a request.

We would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 8790 and request a

copy of our letters on this matter be published in the

Congressional Record during Floor consideration.

Sincerely,

Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Chair, as I stated earlier, if forest health was about spending more money, then we would have the healthiest forests we have ever had, as my friends across the aisle interjected $12 billion into the Forest Service budget through the IRA and the IIJA, but their own goal of managing 6 million acres a year is going down--not going up but going down. It shows us that money is not the problem.

On the subject of firefighter pay, I think we can agree that our firefighters need higher pay. That is why, in the appropriations bill on the Interior, we had an increase in firefighter pay. There was only one Democrat who voted for that bill on the House floor.

Republicans have voted to increase the pay for firefighters, but again, it is not about money. If it was about money, then my colleagues would support this bill because the CBO has said this bill would actually save money. If we are not spending all this money fighting forest fires, we will be saving money coming out of the Treasury that we can spend on proactive things, like management.

Again, it is about the policy. This is good policy. It is bipartisan policy. We have worked hard to try to make it that.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), the chairman of the Western Caucus.

Mr. Chair, you know, I hate to spend time in debate laying out how the procedures of the House work, but, number one, the majority doesn't determine what is germane. The Parliamentarian determines what is germane.

Number two, wildland firefighters actually support our bill. We gave our friends across the aisle an opportunity to vote for a pay increase for wildland firefighters that is in an appropriations bill. This is an authorization bill. It is not an appropriations bill. They chose to vote against the increased pay in the appropriations bill, but again, we are working on an authorization bill, and it does meet House floor protocol.

There is not a CutGo because we are not cutting. Actually, the only thing we are cutting are expenses to the Federal Government.

I just wanted to clarify those few things.

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

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

Again, I sincerely thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters) for his remarks and for his partnership on this legislation. As he mentioned, due to some procedural issues, we were not able to consider an amendment he was offering to make improvements to the bill's Fireshed Center. This is an effort that I support, and I regret we were unable to get this amendment made in order.

I do look forward to working with the gentleman on incorporating the amendment in the future discussions with the Senate.

I also thank Matt Weiner and the entire team at Megafire Action for working with us tirelessly on this important amendment and for their support of this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), the subcommittee chair on Federal Lands.

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

I thank the gentleman for his leadership on the subcommittee and for his work going into this bill to make the bill better and to add some of the things that he mentioned.

When we talk about taking timber off of the forests, we are not talking about clear-cutting. It always gets misconstrued that we want to clear-cut the forests. I challenge anyone to show me where the U.S. Forest Service is clear-cutting because you won't find that. I have asked them: Is there any place you still clear-cut? And they said: No.

What we are talking about is forest management, where we go in and we thin out, we create growing space, we allow these trees to be healthier, more vibrant. We allow them to have access to sunlight, access to soil moisture and nutrients, and it gives them an opportunity to grow. It also creates space when the fire comes through it can drop down to the forest floor where it can easily be put out if it needs to be put out.

Some fire is beneficial to the forest, but certainly not fire that gets up in the crown of the trees and destroys everything in its path.

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

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

Mr. Chair, if the minority truly were concerned about carbon in the atmosphere, their number one priority would be to keep forests healthy, to keep massive amounts of carbon dioxide from going up in wildfires, and to keep dead and decaying wood from being digested by microorganisms and being released as methane into the atmosphere.

If we want to make less carbon in the atmosphere and if we want to keep it in the trees, then we should utilize the greatest carbon capture and sequestration device ever known to man, and that is a tree. It is on a wide scale a low-cost and economical way to capture and sequester carbon. However, when we let our forests become subject to bug and infestation attacks and to catastrophic wildfire, then we are going in the opposite direction.

If somebody wants to make the argument that we need healthy forests for a better climate, then they should vote for this bill because that is what this bill would do.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), who is a cosponsor of the bill and has been a tireless advocate on improving forest health.

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

Mr. Chair, it was insinuated earlier that my good friend, Mr. Peters, did not work with The Nature Conservancy.

It begins by saying that: ``TNC, which has decades of experience in wildfire mitigation and resilience work, was at the table with Representatives Peters and Westerman to improve this bill from its initial draft form.''

They go on to say that they are not endorsing the bill because of some issues they have, but they also list several things that they approve of in the bill.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the Nature Conservancy statement.

TNC New Statement

TNC's position: TNC, which has decades of experience in

wildfire mitigation and resilience work, was at the table

with Reps. Peters and Westerman to improve this bill from its

initial draft form, and while it has certainly improved since

that point due in part to our advocacy, we are not endorsing

the bill due to a remaining problematic provision in the

litigation reform section that TNC believes could damagingly

limit community engagement.

However, we also believe there are beneficial provisions in

the bill, such as the Good Neighbor Authority provisions, the

inclusion of Tribal priorities in the fireshed management

section, the Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program, and

the Seeds of Success cross agency coordination.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her efforts in helping make this a better bill. She knows all too well the devastation of catastrophic wildfires like what are happening in her district.

Mr. Chair, I have no further requests for time, I am prepared to close, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chair, what we are doing is not working. Our forests are not getting healthier. Our environment is not getting better. The climate is not getting better. Wildlife habitats are not getting better. Water quality is not getting better. It is all getting worse from the things that we have been doing the last 30 years.

If that is not enough evidence to say it is time for a change, I don't know what is. The time to fix our forests is now. This is a good, commonsense, bipartisan bill for our forest health and our Nation's benefit. The Fix Our Forests Act will end the status quo of overgrown, fire-prone tinderboxes.

Mr. Chair, again, this bill will make our forests healthier and more resilient. It will protect our communities, save taxpayer money, and cut red tape. I urge the adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment offered by my colleague from New York (Mr. Molinaro), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Harder).

This amendment ensures that each fireshed assessment required by the bill also includes consideration of a strategy to reduce the threat that wildfires pose to wildfire firefighters' health and safety.

Specifically, the amendment requires that fireshed assessments analyze the effectiveness of fuel treatments that would improve both the efficacy of wildland firefighting and the safety of wildland firefighters.

Fireshed assessments are a strategic tool for gauging or reducing the risk of wildfire in high-risk areas. By targeting treatments in the right areas, we can protect communities and put firefighters into winnable situations where they can effectively battle wildfires.

This amendment focuses on a crucial dimension of the wildfire crisis; namely, the safety of the brave men and women who regularly put themselves in danger to combat raging wildfires.

The amendment correctly identifies fuel treatments as a meaningful way to accomplish this goal, as proactively treated areas can slow the advancing wildfires and give firefighters precious time to safely combat an approaching blaze.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the bipartisan collaboration reflected in this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Valadao of California.

This amendment does require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct an evaluation of the container aerial firefighting system to assess the use of such a system to mitigate and suppress wildfires. The Secretaries must conduct this evaluation in consultation with the National Interagency Aviation Committee and the Interagency Airtanker Board.

As we attempt to combat the devastating wildfire crisis, it is essential that agencies like the U.S. Forest Service are utilizing all available technologies to suppress wildfires. The technology supported by this amendment involves disposable containers that are dropped with water or fire retardant, which could potentially decrease the response time to fires and increase the number of aircraft available for firefighting duties.

While the technology is not new, the wildland firefighting agencies have not actively studied it. This amendment, therefore, would ensure that our wildland firefighting agencies are fully informed about both the effectiveness and potential cost savings of this important technology.

Mr. Chair, again, I thank Representative Valadao for his work on this amendment. Throughout the drafting process, he has continually advocated for the interests of those in his district and correctly emphasized the importance of leveraging all available technology and resources to better protect vulnerable communities.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Representative Garamendi, and the gentleman from Texas, Representative Fallon.

This is a thoughtful amendment that will enable special districts to participate in the biochar research and development program established in section 301 of the bill. This amendment would also make special districts eligible to participate in the Good Neighbor Authority.

Across the Nation, there are over 39,000 special districts and political subdivisions within States, such as resource conservation districts or water districts.

Both the biochar and Good Neighbor Authority sections of this bill already allow participation from States, Tribes, and local governments.

Providing eligibility for special districts is a commonsense change to ensure more non-Federal partners can participate in these vitally important programs that promote forest health.

I particularly support expanding access for special districts to the biochar projects authorized by section 301 of the bill.

Biochar is an emerging technology that has shown enormous potential as an additive to improve soil health and as a significant carbon sequestration tool, and it also helps the water retention ability of soil.

A key barrier to expanding active forest management is a lack of market access for low-value hazardous fuels that must be removed from overgrown Federal forests.

Biochar is an innovative solution that could create new markets for these low-value materials, thus increasing the pace and scale of forest management. I also support adding special districts to the Good Neighbor Authority.

Since 2014, there have been 490 Good Neighbor projects in 34 States, and every year, over 273 million board feet of timber is being sold.

Adding special districts to this program creates new opportunities for even more forest management projects that could further increase Good Neighbor Authority for forest management activities.

I thank Representatives Garamendi and Fallon for their efforts to improve this legislation by thoughtfully including special districts.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Obernolte of California and Pettersen of Colorado, which supports the use of thermal, midwave, infrared-equipped, low-Earth orbit satellites.

It is a mouthful, but it is a good addition to the Fix Our Forests Act, and it shows that we are trying to incorporate the latest technology. We are trying to incorporate AI technology and more remote sensing technology so that we can be on the cutting edge of the fight against wildland fire.

Again, I commend my colleagues for their dedication and willingness to work together to ensure that the best solutions can be brought to bear on addressing the wildfire crisis.

I urge everyone to support the amendment and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I join my colleague, Mr. Peters, rising in support today of Representative Harder's amendment, which does authorize the Department of the Interior to create a Casualty Assistance Program to provide support for wildland firefighters and the families of the firefighters who have been critically injured or killed in the line of duty.

As was mentioned, the Forest Service already has a Casualty Assistance Program, which provides travel expenses for next of kin to visit a wildland firefighter hospitalized due to a line-of-duty injury, or worse, killed in action.

It also provides directions for short- and long-term case management procedures for casualty assistance. This commonsense amendment will make the same services available to wildland firefighters at the Department of the Interior, providing critical support to the families of these firefighters.

As wildfire seasons have grown in both length and severity, the job of wildland firefighter has become increasingly dangerous.

Between 2013 and 2022, 96 wildland firefighter fatalities occurred. While Congress works to address the forest conditions that are putting wildland firefighters into increasingly dire situations, we must also ensure that we are providing adequate support to them and their families.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of his amendment.

This amendment will add to the underlying legislation key pieces of Representative Barr's bipartisan White Oak Resilience Act, which passed out of the Natural Resources Committee unanimously this year.

While the Fix Our Forests Act primarily addresses the dire state of our overgrown and fire-prone forests in the West, this amendment addresses an urgent challenge confronting our Eastern forests.

At current trends, we face an imminent shortage of white oak trees throughout their native range of the Eastern United States. Because of a lack of necessary forest management practices and shifts in the forest environment, we have created a situation where white oak seedlings and saplings are not growing at a sustainable rate. Presently, roughly 75 percent of white oaks in the U.S. are classified as mature. The lack of younger trees is very troubling. Without intervention, the white oak population will drastically decline in the next 10 to 15 years. White oaks are a keystone species that provide immense ecosystem benefits to the many forests within the species' 104- million-acre range. This iconic American tree is especially important for wildlife that is both a preferred food source and habitat for many species.

As Representative Barr mentioned, there are many uses for white oak, many uses that are especially important to the great State of Kentucky. This is a good amendment that will help restore the long-term viability of this beautiful and important tree. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment, which seeks to expand nursery and seed capacity, support reforestation efforts by State, Tribal, and local governments, as well as institutions of higher education on lands managed by the Department of the Interior.

I thank the amendment's sponsor for her engagement on this important issue. I greatly appreciate her and her staff's willingness to work with us on some revisions to the amendment. This amendment will help improve badly needed reforestation and restoration activities across the Nation by engaging non-Federal partners, including Tribes, who are critical partners as we seek to improve the health of our Nation's forests.

The magnitude of our wildfire and forest health crisis demands an all-hands-on-deck approach. I am encouraged that this amendment will empower non-Federal partners to assist in vital work.

The Department of the Interior has identified a reforestation backlog of roughly 2.4 million acres across their land management agencies. This total is likely to grow considering the massive numbers of acres lost to wildfires

in recent years. This is a good amendment and will help tackle the enormous reforestation and restoration backlog affecting Department of the Interior lands. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment, which would clarify that the Fireshed Center created by this legislation can use artificial intelligence and other decision support tools to assess fire risk to communities and landscapes.

The Fix Our Forests Act establishes a new Fireshed Center for relevant land management and science-focused agencies to comprehensively assess and predict fire across the landscape and in the wildland-urban interface. This will reduce fragmentation and create a one-stop shop for predictive services that can help inform suppression and management decisions across jurisdictional landscapes.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this bipartisan amendment being offered by Representatives Costa and Valadao of California.

The Committee on Natural Resources held a field hearing this Congress in Representative Valadao's district on the importance of water, and this amendment is a bipartisan, good faith effort to help address concerns raised at that hearing.

This bipartisan amendment would expand public and private forestry and watershed management partnerships and reduce redundancies under the existing Water Source Protection Program.

Representatives Costa and Valadao's amendment includes good governance changes to the Water Source Protection Program. It expands the number of eligible lands and entities under the program and reduces duplicative application materials and red tape for existing watershed restoration action plans.

Finally, this amendment establishes clear program priorities that help align the program to its core mission.

These changes align with the spirit of the Fix Our Forests Act. Oftentimes, we hear calls for more funding to solve a problem. However, oftentimes, by focusing on a program's priorities and reducing red tape, the cost goes down and funding can be shifted away from bureaucracy and toward getting work done on the ground.

Again, I commend Representatives Valadao and Costa for reaching across the aisle to work together on this amendment. I have had the pleasure of working with both of these gentlemen on the Save Our Sequoias Act.

Mr. Chair, I encourage support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this is a good amendment that allows for good use of our resources.

It allows Tribes and local communities to take care of the roads that are necessary to access, to be able to do these forest management projects, and also to be able to fight fires when they break out and stop them before they get too big.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment, and I appreciate the hard work that Representative Boebert has put into this thoughtful amendment, which does include Fire Regimes IV and V, and as we have these very dry, fire-prone areas out West, it is important to include these two fire regimes.

Again, I support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment being offered by Representative Boebert.

This amendment ensures that livestock grazing activities are considered as hazardous fuels reduction work when Federal land management agencies calculate the number of acres treated to reduce hazardous fuels.

Section 302 of the Fix Our Forests Act requires land management agencies to submit a yearly hazardous fuels reduction report to Congress based on the actual number of acres the respective agencies treated over the past year. The goal is to improve transparency and accountability.

Livestock grazing is beneficial for land. Just last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released research showing livestock grazing can lower wildfire risk and limit invasive grasses. The rangeland scientists who published this report include researchers from Representative Boebert's home State of Colorado.

I, again, thank her for her leadership and for supporting our ranching and farming families.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her for bringing this amendment, which is important. I support the amendment.

Unfortunately, our forests out West are overstocked. They compete with each other. They get weak. They invite disease and insect infestation. These insects and diseases kill the trees, and then you have dry kindling for a lightning strike or a wildfire that gets out, and it creates the perfect storm for catastrophic wildfires.

Again, I thank Representative Boebert for her efforts to improve the health of our western forests, and I support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her amendment.

Mr. Chair, I note that over 2.3 million households rely on firewood to heat

their homes. I didn't say they enjoy a nice evening by the fire. They rely on firewood to heat their homes. It is even more common in western, rural communities near Federal lands, especially in counties with significant Native American communities.

The Forest Service has made some positive efforts with programs like Wood For Life, which provides firewood from forest restoration projects in northern Arizona to local Tribal communities that otherwise could not afford to heat their homes.

Providing ample firewood sources to these communities is an essential and cost-effective service the Forest Service should be helping to provide.

Also, for as little as $5, more than 300,000 American families receive a Christmas tree permit from Forest Service properties each year. This not only helps Americans celebrate the Christmas season, but it also helps manage our forests through the removal of forest products that may otherwise fuel the next wildland fire.

I commend Representative Boebert for her work on this creative and thoughtful amendment that can make a big difference in the lives of rural Americans, and I urge its support.

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

Today, I rise in opposition to this bill, the so-called Fix Our Forests Act.

This bill is anything but a fix for our forests, and it threatens to intensify not just the wildfire crisis but also the biodiversity and climate crises.

We appreciate the focus and leadership that Chair Westerman has shown on these issues, and it is clear to me and so many others that our forests are a genuine passion of his. Unfortunately, this bill completely misses the mark and has the potential to do serious damage.

Last Congress, Democrats delivered. We secured more than $15 billion in historic investments through the infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act to help keep communities safe, restore healthy ecosystems, and promote healthy and sustainable forest management techniques.

We provided resources for the Forest Service so they could treat a record-breaking number of acres without gutting environmental protections. We provided planning resources for at-risk communities. We provided more than $1 billion for staffing and resources in our permitting offices, funds that have already shortened project timelines by an average of 6 months. In addition, we supported better pay and benefits for wildland firefighters, an issue that I personally and consistently championed.

It is critical that our Federal land management agencies and their partners have the resources and staff capacity that is required to promote resilient forests and safe communities.

It is shocking that most House Republicans voted against those two successful, popular laws: the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law. It is also shocking that right at the moment when a lot of those investments are close to needing reauthorization, the majority is turning its back once again, and it is in stark contrast with the bill today.

That is not for lack of trying on our side, but unfortunately, our Republican counterparts in the House Committee on Natural Resources have refused to work with committee Democrats on changes to the most egregious sections of this bill.

I was optimistic at seeing several amendments filed by Democrats that highlight the missing pieces of this legislation. These included an effort to consider climate change in the bill, add authorizations for much-needed funding throughout an otherwise unfunded bill, and to rid this bill of the unprecedented and dangerous sections that strip Americans of access to the courts under the guise of litigation reform.

Of course, these amendments were not ruled in order, supposedly due to Republican floor rules and procedure, rules and procedures that apparently apply only selectively because this bill has a slew of violations throughout, including numerous violations of the CutGo rules that are allegedly so important to the far-right Freedom Caucus.

I hope those Freedom Caucus members know what they are being asked to vote for. What is in this bill that is so important that CutGo no longer applies? Well, the heart and soul of this bill is a longstanding Republican wish list of priorities that undermine science-based management decisions, bedrock environmental protections, and opportunities for community input.

The so-called Fix Our Forests Act inappropriately stretches the credulity of

NEPA's emergency authorities. It undercuts the popular and bipartisan Endangered Species Act and even makes it more difficult for communities to challenge proposed projects in their own backyards.

The climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis, and the safety of our communities all converge in our Nation's forests. Unfettered backcountry logging is not the answer. We need to support communities, not silence them.

Do you know what else is not in this bill? Unlike the fire response laws that Democrats passed last Congress, there is nothing here about firefighter pay. What kind of fire response bill doesn't include pay for our firefighters in it? Are you kidding me?

H.R. 8790 sets a dangerous precedent. The climate crisis is now. The wildfire crisis is now. We shouldn't be wasting our time on rushed bills with no real solutions.

Many of the Republican initiatives here have already stalled in the 2025 farm bill process. A better strategy to address the wildfire crisis would be to work across jurisdictional boundaries and with our Senate colleagues to find true consensus.

We should be passing regular appropriation bills this week so that agencies like FEMA and the Forest Service have the resources they need and are not scrambling at the end of the fiscal year to find ways to fulfill their existing mandates, let alone the new and unfunded ones in this bill.

This is a live issue, by the way. The chief of the Forest Service has warned us explicitly that they are facing budget shortfalls due to Republican-led appropriations bills. In fact, just on Friday, the Forest Service announced that it had to halt 2025 seasonal hires amid the budget crunch.

We also need to work on providing relief and support for the communities that have been devastated by wildfire instead of trying to have Federal agencies undertake extensive management projects in their backyard without any true consent.

We should be passing legislation that pays our Federal wildland firefighters and gives them the benefits that they deserve, another major priority that this bill fails to advance.

The Forest Service is already stretched dangerously thin, and Federal firefighters are chronically underpaid. If we genuinely want to protect our communities and environment from devastating wildfires, we must prioritize people, ecosystems, and the economy. This bill fails to do each of those things.

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

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

Mr. Chair, bad process leads to bad policy. Unfortunately, the process for this bill has been a chaotic mess from the start.

We never had a hearing on an introduced bill, just the discussion draft, and that is despite, or maybe because of, the longstanding administration policy of not spending limited time and resources testifying on draft bills.

We raced to markup without testimony from the Department of the Interior. The administration nevertheless went above and beyond and provided extensive technical assistance and edits from both the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service.

I am not talking about policy differences here. I am talking about serious concerns with the bill not making sense. Unfortunately, the sponsor ignored those red flags.

Let me give you an example. The bill sets a timeline based on when a categorical exclusion is published in the Federal Register. I would like to make a point that was brought to our attention by the Forest Service itself: Categorical exclusions are not published in the Federal Register.

That is how sloppy the drafting is in this bill, and the process defects have continued.

This bill has numerous violations of the Freedom Caucus' floor protocols requiring offsets for authorized spending. I guess the CutGo protocols are out the window now.

It is convenient that, as of this morning, we still don't have a score from the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, on the bill. Maybe the Freedom Caucus just isn't aware of the problem.

The cherry on top? Republicans accidentally made in order an amendment drafted so badly that it would strike out the bill entirely and replace it with a noncontroversial bill that Democrats support. Republicans had to come to Democrats this morning to ask for our help in fixing that mistake.

I will end where it started: Bad process leads to bad policy.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Chair, I want to briefly address a claim that we heard earlier that this bill was written by The Nature Conservancy or written with them. I am sure that that would come as a surprise to the bill's author, Chairman Westerman, but moreover, we have checked with the group, and not only did they not write it, The Nature Conservancy says they have not even endorsed this bill.

I just want to clear that up for everyone.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and litigation are not the reason that we have catastrophic wildfires. In fact, a 2020 study showed that only one out of every 450 NEPA reviews are ever challenged in court.

Plus, the Forest Service already conducts over 85 percent of its work through existing categorical exclusions, which allows proceeding without a NEPA environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

The reality is that the Forest Service has a wide range of tools and policies designed to expedite the forest management projects.

Here is the actual problem: The Forest Service is chronically underfunded. Gaps in funding are directly tied to project delays and management challenges across the agency. A review conducted by the ``Columbia Journal of Environmental Law'' found that many sources of delay attributed to NEPA are caused by external factors, and they point to inadequate staffing, insufficient funding, and delays of obtaining information from permittees.

The Forest Service doesn't need us to roll back our environmental laws. It needs sustainable funding and additional staff capacity.

However, the Republicans who keep voting against that funding would rather scapegoat our environmental laws and the public's right to access the courthouse.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time remains.

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

Mr. Chair, we need to clear up the record about this idea that the Forest Service supports expanded categorical exclusions, often called CEs.

The Fix Our Forests Act would massively expand categorical exclusions for fireshed management projects, including activities like logging and pesticide application, which would have significant impacts on forest ecosystems.

Typically, categorical exclusions are developed by the agencies with the

input of experts. They are detailed and specific with appropriate guardrails that prevent unnecessary harm, and they are a useful tool. In fact, 82 percent of Forest Service projects are executed using categorical exclusions.

The so-called Fix Our Forests Act takes a sledgehammer to that track record. The Forest Service has said that they would use any new authorities Congress grants to them, but they are not advocating for any larger categorical exclusions.

We are not here to try and stop the Forest Service from using the tools that it has. What we are trying to do is avoid complicating the processes that the Forest Service has, and that is a real issue.

The Forest Service has explicitly told us in technical assistance that this bill's directives around the creation and implementation of fireshed management projects are duplicative and confusing. Why aren't we listening to them?

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chair, I know that conversations about wildfire can be very difficult for Members on both sides. The fires this year and in recent years have been devastating, and I have seen it firsthand with wildfires in my district.

I close with the same message that I started with: Republican leadership is using the very real and painful wildfire crisis as a Trojan horse for a longstanding wish list of harmful environmental policies. Our forests are critical carbon reserves, majestic destinations for outdoor recreation, and habitats for a range of wildlife, including many threatened and endangered species. All of that will be put at risk by this bill's overzealous approach to logging and other destructive management practices.

This bill codifies and expands the use of emergency authorities dramatically, bending the protections provided by the successful, popular, and iconic laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and NEPA. There is nothing discrete or cute about opening this many acres to management without proper review.

Mr. Chair, confronting the wildfire crisis is hard work that requires smart planning and broad collaboration. We won't get there through shortcuts and rollbacks.

Relying on rushed planning for routine forest management undermines community involvement. We shouldn't be undercutting the people who are most at risk.

The Forest Service has been asking us to help them with consistent, reliable budgets. They have been warning us that the appropriations numbers from our Republican colleagues are causing extreme budget shortfalls. They announced just last week that the Forest Service cannot afford to hire nonfire temporary staff anymore.

Let me repeat that: The Republican inability to fund the government on time and with sufficient resources has caused the Forest Service to place a freeze on hiring the very staff who hike into the backcountry to maintain the trails that so many of us use and love.

Finally, this bill fails to provide a permanent and much-needed fix for wildland firefighter pay. That should be one of our top priorities when it comes to confronting the wildfire crisis. Yet, it is completely sidestepped by this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment.

I congratulate my colleague, Representative Harder, for getting it made in order for consideration today, but I do want to take this opportunity to comment on the overall process we have seen on the underlying bill.

This amendment is an example of the sort of thing we could have figured out months ago if Republican leaders had not insisted on such a rushed, chaotic process for this bill.

The hearing was on a discussion draft, which meant that it happened without testimony from one of the affected Federal departments. Then my Republican colleagues ignored extensive technical assistance and red flags provided by the Department of the Interior and by the Forest Service.

I emphasize again: I am not even talking about policy differences here. I am talking about serious concerns that the bill doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately, the sponsor ignored those red flags. Throughout the process, committee Democrats have asked to be included so that we could try to reach consensus on this bill.

We could have made suggestions, such as this amendment before us. We could have offered improvements to address the administration's concerns, but we were excluded. Now we are here with a bill that doesn't comply with the Republican Conference's own CutGo protocols and that, as of this morning, didn't even have a CBO score.

Finally, for anyone who missed this earlier, Republicans accidentally made in order an amendment drafted so badly that it would strike the bill entirely and replace it with a noncontroversial bill that Democrats support. That sounded good to me, but Republicans had to come to us this morning to ask for our help in fixing that mistake.

Here is the bottom line: I am not opposed to this amendment, but, unfortunately, it won't be enough to make a bad bill, created through a bad process, into a good one. Maybe we could have gotten there with an inclusive process, but that is not the path my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose, and that is where we are today.

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

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment, and I have worked collaboratively with my colleague, Mr. LaMalfa, across the aisle on wildfire issues. I will also congratulate my Democratic colleague, Representative Vasquez, for getting this amendment made in order.

I do want to register the same concerns that I have expressed before. The process on the Fix Our Forests Act has been a total black box. A good amendment or two does not change the overall bill, which would gut bedrock environmental laws.

Committee Democrats have asked again and again to try to work together to reach consensus on this bill, and it would have been a great opportunity to talk about this amendment, which, again, I do not oppose.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Vasquez), my colleague.

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

Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment. As corrected, it would add a bill that we previously passed in the Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent and then here on the floor on suspension by a voice vote.

I say I am not opposed to this amendment as corrected because this is the amendment that I referenced earlier. The amendment that Republicans accidentally made in order, a version of this amendment that was drafted so badly that would have deleted the entire text of the Fix Our Forests Act.

In other words, it wouldn't have just added Mr. Valadao's bill to the overall legislation. It would have deleted the overall bill and replaced it with Mr. Valadao's bill, which, as I noted, is a noncontroversial bill that Democrats support.

Republicans came to Democrats this morning to ask for our help in fixing that mistake. My concern here is that that is reflective of a process problem: the sloppy drafting in the underlying bill, the refusal to incorporate well-intentioned feedback from the administration, and the exclusion of committee Democrats from developing this bill.

This is bad process.

I am not opposed to this amendment, which already passed the House floor on suspension, but one good amendment is not enough to fix the bad bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment, but I remain opposed to the underlying bill, which is filled with environmental poison pills and which the administration has warned us is so poorly drafted that they do not and will not know how to implement parts of it. Nothing in this otherwise sound amendment addresses these concerns.

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

Mr. Chair, I think you know what I am about to say. I am not opposed to this amendment, but I continue to strongly oppose the underlying bill. It is full of poison pills that harm the environment and will spread our Forest Service even thinner right when we need them more than ever. Unfortunately, nothing in this amendment addresses those concerns.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would permit the use of Good Neighbor Authority revenues for the construction of new roads.

Currently, the Forest Service manages 372,000 miles of roads across 193 million acres that they manage. Due to such a large inventory, the Forest Service often faces financial difficulties in operation and maintenance.

Over half, over 58 percent, of the Forest Service's $7.66 billion of deferred maintenance is related to roads. The Forest Service has a colossal network of roads that is already far too big for them to maintain.

For this reason, it is hard to support an amendment that would allow the construction of even more roads but doesn't provide any resources for the future maintenance of those new Forest Service roads.

Our Forest Service is spread dangerously thin due to Republican budget cuts. This amendment would make the problem even worse.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would further expand a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for projects completed in two additional fire management regimes.

For context, one of the new regimes, Fire Regime V, applies to vegetation types that rarely burn, typically due to a lack of moisture or fuel. The fire return interval in those landscapes is more than 200 years.

Because of the categorization of these fire regimes, hazardous fuels management is not as high of a priority and does not need a legislative categorical exclusion expansion.

This follows the trend that my Republican colleagues have been setting. They have been legislatively expanding categorical exclusions, and the Committee on Natural Resources Democrats remain opposed.

During our debate today, we have shown how meddling in the National Environmental Policy Act process is dangerous and how it sets a precedent that will do more harm than good. Categorical exclusions are most effective when they are developed with expert input by agencies and the Council on Environmental Quality instead of mandated by Congress.

This amendment simply continues to build on the slew of National Environmental Policy Act waivers that the Fix Our Forests Act advances, and it is no surprise that my Republican counterparts have chosen to make this amendment in order.

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

Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment was summarized by Republicans as requiring the regional foresters to develop plans for the treatment and removal of dead or dying trees due to insect disease.

However, I want to clarify that this amendment actually doesn't require anything of regional foresters at all. Instead, it requires special consideration for project proposals under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program that seek to remove or treat insects or diseases.

The purpose of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is to encourage the collaborative science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes.

Insect treatments are already eligible under the program and are executed often as restoration treatments. However, they are also often, and should be, used in tandem with other collaborative strategies as part of a broader landscape treatment plan.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, similar to Ms. Boebert's last amendment, this amendment was summarized by Republicans as requiring that regional foresters develop plans, in this case the plans for the sale of Christmas trees and firewood.

Once again, I would like to clarify that this amendment does not do that. It does not require anything of regional foresters.

Instead, it requires special consideration for project proposals under the collaborative forest landscape restoration program that seek to facilitate the sale of Christmas trees and firewood on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior.

The landscape restoration program was not created for the sole purpose of revenue building by removing trees from public lands. The program is meant to do what it says in its program title: promote collaboration among Federal land management agencies and the public for the purposes of restoring forest landscapes.

Tree harvesting for anything other than the purpose of landscape restoration is not in the spirit of the program. By placing a preference on projects that are related to Christmas tree harvest, this amendment would limit the landscape restoration program by prioritizing a marketable product over landscape restoration. To be extra clear, the Forest Service already has broad authority to conduct the sale of firewood and Christmas trees. They don't need it under this restoration program.

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

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 467. I have deep concerns with the partisan approach my Republican colleagues have taken on this bill and the harmful implications it would have on our communities if adopted.

The substance-use and overdose crisis impacts all our communities, and the American people deserve bipartisan solutions that address both public safety and public health. This bill fails on both fronts and simply continues the status quo, allowing opioid use disorder and the overdose crisis to continue to devastate American families across the Nation.

In 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration first issued a temporary classwide scheduling order of fentanyl-related substances under schedule I, the strictest classification for drugs. Congress has voted to extend the temporary order multiple times, most recently in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.

Despite this action over the last 4 years, overdoses have not gone down, and we have, unfortunately, not made a dent in the incidence of opioid use disorders. Fentanyl and synthetic opioids continue to flood into the country. In testimony before our committee, the DEA administrator noted the DEA seized more than 50 million fake pills and 10,000 pounds of fentanyl in 2022.

In other words, the HALT Fentanyl Act is a partisan distraction from the hard, bipartisan work that actually has to be done to address a longstanding, intractable problem that faces our communities.

We lost over 100,000 people in 2022 to overdoses. This is one of the biggest public health crises our Nation has ever faced, and now is not the time for a partisan approach. Now is the time for comprehensive bipartisan work.

Democrats stand ready to work with Republicans on addressing the fentanyl crisis. We stand ready to work on permanent scheduling, so long as it is carefully designed to avoid exacerbating inequities in our criminal justice system.

In committee, Democrats offered amendments to improve the HALT Fentanyl Act. We asked that Republicans consider additions to the bill that reflect the Biden administration's commonsense interagency proposal. The proposal would permanently schedule FRS but establish a set of guardrails that promote a scientific and equitable approach. The administration's proposal is reflected in bipartisan legislation that was introduced by Representatives Pappas, Gonzales, and Newhouse and includes an off-ramp to allow for expedited descheduling of FRS that are found to be either inert or have medical applications. There is already evidence that at least one FRS could have potential applications for reversing overdoses, similar to naloxone, and we must provide for such substances to be rapidly descheduled.

The Biden administration's proposal also strikes the right balance on public safety by ensuring that permanent scheduling of FRS does not exacerbate existing inequities in our criminal justice system. It eliminates mandatory minimum standards involving FRS unless an offense results in serious bodily injury or death. Instead, the Republican majority has opted to continue failed punitive mandatory minimum sentencing that we know will disproportionately impact communities of color while doing nothing to address the underlying opioid crisis.

Now, as this bill comes to the House floor, Republicans are continuing to refuse to make this legislation better. Almost 90 amendments were filed for consideration on this bill, and Republicans ruled nearly all of them out of order, including the bipartisan Pappas amendment. An amendment from Representative Pettersen of Colorado would have provided the off-ramp for rapid descheduling of FRS that are inert or have medical applications. An amendment offered by Representative Crockett of Texas would have ensured that Federal law does not stand in the way of the use of fentanyl test strips which have proven to reduce overdoses from fentanyl and FRS. Unfortunately, Republicans refused to make any of these commonsense amendments in order, despite the fact that they are clearly germane.

We simply cannot incarcerate our way out of a public health crisis. The HALT Fentanyl Act does not provide any resources for research, prevention, treatment, recovery, or harm reduction. It also does not provide law enforcement or public health agencies with any additional resources to detect and intercept illicit drugs entering the country.

In fact, nearly every House Republican voted in favor of the default on America act, which would inflict devastating cuts that would force communities to lay off thousands of law enforcement officers and first responders, and that is in addition to the significant cuts the default on America act would make to substance use programs that help treat patients in our communities.

The reality is that this bill, paired with Republican efforts to slash vital public health and safety funding, will

leave our communities worse off and exacerbate existing inequities in our criminal justice system.

Madam Chair, I can't support the underlying bill in its current form. I encourage my colleagues to oppose it. I hope that at some point we can get back to doing some bipartisan work that will really make a difference in terms of this opioid and fentanyl crisis.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Chair, I know the Republicans have a number of speakers, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Madam Chair, I don't like to disagree with my colleague from Arizona who I respect, but she did say that when the Democrats were in the majority that we didn't address the issue, and that is not accurate.

In fact, last Congress we did pass out of the Energy and Commerce Committee a bipartisan mental health and substance use treatment package, H.R. 7666, which became law as part of the consolidated appropriations bill last December, and that bill, H.R. 7666, that came out of our committee, when it came to the floor of the House, was supported by over 400 Members. Only 20 Members didn't vote for it, and it was later signed into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. That new law includes the MAD Act and the MAiD Act, historic pieces of legislation that ensure medical practitioners are prepared to identify and treat substance use disorders and increase access to medication-assisted treatment, such as buprenorphine.

H.R. 7666 also reauthorized billions of dollars in public health programs that addressed the mental health and substance use crisis, including both the substance use prevention treatment and recovery services block grant and State opioid response grants.

Now, I am not suggesting that this is the end all. Obviously, more needs to be done, but part of what I think you are hearing from the Democratic side of the aisle today is that this legislation on the floor doesn't really deal with all these things. It doesn't deal with treatment. It doesn't deal with the border. It doesn't deal with law enforcement and more resources to address the fentanyl crisis.

We believe that a law that is going to really make a difference would do that, and that is the reason that we are saying that this bill that is before us, the HALT Fentanyl Act, really doesn't do anything because it just says that it is going to be in schedule I beyond 2024.

Right now, you already have synthetic fentanyl scheduled in I until the end of next year, and we haven't really seen any progress with that.

We would like to see a comprehensive approach that takes into account treatment that is a follow up on what we passed in the last Congress.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to correct the record, or at least set the record straight, on what the DEA and the Biden administration are saying. I heard what my colleague on the committee said, but I want you to understand that no one on our side of the aisle, certainly not the Biden administration or the DEA, is saying that we should get rid of the current law, which says that synthetic fentanyl is on schedule I. That is the

case now. We have extended it many times. As the gentlewoman said, it is actually extended until December of 2024.

What the Biden administration, in conjunction with the DEA, is saying is that before you go ahead and permanently extend, that you should look at some of the other things that we have talked about on the Democratic side of the aisle. In other words, they say, in this task force from the administration with the DEA, that there is a real possibility that research will find that there are synthetic fentanyl substances that might actually help deal with the crisis and reverse an overdose in certain circumstances.

What they recommend is that we have an off-ramp to ensure that substances that are deemed to have a potential medical application are not improperly classified. If you pass this permanently, then you have to pass another law in order to take something off the list.

Also, they are not recommending that we have mandatory minimum incarceration involving synthetic fentanyl unless an offense results in serious bodily injury or death. This is what some of my colleagues on the Democratic side are saying, that incarceration, mandatory minimum sentencing, is not the answer. We know it hasn't been for years with other drugs, as well.

In addition to that, there should be funding to deal with the research, funding to deal with treatment, funding for law enforcement so they can prevent more fentanyl from coming into the country. None of that is included in this bill.

I just don't want my colleagues on the other side to misrepresent what DEA or what the Biden administration are saying. We all understand the nature of this crisis. We don't think that this bill is going to do anything to change that, because it just basically extends the status quo and doesn't do anything for all of these other things that have been mentioned on the Democratic side.

I think it is really important for you to understand where we are coming from on this. We don't disagree with putting this on schedule I, but we want to see a comprehensive approach, because what we are doing now has failed.

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

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

The point that I have been trying to make and my colleagues have been trying to make on this side of the aisle is that Republicans continue to push punitive and partisan policies with regard to the opioid crisis rather than real solutions to address the substance abuse crisis, strengthen border security, or fix our immigration system.

The partisan HALT Fentanyl Act would not meaningfully address substance abuse. It would simply result in more incarceration.

This bill takes a one-sided approach by only requiring permanent class-wide scheduling of fentanyl-related substances in an attempt to incarcerate our way out of a public health crisis.

By contrast, the Biden administration has put forth an interagency proposal, which I have discussed, to permanently schedule synthetic fentanyl within schedule I without exacerbating existing sentencing disparities and inequities in our criminal justice system, as well as creating an off-ramp to remove or reschedule these substances shown to have medical or therapeutic value.

Now, I know that we hear from the other side: What have you done? What are you doing?

Well, the bottom line is that the Biden administration has taken aggressive action to combat the overdose epidemic. Congress and the administration should be working together on a bipartisan solution to address the fentanyl crisis, but the Republicans are threatening a default crisis right now that would seriously undermine these efforts.

Last year, the Biden administration announced its inaugural National Drug Control Strategy which expands access to lifesaving interventions, like naloxone and buprenorphine, while providing additional resources to law enforcement agencies to intercept illegal drugs.

To support this strategy and address illicit fentanyl, President Biden has called on Congress to make a historic investment of $46 billion in funding for efforts to reduce the supply of illicit fentanyl and stop drug trafficking, as well as expand access to treatment and prevention to reduce overdose deaths across the country.

Now, at the same time, Republicans are threatening a default crisis unless Democrats go along with their drastic cuts that would seriously undermine our ability to combat the fentanyl and opioid crisis.

According to the administration, the cuts demanded by Republicans would force Border Patrol to ax more than 2,000 agents and drastically reduce funding for the DEA and the FBI. These things are crucial to interdiction and anti-drug-trafficking efforts.

The Republican proposal, the default on America act, would reduce funding for treatment for opioid use disorders resulting in thousands more Americans losing access to treatment and recovery. It would also threaten to take health insurance away from millions of low-income individuals, including those struggling with substance use disorders and the opioid epidemic, and it imposes a cruel and unnecessary work requirement on Medicaid.

Now, all we are trying to say on our side of the aisle is in this war on drugs, mandatory sentencing, incarcerate everybody, has not worked. It didn't

work for other drugs. It is not going to work for fentanyl.

At the same time, the Biden administration has put forward a proposal, and it has been put into bill form, the STOP Fentanyl Act, that looks at all of this and tries to increase treatment, tries to increase interdiction and help law enforcement, and tries to do more research to see to what extent we can find uses for synthetic fentanyl that actually will stop, if you will, or prevent overdoses from killing people.

We are just asking for a comprehensive approach. I haven't heard anything from the other side of the aisle that says you are going to do anything more than continue with the current law, which says that we are going to make synthetic fentanyl part of schedule I, which is already the law, at least until the end of next year.

All we are saying is, let's sit down and actually try to come up with something here on a bipartisan basis that is going to make a difference for this fentanyl crisis. What we have done in the past hasn't worked. If we are going to just reduce funding for all of these things, that is certainly not going to work. That is only going to make it worse.

I guess I am just pleading with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Rethink this. We have the time now to come up with a comprehensive approach that will make a difference here. If you pass this partisan bill, it is going to go nowhere in the Senate, it is not going to become law, and we will have accomplished nothing.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and let's look for a comprehensive solution along the line of what the President has proposed.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee for the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer the amendment on behalf of my friend from Montana, Representative Zinke, which will improve the effectiveness of the Good Neighbor Authority.

The Good Neighbor Authority program enables cross-boundary forest management activities with States, Tribes, and counties. Collaborative tools like this program are critical to confronting the wildfire crisis as raging wildfires don't respect man-made borders that separate forests into different jurisdictions.

Since 2014, over 490 Good Neighbor Authority projects have been started in 34 States, and more than 273 million board feet of timber is sold yearly through this program.

Currently, funds from the sale of timber from Good Neighbor Authority projects can be used to treat insect-and disease-infested trees, reduce hazardous fuels, improve forest health, and restore and repair decommissioned Forest Service roads necessary to implement restoration activities.

This amendment would expand the permissible uses of timber receipts derived from Good Neighbor Authority projects to include the reconstruction, repair, and restoration of roads on non-Forest Service lands when such activities are needed to implement forest management projects on Federal land.

New road construction on Federal lands would also be a permitted use under this amendment to facilitate authorized restoration projects. However, these new road projects would still be required to comply with the applicable environmental review processes.

Further, this amendment would allow timber receipts to be used to construct new roads to replace existing roads that adversely impact forest, rangeland, or watershed health.

Access to areas urgently needing treatment remains a huge challenge to improving forest health. Roads are beneficial for forest management, provide the public with access to outdoor recreation opportunities, and enable safer and more effective wildland firefighting.

This thoughtful amendment from Representative Zinke will improve forest management activities under Good Neighbor Authority by empowering partners to overcome some of the access challenges preventing badly needed work in our forests.

Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Zinke for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that clarifies existing authorities may be utilized to prevent wildfires in Fire Regimes IV and V, thereby expanding the acres of at-risk forests that would be eligible for streamlined management authorities.

This important amendment is critical to fire mitigation efforts across the States of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, Maine, West Virginia, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Indiana, Ohio, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Florida, and Texas.

The Forest Service estimates 63 million acres are currently at risk of catastrophic wildfire, and each year, nearly 10 million acres in the U.S. catch on fire. Colorado also had the three largest recorded wildfires in State history in 2020.

Federal agencies have chosen to spend billions on the back end, putting out wildfires as opposed to prioritizing active management upfront that would reduce the size and number of wildfires.

According to the Colorado State Forest Service, more than 24.4 million acres of Colorado forestland impact Colorado's water supply, where 80 percent of the State's population relies on those forested watersheds for municipal water supplies.

Healthy forests act as a natural water filter and storage system and are critical to maintaining healthy watersheds. In the United States, forests are a source of drinking water for over 180 million people.

We can reduce the size and severity of wildfires through active forest management, which will also help protect our watersheds and municipal water supplies.

Let's actively manage our forests, be good stewards of the land that we have been blessed with, and pass this important amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I seem to recall just yesterday that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had no problem meddling in NEPA to get their leftwing projects through CHIPS authorized.

Mr. Chair, I would like to just highlight the drought that has caused these catastrophic wildfires.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Chair, the proposal of utilizing existing authorities to prevent wildfires in Fire Regimes IV and V is crucial as it focuses on

proactive management and streamlining of forest health.

As someone who prioritizes humans flourishing, I see the value in taking measures that can prevent environmental disasters that have devastating impacts on human beings and their property.

It is important to remember that we have the power to shape our environment and neutralize dangers through human innovation powered by cost-effective energy. In the case of wildfire prevention, this could mean better forest management practices, controlled burns to reduce fuel load, and advanced fire detection and suppression technologies.

Again, Mr. Chair, I would urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that will ensure grazing as one of the hazardous fuels reduction activities authorized by the bill.

Our Federal lands are overgrown and poorly managed, making them more susceptible to wildfire and disease. Catastrophic wildfires have taken a tremendous toll on Coloradans. These incidents have threatened the lives of millions of people and accounted for millions of dollars of damages each year.

Farmers and ranchers have lost crops, livestock, and structures, have been evacuated, and had their operations disrupted by smoke, public safety power shutoffs, or loss of insurance.

There are Federal lands in Colorado and the West where we once had 50 to 100 trees per acre, but now we see 500 to 1,000 trees per acre. There are also 6 billion standing dead trees in the Western United States. Some people call that a problem. I call it a tinderbox waiting to burn.

Fuel treatments are effective, and Federal agencies have made clear that over 90 percent of the fuel treatments are effective in changing fire behavior and/or helping with the control of wildfire.

Grazing animals play an important part in maintaining healthy ecosystems by controlling the ecological balance of vegetative species, reducing fire fuels that result from the accumulation of nonnative plant biomass, and improving the soil health by trampling plant residue and their own waste into the soil profile.

Cattle, sheep, and goats can play a regenerative wildfire mitigation role that also provides for our food and fiber needs.

Let's support our Nation's ranchers and encourage innovative and cost-effective hazardous fuel reductions like grazing.

I urge passage of my amendment that ensures the grazing activities are recognized as hazardous fuels reduction work when the agency calculates the number of acres treated to reduce hazardous fuels, improving transparency and accountability.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee for supporting this important amendment that supports our farmers and ranchers back home and reduces the hazardous fuels by allowing grazing to take place on our public lands.

Again, I urge adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that will require regional foresters to submit a plan through the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program for the treatment and removal of trees killed by or infested with bark beetles in Western States.

The bark beetle epidemic has caused significant damage to roughly 100,000 square miles of forest in the Western United States alone. There are 600 different species of bark beetles in the United States. Several species, such as the mountain pine beetle, attack and kill live trees. Most species of bark beetles live in dead, weakened, or dying hosts.

Along the West Coast and through the Rocky Mountains, bark beetles have affected tens of millions of acres of forests. While bark beetles are native to U.S. forests and play important ecological roles, they can cause extensive tree mortality and negative economic and social impacts.

Spruce beetles have killed millions of trees on more than 1.8 million acres in Colorado since 2000 and provided increased fuels for wildfires. In Colorado, 2021 was one of the worst wildfire seasons our State has ever endured with the three largest fires in State history.

Bark beetle epidemics and catastrophic wildfires are a significant threat. This can be minimized by thinning overgrown forests and removing hazardous fuels produced by beetle

overpopulation. This process is sure to create jobs and increase overall forest health.

I urge passage of my amendment that would prioritize Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program activities that address the bark beetle epidemic, a major contributor to wildfires in Colorado and the West.

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

Mr. Chair, let the beetle battle begin. The bark kill epidemic in Colorado and the western United States is a problem that we must address. I drive by these dying forests on a regular basis, and seeing the tinderbox that it has created is a huge devastation.

The carbon emissions that are released from a catastrophic wildfire are very harmful and impactful to my State of Colorado and the West, so I say it is time to do something about the beetle kill, beetle kill, beetle kill.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment that requires regional foresters to submit a plan on the sale of Christmas trees and firewood on Federal land.

Under current law, American families can purchase a permit from the Forest Service to cut Christmas trees from their favorite national forest, as well as harvest any firewood, transplants, posts, and poles, and other forest products to improve forest health.

We have seen successful Christmas tree and firewood harvesting operations in my home State of Colorado, and this program has served as a locally based solution to help thin our overgrown forests.

According to the Forest Service: ``The permit system helps to thin densely populated stands of small-diameter trees. Local forest health experts identify areas that benefit from thinning trees and tend to be the perfect size for Christmas trees. Removing these trees in designated areas helps other trees grow larger and can open areas that provide food for wildlife.''

My constituents are struggling right now as they deal with the disastrous effects of the Democrats' destructive economic policies. They unleashed record inflation on Americans that has raised utility bills, driven up energy costs, and made it harder to live for most Americans.

My amendment provides an affordable fuel alternative for families across the Nation to heat their homes as well as create lasting holiday memories for families to interact with their local forests.

I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to prioritize collaborative foster landscape restoration program activities to allow for the removal of firewood and Christmas trees.

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

Mr. Chair, it is so sad to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle hate Christmas.

This would allow restoration of our forests. As I said, our forests are overgrown. This would allow a fun way for families to participate in healthy forest management by thinning some of the living trees that are overgrown on our forestland.

Mr. Chair, I, again, urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 467.

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

Madam Chair, action is needed now to address the fentanyl crisis. That is why I rise today in strong support of H.R. 467, the HALT Fentanyl Act.

Fentanyl is the top cause of death for Americans 18 to 49 years old. In my home State of Kentucky, illicit fentanyl overdoses represented 70 percent of all overdoses in 2020 and 2021.

The fentanyl crisis is one of the foremost problems that the American public faces and has been made worse by the crisis at our southern border. Illicit fentanyl is turning virtually every community into a border community with these poisons flooding streets across America and taking innocent lives, including the lives of our kids.

The HALT Fentanyl Act would ban all fentanyl analogues and strip the drug cartels and other criminals of the incentive to create new versions of fentanyl to skirt around the law. This bill is a key step to help get these poisons off our streets and give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on illicit fentanyl trafficking.

A two-pronged approach to addressing this crisis is needed. We must have a law enforcement and a substance use recovery strategy to address this crisis. That is why I look forward to examining the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act later this year to continue providing access to treatment and recovery support services that so many individuals rely on throughout the country.

To those who oppose this legislation on the grounds it could lead to mass incarceration, the emergency classwide scheduling implemented by President Trump did not lead to mass incarcerations. In a Government Accountability Office study from 2021, the GAO found that there were only eight prosecutions--yes, eight prosecutions--during the period in which the Trump administration temporarily scheduled fentanyl-related substances as schedule I drugs from 2018-2020, with four of them being individuals working on behalf of the cartel because the cartels quit creating illicit fentanyl separate from the fentanyl that is poisoning our kids today.

It could be even worse. I know there are also those who believe the emergency scheduling order didn't lead to reductions in overdose deaths and that this bill before us won't effectively address the issues we are facing.

To both of those criticisms, this bill stops these analogues from being produced in the first place. Right after the classwide ban was put in place, the number of fentanyl analogue encounters dropped nearly 89 percent, more than 6,200 fewer reports of analogues. DEA officials stated that the classwide scheduling contributed to this dramatic drop.

It also includes provisions to facilitate more research into the detection of fentanyl-related substances and potential treatment of fentanyl poisonings, something that has much more red tape in the status quo.

I am happy to see the White House supports two main provisions of the HALT Fentanyl Act. The HALT Fentanyl Act is one step of many this body needs to take to address the end of the overdose crisis. The time to permanently act is now, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on

Madam Chair, this was a bipartisan bill. It got bipartisan votes in committee. It is the DEA's number one priority.

If you are selling fentanyl to our kids, you deserve to be incarcerated. We don't apologize for that.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. Rodgers), the chairwoman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), the bill's sponsor.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), the vice chair of the Health Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. Mike Garcia.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. D'Esposito). The gentleman from Kentucky has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 8 minutes remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

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

My friend from New Jersey did say that this law expires at the end of the year. That is why we are here today to make scheduling illicit fentanyl permanent.

We have to understand what the status quo is. The status quo currently is horrific. Before these illicit fentanyls were scheduled, although we couldn't get them permanently scheduled, there were all kinds of analogues throughout America. That is why the DEA and others recommended that we schedule these, because once you change the fentanyl molecule, unless these are scheduled, then it becomes no longer illegal. These all appeared in our country, and that is why we are reacting to it. They are scheduled now, and what we are moving to do is to make it permanent.

What has happened since they were scheduled?

They came to me, and they talked about mass incarceration. We have heard that today. There have been eight people in prison under this law, four dealing with cartels, which I would say absolutely should be in prison.

I asked some of my law enforcement people when I was looking into this bill: If you have only arrested eight people, why does it matter?

That is what they are saying on the other side of the aisle.

What they said was the only reason we have only arrested eight people is because when this was put into place, the analogues--not fentanyl, but the analogues, which can be more dangerous--had disappeared from the marketplace. They are bringing in fentanyl that is already scheduled.

The problem is, if we treat fentanyl analogues differently than fentanyl, they are going to reappear again. That is why we have to put them in the same category. If you have fentanyl subject to mandatory minimums, but not these analogues, then they are going to reappear.

We have to pass this bill, we have to move forward, and I recommend support of this bill.

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

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