H.Res. 1486

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 thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, Representative LaLota, for filing this amendment which seeks to address the serious threat to forests in the American northeast. The amendment does require the Forest Service to conduct a study on the causes and effects of the infestation of pine beetles in the northeastern region of the U.S. and offer solutions to the pressing problem.

The southern pine beetle is an invasive species that has been expanding into northeastern forests in recent years. As a southerner, I wish all the southern pine beetles would leave the South, but I don't wish them on my friends in the North.

It is an invasive species that poses a serious threat to the health of pine forests in the North.

Concerning tree mortality has been documented in recent years in pitch pine stands in several northeastern States, including New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

The expansion of this invasive species into northern forests is concerning and warrants our attention.

This is a good amendment that addresses a very real threat to forests in the northeast. Examining this threat further and developing solutions to prevent, treat, and detect insect infestations is an important endeavor.

I, again, applaud Representative LaLota for his leadership in this effort, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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.

Mr. Chair, as a Christian, I am offended that my colleague on the other side of the aisle would suggest that I hate Christmas.

This bill is not about and has nothing to do with inhibiting people from celebrating their religious holidays, including through having a Christmas tree.

This bill is about this amendment, and this debate is about the fact that this amendment does not do what the gentlewoman from Colorado claims that it does.

This bill does not require regional foresters to do anything.

I support the Forest Service using its existing authority to permit the harvesting of Christmas trees and trees for firewood, but that is not what this amendment actually does.

I close by observing to my colleague that many of us make happy family memories with trees that are living. We have ways to enjoy trees without cutting them down or burning them.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I am going to close out my comments on all of these amendments by reiterating what I have been saying.

I strongly oppose the underlying bill. It is full of poison pills that harm the environment and will spread our Forest Service even thinner right when we need them most.

If Republicans had listened to the administration's concerns about how this bill is poorly drafted, and if they hadn't excluded committee Democrats from the drafting process then maybe we could have a consensus set of solutions in front of us.

Instead, we have a bill full of environmental rollbacks, new unfunded programs that will spread our Forest Service thin, and no pay fix for our firefighters. It is a supposed wildfire response bill, but it doesn't have firefighter pay in it.

It is a bill that is being offered by Republicans who style themselves as fiscally conservative. Yet, as we approach a final vote on this legislation in a

matter of minutes, we do not know the costs of the bill because Republicans through a rushed process made sure that the Congressional Budget Office did not have a chance to score the bill.

Nothing in this amendment addresses any of these extensive and serious concerns.

I strongly oppose the bill, as does Ranking Member Grijalva, as does the White House.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, since day one of this Congress, the Republican majority has been a complete and total disaster--failed speakerships, failed rules votes, failed bills, failure to address real problems, failure to pass real solutions, and failure to even send bills to the Senate. Today is more of the same, more failure from this dysfunctional Republican majority.

Speaker Johnson promised he would get all 12 appropriations bills across the finish line before August. They couldn't even pass half of them. He tried to coax the MAGA extremists into voting for a continuing resolution by tacking on more election fraud conspiracies. That plan went down in flames.

Here we are, a week before the government shuts down, and Republicans had to move on to a new plan. Despite the Rules Committee taking testimony from appropriators last night on the continuing resolution, there is no CR in this rule. I checked. I double checked. I made sure nothing was stuck to the pages. I looked under the table.

What was the point of that exercise last night in the Rules Committee other than to once again demonstrate that this Republican majority cannot fulfill its most basic function, keeping the government open without help from Democrats?

Let's be clear. Their majority is not a working majority. They don't have the votes without Democrats, so my friends are putting up a continuing resolution on suspension and, once again, they are asking Democrats to bail them out.

Madam Speaker, when will the other side stop letting the MAGA extremists run this place?

Look at the bills that are coming to the floor today: More MAGA messaging measures that will never, ever become law. It is pathetic. There is a bill that claims to be tough on China. Well, let me tell you, there are very few people who are as tough a critic as I am when it comes to China's human rights record. I think I am one of a handful, only a handful, of legislators in this body and the other body who have actually been sanctioned by China. I am not even allowed in the country nor is my family. Believe me when I say this is a stupid way to handle a complicated geopolitical challenge. We need to be smart on China. We need to pass bills that actually get results, not just pass bills that sound tough on paper, which is all this bill is.

Then, we have another no-good bill that Republicans claim will tackle crime, but we all know what this is really about. This bill's only purpose is to attack Vice President Harris.

The former President keeps spinning the narrative on the campaign trail that crime is at an all-time high. He has trouble with facts.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article: ``Murder and other violent crime dropped across the U.S. last year, FBI data shows.''

This report was released yesterday, by the way. The data shows that violent crime has dropped in recent years, but Republicans are ignoring these facts and choosing to push messaging bills like this one instead.

It really is quite sad that that is kind of the state of affairs on the Republican side.

Look, I get it. I get it. My Republican friends are afraid because Vice President Harris was a prosecutor who put felons in jail, and, well, I will just let everyone who is watching fill in the rest.

Then, we have an absurd, nonbinding resolution that politicizes the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Playing politics with this is disgusting.

This is not about honoring our fallen soldiers. This is about politics at its worst.

This bill didn't even go through regular order. It was introduced 5 days ago and didn't go through committee.

Republicans were so anxious to get this resolution to the floor before the election that they didn't even get Members' input. Was it written by the Trump campaign? I mean, give me a break.

This is not the way we honor our fallen soldiers. We don't play politics with tragedies.

Let me just state for the record, thanks to President Biden and Vice President Harris, for the first time in decades, the United States is not at war anywhere in this world.

Finally, we have the Fix Our Forests Act. In my opinion, this is a pro-polluter bill that ignores the realities of climate change when it comes to wildfires.

I will be opposing this bill because the so-called Fix Our Forests Act will not fix our forests. Instead, I think it would bypass critical environmental laws, cut out scientific input, and undermine our Nation's core environmental laws.

Madam Speaker, look, here is the reality: Republicans have fumbled left and right over the last 2 years. They really have become the party of broken promises, wasting everybody's time and wasting taxpayer money on absurd messaging bills that are going nowhere.

While we have real challenges in this country, this is the junk they bring to the floor. People want us to work together to get things done, and instead, this majority spends their time fighting amongst themselves and accomplishing absolutely nothing for the American people.

It is simple, really. The other side wants to come down here and talk about anything other than their plans for the future because when they do that, people see how weird they are.

They don't want to talk about Project 2025, their dystopian plan to take total control of our country, dismantle our system of checks and balances, and take away people's freedoms.

They don't want to talk about how their draconian abortion bans are killing women and putting them at extreme risks.

They don't want to talk about how 9 years after starting to run for President, Donald Trump still doesn't have an actual plan to provide better healthcare for the American people.

They don't want to talk about how Donald Trump's big economic plan would result in average families spending an extra $4,000 per year-- $4,000 more per year that families would pay if his plans were enacted.

They come down here and bring up some absurd messaging bills to avoid talking about how weird and unpopular their agenda is.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas says that the Biden administration is weak. I guess the gentleman and I have a different definition of what weakness looks like.

It was Republicans, by the way, not Joe Biden, who held up aid for our allies for 9 months because their side buys into Kremlin propaganda. I think that is weak, quite frankly.

It was a Republican President who went to North Korea and tried to get a brutal dictator to like him. He actually said they wrote each other love letters. He went there and groveled to Kim Jong Un. I don't think that that is a sign of strength. I think that is a sign of weakness.

It is the Republican candidate for President who praises Putin on a regular basis, calls him Vladimir, loves Xi Jinping, says Viktor Orban is fantastic.

Don't even lecture us about human rights when the majority can't bring itself to be critical of what the Republican standard-bearer says on a regular basis. That is not strength. That is pathetic. It makes us look weak.

Meanwhile, after they wrecked our image on the world stage, it is President Joe Biden who has had to rebuild it. I don't call that weakness. I call that a sign of strength. Standing with our NATO allies, standing with the people of Ukraine as Russia drops bombs on them on a regular basis, that is not weakness. That is strength.

The gentleman from New York, I mean, listening to him speak, one would think that we are living in 14th century Europe during the black plague.

The fact is that we live in the best place in the world. There is no other place in the world I would rather live than in the United States of America, and it is the best time in history, quite frankly, for a whole bunch of reasons.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that none of our soldiers were in harm's way. I said we are living in a time when we were not at war with any country. That is what I said. I have to insist on accuracy when it comes to my words.

We can do better, and we should work to improve the lives of the people we represent.

Crime is down. The gentleman from New York who just spoke apparently wasn't here when I inserted the FBI report, but that is facts. Crime is down.

The economy is strong and growing stronger.

Science is improving our lives in new ways every single day. It is amazing.

The Republican agenda of division and hate only takes us backward. Let's go forward. Let's work together on something, and maybe we can start today. Rather than politicizing the tragic deaths of American servicemen, maybe we can start the day today by actually helping our veterans, something that my Republican friends have a hard time trying to do.

Madam Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to include an additional $12 billion in the continuing resolution that our Nation's veterans need for their healthcare.

Madam Speaker, let's remember how we got here. Republicans talked a big game all Congress about how they were going to return to regular order and pass 12 individual appropriation bills, but consistent with the theme of dysfunction for this Republican majority, they instead spent months fighting amongst themselves.

What was the result? How many awful, partisan, go-nowhere appropriation bills were they actually able to pass? Madam Speaker, 5, 5 out of 12, and they didn't even send the Homeland Security appropriations bill over to the Senate. Why? Because they threw a tantrum and refused to send their Homeland Security appropriations bill to the Senate unless their awful H.R. 2 border bill got signed into law.

That is not how this works. They need to watch ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' Maybe they can learn something.

Once again, Democrats are the adults in the room who are being asked to come in and clean up the Republican mess--in this case, to ensure that our basic responsibility of governing is met: Keeping the lights on.

Now, the continuing resolution that we will consider later this week has some good pieces in it, and it will keep the American people's government open for another 3 months, but there is always room for improvement.

That is why I am offering this amendment to provide an extra $12 billion to maintain medical care for veterans, money that the Department of Veterans Affairs says that they will need. Our veterans deserve our support. It is our responsibility to provide the care that they have earned.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Deluzio) to discuss our proposal.

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

I would just say to the gentleman from Texas that I am sorry that I guess I hurt his feelings with some of the things I have said, but it is the truth, and I guess the truth hurts.

Madam Speaker, earlier I said that this majority has turned the Republican Party into a circus of chaos, broken promises, and failures.

Let's talk about that just a little bit more, shall we?

Since last January, this majority wasted 26 entire days, nearly a month, on fighting with each other as they tried to elect a Speaker of the House. Madam Speaker, 5 days were spent electing Kevin McCarthy, who was then booted out of the speakership and ended up leaving office. Madam Speaker, 21 days were spent as the Republican Conference argued about who was next in line. We ended up with Speaker Johnson, and we went from a bad Speaker to an even worse one.

That is nearly a month. That is nearly a month completely wasted on nothing more than bickering amongst themselves.

I will also remind you, Madam Speaker, the House was held hostage for days in June of last year because a tiny, extreme faction of the Republican Conference chose to throw a fit over the debt deal negotiated by President Biden and Speaker McCarthy.

Republicans struck down a rule on the floor for the first time in over two decades, holding the House floor schedule hostage all for camera time while MAGA threw a fit.

Now, we have seen a total of seven failed rules in this Congress, seven. Hell, we have even seen Republicans vote down not just the rules but vote down their own bills because there are times even conservative Members have thought the MAGA weirdo bills are just too weird and too extreme.

Get this, Madam Speaker, even when House Republicans manage to succeed, they fail to govern.

We keep hearing them complain about the border.

News flash, they passed the Department of Homeland Security funding bill 3 months ago, and they never sent it to the Senate. They put it in a filing cabinet and locked the door.

What is this, hide and seek? They are passing bills and hiding them in the basement so they can complain about the border more and more and more instead of trying to fix it. Someone needs to show these guys ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' I mean, we are talking about their number one priority, and they don't even send the bill over to the Senate.

It just shows how fake all their outrage is about the border.

I will leave you with this, Madam Speaker: Despite all the talk from this Republican majority that the 118th Congress would be the most open Congress ever, last night Republicans, again, broke their own record for the most closed Congress in the history of the country.

In addition to being the most ineffective and dysfunctional Congress in history, it is now also the most closed. Republicans have advanced 106--I am sorry. It is actually now 108. There are two more closed rules in the rule we are talking about today. Before they broke their record, their previous record was 103 closed rules when Paul Ryan was Speaker.

That means that they broke their own record for the most closed Congress in history. They are going to be unbeatable when it comes to a closed Congress.

Madam Speaker, it is more than about numbers. It is about what they represent.

As of this week, Republicans have now blocked 5,822 amendments from debate. They have even blocked the majority of their own Members' amendments from coming to the floor from debate.

It is ironic, the party that calls us snowflakes is afraid to even allow debate on the merits of these amendments.

Every amendment they block is another idea that is prevented from a vote on the House floor.

Now, let's look at some of the examples of what they thought was too crazy to bring to the floor.

They blocked an amendment blocking smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They thought that was too radical to bring to the floor.

They blocked an amendment protecting food for seniors participating in Meals on Wheels.

They blocked an amendment providing postpartum mental health information to pregnant students. By the way, that was a Republican amendment.

Look, we know Republicans have the majority. These amendments might lose, but a truly open and inclusive process that Republicans promised would let us debate these issues on the merits.

It is all part of a pattern. They are afraid of debating because they don't want to engage on policy. For them this is all just a game. It is about trying to hold onto power for the sake of holding onto power.

It is one broken promise after another from these guys. The truth is, Republicans have nothing, nothing, nothing to show for their time in power, just incompetence and chaos.

That is why I think people will be rejecting them in November.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman just put forward a straw man argument. The way it usually works is the Rules Committee sends out a notice asking for amendments that sets a deadline. It gives a week for our people to construct their ideas and send them to the Rules Committee.

On this package, they never sent out a notice or a deadline. I mean, the reality is, I think everybody already knew what was coming.

I am going to tell you, there is no defense for being the most closed Congress in the history of the United States. They fight amongst themselves and they basically work overtime to prevent thoughtful ideas from coming to the floor. They are good about debating trivial issues passionately, but they are not very good about debating important ones. Everything that they bring to the floor is not about moving the ball forward in terms of helping improve the quality of life for the American people. It is all about messaging and gotcha and division and pushing hate in this country. It just has to stop, and hopefully it will.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how many speakers the gentleman has remaining?

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

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

Madam Speaker, I have already spoken about why these messaging measures will do nothing to help Americans, what a complete disaster this dysfunctional Republican majority has been, and how their weird, unpopular agenda is wrong for this country.

Now, I want to speak to you, Madam Speaker, and to the American people about the alternative, about what President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Democrats here in Congress have accomplished and what we will continue to fight for in the years to come.

Democrats delivered the American Rescue Plan, helping to end the COVID crisis and reopening our economy that was shut down under Donald Trump.

Democrats delivered the CHIPS and Science Act, bringing jobs back from China and supply chains back from overseas.

Democrats delivered the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, a historic investment that will rebuild our infrastructure for generations and generations to come.

Democrats delivered the bipartisan Honoring our PACT Act, expanding VA healthcare and benefits for millions and millions of veterans who have been exposed to burn pits and other toxic substances.

Democrats delivered the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the most significant piece of gun violence prevention legislation in nearly 30 years.

That is what leadership looks like. It looks like making this country better. It looks like imagining and doing big things. It looks like finding common ground across the aisle where and when we can. It looks like delivering real, concrete results for the people of this country.

Democrats fight for lower prices. We fight to build an opportunity economy. We fight to protect our freedoms. We fight to ensure liberty and justice for every single American.

We believe good policy can unite people. We want to bring people together and focus on what we have in common in this country because there is so much more that unites us than divides us.

Madam Speaker, people are fed up with this majority's dysfunction. They are fed up with Republican incompetence.

What we Democrats, President Biden, and Vice President Harris offer is the opposite. Instead of division, Democrats offer unity. Instead of talking about the past and complaining, Democrats talk about the future and giving people hope. Instead of dysfunction, we will run this country like professionals and get stuff done to make America the best it can be.

The choice this November is a consequential one, Madam Speaker, and we can continue down the same failed path of dysfunction and disarray, or we can fire this failed MAGA majority. We can let Republicans keep sowing anger and hate, or we can let Democrats bring some decency and dignity back to this place. We can let Republicans continue fighting with each other, or we can let Democrats fight on behalf of the American people.

That is what is on the line this November, and the choice could not be more clear.

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

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1486 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3 printed in Part D of House Report 118-705, to be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao) or a designee, be modified by the amendment I have placed at the desk.

Madam Speaker, last night, the House Committee on Rules met to report House Resolution 1486, providing for the consideration of four pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 1469, condemning the Biden-Harris administration and individuals therein responsible for the military withdrawal of Afghanistan and subsequent evacuation. This will be considered under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Second, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3334, the STOP CCP Act, under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and provides one motion to recommit.

Third, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8205, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 8790, the Fix Our Forests Act, under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides clarification in House rules regarding the regulations governing the availability of remote witness testimony.

Madam Speaker, it has been over 3 years since the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan; 3 years since 13 members of our armed services fell on account of the Biden-Harris administration's rushed operation to fulfill a campaign promise; 3 years of not one single acknowledgment by the President, the Democratic nominee for President, the current Vice President, or anyone in the administration, for that matter, to acknowledge what happened in August 2021.

For better or for worse, the American people saw this tragedy with their own eyes, as Afghan civilians clung to an airplane leaving Kabul airport, and the American people have been awaiting accountability from those responsible for a long time.

Well, that wait ends this week when the House considers H. Res. 1469 to condemn those in the Biden-Harris administration responsible for the events that led up to and unfolded in July and August of 2021.

Despite the Biden-Harris administration's incessant stonewalling of proper congressional oversight and accountability, Chairman McCaul and the Foreign Affairs Committee have investigated the events surrounding and during the Afghanistan withdrawal. Their recently released report is as stunning as it is outrageous.

The Biden-Harris administration ignored that the Taliban was not meeting its obligations under the Doha agreement. For example, the Taliban had yet to cut ties with al-Qaida by the time the evacuation started, something that the Biden-Harris administration knew.

Secondly, the administration prioritized optics and political expediency over the safety of our servicemembers and civilian personnel. The Taliban had already entered Kabul before the evacuation of nonmilitary personnel began.

Third, they failed to plan for the go-to-zero order appropriately, which led to the deadliest attack on U.S. military personnel in a decade.

Fourth, the failures damaged America's credibility and standing in the world. I cannot stress enough the significance of these events. We abandoned our allies, leaving them to slaughter, and allowed terrorism once again to flourish in the area.

Fifth, there was a concerted and deliberate misinformation campaign that

touched nearly every stage of the withdrawal.

These failures have had a profound impact on our country, but not a single person in the Biden-Harris administration has yet been held accountable.

Recruitment into our military has plummeted after the prospective servicemembers saw that they would basically be used as disposable chess pawns in a political promise.

The Taliban has organized a de facto permanent regime built on torture, violence, and religious and political oppression. Without a United States presence in the area, counterterrorism operations have been hindered, and foreign adversaries like China have moved in to establish diplomatic relations with the regime.

Most importantly, however, these events signaled weakness, emboldening China, Russia, and their proxies to become more aggressive with their geopolitical ambitions. China became emboldened to pursue its objectives with respect to Taiwan. Russian leaders saw an opening, and they invaded Ukraine, knowing that the United States was weak and could not be trusted, a shameful and disastrous series of events that our country is paying the price for currently and will continue to pay this price for decades.

Afghanistan is not the only area where the Biden-Harris administration has shown weakness. This week, the House of Representatives will consider the STOP CCP Act, which will impose significant and punitive sanctions on individuals of the Chinese Communist Party.

Madam Speaker, there is broad agreement in this body over the atrocities of the Chinese Communist Party. Where we seemingly don't agree is whether there should be consequences for these atrocities. Up to this point, the Biden-Harris administration has yet to impose any meaningful sanction on the Chinese Government officials for their political and religious oppression of their own people. The STOP CCP Act forces the administration to finally do so and speak loudly that oppression of God-given rights will be met with consequence.

Speaking of consequences, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act imposes strict regulations and penalties on charitable bond funds, whose funding has exploded in recent years as a result of the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020. These funds, like the Minnesota Freedom Fund, bail out violent criminals who in many cases then go on to commit more crime. H.R. 8205 ensures that these funds are subject to penalties and licensing requirements to protect our communities and keep criminals where they belong, which is behind bars.

The final bill provided under the rule, the Fix Our Forests Act, is bipartisan legislation that addresses the wildfire crisis across the country. Now, in classic fashion, the Biden-Harris administration and their allies in Congress spent billions of dollars to address the increase in wildfire occurrences and their severity without fixing the underlying problem: bureaucratic red tape and extreme environmental and serial litigators that prevent the correct management of forests.

H.R. 8790 makes targeted, yet transformational, changes to the Federal agencies responsible for our forests to improve the way we manage our forests and ensure projects are not held up in the bureaucracy or in the courts.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, before I go to the gentleman from New York, I do want to point out that, sadly, in January of this year, January 29, 2024, three U.S. soldiers were killed in Jordan. The three soldiers are Sergeant William Jerome Rivers of Carrollton, Georgia; Specialist Kennedy Ladon Sanders of Waycross, Georgia; and Specialist Breonna Alexsondria Moffett of Savannah, Georgia. All were assigned to the 718th Engineer Company, 926th Engineer Battalion, Fort Moore, Georgia.

Do not continue to repeat the lie that we have no soldiers standing in harm's way during the Biden administration. It was brought up during the debate by the Vice President. It was wrong then. It is wrong now.

We have soldiers on the ground in Iran and Syria. Of course, there are soldiers deployed in the Continent of Africa. We can't forget everything that is happening right now with the Houthi rebels placing our servicemembers in danger.

Do not make the mistake that the world is completely at peace under the beneficence of the current Biden administration.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), a valuable member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

First off, I do want to remind the House that the House passed $3 billion in veterans funding last week and sent it over to the Senate. This gives us time to act on further veterans funding prior to the December 20 deadline that will be part of the continuing resolution that will pass later this week.

The Military Construction-VA appropriations bill was, in fact, the first House-passed appropriations bill. Representative Carter from Texas led that subcommittee and passed that bill much earlier in the year. It has been sitting over in the Senate. It hasn't seen any activity. That bill actually could have been passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by the President of the United States.

I am grateful that my counterpart, the ranking member of the committee, allowed you to see, Madam Speaker, what I live with on a daily basis, which is a severe case of Trump derangement syndrome. We see it on display in the Rules Committee almost continuously. You have heard a brief exposure of that today on the floor of the House.

I apologize to the country that they had to put up with that, but, again, this is my life in the Rules Committee. Trump derangement syndrome is alive and well and put forth on virtually every argument that goes forth in the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The rules brought forth today, two are closed, but in both instances, neither received an amendment in which to make in order. If there are no amendments, by definition, then it is a closed rule.

I do want to point out that this majority has reported nearly twice the number of bills as the last Congress when the gentleman, the ranking member, was, in fact, the chairman of the committee. I would also like to point out that since there was a change in the chairman of the Rules Committee, all Rules Committee votes have passed on the floor. I hope that pattern continues today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close after the gentleman closes.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time on the Republican side.

Madam Speaker, it is ironic that we keep hearing about unity. I heard the word ``unity'' I don't know how many times during the inaugural address of President Biden, yet it is virtually impossible for a Republican to get a telephone call answered from the head of any Federal agency.

This has been the most walled-off administration that I have ever seen. I served in the Bush Presidency, the Obama Presidency, and the Trump Presidency, and I have never seen an administration that behaves in the way this administration does.

The gentleman referenced the aid to the country of Ukraine. I voted for that aid package in June 2022. We didn't get a lot of information before the bill was brought to the floor. Then-Speaker Pelosi brought it rather hurriedly. It came to the Rules Committee in an emergency hearing, but what was happening in Ukraine seemed so horrific that any ability to help seemed important.

Then I waited after that vote. I waited for the administration to come to talk to us about what the strategy is, where we are going, and what the plan is. Is there an exit strategy out there somewhere?

Again, we had another vote last March, once again hoping that the administration would begin to behave differently and at least inform the Congress of what their plans were. I voted again for that aid package. I caught a lot of grief from my constituents back home for voting for that package. At the same time, once again, no information was forthcoming from the administration, no plan and no strategy.

Madam Speaker, we had big meetings over in the auditorium in the Capitol Visitor Center just prior to the invasion of Ukraine. All the generals and Cabinet Secretaries were there. They told us that it was too late, that there was nothing we could do, and that Ukraine would fall in 3 days. They didn't.

That is when the administration came back and started asking for these aid packages, but never once did they fill in the blanks of: this is what we plan to do, this is where we plan to go.

Even today, the administration seems to be arguing with itself. Do we allow for Ukraine to use that aid in a more robust way to defend itself, or is it all just purely risk-averse defense spending that they will do?

Again, we don't know. I would love to hear the administration give us a reason why it is important to continue to send American tax dollars because they have a plan for victory and a plan for ending the war.

We heard a lot of discussion about the previous administration, the Trump administration, and the world was never more prosperous and at peace.

Madam Speaker, do you remember the comment in early October last year when the statement was made by the administration that they have never seen the Middle East more quiet than it is today? Oh, my God, where are we now? Where are we now?

Where are the plans of the administration? When are they going to come to talk to us about the correct way forward?

We hear arguments internally, arguments with the administration arguing with itself. We heard the Vice President and the President basically arguing about the way forward with what to do with the problems in the Middle East, but, again, no one comes to us and lays out what the plan is going forward.

Madam Speaker, I have never seen a world more dangerous than it is today. I feel as if we are living on a knife's

edge and that, at any point, one false move, one miscalculation by one individual, could lead the world into a confrontation and conflagration the likes of which the world has never seen before.

We do need to be concerned about that. We do need the United States to lead. We need a strong leader in the United States, and I would argue that the prior President evidenced that type of strong leadership, and the world was a safer place. The world was a more prosperous place.

Now, since the gentleman brought up the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan, these were the very matches that lit the fuse on inflation in this country in January 2021.

Inflation was at 1.6 percent in December 2020. Then, a year later, where was it? It was going up toward 8 percent.

The Secretary of the Treasury said she thought it would be transitory. The Chair of the Federal Reserve thought it would self- correct. Then it didn't, and the American people suffered.

Why weren't we concerned about the suffering of the American people in the last Congress when we continued to lay spending bill over spending bill, which the people could no longer afford?

So, yes, it is tough. Now, we are having to dial some of that back, and it is not easy. Any time the Federal Government spends a dollar, it immediately creates a constituency, and it is difficult to dial those dollars back.

We argue with ourselves here in the Congress about what the best path forward is, but at the same time, we have an obligation. We have an obligation to fund the government, which we will have an opportunity to do later this week.

Madam Speaker, I do want to urge colleagues to support this rule. I do want to encourage colleagues to support the underlying legislation. I do want us to hold the Federal agencies accountable to the American people, solve critical issues for our constituents, and restore American strength on the world stage.

I said in committee yesterday that these bills are about accountability to the governed, respect for law and order, strength on the world stage, and rightsizing Federal agencies. These are the core tenets of House Republicans. That is what we pledged to the American people, and it is what the American people expect from this body.

Madam Speaker, I, again, urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying legislation.

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

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. Chair, this legislative proposal is an excellent example of how local solutions can make a big difference in managing our environment and mitigating risk. The success of Christmas tree and firewood harvesting operations in Colorado are a testament to the power of human ingenuity when it is coupled with a deep understanding of local environments and needs. These operations help to thin overgrown forests, reducing the fuel load and therefore the risk of uncontrollable wildfires. They also provide valuable resources to the local communities turning what could be a negative, overgrown forests, into a positive, holiday trees and firewood for heating.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment in the spirit of Christmas and heating homes efficiently, and I yield back the balance of my time.