Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this bill that we are debating today has been touted as Congress' solution to the longstanding issue of fire borrowing that has plagued the Forest Service. I…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this bill that we are debating today has been touted as Congress' solution to the longstanding issue of fire borrowing that has plagued the Forest Service.
I represent a district that has experienced a lot of wildfire. Thankfully, the recent devastating fires in the North Bay were not caused by this fire-borrowing issue. They did not involve Federal public lands. However, I have had a lot of wildfire in my district over the years, and fire borrowing is a top priority for me. Unfortunately, as it is currently written, this bill introduces more problems than solutions on this issue. Let me explain.
The title in the bill pertaining to fire borrowing repurposes the Stafford Act, which Congress enacted to provide assistance to State and local governments in case of emergencies. This requires Congress to appropriate the 10-year average for wildfire suppression before the Forest Service can access emergency funds. That is not the way to solve this problem. In fact, I saw that just yesterday the administration issued a SAP because of this problematic provision.
If Congress is serious about fixing the budget issue, we should be making funds available ahead of an emergency situation, and we should remove the cost of fighting catastrophic fires from the agency's base budget. That will enable them to invest in proactive measures to make our forests more resilient and healthy.
Although the Rules Committee added title XI to this bill, which increased the overall cap for disaster spending, the problems with using the Stafford Act approach still remain.
The second point. This bill, essentially, is a gutting of environmental protections and an attack on sustainable forest management that threatens equal access to justice. We should just call it what it is.
Title I of this bill allows intensive logging projects of 10,000 to 30,000 acres each. That is as big as the entire city of San Francisco. Projects of that size can proceed on Federal public lands without any environmental review under NEPA, without any compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
Title II of the bill eliminates the requirement that the Forest Service consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and, essentially, let's the Forest Service decide for itself if it wants to follow the Endangered Species Act consultation requirements regarding any of its projects on public lands.
Title III further chokes judicial review by prohibiting the recovery of attorneys' fees for any challenges to forest management activity under the Equal Access to Justice Act, including meritorious successful challenges. This severely limits public review of logging projects on Federal public lands.
How would any of these measures promote forest health? It wouldn't. So let's call this bill what it is. It is an environmental wrecking ball that weakens standards and protections, limits public participation in the review of Federal agency actions, and won't make our forests any healthier or safer.