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…
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 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. 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 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, 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 ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
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, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
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. Chair, I yield back 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, 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. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.