▶ 0:16:09The to committee rules. Members of the committee may submit written opening statements for the record, ask that members may revise and extend their remarks on the bills to be considered at this markup, and have those remarks included in the record without objection, so ordered. Without objection, I'm authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time pursuant to committee rule three I.
▶ 0:16:30The chair announces that I may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter, or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote is offered. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Uh, good morning, and thank you for joining us for this full committee markup today. We have a great lineup of legislation for consideration that will help us restore common sense to wildfire suppression and forest management, and unlock our public lands, and more.
▶ 0:16:58As this congress began, we saw horrific wildfires rage in southern california, serving as a clear reminder that we have no time to waste. As I've said before, unlike hurricanes or tornadoes, wildfires can actually be prevented with proper forest management. We must come together and pass the long overdue reforms that turn the tide against our current wildfire crisis.
▶ 0:17:22Earlier this year, the committee acted in a bipartisan manner, passing the bipartisan fix our forest act by an overwhelming margin. This committee is committed to advancing legislation that will restore the health of our nation's forests. We'll have another opportunity to advance common sense forest management reform. Today, h.r. 178, introduced by representative mcclintock, requires U.S.
▶ 0:17:45Forest service and department of the interior to use all available resources to extinguish a fire within 24 hours of detection. This legislation could not be timelier as we continue to watch the dragon dragon bravo fire near the north rim of the grand canyon that burned thousands of acres. It's destroyed historic, cherished lodges and buildings, and it's already racked up hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
▶ 0:18:13While this fire is alarming, what we don't realize is the national park service is monitoring this. Fire is allowed and is standard practice by federal land managers across the country. In fact, on july 14th, two days after the dragon bravo fire exploded, the national interagency fire center reported that across the country, an additional 78 fires are being carefully managed using strategies beyond full suppression.
▶ 0:18:39Given the hot and dry conditions that exist across the west, this is 78 fires too many. In times like these, the goal should be to put out the fires h. 179 also introduced by representative mcclintock, expands the successful 10,000 acre categorical exclusion in the tahoe basin to apply nationwide.
▶ 0:19:00In the words of gwen sanchez, the for supervisor for the lake tahoe basin management unit, the forest management work and done under the sea is the gold standard of fuels treatment and should be modeled across the country. Both of these bills also support and help advance president trump's executive order 14,008, empowering common sense wildfire prevention and response, which restores common sense to wildfire suppression and forest management on all levels of government. H.r.
▶ 0:19:28839, introduced by congressman arrington, prohibits the implementation, administration, and enforcement of the biden administration's plan to increase the size of the muleshoe national wildlife refuge. The plan, part of the previous administration's 30 by 30 initiative, or the plan, was part of the 30 to 30 initiative and, if fully implemented, would result in a 100 fold increase in the size of the refuge.
▶ 0:19:54A significant loss in local tax revenues for the community, and increased management responsibilities for the national wildlife refuge system. At a time when the system already faces $2 billion in maintenance backlog. Finally, we will consider 11 uc bills on which we have reached a bipartisan agreement.
▶ 0:20:13These bills include creating a fee free day for all on our public lands in honor of america's 250th birthday, supporting ocean monitoring activities, and establishing a wildfire research institute in utah. Before I yield back, I would like to recognize and thank anita miller for her distinguished service to the committee on natural resources and serves as staff director for the water, wildlife and fisheries subcommittee and has been with the committee for over six years.
▶ 0:20:41Her leadership and tireless efforts have resulted in numerous legislative accomplishments, including the ace act, the beach act, the klamath basin water agreement, support act, the fisheries act, the explore act, and many, many more. Anita is one of the most knowledgeable staffers on capitol hill, and she has been instrumental in the success of the committee. She is also a tremendous mentor, manager, and teammate who is always up for a challenge and there to support her coworkers.
▶ 0:21:11Next month, we will be moving on to a new opportunity and although she is leaving, she will always be team resources. We wish her husband adam and her daughter emma the very best. Thank you and for your steadfast service and commitment to the committee on natural resources and the house of representatives. And with that, I look forward to the discussion today, and you'll back and recognize, uh, ranking member huffman for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:21:41Before I begin, uh, I hope you'll indulge me in thanking nick for her contributions to this committee and wish her very well. You've always been so professional and courteous and delightful. Um, just one of the one of the real pro's around here. And we appreciate you and wish you the best. Can we all? Yeah. Uh, and, Mr.
▶ 0:22:01Chairman, also, before I begin, I have unanimous consent request. Um, I would like to enter into the record an article from the new york times, july 21st, entitled climate change is making fire weather worse for world's forests. This article discusses two new scientific studies examining the impact of climate change on forest fires.
▶ 0:22:30Uh, a timely subject, doctor callum cunningham says the article, quote, says it really puts to bed any debate about the role of climate change in driving these extreme fires. Another climate scientist is quoted as saying climate change is loading the dice for extreme fire seasons like we are seeing. We cannot ignore the reckless and destructive policy course that has been set by this administration and this majority.
▶ 0:22:57So I will be, um, sounding the alarm in every way I can before every hearing for the rest of this congress on the climate crisis and the current path we're on. >> without objection. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. >> so ordered today. >> we do have a broad range of bills on the agenda, and I am grateful that many of them reflect good faith, bipartisan work.
▶ 0:23:17I appreciate all of our colleagues collaboration on these efforts, but unfortunately, the markup also includes some deeply flawed bills that reflect a dangerous departure from science based, thoughtful policy making. Let's start with h.r. 178, a bill that would impose a rigid suppression mandate on the forest service, blocking trained professionals from using managed fire to reduce hazardous hazardous fuels before they become the kindling for the next mega fire.
▶ 0:23:43Now, according to the forest service, this bill would eliminate critically important firefighting tools. Grassland, wildland grassroots wildland firefighters have called this bill a hindrance. Why? Because it effectively revives an old failed forest service policy known as the 10 a.m. Policy, an outdated approach that requires fire managers to suppress virtually every fire immediately, whether it makes sense or not.
▶ 0:24:11This approach helped create today's wildfire crisis by allowing dangerous fuels build up. It also consumed resources and put firefighters lives at risk in some circumstances where it wasn't even necessary. Now I understand why this bill, at first blush, um, would sound reasonable. It is tempting to see what's happened recently at the with the fire in the grand canyon, and conclude that we should just go and suppress every fire immediately, no matter what.
▶ 0:24:39To be clear, uh, in this case, in the grand canyon, something went wrong. Immediate suppression would have prevented the north rim from burning. And it is the right strategy in many cases. Uh, but something terribly went wrong in the grand canyon.
▶ 0:24:57And we need a thorough investigation and a clear public accounting of the trump administration's failure to get it right, because we know that there were dry, volatile conditions on the ground. But we need transparency and accountability. These are foreign words to this administration. This congress should insist on it. That's the right response. Um, the response to a failure of judgment is not to outlaw judgment.
▶ 0:25:22Mandating a one size fits all strategy for fire managers will allow unmanaged fuels to accumulate, dramatically increase wildfire risk. And that's an overcorrection. Next, we have h.r. 179 on the agenda. This bill is premised on a familiar but false narrative that nepa is to blame for pretty much everything. Uh, the bill mandates a broad, sweeping, categorical exclusion for projects up to 10,000 acres.
▶ 0:25:50That's about 15mi, regardless of site specific risks or the public interest. Categorical exclusions are intended for projects that aren't likely to pose a significant threat to the environment or public health. The forest service already uses them for roughly 85% of its forest management projects. One idea should just be common sense, and that is that the depth of environmental review under nepa should match the level of risk that a project poses to people and the environment.
▶ 0:26:19Basic due diligence. And that's how we prevent costly, avoidable mistakes. H.r. 179 ignores that principle entirely. As we heard during yesterday's hearing, uh, when there are nepa related delays, they're usually caused by staffing shortages, underfunded permitting agency officials, and in many cases, project sponsors submitting incomplete or poorly scoped proposals.
▶ 0:26:43Blaming the statute is like blaming a building code for delays because your contractor didn't show or your blueprints were half finished. And then finally, we have h.r. 839, which targets the muleshoe national wildlife refuge in texas. This is a bill that would block the fish and wildlife service from implementing voluntary conservation efforts for muleshoe like conservation easements, it would restrict private landowners ability to work with the service to protect their lands, even when they choose to do it.
▶ 0:27:13Now, this is a clear example of federal overreach and needless meddling with private property rights. Uh, during the hearing on this bill, a landowner named john rowley and I should clarify that this is a respected texas rancher and a big trump supporter testified against the bill, calling it, quote, an infringement on my rights as a property owner, end quote. And he is right. My colleagues talk a lot about property rights, but this is a clear infringement.
▶ 0:27:40It would also undermine voluntary, market driven conservation efforts to protect some of the last remaining native grasslands on the southern high plains. This is one of the most imperiled ecosystems on earth. So with that, Mr. chairman, I look forward to the discussion. Uh, some of these bills are counterproductive in addressing wildfires and protecting important places. I'm glad that we will be moving some other bills that reflect bipartisan, solution oriented work.
▶ 0:28:07And with that, I yield back. >> gentleman, yields back pursuant to the markup notice is now in order to consider h.r. 839, to prohibit the implementation of a land protection plan for muleshoe national wildlife refuge, ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on water, wildlife and fisheries be discharged from further consideration of the bill. Without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the bill is considered or will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
▶ 0:28:35Does any member wish to be recognized for purpose of debate on the bill? Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. We are here to consider a bill that does something I never thought I'd see from my republican colleagues. Restricts private property rights in the name of opposing conservation.
▶ 0:28:54This bill would prohibit the implementation of the muleshoe national wildlife refuge land protection plan, blocking a science based, transparent conservation effort that operates entirely through voluntary participation with willing sellers. Let me be crystal clear about what this bill that we're debating really does.
▶ 0:29:14It tells private landowners that they cannot sell or donate their property to the fish and wildlife service, or even work with the fish and wildlife service through voluntary easements, even if that's exactly what they want to do with their property. Don't take my word for it. Again, as I just mentioned, take the word of rock ribbed republican john rowley, who testified before this committee during our april 8th hearing. Um, Mr.
▶ 0:29:39Rowley owns 3800 acres in texas within the boundaries of the land protection plan, and he spent decades as a thoughtful steward of his land, even earning recognition this year as a lone star land steward. Here's what Mr. rowley told us, quote, congress should not be in the business of telling landowners to whom they can or cannot sell or donate their land.
▶ 0:30:03If I want to donate or sell my land to an oil company, a developer, or to the fish and wildlife service, that is my right to do so. This bill would unfairly restrict that right now. Mr. rowley called this bill an infringement on my rights as a property owner. And again, um, this is a pretty serious rock ribbed republican trump supporter. For years, we have heard endless talk from the other side about property rights.
▶ 0:30:31But when presented with a plan that actually expands landowner options, gives them additional market opportunities while respecting those who choose not to participate. Our colleagues want to shut all of that down. The land protection plan doesn't force anyone to do anything. It creates a voluntary framework where landowners can choose to sell or grant conservation easements or not, all with the goal of conserving these incredible grasslands.
▶ 0:30:58It's a market driven process that respects property rights while advancing conservation goals. And let's talk about what we're trying to conserve. The united states has lost 80% of its original grasslands. The southern high plains have lost half of their native grasslands to development. We're talking about one of the most threatened ecosystems on the planet habitat for sandhill cranes, pronghorn, lesser prairie chickens, and declining grassland bird species.
▶ 0:31:27This isn't just about conservation, it's about economics, too, the refuge manager noted during public sessions that this bill, that this plan, his plan will attract tourism, boost local economies and increase county revenues. Global grassland services are valued at more than $20 trillion annually. So my colleagues claim that this is about fighting federal overreach. I don't see the overreach Mr.
▶ 0:31:50Rowley exposed that this talking point for what it is a hollow political piece of rhetoric. The real federal overreach is congress telling property owners they can't sell their land to the fish and wildlife service even when they want to. This bill represents everything wrong with their approach to conservation policy, politics over science, ideology over economics, and most ironically, government interference over property rights.
▶ 0:32:19I oppose this misguided bill and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? I recognize myself and I rise in support of h.r. 839, offered by my colleague from texas, Mr. arrington.
▶ 0:32:37Uh, this is a refuge in his area, and this legislation would prevent a vast expansion of the federal estate in west texas by prohibiting the implementation of the final land protection plan for the muleshoe national wildlife refuge. Now, I appreciate this discussion about private land rights and the ability to do, uh, what you want to with your land, to buy land, to sell land.
▶ 0:33:03But, uh, when you have a have private property rights and a free market, you not only have a willing seller, you also have a willing buyer. And in this case, um, the, the buyer or the, the group taking possession of the land is the federal government, which is who we represent here in congress.
▶ 0:33:23And this committee takes those issues very seriously, especially when we look across the fish and wildlife refuge and see that there's already a $2 billion backlog in maintenance. We can't take care of the land that we have. And, uh, I don't think the federal government should be forced to take land just because somebody wants to, uh, dispose of that land. And, uh, it's our responsibility to protect private property rights.
▶ 0:33:51But this is not exactly what I would call a private property rights issue. Uh, when, uh, we're preventing the federal estate from growing, and especially when we've got, uh, the representative from this district saying that, uh, this refuge doesn't need to grow to 700,000 acres and, uh, you know, take on all this additional cost and management responsibility when the fish and wildlife service is failing to manage the land that they already have, uh,
▶ 0:34:23Support the bill and yield back my time. Is there further discussion on the bill. >> Mr. chair? >> Mr. leger fernandez, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Um, uh, I think what's important to remember about this bill is what it is blocking, and it is blocking the implementation of the land protection plan.
▶ 0:34:45The land protection plan from the us fish and wildlife service that would expand the muleshoe wildlife refuge in west texas and eastern new mexico. This is a plan that has taken years to develop. It isn't a mandate.
▶ 0:35:07It is a plan intended to carry out important objectives developed at the local level, with input from people on the ground over there.
▶ 0:35:25The state of new mexico, our game and fish, which is all about increasing opportunity for fishermen and hunters and birders to be able to enjoy the outdoors, is in support of this because they participated at that local level in developing this plan.
▶ 0:35:46And I am going to echo the sentiments of the ranking member that this bill does take away the option for private landowners to voluntarily sell their land to the federal government for conservation purposes, and the reason why that federal government is the buyer is because it does have the resources to build upon other refuges.
▶ 0:36:12And I actually was out in this area, uh, about last month, about maybe five weeks ago. You forget, because of all of the closures from us not doing the business we should be doing because of the epstein files. But I digress.
▶ 0:36:25Um, I think that I was out in this beautiful park and went to another refuge there, and we need to remember that these refugees refuge are important because they create the beads, the areas by which the birds may go from one place to another to another. And so linking them together, even though they might not be contiguous, is important. And it was beautiful.
▶ 0:36:54The birds that we saw, a hundred kinds of different, um, insects and, um, dragonflies, a hundred different kinds of dragonflies in this one refuge. And it's these are the kinds of things that are out in these areas. And to protect them from loss is important.
▶ 0:37:14So this idea of dictating from dc, this is another effort where we have republicans dictating from dc what should happen in areas like in eastern new mexico and west texas. Uh, and we saw in the efforts by republicans in their big ugly bill to actually sell off public lands, there was an outcry.
▶ 0:37:42People want to have some of these protections from the public lands. And I am going to read from another section of representative raleigh's testimony, because I think it's important to hear from the ranchers who want to do this. And I'm going to quote, I am also a republican, a trump supporter, and a staunch advocate of private property rights.
▶ 0:38:06In my mind, no one, and particularly not the federal government, should have the right to tell a private property owner who they can or cannot sell their land to. It is a fundamental part of our property rights system in america. To retain the freedom to do with my land as I see fit, whether that is to sell it for conservation or development.
▶ 0:38:29Landowners should be free to use or develop their property as they see fit, and should not be told by any other party who to I may sell or give an interest in my land to, if I so choose. That's an important part of being an american. He opposes this bill, and it is that idea of allowing the voluntary sale.
▶ 0:38:51And what is upsetting is that down in the community, there are those who oppose this plan and are saying the federal government is going to take your land. Absolutely not. This is not a taking. This is an opportunity that some ranchers and farmers, ranchers and others not.
▶ 0:39:12So why do you want to take away this opportunity, which will serve a public purpose, which we know americans support, which will create recreation and opportunities and birding and hunting and fishing for many others. I support all of those, and I support the opportunity for private landowners to do what they want with this bill. And so I rise in opposition to it. Thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 0:39:44>> gentlelady's time has expired. The further discussion on the bill hearing none is now in order to consider amendments to h.r. 839. I recognize myself for the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute designated westerman 32, as without objection, the amendment is considered, read and open to amendment at any point. Again, I urge my colleagues to support the ans.
▶ 0:40:10The national wildlife refuge system is a crown jewel of american conservation, and however, instead of expanding an existing refuge to be 100 times larger than its current size, the U.S. fish and wildlife service should focus on better caring for the lands it already manages. And I'll repeat again, just because you have a willing seller doesn't mean you have a willing buyer. Uh, just because somebody wants to sell their land to the federal government doesn't mean the federal government has to purchase that land.
▶ 0:40:38Uh, that's when you're playing with other people's money. That's an easy decision to make, I guess. But we're dealing with taxpayer money, and we should be responsible and want to take care of the maintenance backlog we've got on our existing lands. Other than expanding, uh, refuge system that we're not taking care of in the first place. Uh, or commend representative arrington for his work on the legislation. And I yield back. Is there further discussion on the a and s?
▶ 0:41:09There's no further discussion on the amendment is now in order to consider amendments to the ans to h.r. 839, I recognize ranking member huffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated huffman number one. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And I have to say, I'm I'm scratching my head, uh, with this, this rationale that somehow this bill is preventing the government from being forced to buy, uh, from willing sellers. There's nothing in this plan that forces the government to do anything.
▶ 0:41:39Congress is always there to provide oversight, to make sure that we're not overextending the federal estate beyond what we can afford to, uh, to maintain and operate. But, um, this is an important conservation plan.
▶ 0:41:55Everybody, uh, who knows anything about this habitat and this refuge and this area will tell you that, uh, and this bill is arbitrarily constraining it, uh, in ways that create this weird episode of, of role reversal trading places, where I'm talking to you about private property rights. Uh, but that's sort of where we are on this really wrongheaded bill.
▶ 0:42:15It infringes on the property rights of folks in texas who wish to collaborate with the fish and wildlife service and utilize their land for conservation purposes, and it could include easements, maybe not, uh, fee transfers. So the federal estate might not even expand, just conservation easements to achieve some objectives with market based mechanisms. And you're trying to shut all of that down.
▶ 0:42:39The science is clear, uh, with the sandhill crane, lesser prairie chicken, many other grassland bird species, they need additional habitat in one of the most threatened ecosystems on the planet, the southern high plains. As we heard from Mr. rowley during the testimony he gave, uh, on this bill, there are landowners in that area who would like to use their land for conservation purposes, and we shouldn't stand in their way. The muleshoe land protection plan offers them the opportunity to do that.
▶ 0:43:07In collaboration with the fish and wildlife service, and there are a variety of voluntary pathways to establish long term protections for habitats that benefit these birds and other wildlife. The land protection plan does not require anyone to put their land into conservation if they don't want to, and it's not shutting down oil and gas development. Uh, it is simply offering another option for landowners to consider.
▶ 0:43:32So my amendment, um, would restore some integrity to private property rights in this situation. It would ensure that congress isn't shutting the door on these landowners and their options to work with the fish and wildlife service. It would require the secretary of interior to verify at least that the bill doesn't jeopardize private property rights before it can take effect.
▶ 0:43:55If you value property rights, which you used to say that you did, uh, you should be voting in favor of this amendment. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Miss leger fernandez, you're recognized. >> Mr.
▶ 0:44:12Chair, I really do appreciate this amendment because I think that, you know, once again, we're confronted with the issue of republicans affluence saying one thing, but then doing another with their vote and their bills and, and, and the idea that what you're doing is when they talk about the amount of land, we need to remember that this is an area within which private landowners may or may not choose to put their land in conservation easements or to even say, I want
▶ 0:44:44To outright sell it, but that is their decision, and it can happen in ways where it may be a small portion of the area that has been identified. This is an area that has been identified as potential for being able to provide these habitats. And then the individual landowners, they have the choice as to how to participate or not.
▶ 0:45:09And so what you're doing is you're saying we think this is an important goal. You're right, Mr. chair. I agree with you. Congress can do this. But we are arguing is that congress should not do this because the science and the input on the ground has identified the area, and we should let the normal process of these planning of this plan to
▶ 0:45:40Go into place so that those private property rights can be exercised as each landowner chooses, as leech, landowner chooses. So thank you for bringing this amendment that focuses on the private property rights of the landowners to be able to participate in that. Uh, and uh, with that, I yield back, Mr. chair.
▶ 0:46:11>> gentlelady yields back. Is there any further discussion? >> Mr. chairman, I am I'm actually delighted. >> recognized. >> I'm sorry, Mr. chair. I'm actually delighted that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about private property rights. That's wonderful. And I yield back. >> the amendment. >> is there further discussion? I recognize myself, you know, it dawned on me during this discussion that we're talking about taking private property and putting it in the federal estate where there are no private property rights.
▶ 0:46:38Do you like, uh, lose all private property rights when you put property into the federal estate? And we're not talking about a little bit of property. We're talking about 700,000 acres. We're talking about making this refuge 100 times the size it is right now. And, uh, you know, we believe in being good stewards of federal land, but we also believe in being good stewards of federal money.
▶ 0:47:04And it takes a lot of money to take care of a wildlife refuge that is almost the size of the state of rhode island. That's what we're talking about here. And, uh, you know, we've already got billions of dollars of deferred maintenance backlogs, and we should be focused on taking care of what we've got instead of adding more to the federal estate.
▶ 0:47:27It's, um, you know, probably only in washington, d.c, where it's considered a good idea to devote additional resources to extravagant land acquisition when the focus should be on managing wildlife habitat and providing recreational opportunities on existing refuge system lands, and again, maintaining the lands that the federal government already owns. And the federal estate is already about a third of the landmass of the country.
▶ 0:47:56We've got to do a better job of taking care of what we've got instead of adding more to it. Uh, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by ranking member huffman designated huffman number one. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed no.
▶ 0:48:22The opinion of the chair, the noes have it recorded by a recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed pursuant to the markup. Notice is now. In order to consider h.r. 178 to require the secretary of agriculture to carry out activities to suppress wildfires and for other purposes. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for purpose of debate on the bill? Mr. mcclintock, you're recognized.
▶ 0:48:54Thank you, Mr. chairman. On july 4th of 2021, uh, lightning struck. >> a tree in the humboldt-toiyabe national forest in alpine county, california. It ignited a small fire that smoldered for days in a quarter acre of rugged terrain. California's firefighting agency, cal fire, immediately dispatched a crew to put it out, but they were told to stand down by the us forest service, which proceeded to, quote, monitor the fire instead.
▶ 0:49:23Every day, the forest service sent a helicopter over the fire to take video for their facebook page, but not once did they drop a bucket of water on that fire to put it out. 12 days later, the tamarack fire exploded out of control, consuming nearly 70,000 acres. That's when I first introduced this bill directing the forest service to aggressively attack fires when they're tiny and can be extinguished quickly.
▶ 0:49:52That bill passed out of this committee, but it was never taken up on the floor. Now, on july 4th of this year, the same thing happened on the north rim of the grand canyon. Once again, it presents presents the entirely avoidable tragedy of a fire that was known about could have easily and cheaply been extinguished, but instead was ignored until it exploded out of control.
▶ 0:50:18You know, the forest service once had a policy of aggressive initial attack. When a fire is first spotted, and an informal rule to put out little fires before they can become big fires. This policy was abandoned in 1972 until it caused the disastrous yellowstone fire of 1988.
▶ 0:50:37The reagan administration restored that rule, but unfortunately reagan left the next year and the let burn policy returned, and it's now cost us countless acres of forest land and countless millions of dollars of firefighting costs ever since. Now, the forest service argues that it needs to use fires as a forest management tool. Well, if that's the case, that tool should be carefully and deliberately applied when conditions warrant.
▶ 0:51:07Unplanned fires are not forest management tools. They are imminent threats to our forests and to our communities. Forest service argues that they don't have the resources to put out little fires. Well, that's fatuous nonsense. It is obviously far cheaper to put out 100 little fires with a single airdrop or crew, than to let one of them get out of control, requiring thousands of airdrops and hundreds of crews.
▶ 0:51:36It is dangerous nonsense to, quote, monitor incipient fires in today's forest tinderbox, even if they seem to pose no immediate danger now, no person in his right mind would monitor a rattlesnake curled up in his bedroom because it isn't doing much of anything. He'd kill it before it does. This bill restores the 10 a.m. Rule requiring the forest service to launch aggressive initial attacks against all fires as soon as they're spotted.
▶ 0:52:04It forbids the forest service from preventing state and local fire agencies from attacking fires on federal land. It requires any prescribed fire that exceeds its boundaries to be immediately extinguished, and it requires that deliberately set backfires, be approved by the incident commander and not indiscriminately set by an inexperienced ground crew and our national forests.
▶ 0:52:28Only the forest service can prevent small blazes from becoming forest fires, and it's time that they did. We also have an ans simply extends these provisions to all of the land management agencies in addition to the forest service. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Mr. huffman, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, my colleague is right. If a rattlesnake is in your bedroom, you should kill it.
▶ 0:52:57Uh, but that doesn't mean that you should, uh, go out throughout wilderness areas and kill every rattlesnake that you find because they're out there providing ecological services and playing important roles in the ecosystem so we can be safe and smart. We are in the middle of a dangerous, fast evolving wildfire era right now across the country, especially in the west, fires are bigger, hotter and more destructive than ever before.
▶ 0:53:24And the decisions we make in this committee about how to respond, they matter immensely. That's why this bill is so troubling. Forest service has warned that this bill will eliminate critical firefighting tools. It is an overcorrection. It will put lives at risk. Grassland or grassroots wildland firefighters representing people who actually are on the front line fighting fires. Call this bill unnecessary and a hindrance.
▶ 0:53:53That's their word, a hindrance. When the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our communities say, a bill will make their job harder and more dangerous, we should listen. We owe them better, and we owe the public a thoughtful, adaptable strategy rooted in science and expertise. This bill would lock federal fire managers into a rigid, one size fits all mandate, effectively reviving the forest service's old 10 a.m.
▶ 0:54:20Policy, a relic that was abandoned for a reason. It prohibited the use of managed fire to reduce hazardous fuel buildup, which caused hazardous fuels to accumulate and actually helped create the wildfire crisis that we have now.
▶ 0:54:38Those fuels dry brush, dense undergrowth, dead vegetation can be safely eliminated in certain circumstances through controlled burns when carefully done by trained professionals at the right time and place under the right conditions. This bill would block them from doing that essential work, allowing dangerous fuels to accumulate and become the kindling for the next mega fire.
▶ 0:55:01We can't confront a modern wildfire crisis by returning to outdated policies that helped create it, but I think we can all understand why this bill might seem reasonable. At first glance. It is tempting to see what's happened with the fire at the grand canyon this month and conclude that we should just suppress every fire immediately, no matter what.
▶ 0:55:23And to be clear, immediate suppression in the case of the grand canyon north rim fire would have prevented, um, a lot of damage. Uh, and it is the right strategy in many cases. So how do we respond? Uh, I think there's a better way than overcorrecting. With a bill like this, we could call for a full investigation. Uh, and clear accountability from the department of, uh, of interior and find out what went wrong.
▶ 0:55:55Something clearly broke down because these decisions aren't just made arbitrarily. They're supposed to be made after a lot of careful vetting. They're supposed to be made, uh, through a lot of consultation, using all sorts of resources. Did some of those resources stop being available? Did some of the chaos from doge, and all of the reductions in force contribute to the breakdown? Did supervisors up the chain fail to even take a look at the regular reporting that is supposed to happen?
▶ 0:56:24When decisions like this are made? We should find out. Instead of a bill like this that represents a ready, shoot, aim approach. Um, this bill would eliminate one of the most important tools fire managers have to reduce wildfire risk. You don't have to take my word for it.
▶ 0:56:40You can listen to firefighters themselves who oppose this bill, or to the nonpartisan wildland fire mitigation and management commission, which warned that in many cases, rapid suppression can, quote, increase as opposed to decrease risk over time.
▶ 0:56:57That's exactly why the forest service testified last year with, quote, serious concerns that the bill language would remove critical resource management and firefighting tools and tactics from interagency responders who have to make life and death decisions instead of doubling down on failed policies of the past. This committee should get to work on a serious investigation involving the grand canyon, and we should craft real solutions that will reduce hazardous fuels that threaten our communities and restore natural fire cycles.
▶ 0:57:29This bill does the opposite. It should be rejected, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr. pete stauber, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I rise in support of h.r. 178, introduced by my good friend from california, representative mcclintock. Earlier this may, the jenkins creek camp house and munger shore fires burned across northern minnesota, at the same time burning nearly 30,000 acres across federal, state, tribal, county and private lands.
▶ 0:57:58Luckily, across these three fires, we did not experience any loss of life. And while many structures burned, communities across the affected area did not face as much damage as they could have. This was due in large part to the quick response across multiple agencies and jurisdictions from the forest service, the minnesota department of natural resources, the saint louis county sheriff's rescue squad, saint louis county sheriff's department, the saint louis county correction, and countless local fire and emergency response agencies.
▶ 0:58:27If we did not see that same quick response, the fires likely would have grown much larger, burning thousands more acres, destroying dozens or even hundreds of more structures, and would have put lives at further risk. H.r. 178 helps ensure we have that same quick response that was instrumental in saving the lives of my constituents. Another fire is on federal lands throughout the united states.
▶ 0:58:53When fires break out, we must work quickly to contain them. As we all know, the first 24 hours of a wildfire are often the most important in stopping a fire and preventing its further spread. It's imperative that our federal land managers work quickly to respond, as well as not block our state, county, and local first responders and land managers from doing the same. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 178. And Mr.
▶ 0:59:23Chair, I'll ask Mr. mcclintock if he wants these last couple of minutes. >> well, I appreciate that. Uh, I'd simply add that the bill was originally brought to me by local firefighting agencies who were completely disgusted by the bureaucratic excuses of the forest service that the ranking member repeated today. I remind you, they tried to put out that fire, and they've tried to put out many other fires and been warned off the field by the forest service. If it's on federal land.
▶ 0:59:51The bureaucrats at the forest service literally count fire destroyed forests as being treated for fuel reduction purposes. Uh, and by the way, they're not of brush. Has first claim on fire killed land. Uh, that brush builds up to about eight feet within a few years time. And then those big dead fire killed trees fall on top of it and becomes a perfect fire stack for a second generation fire.
▶ 1:00:20And that was one of the terrible experiences we had in the recent caldor fire. When the fire hit, uh, the fire scars from previous fires, they hit those perfect fire stacks and absolutely exploded out of control. Uh, this is the fallacy that the ranking member continues to cling to after many, many years of experience have proven it to be utterly self destructive to our national forests.
▶ 1:00:46Randy moore admitted it before this committee last year that we've now lost fully one quarter of our federal forest land to catastrophic fire in the last ten years. We didn't suffer that kind of loss.
▶ 1:01:00When proper forest management practices were being employed by the federal government, we had reduced our acreage loss to about a quarter of a million acres a year in california, compared to 4 to 12 million acres lost prior to the advent of modern forest manae went back up to 4 million acres destroyed in a single year. That is not a new normal.
▶ 1:01:26That is the old normal returning because of the ridiculous and absurd practices that we have seen repeated today by the ranking member. Uh, we need to return to policies that proved they worked, and this is one of them. And with that, I yield back. And I thank the gentleman for his time. >> I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? I recognize myself and I strongly support congresswoman mcclintock's bill, h.r.
▶ 1:01:54178, to put out the fire act, which clearly instructs federal land managers to immediately and aggressively suppress wildfires in exceptionally hot, dry areas when there are volatile conditions on the ground. Now, specifically, this bill requires the forest service and the department of interior to aggressively attack wildfires that begin on federal lands. And this is when it's under dangerous drought conditions or the highest at risk fire shed.
▶ 1:02:23This requirement would also apply when the national interagency fire center declares a level five of national fire preparedness. And as we know, level five represents the period when our federal firefighting apparatus is at its most strained, and when we lack the additional resources to commit to fighting new, larger fires. Um, this bill again, only applies to lands under extreme drought conditions or top 10% highest fire risk.
▶ 1:02:50It is definitely not a one size fits all scenario. Uh, we know that fire, when properly controlled, has historically been an effective tool for reducing wildfire risk, improving forest health, and restoring wildlife habitats. We always seem to talk about prescribed burns, but there's another part to that that conveniently gets left off. It's thin and burned.
▶ 1:03:16It's managing the forest and then following up with the low intensity fire. Uh, and that's what forest management is. It's not setting a fire, watching a fire burn in a forest that's already overgrown and subject to catastrophic wildfire. That really is like having a rattlesnake in your your room and watching it to see if it's going to do any damage.
▶ 1:03:38Um, the absence of forest management has created conditions where letting fires burn on our federal lands, uh, particularly out west, is more often akin to arson than to management. Catastrophic fire is bad for forest health, bad for wildlife habitat, and certainly bad for the communities that have seen entire neighborhoods reduced to ash and rubble they put out.
▶ 1:04:01The fire act also addresses the unacceptable phenomena of prescribed fire failures, in which controlled burns are unwittingly transformed into raging inferno, the largest and most destructive wildfire in new mexico's history. The hermits peak calf canyon fire was a prescribed fire failure, which went on to burn over 340,000 acres, destroying more than 900 structures, and rack up over $278 million in suppression costs.
▶ 1:04:28Again, this was a prescribed fire on a forest that was overgrown and should have been thinned, uh, before it was burned. In the wake of the hermits peak calf canyon fire, we accepted a bipartisan amendment from representative leger-fernandez to this legislation in the committee last year, and reported the bill out by voice vote. The amendment places important guardrails on the use of prescribed fires and other suppression strategies, such as backfires or burnouts.
▶ 1:04:57Uh, in areas with the highest level of wildfire risk, there is no room for a slow firefighting response. We're currently witnessing the tragic consequences of slow response times in arizona, where the dragon bravo fire is engulfing grand canyon national park. The fire has burned nearly 12,000 acres and destroyed approximately 100 structures, including the iconic grand canyon lodge, located at the park's north rim.
▶ 1:05:21Concerning, the fire was allowed to burn for several days before land managers attempted to stop it, allowing wildfire to burn in arizona. During the peak of summer in one of the national park system's crown jewels, really is entirely unacceptable. I suspect that some of these federal land managers let these fires burn because they can't, uh, they can't get the permitting done to actually do a prescribed fire under under normal conditions.
▶ 1:05:49But when the fire strikes or when the lightning strikes and creates a fire, um, I think they're oftentimes gambling on whether they want to get a little bit of a prescribed or a, a burn on the underbrush or, or take the risk of having a fire get out of hand. And too many times these fires are getting out of hand. Um, I believe there is more bipartisan support. Mr. huffman, I think this is something we agree on in force management.
▶ 1:06:21Um, I know you sent a letter this week and from from your letter, it says while manage fire practices are a necessary tool in many circumstances to reduce hazard to fuel loads and achieve other management objectives, it appears they were clearly the wrong approach in this case, given the exceptionally hot, dry and volatile conditions on the ground. I totally agree with that. Um, that's why I'm wondering why this isn't a unique bill. Because one. Size fits all.
▶ 1:06:48Yeah, well, again, it's, um, it's it is restricted, uh, to those most hazardous conditions, and, uh, I don't believe it is one size fits all. I think what the put out the fire act does is it, uh, is taking concrete action so that we're not put back in the situation again.
▶ 1:07:10It proposes reasonable reforms that will ensure land managers are aggressively confronting wildfires that pose the highest risk to the american people, thereby protecting lives and property. Uh, I want to thank and commend congressman mcclintock for his leadership in this vital effort. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the bill hearing? None is now ordered to consider amendments to h.r 178. I recognize the gentleman from california. Mr. mcclintock.
▶ 1:07:40For the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of the substitute, designated mcclintock 58 ans. Without objection, the amendment is considered, read and open to amendment at any point you recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. As I said, this simply extends the provisions to all the land management agencies. In addition to the forest service. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the ans. Fernandez, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:08:07Um, right now, 325 brave men and women in my district are fighting the laguna fire near gallina, new mexico. The forest service lost control of this actively managed fire after it jumped the fire line two weeks ago. The fire has burned over 16,000 acres of the santa fe national forest, killing and maiming livestock. A forest service permittees in its path as a managed fire burned out of control.
▶ 1:08:34Local permittees did not receive notice in time to protect their herds. The fire has devastated the livelihoods of the permittees, who have grazed cattle on these lands for more than a century. People who graze cattle on these lands when they were part of land grants, historic land grants before they ever became part of the united states.
▶ 1:08:59Um, just three years ago, as we've heard, the forest service lost control of two prescribed fires that started the hermits peak calf canyon fire, the worst wildfire in new mexico's district. So it's no surprise that communities in northern new mexico have completely lost trust in the forest service's wildfire decision making. We cannot allow history to repeat itself like this every wildfire season, but I want to be clear I'm not against prescribed or managed fires.
▶ 1:09:29These are important tools for thinning our forests and preventing catastrophic fires. In fact, in this room we had a hearing on the use of tribal ecological, ecological knowledge about using fire to protect the forest rise, lessons that we could learn from here. But the forest service does need to improve its practices with how it conducts prescribed and managed fires.
▶ 1:09:56We need to find solutions to make sure the forest service has resources it needs to properly manage fires and the policies in place to hold the agency accountable when it falls short. I do appreciate that Mr.
▶ 1:10:11Mcclintock's bill today includes my amendment from last congress that instructs the forest service to use infrared technologies to monitor prescribed burns and updates the agency's prescribed burn fire policies with the lessons learned after the hermits peak calf canyon fire, I demanded and we did receive a report on how to improve those management practices. And Mr. mcclintock, representative, I do appreciate that those are in this bill.
▶ 1:10:40I would like to continue to work with you, representative mcclintock, and with the chairman, to make further improvements to this bill. I'm offering two amendments today to help the bill better serve our communities out west. My first amendment would make sure the forest service employs the necessary number of wildland firefighters before this bill's policies take effect, and my second amendment is heartbreaking when I will discuss it later.
▶ 1:11:08But it would require that the forest service compensate permittees who lose livestock or structures due to prescribed burns. That burn out of control. I have a couple of other concerns that in reviewing the bill, you know, stuff pops up as you go. Look at it again and you read it again and you read it again.
▶ 1:11:31And one is with regards to the use of backfire, um, I met I spent months and months and years meeting with people who lost so much during the hermits peak calf canyon fire, and several of them told me how those firefighters showed up and they did the backfires and they saved their structures. So structures are not included as a possibility.
▶ 1:11:56So that's like an example of where we can continue to work on improving this bill before it is ever before. It comes to the floor is an area that I would like to continue a discussion. But with that, as noted, I do appreciate the improvements to the bill and the inclusion, um, of, uh, my amendments from last year. And I do appreciate the discussion, um, because I think it is a very important that we're having today. And this bill addresses some of those concerns.
▶ 1:12:24Uh, so thank you very much. And I yield back. >> is there further discussion of the amendment? Uh, Mr. ranking member, go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. hoffman. Yeah. >> thanks, Mr. chairman. So I appreciate the majority, uh, made some efforts to clarify the bill through the ans, but what is proposed really does nothing to address the concerns that have been expressed by the forest service. And frankly, it doesn't address my concerns.
▶ 1:12:52The amendment would still remove critical firefighting tools from local land managers, returning us to the counterproductive full fire suppression in all cases, uh, policy of the past and concerning the proposed amendment would expand this antiquated policy to other agencies under the department of interior, meaning all of our federal lands would now be under a full suppression policy. The science is exceedingly clear.
▶ 1:13:24Decades of suppression brought us dangerously high levels of hazardous fuels, allowed them to accumulate in ways that caused terrible fires in the west to burn hotter, longer, and more intensely, and put american communities increasingly in harm's way. If my colleagues are serious about addressing the wildfire crisis, please listen to the forest service. Don't take away a key tool needed to reduce fuel loads.
▶ 1:13:50Listen to the scientists who tell us that we must invest in critical hazardous fuels reduction and beneficial fire practices when it's safe to do so and under the right conditions. And let's get to the bottom of what happened in the grand canyon. Let's hold the trump administration accountable for the failure in judgment, the failure in communication, the breakdown in resources that should have informed that judgment.
▶ 1:14:19Something went terribly wrong with the grand canyon. And we should not let this administration do what it does whenever it's asked to provide transparency and accountability, blame obama or cover it up like like the epstein files. We have to demand real transparency and accountability in this case.
▶ 1:14:39And let's listen to the wildland fire, the wildland fire commission, which told policy makers to leave full suppression policies in the past where they belong. Let's not mandate an outdated policy that may superficially sound like a good idea, may in the moment seem like good politics, but in practice only fuel future catastrophic wildfires. I urge a no vote and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:15:09Gentleman from minnesota. Mr. >> thank you. Mr. thank you, Mr. chair. I want to yield my time to representative mcclintock. >> in response to the ranking member's death grip on discredited practices of the forest service, practices that are local and state firefighters have been warning about for years, practices that have proven themselves utter and complete failures.
▶ 1:15:37You know, again, losing a quarter of our national forests to a catastrophic fire in the last ten years. That is a direct result of the policies that the ranking member continues to defend. He keeps clinging to policies that have proven themselves to have utterly failed our responsibility to protect our forests, and to ignore the practices that have worked.
▶ 1:16:00And one of the most fundamental and basic practices is that you put out a fire when it is tiny and can be easily extinguished, you put them out the moment that they are spotted before they can explode out of control. That sounds like a good idea, Mr. ranking member, because it is a good idea. And for many, many decades it worked.
▶ 1:16:22I'd also point out that, um, we lost some of the most iconic sequoia in the sierra nevada just a few years ago, as a direct result of a prescribed burn that was deliberately set by the state of california and was allowed to get out of control.
▶ 1:16:39And we've seen this time and time again, uh, in addition, one of the complaints that was brought to me by local firefighters during active fires were teenaged fire crews acting independently and indiscriminately setting backfires. Uh, in one case in the caldor fire, they then abandoned and destroyed nearby homes that could have otherwise been saved.
▶ 1:17:01This bill addresses this reckless problem as well by requiring the fires, uh, backfires to be approved by the incident commander and not by some teenager in the field. But, uh, to the question of staffing levels, it makes no sense to me to delay implementation of this bill until we increase staffing.
▶ 1:17:23The whole point of this bill is that it takes far fewer resources to put out one little fire than to wait until it explodes out of control into a major conflagration that requires a massive marshaling of resources. One helicopter drop can put out these fires when they're first spotted.
▶ 1:17:40Waiting requires literally thousands of helicopter and air drops and hundreds of thousands of man hours of to combat, not to mention the enormous damage both to our forests and to surrounding communities. So we shouldn't be waiting to, uh, marshal, uh, to restore this proven policy of forest fighting. And with that, I yield back. Thank the gentleman for his time.
▶ 1:18:11>> I yield back, Mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the a and s? There's no further discussion on the amendment. It's now in order to consider amendments to the a and s to h.r. 178. I recognize the gentleman from colorado, Mr. crank, for purpose of offering an amendment designated gosar 44. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I rise to offer this amendment.
▶ 1:18:36Gosar 44, on behalf of my colleague from arizona, in response to the tragic dragon bravo wildfire that it's wreaking havoc on the north rim of the grand canyon, this common sense amendment will ensure that land managers prioritize protecting critical infrastructure threatened by wildfires. The dragon bravo wildfire was foolishly allowed to burn in the peak of arizona's summer for several days before any sort of federal response.
▶ 1:19:08And unsurprisingly, this fire is now torched. Over 12,700 acres and it's destroyed over 80 buildings, including the iconic grand canyon lodge. The fire also leveled a water treatment facility, sending plumes of toxic and potentially fatal chlorine gas billowing into the air. You heard that, right? Because land managers let this fire burn.
▶ 1:19:35Toxic chlorine gas poured into the grand canyon. The national park service was forced to close multiple nearby areas, including the inner canyon and several popular trails. They also had to evacuate firefighters from the north rim, exacerbating this already dangerous situation.
▶ 1:19:56Chairman gosar's amendment, which I am proud to offer on his behalf, will require federal land managers to act within 24 hours when a wildfire is within five miles of a federal facility that houses water, energy or wildfire suppression materials. This is a common sense requirement that will greatly reduce the risk of similar disasters occurring in the future.
▶ 1:20:19Now, this is certainly an important change that will benefit not only communities in arizona and my home state of colorado, but across the west. However, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that until we address the root cause of this problem, our dire forest health crisis, we will continue to put communities and our cherished public lands in harm's way.
▶ 1:20:46That's why I am a proud supporter of the bipartisan fix our forests act, as well as other important pieces of forest management legislation being considered today. It's critical that we aggressively respond to wildfires in our most at risk areas and to protect our communities as well as our critical infrastructure. And this amendment and the underlying bill will ensure that we do just that.
▶ 1:21:12I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. hoffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. So I oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from arizona, and I know that he is proposing this in response to the devastating dragon bravo fire that burned the north rim of the grand canyon earlier this month and is still burning.
▶ 1:21:39It has been devastating to see the impacts of that fire. And I agree with him that we need a full investigation into this administration's response and handling of that fire. That's why I sent letters earlier this week calling for transparency and accountability. These are foreign words to the trump administration, but we should demand it anyway.
▶ 1:21:59It's why I have asked the inspector general to open an investigation into how the wildfire response was handled, because something clearly went wrong. Something broke down. But Mr. gosar's amendment won't help deliver the accountability people deserve. Worse. It could actually endanger firefighter safety in some circumstances by forcing them into situations where suppression could be catastrophically unsafe.
▶ 1:22:26Now, most of the attention paid to this fire has been on the grand canyon lodge, and rightfully so. It's a historic, important place that's been at the heart of the grand canyon experience. For many americans, less attention has been paid to the fire that occurred at a water treatment facility nearby. And according to park service, the park service, there were actually major safety concerns with suppressing the fire in that area.
▶ 1:22:53I will quote from their press release this is the trump administration's press release. Aerial bucket drops were conducted to slow fire movement near the canyon near the lodge. However, the use of aerial retardant was not feasible due to a chlorine gas leak at the water treatment facility, which required the evacuation of firefighting personnel from critical zones nearby. End quote. Now, um, this sort of raises a point that is important in considering the blunt instrument of this bill.
▶ 1:23:23There are situations like this where there would be a real chance of an explosive reaction if fire retardants were to mix with chlorine gas. Uh, this amendment would require that they go ahead with suppression anyway. Uh, a one day response in those exact circumstances, a one size fits all approach that could needlessly force firefighters to walk into chemical explosions. I don't think any of us want to see that.
▶ 1:23:52And that's why we need legislation that is more thoughtfully crafted and more carefully written for their safety, for the safety of communities they serve. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back. >> the further discussion on the amendment. Recognize myself. I do support this amendment and would like to, uh, commend chairman for his leadership in response to the dragon bravo fire affecting the north rim of the grand canyon.
▶ 1:24:19Uh, what this amendment will do is ensure that the appropriate precautions are taken to protect critical infrastructure that's threatened by wildfires. Uh, specifically, this amendment would require federal land managers to identify federal facilities that house water, energy or wildfire suppression materials within five miles of a fire's perimeter. The land managers or managers are further required to take necessary actions to protect those facilities.
▶ 1:24:45Um, sadly, we're witnessing the need for this amendment in real time in arizona, as has been mentioned, uh, with the dragon bravo fire that has destroyed a water treatment facility on the north rim, and it released chlorine gas that is heavier than air. So the hazardous gas settled quickly into the canyon.
▶ 1:25:07Um, and this prompted the national park service to evacuate firefighters and close numerous trails that were otherwise unaffected by the fire. Uh, by not aggressively attacking fires, that initial ignition. We are risking economic and ecological calamities, uh, destroyed multimillion dollar water treatment facilities, and toxic gas leaks are outcomes that should simply be unacceptable.
▶ 1:25:32This will help prevent such dangers from occurring in the future, and requiring our federal land managers to identify and respond to imminent wildfire threats to critical infrastructure. We can make sure that disasters like the dragon bravo fire are minimized or avoided. Again, I urge my colleagues to support the thoughtful amendment from representative gosar, and I yield back the balance of my time. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by Mr.
▶ 1:26:02Crank designated gosar 44. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? No. No. The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the amendment. And the amendment is agreed to. I recognizes the gentlewoman from new mexico, miss leger-fernandez, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated leger-fernandez number one. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. My amendment is pretty straightforward.
▶ 1:26:32It states that nothing in this bill shall take effect until the chief of the forest service certifies that the number of wildland firefighters is at or above the level in 2024. And I want to emphasize that this is not about increasing staff. It's about making sure that we don't decrease staff. President trump and elon musk gutted the forest service's firefighting capability by slashing both budgets and staff.
▶ 1:26:59The trump administration claims it's fully staffed for the fire season, but propublica reported yesterday that 4500 forest service firefighting jobs remain vacant. 4500 forest service firefighting jobs are unfilled. That's 27% of firefighting jobs.
▶ 1:27:26These critical jobs remain unfilled for 1 million acres burned across the country. I myself have spoken with employees who held red cards, who were pushed out, who took early retirement, who felt that they could no longer work there, who weren't actually rehired. As noted.
▶ 1:27:47Uh, and I want to quote, um, a from a letter that tom shultz, the chief of the forest service, circulated a letter to high ranking officials in the agency that underscored the dire moment. And this is the, quote, open quote. As expected, the 2025 fire year is proving to be extremely challenging. Both shultz open quote. We know the demand for resources outpaces their availability. Close quote.
▶ 1:28:20And in that article that I cited from propublica. It notes that shultz was at once directing staff to employ full suppression, that is, stomping out fires as quickly as possible instead of letting them burn for the sake of landscape management. What we're talking about today, uh, but he also acknowledged that the resources necessary to pursue such an aggressive strategy are lacking.
▶ 1:28:50And I think that that's the key thing, that if we want to pursue different kinds of strategies, we need to make sure that we have the staffing available. We're not saying we should wait until we have more people, but we know how challenging last year was. We know our challenge in the year before and on and on.
▶ 1:29:10And so I think to make sure that we have the staffing to carry out, uh, the goals of this legislation are important because we don't want to see burned out communities or a smaller, burned out firefighting workforce. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this common sense amendment. Um, that would give our firefighters the resources, the boots on the ground.
▶ 1:29:38They need to do the work to protect our communities, to protect our ranchers, to protect, you know, their livestock and beautifully iconic places like the lodge. It really is heartbreaking to see that such a beautiful place has burned. I agree with that. But I'd love to see us, uh, to also have the personnel and the boots on the ground to be able to carry this out. >> Mr.
▶ 1:30:07Mcclintock, you recognized. >> with respect to the. >> brian babin. But I bill foster bill foster I will not be. John larson.
▶ 1:30:42>> gentleman yields back. Mr. hoffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Gosh, if hubris and sanctimony could be harnessed to fight fires, we'd be in great shape. Uh, but the truth is, this amendment is needed. It is common sense, and I support it. It is no secret that the forest service has been a victim of president trump's effort to decimate federal agencies since january 20th, more than 15,000 department of agriculture employees have reportedly departed the agency.
▶ 1:31:12As many as 3000 forest service red card employees being included. Red card employees, of course, are critical for supporting our wildfire management efforts. This administration claims that they have enough firefighters in place for the season. Uh, but reports from the field suggest otherwise. And frankly, anyone who represents fire country knows better. Uh, that is just absolutely false.
▶ 1:31:37If congress is going to mandate the forest service, carry out this full suppression policy in this bill, um, then obviously there's an obligation to make sure the agency has the staff to carry it out. And to my colleague from the sierras, you know. Sure. Um, if fires are not raging all over the west, then suppression can actually be a quick way to reduce the need for resources.
▶ 1:32:02But those of us that represent fire country have been around long enough to know that when you get into the thick of a fire season and there are fires all over the west and resources are spread thin, and then there's a lightning strike and a new start. This policy of immediate suppression, uh, is going to cause even more difficulty for folks who are already exercising, uh, rationing and triage and trying to somehow, uh, battle all these fires with inadequate resources.
▶ 1:32:30So it's disingenuous to say that this is somehow a solution to the resource problem. One of the ten standard fire orders, the guiding principles for all wildland firefighters is, quote, fight fire aggressively, having provided for safety first, h.r. 178 discards the second half of that principle. It pushes aggressive suppression even if safety hasn't been provided for, which would often put firefighters needlessly in danger.
▶ 1:32:59That's reckless in any context, but it's especially dangerous if we don't have enough firefighters to on the ground to suppress fires responsibly. So ranking member leger sanders's amendment simply requires that we have the same number of firefighters on usda's payroll as we did last year, when there still weren't enough, by the way, without enough trained personnel, the agency can't possibly meet the sweeping demands of this bill, and we shouldn't be mandating more fires get put out faster if we don't have anywhere near the
▶ 1:33:30Staffing to do it safely or effectively. It's a great amendment. I support it and I yield back. And I'd like to yield the balance to, uh, to the ranking member. >> thank you. Uh, ranking member and I think we really want to make sure that firefighters are on the ground and have enough of their fellow firefighters around them supporting them for the issue about safety that we talked.
▶ 1:33:57And so this is I am really offering this because, you know, I actually one of my first jobs was working, um, in firefighting. Um, I was one of the first women that the state of new mexico hired to work, um, and to help with regards to firefighters. My and almost my entire family has worked in firefighting. My brothers worked in firefighting. My sister worked in firefighting.
▶ 1:34:25We kind of know what that's like. It's been a long time, but I remember what it's like, uh, and you need the people around you to keep you safe. And with regards to, uh, the way fires work, we know that the initial suppression and some of the initial work is done by the forest service itself. So those small fires actually are the ones that you rely on your local firefighters for.
▶ 1:34:53And then when they do get big, you're right, they cost more money. But that's when you're bringing in the hotshots. That's when you're bringing in people from outside the agency. So having the people on the ground, uh, to be able to respond in this way is really important.
▶ 1:35:11So once again, I am offering this, focusing on the needs of the firefighters themselves to have the help that they need to carry out these kinds of objectives.
▶ 1:35:24And as we noted, when I read, um, the statement, um, some of this, I think is important to raise, this whole discussion is sending a huge message, not just the laguna fire, not just the grand canyon, but you got to be looking at this. You got to be doing a better job of not letting these fires get out of control. But I want you to also be able to have the resources to do that.
▶ 1:35:51And the forest service, as tom schultz is memo indicates, can actually engage in this right now as well in this conversation, as I hope, going to put some pressure on him to do exactly that. Thank you, chair, and thank you for the time. >> uh. >> time has expired. Is there further discussion on Mr. stauber? You're recognized. >> Mr. Mr. chair, thank you very much.
▶ 1:36:13And I don't, uh, I believe the intentions of the author of this amendment are well intentioned, but I do want to enter into the record, if I may, with unanimous consent. Um, july 14th, 2025 us department of agriculture statement by secretary rollins, where she says in part.
▶ 1:36:31As of july 14th, the united states forest service has hired 99% of its 11,300 firefighting hiring target, with full staffing anticipated next week, which is this week. This is ahead of where the agency has been in previous years. This has this is ahead of where the agency has been in previous years.
▶ 1:36:57The united states forest service fire workforce is fully operational for this fire season, and I yield back. >> without objection. So ordered. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself, and I want to thank representative leger-fernandez for her continued engagement on this important issue. Uh, last year, we accepted a bipartisan amendment from the gentlelady that puts common sense guardrails around prescribed fire to prevent tragedies like the hermit's peak fire.
▶ 1:37:26Um, the amendment offered a sensible provision that is actually included in h.r. 178 before us today. Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendment that she proposes. And in large part, that's because of the statement that Mr. starbard just, uh, entered into the record or the data that he entered into the record. And I believe we all agree that our wildland firefighting agency should be properly and appropriately staffed. To Mr.
▶ 1:37:54Mcclintock's point, if we reduce the number of fires, it's not going to take near as many firefighters. And that is real common sense when it comes to, uh, staffing and cost and for the health of the forest. But that's also why republicans have been leaders on recruiting and retaining federal firefighters. In fact, earlier this year, republicans codified permanent pay raises for wildland firefighters in the cr that was signed into law by president trump.
▶ 1:38:23Um, I know there were other issues in that bill, but none of my democrat colleagues in the house or the senate voted in support of that bill or its pay raises for wildland firefighters. That's also why the trump administration has prioritized ensuring that federal wildland firefighting agencies are fully staffed.
▶ 1:38:42Earlier this month, as representative stauber mentioned, forest service chief tom schultz testified before the senate committee on energy and natural resources that the forest service has maintained 99% of capacity of their firefighting resources. As of june 29th, the forest service has hired 11,236 firefighters, which is higher than staffing numbers from from previous years.
▶ 1:39:08For wildland fire management series 0456 and occupational series assigned to federal wildland firefighters. The forest service has had 442 employees at the end of 2024. Currently, the forest service has 431 employees in this series. That's a difference of 11 people out of 11,300 firefighters. On top of that, current employees have the option to opt into that series in.
▶ 1:39:33The forest service plans to advertise this in the coming weeks, so they are ultimately expecting that staffing in the 0456 series will be higher this year than it was in 2024. Uh, put simply, we can't afford to delay the implementation of this critical, life saving legislation and let the forest service continue business as usual. As we speak. The fires are raging.
▶ 1:39:57You know, the laguna fire in new mexico has burned approximately 16,000 acres and devastated multi-generational family ranches. It began because the forest service failed to initially suppress a spot fire ignited by lightning on june 25th. Between july 1st and july 14th, this fire grew from 176 acres to 14,000 acres. Just like the dragon.
▶ 1:40:18Bravo fire, this fire should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, and if this amendment were to pass, it would allow forest service employees in new mexico to monitor a growing fire like the laguna fire because of disproportionate concern over an 11 employee deficit, although I appreciate the intent behind the amendment tying the reasonable requirements in this bill to an arbitrary staffing level from a previous fiscal year would be an unhelpful addition.
▶ 1:40:44The vague wording in this amendment would also make it virtually impossible for the agencies to implement. Uh, while I cannot support the amendment, I do hope the gentlelady will continue to engage with us on these critically important wildfire and forest health issues. I encourage my colleagues to vote no, and I yield back the balance of my time. Is there, miss elfreth? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I'd like to yield my time to miss leger-fernandez. >> um. Thank you. Uh, and thank you for. Oh, yes. Please.
▶ 1:41:15>> um. >> with with the chair's indulgence, I have a request for unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from reuters, uh, that reports that the forest service is critically understaffed heading into fire season due to the trump administration's staff cuts. Oregon and new mexico forest service staff say crews are going hungry, running short of medical supplies and chainsaw fuel, and are having to fill in to scrub toilets instead of getting out into the landscape to protect communities. That's one article. Uh, the second, Mr.
▶ 1:41:46Chair, is a july 22nd article from propublica that reports more than 4500 forest service firefighting jobs, as many as 27%, remain vacant as of july 17th. The headline for this article is the forest service claims it's fully staffed for a worsening fire season. Data shows thousands of unfilled jobs. There is plenty of reason here to believe we are not being told the truth by this administration, and I request these articles go into the record. >> without objection.
▶ 1:42:15So ordered, Mr. fernandez, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And yes, I do care about this issue a lot. Um, and if it is indeed true that we are staffed, then there's no issue. My amendment would be check we are fully staffed.
▶ 1:42:39So let's go forward and implement this as statute versus because once again, this is something that the forest service can do and should have done in various instances that we're talking about. Um, so if as as noted in the conversation and with what wallace is saying, if they're fully staffed, then great, then there is no impediment to moving forward on this. >> this. >> yeah, sure.
▶ 1:43:08>> so I understand correctly, if the agriculture secretary is right and frankly, I don't I don't believe what the assurance that we've gotten. But if she's correct that everything is great, they're fully staffed, then your amendment doesn't stand in their way at all. Right? There's no new burdens. There's no problem. Um, what's what's the downside of passing your amendment? >> I mean, that's it. Right.
▶ 1:43:31And I think that the propublica article said that there are these statements are being made that we are staffed, 99 at first it was we've got a percentage. Now it's 99%. And now it's you know, we're hearing that they've got more people on. Well, if that is the case that's great. The propublica article actually looked at the data from when they input who's been hired. So you know, if it is fully staffed, great.
▶ 1:44:00Then we have the people on the ground to keep everybody safe and to actually carry out the intent of the legislation. And I'm going to keep raising it over and over. We need the boots on the ground. The boots on the ground is what actually turns out the fire. And to be able to put the boots on the ground, you do need the staffing.
▶ 1:44:23And I truly appreciate the fact that both democrats and republicans have long called for increasing the salaries, increasing the benefits, increasing the protections with regards to covering, um, the health effects from firefighting. Those are really important. And this is where we found some great bipartisan work.
▶ 1:44:43And so I, I do appreciate that that the that the chair has pointed out, um, and while we might have voted against a bill for other reasons, I think there is strong support for those kinds of things so that, you know, that's the that's the spirit of the amendment is making sure that people are safe and that they can actually get this done. Uh, and if we're doing it, this is a way of like pushing them to do that, then that's kind of what I want to do is make sure that this is done. And of course, I'll yield.
▶ 1:45:13>> we're talking about putting boots on the ground. That's what Mr. mcclintock's amendment does. It says you've got to put boots on the ground. Uh, if there's if they're told not to fight the fire, then you don't need any firefighters. What we want to do is give the direction that when the fire starts, you put the boots on the ground. And I think, uh, you know, with the data that we've got, there are plenty of boots to put on the ground. If you, uh, get the order to, to go put the fire out. Yeah.
▶ 1:45:42>> I think in that sense, it's like we all want boots. Want boots on the ground. But but my amendment goes is let's make sure that those boots are possible. And if they are there, the data is true, then my amendment would not, uh, having this in the bill would not at all impact the ability to carry this. >> out if the gentlelady would yield. I have. >> one minute and 18 and I'd love to yield. >> my objective is to reduce the number of fires that require boots on the ground and save our forests and our resources. >> thank you very much.
▶ 1:46:12And thank you. Uh, as I said once again, I do appreciate, I think, this discussion and this bill and everything we're doing today, uh, is going to improve, hopefully, uh, what actually happens with these fires and with that, uh, Mr. chair, I yield back. Yielding back to my colleague who yielded me time.
▶ 1:46:38>> miss elfreth, do you gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment yielding? There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by miss leger. Fernandez designated leger fernandez number one. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. I recognize ranking member huffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated huffman number three.
▶ 1:47:07Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. We're going to keep trying to find some things that that we ought to be able to agree on. Uh, we do have a fire problem in this country, but it's not, uh, the one we sometimes talk about. Uh, it is not too much fire. Uh, it's not enough of the right kind of fire. And that may sound counterintuitive, but take a look at the chart behind me. There it is. Historically, much more land has burned every year, uh, than it does now.
▶ 1:47:35And for centuries, fire played a stabilizing role in our landscape. It cleared brush, it recycled nutrients. It made room for healthy new growth. And then around the early 1900s, everything changed. We began aggressively suppressing every fire, no matter the context. The result was a steep drop in annual burned area and the beginning of a dangerous buildup of hazardous fuel. And now we're paying the price.
▶ 1:48:02That same chart shows that fire today is no longer stabilizing. It's destabilizing. We're seeing fewer fires overall, but when they happen, they are far more destructive, fast moving and deadly. And that's the legacy of a century of fire suppression. We've created a fire deficit, and it's growing.
▶ 1:48:22And that's why my amendment would create a new prescribed fire account that authorizes $150 million every year for safe, controlled, prescribed fires to reduce that hazardous fuel build up that will just be kindling for the next mega fire. If we don't do something to manage it. Increasing tools and resources for prescribed fire should be a bipartisan priority that everyone in this room supports.
▶ 1:48:50And of course, doing it safely with appropriate sideboards to make sure that it's done right. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Recognize myself? Mr.
▶ 1:49:08Huffman, I liked your your graphic up there because I think it does tell a story and it shows how, um, fire suppression has actually increased the intensity of fires that we have today. Uh, but there's another caveat to that.
▶ 1:49:25You have to not only if you're going to do controlled burning, you need to fend, but when you put the fires out, you just allow everything to continue to grow, uh, without any removal of the, uh, the underbrush. And the latter fuels, you're eventually going to get a fire that you can't put out. And that's what we're seeing all across, uh, the country. So, um, we do need to change the way we manage.
▶ 1:49:52We need to do thinning and burning if we're going to do burning. And I think we agree that we desperately need to increase active management on our nation's forest. And again, a controlled burn is management. Um, even when we decide not to do anything on the forest, that's management because the forest are constantly changing.
▶ 1:50:17And we can, uh, sit here in this committee room or any other committee room or in any agency office and say, you know, we're just going to let the forest be the forest and we're not going to have any intervention. And the forest is going to continue to grow, and it's not going to listen to us. If we say, forest, you have to be more fire resilient. Don't burn, uh, don't cost us a lot of money and damage property and take lives. It's just quite simply not going to listen to us.
▶ 1:50:45We have to be active and we have to be proactive. If we really want to address this issue. And just, um, putting more money out there. And unless we get action on the ground, that's not going to fix the issue as well. Um. A lot of fires started by lightning, and there's not anything we can really do to stop that.
▶ 1:51:12The only thing we can do is make sure the forest is, uh, at its optimal health and resiliency so that when fires start, whether they're from lightning or or wild or fires or human made fires, that the forest is able to withstand it, regardless of what the, uh, the weather and the climate conditions are where that forest grows. We know how to do proper management to keep the forest healthy.
▶ 1:51:40And, uh, and resilient, uh, you know. It comes back to, to management. It comes back to using common sense. That's what Mr. mcclintock's bill does. And, um, um, again, oppose this amendment, urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Mr. mclintock, you're recognized.
▶ 1:52:10>> well, I'd like to offer the ranking member some additional data here if we could bring up this chart. The bars you see here are the board feet of timber that has been harvested off of the federal lands.
▶ 1:52:30Uh, the beginning in 1984, as you can see, a marked decline throughout the 80s and 90s as the environmental laws that he has championed have reduced our ability to manage our forests. The line you see here is acreage destroyed by catastrophic fire. We've seen an 80% reduction in timber harvested off of the federal lands, and a concomitant increase in acreage destroyed by fire.
▶ 1:53:00Fire is how nature removes excess timber. Nature doesn't care that it takes hundreds of years for forest to regrow. Nature has all the time in the world. We mortals do care. That's why we created the land agencies to do the gardening ourselves. We sent foresters every year out into the forest to mark off excess timber, and then we auctioned it off to logging companies that paid us to remove it.
▶ 1:53:26That produced a steady stream of revenues into the federal treasury, with which we then were able to better manage our forests. We had healthy forests, we had thriving mountain economies, and we dramatically reduced the scourge of forest fires from up to 12 million acres a year to just a quarter million in california. And we held that steady throughout the 20th century. That was what fire suppression plus logging did to protect the forests.
▶ 1:53:54The problem is that we passed environmental laws in the 70s that made logging all but impossible. So we stopped carrying out the excess timber, and nature has now returned to burn it out. So I have to push push back very hard on this fire is our friend nonsense. It is not that we put forest fires out, it's that we stopped carrying out the excess timber before it could choke off the forest and burn. That excess timber will always come out of a forest.
▶ 1:54:23The only question is whether we carry it out or allow nature to burn it out. The destruction we see today is only unprecedented in the last century. Um, without land management, catastrophic fire was the normal. And we're seeing that condition return because we have abandoned our forests. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. I ask unanimous consent to submit to the record another article by propublica.
▶ 1:54:52And it says as millions of acres burn. Firefighters say the U.S. forest service has left them with critical shortages. Uh, the only issue here is this is from august 15th, 2024. So it seems like propublica is just like wash, rinsing and repeating. And, uh, they're not this author is not satisfied. Um, whether it's the biden administration or the trump administration. So I'd say they're just equally upset.
▶ 1:55:21Almost sounds like the same wording says firefighters on the ground say that the agency is understating how badly depleted their ranks are. Um, so without objection, I ask unanimous consent. So ordered. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion on the amendment. The question is on the amendment offered by ranking member huffman designated huffman number three. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. No.
▶ 1:55:50The opinion of the chair. The noes have it. And the amendment is not agreed to. I recognize the gentlewoman from new mexico, miss leger-fernandez, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated leger fernandez, 53. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, madam chair. Uh, thank you, Mr. chair. My amendment would provide compensation to forest service. Permittees.
▶ 1:56:16These are the ranchers who graze their cattle within the forest service. And as I mentioned earlier, many of these ranchers have been grazing their cattle in these lands for centuries, for generations, and sometimes before the land was even part of the forest service, it used to belong to them.
▶ 1:56:33Um, so my concern is that when there is a prescribed burn that exceeds its boundaries and destroys these cattle, that there is no way for these permittees to receive any kind of compensation.
▶ 1:56:58Um, the hermits peak calf canyon fire destroyed 900 structures and killed livestock across northern new mexico. In that instance, I was able to secure and pass the hermits peak calf canyon fire act, which actually provided for compensation because it was the united states fault. In that instance, we had, uh, bipartisan support.
▶ 1:57:26President biden flew out and watched and met with the survivors. Uh, and we had support for that kind of legislation to compensate these landowners for their losses. I'm hoping that we'll get similar kind of bipartisan support now and very hopeful. In the laguna fire, the images of charred and injured cattle are heartbreaking.
▶ 1:57:52I really didn't want my staff to give me this because it shows how calves are missing their mothers, and some have hooves so burned they can no longer stand. And these herds are not just a livelihood for the local ranchers. They represent a way of life. For in rural new mexico, new mexicans will feel the damage from these fires for generations to come.
▶ 1:58:27And I think that this concept of what justice should look like when the united states is at fault, when it starts the prescribed burn, we should have a way of compensating those who are directly harmed. Uh, I should also point out that we have the federal tort claims act that would not apply unless we do something like this, because it doesn't apply to fires that are started.
▶ 1:58:55Um, so it is something that a lot of other things that the united states does that it's at fault for. You can actually sue the united states, but there isn't a process for prescribed burns if it goes wrong. Um, so we don't want another one of these to happen. But if it does happen, we think that there should be justice for those who are harmed or these kinds of act.
▶ 1:59:19Um, so I'm hopeful that my republican colleagues were in the same way that we had the bipartisan support for the hermits peak, that we also have bipartisan support to include this amendment. Uh, and it only occurs with regards to prescribed burns, because that's when the united states took active, active decision to start a fire. Uh, and with that, I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields.
▶ 1:59:45Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. huffman? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Um, I'm going to talk in support of this amendment. First, I need to circle back to my colleague from from the sierra, who presented a chart that is pretty misleading.
▶ 2:00:06Um, I wish it were so simple that we could just return to the heyday of clearcutting when we were putting up, you know, big numbers in terms of board feet harvested. Uh, but there's a little more to that correlation correlation on that graph than was suggested, because those of us that represent forest country know that a lot of that clearcutting left in its wake, uh, land that was dangerously combustible slash, uh, scrub
▶ 2:00:38That took the place of forest land. In many cases, it was replanted in a plantation forest that grew into a deeply congested and unhealthy condition. And a lot of those fires that began to occur in the decades after, uh, were the result of poor forest management from these timber companies that left dangerous conditions in their wake. So that's the first way in which it's misleading.
▶ 2:01:03The other one is the big thing that started happening in the latter part of that curve, and that is the climate crisis. I know that my colleagues across the aisle still want to pretend that is not a thing, but if you talk to anyone who works in this space of forestry and fire, they will tell you it is a big, big thing. These conditions are fundamentally different than they used to be, and it's harder and harder to contain these fires.
▶ 2:01:31Now, with respect to my colleague's amendment, uh, her state has certainly dealt with a lot when it comes to wildfire, and it's important that ranchers and other residents are compensated for their losses when something goes wrong. The hermits peak fire was a prescribed fire that exceeded prescription and did a lot of damage.
▶ 2:01:49And in that case, congress passed the hermits peak assistance act to ensure adequate compensation going forward, there should be adequate assurances in place, like those put forward by ranking member leger-fernandez. I don't agree necessarily that this bill is the best place to do that kind of good policy, but I appreciate the sentiment of the amendment. I'm certainly going to support it. Um, and I hope it leads to a serious conversation about this important issue, I yield back.
▶ 2:02:19>> is there, uh, the gentleman yields, uh, is there further discussion on the amendment? Um, I'll recognize myself in regards to this. I'm regrettably opposed to the amendment, which would compensate permittees on federal land for the loss of any structure livestock due to prescribed fire. The amendment is vaguely drafted and does not include a framework around potential compensation. With that, I yield back.
▶ 2:02:45And is there any other discussion on this amendment seeing. >> Mr. chair. >> if there's. >> if there were interest in working on improving the amendment. >> the gentlelady's okay has been recognized previously. >> was going. >> to so Mr. >> Mr.
▶ 2:03:13Chair, may I yield my time to miss leger fernandez? >> I recognize the gentlelady from from maryland. Maryland. Thank you. Thank you so much. >> I yield my time to miss leger-fernandez. >> thank you very much. I mean, I'd be very interested in continuing to work, uh, with the sponsor to see if this was something that he was interested in working on, recognizing the importance. I mean. >> yes, absolutely. Okay. If the gentlelady will yield. Yeah.
▶ 2:03:42Of, uh. Yes. No, I in a separate bill. Absolutely. I do not want to get a cost, uh, tag to this bill. Uh, that's going to jeopardize its consideration. Uh, you know, I will offer her the consolation of knowing that under this bill, prescribed burns have to be extinguished.
▶ 2:04:04The moment that they get outside of their boundaries, uh, and cannot be allowed to spread at the discretion of, uh, of the agencies, uh, and backfires, uh, during incidents cannot be set by inexperienced crews without the explicit approval of the incident commander. I think that that will address a lot of the damage that the gentlelady is trying to compensate. Uh, but I do agree with her completely that, uh, the damage caused by prescribed burns.
▶ 2:04:31And it's been terrible in many cases of, uh, there needs to be a full liability from the agency that's responsible for that destruction. >> okay. And in that case, if you're continuing, I mean, um, I think it would be great if we could. >> have a. >> bipartisan piece of legislation that looks at how we address the liability. >> I would love to do that. >> and whether we do it through the federal tort claims act, whether we do it in something like this.
▶ 2:05:00And because I think we can explore that. Agreement where. >> we do it on that. But and so. >> with that, with that, I would withdraw my amendment. >> the gentlelady from new mexico withdraws her amendment. No further amendments. The question if there is no no further amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended to h.r 178, offered by the gentleman from california. Mr.
▶ 2:05:28Mcclintock designated mcclintock 058 ans. All those in favor signify by saying I. Aye, those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of substitute, as amended, is adopted. The question now occurs. The question now occurs on reporting h.r. 178, as amended, to the house, with the recommendation the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed no.
▶ 2:05:57In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the bill is ordered reported. If no objection. Mr. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> uh, Mr. chair, I give notice of my intention to file supplemental additional dissenting or minority views on the measure just considered, and I ask unanimous consent that this notice be extended to all measures considered at the markup under house rule 11, clause two l.
▶ 2:06:27This notice extends to all members. >> without objection pursuant to the markup notice. It is now in order to consider h.r. 179 proven force management act of 2025. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for purposes of debate on the bill? Recognize the gentleman from california? >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I want to thank the committee for marking up this bill today.
▶ 2:06:53Uh, in this session, it was folded into the fix our forests act, which the senate has yet to act upon. Uh, I'd like to get this freestanding bill over there in hopes it will present a simpler option for consideration. Uh, if that helps. Uh, it's simpler because it proposes not a new policy, but simply extends an existing law that was passed with bipartisan support and signed into the win act by president obama in 2016.
▶ 2:07:18That law provided a categorical exclusion from the national environmental policy act for forest thinning projects up to 10,000 acres under certain conditions. But it had to be limited to the tahoe basin management unit because of amendments in the senate. Under nepa, a simple forest thinning project requires an average of four years of environmental studies that produce reports often exceeding 800 pages.
▶ 2:07:43They cost millions of dollars to produce, often more than the value of the timber. We're removing federal timber auctions that once produced millions of dollars to the federal government now cost money, so not a lot of it gets done. Uh, as I pointed out earlier, federal timber harvest in the sierra declined 80% as a result, while acres destroyed by fires increased concomitantly. There are only two ways for timber to leave our forest. Either we'll carry it out or nature will burn it out.
▶ 2:08:12The lake tahoe categorical exclusion is now been in effect for nine years. It's taken the review time for thinning projects from four years down to less than four months. It's cut the reports from 800 pages down to a few dozen. Under this authority, the tahoe basin management unit has increased the removal of excess timber from 1 million board feet a year to an average of 9 million board feet a year.
▶ 2:08:40Treated acreage in the tahoe basin has now tripled. When the caldor fire broke out last year, it was out of control. It was bearing down on the city of south lake tahoe, but the fire hit a tract on the pioneer trail that had been treated under this new authority. It lay down in. The firefighters were able to stop it. South lake tahoe was saved. The town of grizzly flats wasn't so lucky. It's next door in the el dorado national forest.
▶ 2:09:06For more than a decade, land managers have tried to thin the trestle project that everyone knew was a clear threat to grizzly flats. It was held up by environmental laws and the endless litigation arising from them, and still had not been undertaken when the same caldor fire hit that densely overgrown tract exploded and incinerated the entire town. Mr. chairman, uh, as the forest service used to say, only you can prevent forest fires.
▶ 2:09:34Maybe not all of them, but I can say with confidence that this bill will minimize many forest fires and save many communities from the catastrophe visited on towns like grizzly flats, the forests in the tahoe basin management unit are now slowly returning to health and fire resiliency. Uh, we need to extend those same proven practices to the rest of our federal lands. Uh, and I think we should not waste any more time.
▶ 2:10:03So with that, I'll yield back and ask for adoption of the of the bill. >> the gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill, Mr. huffman? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I oppose this bill as another attempt by the majority to unfortunately weaken bedrock environmental laws.
▶ 2:10:21Now, since becoming ranking member of this committee, one of my top priorities has been working to address the wildfire crisis through science based policies that reduce hazardous fuels on our national forests, build more resilient communities, and ensure the public has a real voice in decision making. Communities don't just need resources, they also need to be meaningfully engaged in a transparent process, one that reflects local knowledge, tribal input, and diverse community needs.
▶ 2:10:50That's why I introduced a bill we call the community protection and wildfire resilience act, to equip communities with the tools and the resources necessary to promote safe, resilient, and fire adapted neighborhoods through a small d democratic process, not through top down mandates or one size fits all formulas. And that's exactly the opposite of what this bill does. This bill would undermine nepa under the guise of wildfire mitigation and fuels reduction.
▶ 2:11:20But the truth is, nepa already allows the use of categorical exclusions for federal actions with limited environmental or public health impact. In fact, according to the forest service, about 85% of all forest management projects currently use those categorical exclusions. So this tool is available where it makes sense.
▶ 2:11:41There's no credible need for broader authority, especially when this administration is already taking a chainsaw to nepa by slashing environmental review, sidelining science, and cutting the public out of the process. In so many ways, the purpose of nepa is simple to make sure we look before we leap, and that principle is more important than ever as we confront the escalating impacts of climate change.
▶ 2:12:05This bill would override what remains of the forest service's existing review process for forest management projects by mandating the use of categorical exclusion for projects covering an area up to 10,000 acres, regardless of how large the public health and environmental impacts are of each project. Now 10,000 acres, that's about 15mi. It's roughly the size of my hometown of san rafael, which is a city of about 54,000 people.
▶ 2:12:34And it may seem small compared to the scale of our vast national forest system, but it is a substantial area, certainly large enough to warrant a more careful and open review process than what a categorical exclusion provides. But instead, this bill would allow these projects to move forward with minimal review and public input.
▶ 2:12:56In every case, I have great interest in increasing the pace and scale of restoration, including through the use of prescribed fire, cultural burning and mechanical thinning, Mr. chairman, in appropriate places, but giving the forest service a green light to cut corners for significant forest management projects in every case is not the way to go. Now, I understand that this bill is based on authority that congress previously provided for the lake tahoe basin.
▶ 2:13:23Um, and I share an interest in improving environmental review and permitting wherever we can. But as a reminder that categorical exclusion was part of a broader package that also included additional funding to address the challenges that that area faced, you know, democrats secured more than $5 billion for federal forest management and wildfire related programs in the infrastructure investment and jobs act, the so-called bipartisan infrastructure bill
▶ 2:13:53That most republicans on this committee voted against, and also another 1.8 billion for fuels and vegetation treatment in the inflation reduction act, that all republicans voted against. These investments were supported by another billion dollars for a permitting capacity improvement and streamlining, and these measures made a huge difference. They helped the forest achieve record levels of hazardous fuels reduction and prescribed burnings, numbers that I should note.
▶ 2:14:22The forest service is nowhere near replicating this year under the chaotic and demoralizing leadership of the trump administration. There's a better way forward here, one that doesn't sideline the public or undermine science for major forest projects. I'll also note that a version of this bill already passed the house earlier this year. Uh, there are better uses of this committee's time than rehashing the same old proposals. Again and again. I urge a no vote and yield back. >> gentleman, yields.
▶ 2:14:52Is there further discussion? I recognize myself, um, we call them categorical exclusions. Now, um, we used to call them used to call it management. We used to call it management of our forests across america. And we got away from that ethos and we have paid the price. The, um, chart that the gentleman from california produced earlier, um, tells the tale.
▶ 2:15:17The two lines that have crossed and now have shown the enormous amount of wildfire that we have in this country, which I'm thankful that we are beginning to see more people understand that this is a serious problem, especially for our western states. Um, that is a good thing. And it is a good thing that the representative from california has introduced this bill. I mean, think about los angeles.
▶ 2:15:44We heard testimony, um, I believe it was in the federal lands subcommittee just a few weeks ago, $9 million worth of medicine would have prevented billions of dollars of damage. And these are the type of things that we should be doing, because delay in, um, dealing with the problems that we have equals death. It equals death of our forests that we manage so well a few decades ago.
▶ 2:16:14So I strongly support congressman mcclintock's bill, fittingly titled proven forest management act. It's a good common sense proposal. And I want to thank representative mcclintock for his continued leadership in the fight to restore health and resilience to our nation's dead, dying, and burning forests. I am hoping that we have turned the corner back. I yield back. Is there further discussion? Hearing none is now.
▶ 2:16:42In order to consider amendments to h.r 179, I recognize the gentleman from california, Mr. mcclintock, for the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute designated mcclintock 059 ans. Without objection, the amendment is considered, read and open to amendment at any point. I recognize the gentleman from california. >> I think our explained it and yield back. >> yes. Okay. Is there further discussion of the amendment?
▶ 2:17:09If there is no further discussion on the amendment is now in order to consider amendments to the as to h.r 179, I recognize ranking member huffman for the purpose of offering an amendment. Excuse me, designated huffman number one. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. >> without objection, the amendment is considered read. I recognize the gentleman. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. You're doing great. By the way. With a little help. >> thank.
▶ 2:17:40>> uh, Mr. chairman, uh, my colleagues argue that this bill simply expands an existing authority to provide the forest service with additional tools to fight wildfires by expediting certain forest management projects. Um, expanding the pace and scale of smart, science based forest restoration is a goal that we all share. My amendment offers a clear, responsible way to achieve that goal without taking shortcuts or causing inconsistent categorical exclusion standards.
▶ 2:18:10Specifically, the amendment incorporates language taken verbatim from the definition of categorical exclusion language that was included in the fiscal responsibility act. At the direct urging of my republican colleagues, and it was signed into law last congress. If we really want consistent, clear permitting standards, let's be consistent. This amendment simply applies the same standard for categorical exclusion that was created by the fra.
▶ 2:18:35This is a common sense update, and it honors the standards that my republican colleagues pushed for and secured. There should be no disagreement about including it now. Yesterday's full committee hearing on permitting reform. We heard a lot about the need for consistent standards and the desire to avoid endless cycles of regulatory whiplash. This amendment reflects that kind of consistency.
▶ 2:19:00It also strikes unnecessary language in the bill that would allow agencies to ignore the requirement that any given project has to achieve multiple ecosystem benefits based on an undefined subjective determination that it costs too much. Now, I also want to acknowledge that my colleague from california's bill includes many beneficial objectives like reducing hazardous fuels, maintaining biological diversity, and improving water quality.
▶ 2:19:27Democrats certainly certainly agree that we do need to do everything we can, um, to address the wildfire crisis. This is a long standing commitment that drove democrats to champion billions in investments over the last four years to provide the forest service with resources and tools that were making a difference before, uh, president trump took over.
▶ 2:19:50I hope we can agree on the modest changes in this amendment and get back to the progress that we were starting to make before all of this recklessness, uh, set it back, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman from colorado for. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:20:08Uh, it's interesting, after the hearing that we had yesterday that my friends on the other side of the aisle said that they'd be open to permitting reform if we protected community input. Well, here we are trying to expand an existing cat with a requirement that it be coordinated with impacted parties at the local level and require consultation with interested parties. Yet Mr.
▶ 2:20:36Huffman's amendments, trying to put it back under nepa to make it harder to do cat cat is are used across federal agencies to streamline permitting, specifically to exempt the agency from having to prepare documents. I really asked my colleagues why you would essentially bar your community from having access to the same tools that Mr. amodei and Mr.
▶ 2:21:03Mcclintock's communities have when it comes to forest management. We've heard multiple times from folks that the intensity of wildfires is increasing. If that's what we're seeing, why are we trying to take tools off the table? My constituents live right next to the pike national forest, and they want the same level of protection. The tahoe basin communities receive. Our forest managers want the same tools available to them to protect their communities.
▶ 2:21:32And if folks want to work together on permitting reform to protect communities from devastating wildfires, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Thank you, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there is no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by ranking member. Huffman designated huffman number one. All those in favor signify by saying I. Aye, those opposed say no. No.
▶ 2:22:02In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> okay. >> the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 179 offered by the gentleman from california, Mr. mcclintock designated mcclintock 059 ans.
▶ 2:22:30All those in favor signify by saying I. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting h.r. 179, as amended, to the house with the recommendation the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor signify by saying I. Aye. Those opposed. No, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the bill is ordered reported on.
▶ 2:23:06>> record. >> the gentleman asked for a recorded vote. Without further proceedings on this bill will be postponed. We will now recess until approximately 1:30 p.m, when we will come back for votes. The committee is in recess, subject to the call of the chair. >> thank you.
▶ 3:47:09Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 14 and the nays are 20. >> the amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r, to h.r. 839, offered by the chair designated westerman 32 ans. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed no. Opinion of the chair. The ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting h.r.
▶ 3:47:39839, as amended, to the house, with recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed. No. No. Opinion of the chair. The ayes have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 3:48:17Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none. The. >> house.
▶ 3:49:11Oh, sorry. >> have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 23. The nays are 16. >> the bill, as amended, is ordered reported to the house with the recommendation that it be favorably approved. Without objection. The motion. Motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The unfinished business is on the request for recorded vote on reporting h.r.
▶ 3:49:38179, as amended, to the house, with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved, on which the ayes or prevailed by voice vote. The question now occurs on reporting h.r. 179, as amended, to the house, with recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 3:50:14>> all david kustoff. >> have all members voted. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 24 and the nays are 15.
▶ 3:50:43>> the bill, as amended, is reported ordered, reported to the house with the recommendation that it be favorably approved. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. We now turn to the unique package, with the cooperation of ranking member huffman and the other members of the committee.
▶ 3:50:58It appears we have worked out an agreement on 11 bills scheduled for markup today, as we have done before, rather than going through a formal markup process for each of the bills, I will make a single unanimous consent motion to report out the bills favorably with any amendments that have been filed and agreed to. Before we begin, does any member seek time to speak on any of the bills in these unanimous consent? The committee will come to order. The gentleman from utah is recognized.
▶ 3:51:29>> thank you, Mr. chair. I want to thank you for holding today's markup regarding these important wildfire prevention bills and in this case, my utah wildfire research institute act as one of those. Right now, there's a fire burning in my district at deer creek in san juan county. Over 17,000 acres have been burned, 54% contained as of right now. And we also have two more fires in utah and uintah counties in the state of utah.
▶ 3:51:52My bill will create a utah wildfire research institute at utah state university is a housing institution, and this will develop innovative solutions to mitigate wildfire risks. The institute will partner with local, state and federal agencies to enhance forest and rangeland management and implement strategies for long term ecological restoration.
▶ 3:52:11By implementing proven best practices, we anticipate reducing the strain on our firefighters and emergency services, who tirelessly protect both utah's forests and its residents. I deeply appreciate our brave firefighters who are working tirelessly to protect our communities and landscapes. Thank you, Mr. chair, for your leadership and to all my committee members, for your support for this bill. And with that, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion, Mr. stauber? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 3:52:39I rise in support of the uc package, which includes h.r. 4285, the stars act, introduced by my good friend and colleague from utah, representative malloy. The stars act will help americans commemorate america's 250th anniversary next year by instituting a fee free day for americans to visit our great national parks on september 17th, 2026, which is also constitution day.
▶ 3:53:03This legislation will provide americans with a great opportunity to honor our nation's founding, as well as help drive tourism and economic activity across the gateway communities, home to national parks across the united states. This includes the communities surrounding northern minnesota as voyageurs national park, which I am proud to represent.
▶ 3:53:19I urge my colleagues to support this bill, along with my amendment in the nature of a substitute, which builds upon representative malloy's bill by expanding it to also waive recreation related fees on our national forest and bureau of land management managed lands across the country. This will directly benefit my constituents by allowing fee free recreation access on the chippewa national forest, as well as the superior national forest, which is home to the boundary waters canoe area wilderness.
▶ 3:53:45I want to thank representative malloy for introducing the stars act, as well as her willingness to work with me and accept my amendment, expanding the underlying bill to include our national forests and blm managed lands. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the stars act, along with the entire package, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Further discussion on the package.
▶ 3:54:08I recognize myself, and before concluding our business today, I want to recognize the slate of bills we've worked on with the minority to advance under unanimous consent. I greatly appreciate the bipartisan work that has gone into promoting these diverse and important priorities for the three bills from the subcommittee on indian insular affairs would transfer federal land to tribes, improving management outcomes. Representative mcclintock's h.r.
▶ 3:54:352302 would transfer into trust 85 acres of bureau of land management property to the shingle springs band of miwok indians, allowing for better wildlife management or wildfire management. Similarly, representative lamalfa h.r. 2400 would transfer to trust 584 acres of U.S. forest service land to the pit river tribe. H.r.
▶ 3:54:543006 20 from representative begich would convey 3.4 acres of federal land in anchorage, alaska, to the south central foundation, a tribally designated health care provider, so that it can build a modern behavioral health center. We're also advancing two bills from the subcommittee on water, wildlife and fisheries that reauthorize key programs at existing authorization levels. H.r.
▶ 3:55:162294, sponsored by representative ezell reauthorizes, the integrated ocean observing system, this public private partnership of coastal observation systems collects data that benefits military operations, disaster response efforts, and all business that operate in our marine waters. Representative heard's bill, h.r.
▶ 3:55:353887, reauthorizes the snow water supply forecasting program, which provides cost sharing on a competitive basis to allow participants to conduct snow monitoring and water supply forecasting projects.
▶ 3:55:47This package also contains a bipartisan mix of six pieces of legislation from the subcommittee on federal lands that celebrate america's upcoming 250th anniversary, convey underutilized land to local communities for youth engagement and support efforts to improve forest management and prevent catastrophic wildfire. H.r.
▶ 3:56:074285, the stars act, uh is, uh referenced by representative stauber and introduced by representative malloy, provides free access to national parks and public lands on constitution, constitution day, and citizenship day next year to commemorate our nation's 250th anniversary. Encouraging people to visit our national parks, commonly referred to as america's best idea, is an appropriate way to celebrate and commemorate this pivotal milestone in our nation's history. H.r.
▶ 3:56:362290, led by representative dingell and fulcher, also celebrates american history by recognizing more than 18 million women who worked on the home front during world war two, authorizing a prominent place for their memorial in washington, D.C. h.r. 1276 from representative comer addresses outdated deed restrictions imposed by the federal government on a parcel of land in his district.
▶ 3:56:58By addressing these restrictions, this land can be better utilized by the boys and girls club of paducah, which seeks to improve its existing facilities on the property, and finally, h.r. 1045 from representative kennedy, h.r. 345 from representative harter, and h.r. 528 from representative peterson, all support state and local efforts to combat catastrophic wildfires.
▶ 3:57:20Uh, wildfires do not respect jurisdictional boundaries, and by engaging with nonfederal partners, we are ensuring we have every tool in the toolbox to improve forest health and resiliency. H.r. 345 and h.r. 528 also passed the house earlier this year as part of the fix our forest act. I support these bills and yield back. Is there any further discussion on the unique package?
▶ 3:57:46Ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on federal lands be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 528? Post-disaster reforestation and restoration act of 2025 h.r. 1045 utah wildfire research institute act of 2025 h.r. 2290, world war two. Women's memorial location act, and h.r. 4285, semiquincentennial tourism and access to recreation sites act without objection, so ordered.
▶ 3:58:13I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on water, wildlife and fisheries be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2294 to reauthorize the integrated coastal and ocean observation system act of 2009 and h.r. 3057, snow water supply forecasting reauthorization act of 2025, without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on indian and insular affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2302.
▶ 3:58:44Shingle springs band of miwok indians land transfer act of 2025 h.r. 2400 pit river land transfer act of 2025 and h.r. 3006 20. South central foundation land transfer act of 2025. Without objection, so ordered. I now ask unanimous consent that the following measures be approved and favorably reported as described to the house of representatives h.r. 345 fire department repayment act of 2025, with an amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, Mr.
▶ 3:59:14Neguse, designated neguse number one. H.r. 528 post-disaster reforestation and restoration act of 2025 h.r. 1045 utah wildfire research institute act of 2025 h.r. 1276, to remove restrictions from a parcel of land in paducah, kentucky, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair, designated westerman. 33 ans h.r. 2290. World war two women's memorial location act, with an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from michigan.
▶ 3:59:44Miss dingell designated dingell number one, h.r. 2294, to reauthorize the integrated coastal and ocean observation system act of 2009. H.r. 2302, shingle springs band of miwok indians land transfer act of 2025 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from california. Mr. mcclintock designated mcclintock 57 as h.r.
▶ 4:00:092400, pit river land transfer act of 2025, with an amendment offered by the gentleman from california. Mr. lamalfa designated lamalfa 59, h.r. 3006 20, southcentral foundation land transfer act of 2025 h.r. 3057, no. Water supply forecasting reauthorization act of 2025, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from colorado. Mr. hurd designated heard 26 as and h.r. 4002 85 semiquincentennial.
▶ 4:00:40Tourism and access to recreation sites act with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from minnesota. Mr. stauber designated stauber 19 ans without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the motion is to reconsider are laid on the table. Ask unanimous consent that the staff be allowed to make any technical and conforming changes to the documents the committee just adopted, subject to the approval of the minority. Without objection, so ordered. Mr.
▶ 4:01:10Huffman, do you have a statement today? >> I don't have a statement. You already get the views other than to wish you a very good august. >> and same to you and appreciate all your cooperation on the ewc package. Uh, our committee is moving a lot of bills out of committee and off the house floor, and we couldn't do that without working together, uh, on these bills. If there's no further business, the committee stands adjourned.