Katie Porter

Ms. PORTER

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

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

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, this amendment was summarized by Republicans as requiring the regional foresters to develop plans for the treatment and removal of dead or dying trees due to insect disease. However, I want to clarify that this amendment actually doesn't require anything of regional foresters at all. Instead, it requires special consideration for project proposals under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program that seek to remove or treat insects or diseases. The purpose of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is to encourage the collaborative science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes. Insect treatments are already eligible under the program and are executed often as restoration treatments. However, they are also often, and should be, used in tandem with other collaborative strategies as part of a broader landscape treatment plan. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, this amendment would further expand a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for projects completed in two additional fire management regimes. For context, one of the new regimes, Fire Regime V, applies to vegetation types that rarely burn, typically due to a lack of moisture or fuel. The fire return interval in those landscapes is more than 200 years. Because of the categorization of these fire regimes, hazardous fuels management is not as high of a priority and does not need a legislative categorical exclusion expansion. This follows the trend that my Republican colleagues have been setting. They have been legislatively expanding categorical exclusions, and the Committee on Natural Resources Democrats remain opposed. During our debate today, we have shown how meddling in the National Environmental Policy Act process is dangerous and how it sets a precedent that will do more harm than good. Categorical exclusions are most effective when they are developed with expert input by agencies and the Council on Environmental Quality instead of mandated by Congress. This amendment simply continues to build on the slew of National Environmental Policy Act waivers that the Fix Our Forests Act advances, and it is no surprise that my Republican counterparts have chosen to make this amendment in order. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, this amendment would permit the use of Good Neighbor Authority revenues for the construction of new roads. Currently, the Forest Service manages 372,000 miles of roads across 193 million acres that they manage. Due to such a large inventory, the Forest Service often faces financial difficulties in operation and maintenance. Over half, over 58 percent, of the Forest Service's $7.66 billion of deferred maintenance is related to roads. The Forest Service has a colossal network of roads that is already far too big for them to maintain. For this reason, it is hard to support an amendment that would allow the construction of even more roads but doesn't provide any resources for the future maintenance of those new Forest Service roads. Our Forest Service is spread dangerously thin due to Republican budget cuts. This amendment would make the problem even worse. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment. As corrected, it would add a bill that we previously passed in the Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent and then here on the floor on suspension by a voice vote. I say I am not opposed to this amendment as corrected because this is the amendment that I referenced earlier. The amendment that Republicans accidentally made in order, a version of this amendment that was drafted so badly that would have deleted the entire text of the Fix Our Forests Act. In other words, it wouldn't have just added Mr. Valadao's bill to the overall legislation. It would have deleted the overall bill and replaced it with Mr. Valadao's bill, which, as I noted, is a noncontroversial bill that Democrats support. Republicans came to Democrats this morning to ask for our help in fixing that mistake. My concern here is that that is reflective of a process problem: the sloppy drafting in the underlying bill, the refusal to incorporate well-intentioned feedback from the administration, and the exclusion of committee Democrats from developing this bill. This is bad process. I am not opposed to this amendment, which already passed the House floor on suspension, but one good amendment is not enough to fix the bad bill. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment, and I have worked collaboratively with my colleague, Mr. LaMalfa, across the aisle on wildfire issues. I will also congratulate my Democratic colleague, Representative Vasquez, for getting this amendment made in order. I do want to register the same concerns that I have expressed before. The process on the Fix Our Forests Act has been a total black box. A good amendment or two does not change the overall bill, which would gut bedrock environmental laws. Committee Democrats have asked again and again to try to work together to reach consensus on this bill, and it would have been a great opportunity to talk about this amendment, which, again, I do not oppose. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Vasquez), my colleague.

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

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

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to this amendment. I congratulate my colleague, Representative Harder, for getting it made in order for consideration today, but I do want to take this opportunity to comment on the overall process we have seen on the underlying bill. This amendment is an example of the sort of thing we could have figured out months ago if Republican leaders had not insisted on such a rushed, chaotic process for this bill. The hearing was on a discussion draft, which meant that it happened without testimony from one of the affected Federal departments. Then my Republican colleagues ignored extensive technical assistance and red flags provided by the Department of the Interior and by the Forest Service. I emphasize again: I am not even talking about policy differences here. I am talking about serious concerns that the bill doesn't make sense. Unfortunately, the sponsor ignored those red flags. Throughout the process, committee Democrats have asked to be included so that we could try to reach consensus on this bill. We could have made suggestions, such as this amendment before us. We could have offered improvements to address the administration's concerns, but we were excluded. Now we are here with a bill that doesn't comply with the Republican Conference's own CutGo protocols and that, as of this morning, didn't even have a CBO score. Finally, for anyone who missed this earlier, Republicans accidentally made in order an amendment drafted so badly that it would strike the bill entirely and replace it with a noncontroversial bill that Democrats support. That sounded good to me, but Republicans had to come to us this morning to ask for our help in fixing that mistake. Here is the bottom line: I am not opposed to this amendment, but, unfortunately, it won't be enough to make a bad bill, created through a bad process, into a good one. Maybe we could have gotten there with an inclusive process, but that is not the path my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose, and that is where we are today. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chair, I know that conversations about wildfire can be very difficult for Members on both sides. The fires this year and in recent years have been devastating, and I have seen it firsthand with wildfires in my district. I close with the same message that I started with: Republican leadership is using the very real and painful wildfire crisis as a Trojan horse for a longstanding wish list of harmful environmental policies. Our forests are critical carbon reserves, majestic destinations for outdoor recreation, and habitats for a range of wildlife, including many threatened and endangered species. All of that will be put at risk by this bill's overzealous approach to logging and other destructive management practices. This bill codifies and expands the use of emergency authorities dramatically, bending the protections provided by the successful, popular, and iconic laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and NEPA. There is nothing discrete or cute about opening this many acres to management without proper review. Mr. Chair, confronting the wildfire crisis is hard work that requires smart planning and broad collaboration. We won't get there through shortcuts and rollbacks. Relying on rushed planning for routine forest management undermines community involvement. We shouldn't be undercutting the people who are most at risk. The Forest Service has been asking us to help them with consistent, reliable budgets. They have been warning us that the appropriations numbers from our Republican colleagues are causing extreme budget shortfalls. They announced just last week that the Forest Service cannot afford to hire nonfire temporary staff anymore. Let me repeat that: The Republican inability to fund the government on time and with sufficient resources has caused the Forest Service to place a freeze on hiring the very staff who hike into the backcountry to maintain the trails that so many of us use and love. Finally, this bill fails to provide a permanent and much-needed fix for wildland firefighter pay. That should be one of our top priorities when it comes to confronting the wildfire crisis. Yet, it is completely sidestepped by this legislation. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, we need to clear up the record about this idea that the Forest Service supports expanded categorical exclusions, often called CEs. The Fix Our Forests Act would massively expand categorical exclusions for fireshed management projects, including activities like logging and pesticide application, which would have significant impacts on forest ecosystems. Typically, categorical exclusions are developed by the agencies with the input of experts. They are detailed and specific with appropriate guardrails that prevent unnecessary harm, and they are a useful tool. In fact, 82 percent of Forest Service projects are executed using categorical exclusions. The so-called Fix Our Forests Act takes a sledgehammer to that track record. The Forest Service has said that they would use any new authorities Congress grants to them, but they are not advocating for any larger categorical exclusions. We are not here to try and stop the Forest Service from using the tools that it has. What we are trying to do is avoid complicating the processes that the Forest Service has, and that is a real issue. The Forest Service has explicitly told us in technical assistance that this bill's directives around the creation and implementation of fireshed management projects are duplicative and confusing. Why aren't we listening to them? Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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