Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Our national forests are a public good that are tasked to provide multiple benefits to the American people. These include clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, open space, as well as robust recreation and timber economies that provide jobs and partner with Federal land managers to improve forest health.
Everyone agrees that we must increase the pace of restoration work to limit the impacts of catastrophic wildfires and to improve the long-term health of our forests.
H.R. 2647 does contain some new thinking and potentially useful concepts that, if done right, could help the Forest Service achieve its long-term goal of healthy, sustainable forests.
For example, the bill provides incentives for collaboration, which has been identified as a priority by witnesses from both sides of the aisle.
It also proposes some creative ways to finance forest restoration projects developed through collaboration.
H.R. 2647 also offers a potential solution to the devastating impact of fire borrowing, the practice of transferring funds away from forest restoration projects for use in fighting wildfires.
Throughout the debate over forest policy and this particular bill, Democrats, including myself, have urged the majority to deal with how we pay for the largest and most catastrophic wildfires, which represent only 1 percent of wildfires, but consume 30 percent of the entire agency's firefighting budget.
I am glad that the majority acknowledges the urgent need to address the fact that over 50 percent of the Forest Service budget goes to fighting wildfires, squeezing out funds needed for all other critical Forest Service programs, most especially those that focus on forest health.
However, these helpful provisions do not offset the many serious concerns that I still have with this legislation, which was developed without any input from Natural Resources Committee Democrats.
In fact, when the Federal Lands Subcommittee held its hearing, the bill was still in draft form. This process even left the Forest Service without the opportunity to provide adequate or meaningful testimony.
Instead of working together on a bipartisan basis to improve the health of our national forests, about which we all care, this bill irresponsibly chips away at the environmental safeguards of the National Environmental Policy Act and places tremendous burdens on American citizens seeking to participate in the public review process of Forest Service projects.
For example, H.R. 2647 would ``categorically exclude'' or exempt a wide range of timber and restoration projects from critical environmental analysis and public review. This means that thousands of acres of sensitive ecosystems would be much more vulnerable to degradation and damage.
The changes to the judicial review process raise serious constitutional concerns, eroding some of the bedrock principles of the American legal system that protect the basic rights of citizens to participate in the Federal decisionmaking process and to hold their government accountable.
If this legislation were to become law, a citizen challenging a Federal decision would be required to post a bond equal to the government's cost, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
If plaintiffs lose, the government is paid out of that bond. But if plaintiffs win--and by win, I mean a court has to rule in favor of plaintiffs on all causes of action--plaintiffs simply have their bond returned and are precluded from getting an award of attorneys' fees.
As our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee can attest, this provision flies directly in the face of American legal precedent.
Public lands, including our national forests, belong to all Americans. They are a public good. Bedrock environmental laws, like the National Environmental Policy Act, makes sure that the public voice is heard and that critical habitats are protected not only for species that rely on our national forests and grasslands, but also for American citizens who depend on these lands for their drinking water and economic livelihoods or simply to enjoy their treasured beauty.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I want to close by reiterating that, instead of working together on a bipartisan basis to improve the health of our national forests, this bill irresponsibly chips away at the environmental safeguards of the National Environmental Policy Act and places tremendous burdens, as we have just heard, on American citizens seeking to participate in the public review process of Forest Service programs.
I am glad that the majority acknowledges the urgent need to address fire borrowing, but we still have concerns with this proposal and it in no way offsets the many other serious problems with this legislation developed without any input from committee Democrats or meaningful testimony from the Forest Service.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Polis.
As my colleague stated, title III would require anyone who challenges a project on forest land in the Federal court system to put up a bond covering all litigation expenses of the government. Plaintiffs would only get their bond back if they prevailed on all their claim.
Further, it would not allow litigants to recover attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. While my colleagues across the aisle have said it doesn't prevent anyone from coming forward, we do know that the impact would be that it would prevent any plaintiffs, except those large companies with deep pockets, from bringing lawsuits against these projects, essentially keeping out the average American citizen from having their voice heard.
I strongly support this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would change the parameters of contracts that have already been awarded through a competitive bidding process.
Stewardship end result contracting is a critical tool used to achieve land management goals across our national forests and grasslands.
In addition to making the authority for stewardship contracting permanent, last year's farm bill directed the Forest Service to make the first liability provisions in integrated resource timber contracts equal to liability provisions typically found in timber sale contracts. Earlier this year the Forest Service issued rulemaking carrying out this directive.
This was a commonsense change, and I agree with the sponsors of this amendment that this is a worthwhile change. However, their amendment would retroactively extend the updated liability requirement to contracts that were awarded before the farm bill was signed into law.
The Forest Service would, therefore, have to modify existing contracts, which is not only a burden for the agency and the contract awardees, but it is unfair to companies that did not participate in the competitive bidding process because of their understanding of the fire liability requirements.
Congress should not change contracts that have already been awarded through the competitive bidding process. For that reason, I oppose the adoption of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. While it does nothing to address our underlying concerns with the bill, the promotion of advanced wood products is an important priority, and I commend my colleague from Washington, Mr. Kilmer, for taking on this issue.
The amendment directs the Forest Service to establish a pilot project to promote the production of advanced wood products. Production of these products, like cross-laminated timber, or CLT, is a growing market with many practical applications. Growing this market here in the United States is an important economic development opportunity, and I thank Mr. Kilmer for his efforts in promoting this opportunity.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source