During a House Natural Resources Committee hearing prior to the congressional recess, Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO) and Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) debated a bill on permitting review.
00:00There is no further discussion on the amendment. It is now in order to consider amendments to the
00:03ANS to H.R. 179. I recognize ranking member Huffman for the purpose of offering an amendment
00:09designated Huffman No. 1. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is considered
00:17red. I recognize the gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're doing great, by the way,
00:21with a little help. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues argue that this bill simply expands an existing
00:31authority to provide the Forest Service with additional tools to fight wildfires by expediting
00:37certain forest management projects. Expanding the pace and scale of smart science-based forest
00:42restoration is a goal that we all share. My amendment offers a clear, responsible way to achieve that
00:49goal without taking shortcuts or causing inconsistent categorical exclusion standards. Specifically,
00:56the amendment incorporates language taken verbatim from the definition of categorical exclusion,
01:01language that was included in the Fiscal Responsibility Act at the direct urging of my
01:07Republican colleagues, and it was signed into law last Congress. If we really want consistent,
01:12clear permitting standards, let's be consistent. This amendment simply applies the same standard
01:19for a categorical exclusion that was created by the FRA. This is a common-sense update,
01:24and it honors the standards that my Republican colleagues pushed for and secured. There should be no
01:31disagreement about including it now. At yesterday's full committee hearing on permitting reform,
01:36we heard a lot about the need for consistent standards and the desire to avoid endless cycles of regulatory whiplash.
01:43This amendment reflects that kind of consistency. It 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.
02:01Now, 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. Democrats certainly agree that we need to do everything we can to address the wildfire crisis.
02:21This 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 President Trump took over.
02:36I 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 set it back.
02:46I yield back.
02:47I yield back.
02:48The gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Colorado.
02:53Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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.
03:07Well, here we are trying to expand an existing Cadex with a requirement that it be coordinated with impacted parties
03:16at the local level and require consultation with interested parties, yet Mr. Huffman's amendment is trying to put it back under NEPA to make it harder to do Cadex.
03:29Cadexes are used across federal agencies to streamline permitting, specifically to exempt the agency from having to prepare documents.
03:39I really ask my colleagues why you would essentially bar your community from having access to the same tools that Mr. Amaday and Mr. McClintock's communities have when it comes to forest management.
03:52We've heard multiple times from folks that the intensity of wildfires is increasing.
03:57If that's what we're seeing, why are we trying to take tools off the table?
04:02My constituents live right next to the Pike National Forest and they want the same level of protection the Tahoe Basin communities receive.
04:13Our forest managers want the same tools available to them to protect their communities.
04:19And if folks want to work together on permitting reform to protect communities from devastating wildfires, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
04:29Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
04:32I will go back.
04:33The gentleman yields.
04:34Is there further discussion on the amendment?
04:37If there is no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by ranking member Huffman, designated Huffman number one.
04:44All those in favor signify by saying aye.
04:47Aye.
04:48Those opposed say no.
04:49No.
04:50In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
Be the first to comment