Scott Perry (R-PA)· Jan 23, 2025
H.Amdt. 2: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
By voice vote, no names recorded
A Republican bill with 17 Democratic cosponsors · See all 56 cosponsors
Last activity — Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Conservation, Forestry, Natural Resources, and Biotechnology. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-27.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 279–141
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
The "Fix Our Forests Act" aims to improve forest management and reduce wildfire risks on National Forest System, Bureau of Land Management, and Tribal lands. It establishes a Fireshed Center and a Fireshed Registry to use data and AI for predicting fire and smoke risks. The bill streamlines environmental reviews and creates programs for community wildfire risk reduction and wildfire-resistant building research. It also focuses on reforestation, domestic seed supply chains, and the development of biochar for forest health. Additionally, it implements litigation reforms to limit judicial delays of forest management projects.
Yes· 3 of 28
- Scored +3
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill focuses on forest management and wildfire risk reduction in rural areas, directly benefiting rural residents.
- Scored +3
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill seeks to improve public land management through enhanced forest management practices and wildfire prevention.
- Scored +2
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
The bill addresses forest management on Tribal lands and aims to reduce wildfire risk in tribal communities.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Restrictions on judicial review (Sec. 121) could negatively impact due process.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 279 yes · 141 no
01/23/2025 · Roll call 25 · recorded as “On Passage”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Community Risk Reduction: Establishes a program to provide technical and financial assistance to help communities and tribal communities mitigate costs and implement risk reduction measures on private property (Section 201).
- Improved Public Safety Data: Creates a publicly accessible Fireshed Registry providing geospatial data on wildfire exposure and risks to life, structures, and municipal water supplies (Section 103).
- Wildfire-Resistant Housing: Expands research to test innovative, affordable building materials and designs to make structures and communities more resistant to fire (Section 202).
- Firefighter Support: Creates the Wildland Fire Management Casualty Assistance Program to provide assistance for firefighters (Section 401).
- Faster Local Grants: Establishes a single, uniform application portal to reduce the complexity and length of applying for various wildfire and emergency management grants (Section 201(c)).
- Economic Opportunities: Prioritizes biochar demonstration projects that have the potential to create new jobs and support local economies, especially in rural areas (Section 301(a)(2)).
- Water Protection: Expands the Water Source Protection Program to protect and restore watershed health and municipal or agricultural water supply systems (Section 118).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Reduced Environmental Oversight: Exempts the designation of fireshed management areas and the conduct of fireshed assessments from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Section 101(b) and Section 105(b)).
- Limited Legal Recourse: Restricts the ability of courts to stop agency actions unless the plaintiff proves a "proximate and substantial environmental harm" and shows no other legal remedy exists (Section 121(c)).
- Shortened Timeline for Lawsuits: Bars any legal claims against forest management projects if they are not filed within 120 days of the project notice (Section 121(d)).
- Restricted Legal Standing: Limits judicial review to parties who participated in administrative proceedings and submitted sufficiently detailed comments during the public comment period (Section 121(d)(3)).
- Reduced Species Protection Consultation: Removes the requirement for the Secretary to reinitiate consultation under the Endangered Species Act when new species are listed or new information about a land management plan is revealed (Section 122).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill focuses on forest management and wildfire risk reduction in rural areas, directly benefiting rural residents. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill addresses forest management on Tribal lands and aims to reduce wildfire risk in tribal communities. Would billionaires be better off under this? — The bill's focus on wildfire risk reduction in communities could help protect billionaires from property damage. Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill could benefit businesses involved in forest management and related industries. Would children be better off under this? — Reduced wildfire risk can improve air quality and safety for children. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill includes provisions related to grazing for wildfire risk reduction, which could benefit farmers. Would high-income households be better off under this? — The bill's focus on wildfire risk reduction in communities could help protect high-income households from property damage. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — The bill's focus on wildfire risk reduction in communities could help protect high-net-worth individuals from property damage. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill's focus on wildfire risk reduction in communities could help protect low-income households from property damage. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Reduced wildfire risk protects communities and property for middle-aged individuals. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill's focus on wildfire risk reduction in communities could help protect middle class households from property damage. Would retired people be better off under this? — Reduced wildfire risk protects communities and property for retirees. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Reduced wildfire risk protects communities and property for seniors. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — The bill's focus on wildfire risk reduction in communities could help protect ultra-high-net-worth individuals from property damage. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The bill addresses wildfire risks near communities, benefiting urban residents in the wildland-urban interface. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — The bill could create some job opportunities for young adults in forest management.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill seeks to improve public land management through enhanced forest management practices and wildfire prevention. Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — The bill aims to reduce wildfire risk, potentially lessening the need for disaster relief in affected areas. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill aims to improve forest health and resilience against wildfires, contributing to environmental protection, although some provisions might reduce environmental review processes. Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill supports rural development through forest management and wildfire risk reduction, particularly in areas with high wildfire risk. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Improved forest management could lead to some reduction in carbon emissions.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill promotes forest management activities which could lead to some job creation in related industries. Is this likely to grow the economy? — The bill's provisions related to forest management and wildfire risk reduction could have a minor positive impact on economic growth by protecting resources and communities. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill includes provisions that could indirectly support small businesses involved in forest management and related industries.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill supports research and development related to wildfire prevention and forest management, including biochar innovations.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill includes provisions for transparency and public access to data related to forest management projects. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill designates fireshed management areas and establishes federal programs, which may increase federal power in land management. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Restrictions on judicial review (Sec. 121) could negatively impact due process.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — The bill includes the Wildland Fire Management Casualty Assistance Program, which provides assistance to the next-of-kin of firefighters and wildland fire support personnel who are injured or killed in the line of duty.
Salud Carbajal (D-CA)· Jan 23, 2025
H.Amdt. 3: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
By voice vote, no names recorded
- 3/6/2025
- Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Conservation, Forestry, Natural Resources, and Biotechnology. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-27.
- 1/28/2025
- Received in the Senate.
- 1/23/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 279 - 141 (Roll no. 25). (text: CR H321-333)
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 279 - 141 (Roll no. 25). (text: CR H321-333)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H346-347)
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 471, the Chair put the question on passage of the bill and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Peters demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- The House adopted the amendments en gros as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 471.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 53, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Carbajal amendment No. 2.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 53, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Perry amendment No. 1.
- GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 471.
- The Speaker designated the Honorable Dale W. Strong to act as Chairman of the Committee.
- House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 53 and Rule XVIII.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 471 and S. 5. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 471 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit. Also, the resolution provides for consideration of S. 5 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to commit.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 53. (consideration: CR H312-335)
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/22/2025
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 1/21/2025
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 53 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 471 and S. 5. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 471 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit. Also, the resolution provides for consideration of S. 5 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to commit.
- 9 Cosponsors added.
- 1/16/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 43 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
4 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
- 119-HR-598: FIR Act
- 119-HR-2405: The White Oak Resilience Act
- 119-HR-4671: Ensuring Casualty Assistance for our Firefighters Act
- 119-HRES-53: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 471) to expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National Forest System lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (S. 5) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United States with theft, and for other purposes.
Mark AmodeiRepublican · Nevada
Cliff BentzRepublican · Oregon
Lauren BoebertRepublican · Colorado
Andy BarrRepublican · Kentucky
Ami BeraDemocrat · California
Nicholas BegichRepublican · Alaska
Ken CalvertRepublican · California
Jim CostaDemocrat · California
Earl CarterRepublican · Georgia
J. CorreaDemocrat · California
Mike CollinsRepublican · Georgia
Jeff CrankRepublican · Colorado
Mike EzellRepublican · Mississippi
Russell FryRepublican · South Carolina
Vince FongRepublican · California
John GaramendiDemocrat · California
Paul GosarRepublican · Arizona
Jared GoldenDemocrat · Maine
Adam GrayDemocrat · California
Steny HoyerDemocrat · Maryland
J. HillRepublican · Arkansas
Josh HarderDemocrat · California
Wesley HuntRepublican · Texas
Harriet HagemanRepublican · Wyoming
Jeff HurdRepublican · Colorado
Darrell IssaRepublican · California
Dusty JohnsonRepublican · South Dakota
John JoyceRepublican · Pennsylvania
Young KimRepublican · California
Jennifer KiggansRepublican · Virginia
Kevin KileyIndependent · California
Mike KennedyRepublican · Utah
Doug LaMalfaRepublican · California
Susie LeeDemocrat · Nevada
Tom McClintockRepublican · California
Kevin MullinDemocrat · California
Celeste MaloyRepublican · Utah
Mark MessmerRepublican · Indiana
Addison McDowellRepublican · North Carolina
Dan NewhouseRepublican · Washington
Jay ObernolteRepublican · California
Scott PetersDemocrat · California
Jimmy PanettaDemocrat · California
Brittany PettersenDemocrat · Colorado
Pete SessionsRepublican · Texas
Thomas SuozziDemocrat · New York
Pete StauberRepublican · Minnesota
Thomas TiffanyRepublican · Wisconsin
Mike ThompsonDemocrat · California
David ValadaoRepublican · California
Gabe VasquezDemocrat · New Mexico
Tim WalbergRepublican · Michigan
Robert WittmanRepublican · Virginia
Tony WiedRepublican · Wisconsin
George WhitesidesDemocrat · California
Ryan ZinkeRepublican · Montana