Ben Luján (D-NM)
Responsible Wildland Fire Recovery Act
A Democratic bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Responsible Wildland Fire Recovery Act allows the Secretary of Agriculture to waive matching fund requirements for recovery projects. These waivers apply to projects responding to wildland fires caused by management activities on National Forest System land. The goal is to provide 100 percent funding for fixing direct and indirect damages.
Yes· 3 of 22
- Scored +9
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Highly beneficial for rural communities located near National Forests susceptible to wildland fires.
- Scored +8
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Specifically allows Indian Tribes to receive 100 percent funding for recovery projects.
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Removes the need for matching cash, allowing low-income individuals to access full recovery funding.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Increased federal funding for recovery projects without matching funds may slightly increase government spending.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill allows for 100 percent federal funding of recovery projects, potentially increasing expenditures.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Full Funding for Recovery: States, Indian Tribes, localities, or individuals can receive 100 percent funding for remediating damages without needing to provide matching cash. This is found in Section 2 and Section 3(b).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for people are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
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? — Highly beneficial for rural communities located near National Forests susceptible to wildland fires. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Specifically allows Indian Tribes to receive 100 percent funding for recovery projects. Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers operating near or on National Forest lands benefit from watershed and land remediation. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Removes the need for matching cash, allowing low-income individuals to access full recovery funding. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Reduces the financial burden of recovering from fire damage. Would business owners be better off under this? — Helps business owners recover damages to their property and surrounding infrastructure. Would billionaires be better off under this? Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides funding for recovery of high-value properties. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Significantly increases the accessibility of disaster recovery funds by waiving matching requirements. Does this invest in rural communities? — Provides critical funding for rural areas and National Forest lands to recover from fires. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill focuses on remediating watershed impairment and direct damages to National Forest System lands. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Ensures that damages resulting from government management activities are properly remediated. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — Recovery projects often include repairing roads and bridges damaged by wildland fires.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Provides States with more federal funding without requiring local financial contributions. Does this give the federal government more power? — Gives the Secretary of Agriculture discretionary power to waive matching requirements.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Funding for remediating direct damages may include residential structures affected by wildland fires. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Removes the financial burden of matching funds for individuals recovering from fire damage. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Aiding in the recovery of fire-damaged homes can prevent temporary homelessness.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Remediating damages to infrastructure and land helps stabilize local economies affected by fires. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Small businesses in affected areas benefit from the remediation of indirect damages. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill allows for 100 percent federal funding of recovery projects, potentially increasing expenditures. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Increased federal funding for recovery projects without matching funds may slightly increase government spending.
- 11/6/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 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.
Deb FischerRepublican · Nebraska
Cynthia LummisRepublican · Wyoming