Democrats Are Torn Over Whether to Back a Bill Meant to Combat Wildfires

Democrats are split over whether to support a bill that would allow the U.S. Forest Service to clear more land, faster, in an effort to prevent wildfires.

The legislation, which has bipartisan support and is headed for a full Senate vote after passing out of committee, has already run up against concerns from environmental groups and some Democrats who don’t want to open the door for President Donald Trump’s administration to amp up logging. For some western Democrats, the urgency is worth the risk.

“[Firefighters are] handcuffed in terms of the vegetation management that they can do, which doesn’t make a lot of sense,” said Rep. Josh Harder, one of the Democratic cosponsors of the original House version, who represents a northern California district. “It’s not like a wildfire asks for permission from the airport before it comes in.”

The bill, the Fix Our Forests Act, would expand the Forest Service’s authority to clear underbrush that makes wildfires burn hotter and spread faster without soliciting public feedback by responding to an “emergency.” But the concern among critics of the legislation is that the Trump administration would use it to sideline the public, including Indigenous groups, and grow its power more broadly.

Sen. Adam Schiff, who voted against the Senate version in an Agriculture Committee vote in October, told NOTUS he is concerned about the change to the public transparency process.

“There’s no notice and comment opportunity. The opportunity to challenge action taken for timber harvesting, not for wildfire suppression, is enormously truncated in the bill,” Schiff said. “Those issues still need to be addressed.”

Sen. Michael Bennet said in a statement after the committee vote that he had voted no after hearing from constituents uneasy about the changed public input process, especially regarding tribal communities.

“Many Coloradans have voiced serious concerns that the current version of the Fix Our Forests Act eliminates opportunities for public and Tribal participation, and dramatically limits the ability of communities to ensure those projects follow the law. I share those concerns,” Bennet said in the statement.

Other opponents, including some environmental groups, have criticized the emergency-designation expansion, arguing that it allows timber companies and the Trump administration to clear-cut forests, an administration priority.

“If lawmakers are serious about protecting forests and communities from dangerous wildfires, this bill isn’t the solution,” Blaine Miller-McFeeley, senior legislative representative for Earthjustice, said in a statement in October. “Coupled with President Trump’s efforts to roll back decades of forest protections, it amounts to nothing more than a boon to the logging and wood pellet industry.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Rep. Jared Huffman, who represents one of California’s northernmost districts, spoke against the House version of the bill in a floor speech in January.

“On top of doing nothing to address the key driver of catastrophic wildfires – climate change – the so-called Fix Our Forests Act inappropriately co-opts emergency authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act, undercuts the Endangered Species Act, and even makes it more difficult for communities to engage and scrutinize or even know about projects that could directly impact them,” Huffman said.

Despite these concerns, the bill has been making its way steadily through Congress. The House bill passed by a vote of 279-141 in January, and the Senate Agriculture Committee passed a version with some additional provisions in October by a vote of 18-5.

California Rep. Scott Peters, a lead author of the House bill, told NOTUS the argument that the bill will lead to more industrial timber clear-cutting is “bullshit.”

“I don’t think that’s even a good faith argument,” Peters said. “It doesn’t change those rules.”

Democratic Sens. John Hickenlooper and Alex Padilla are the Democratic leads of the Senate version (alongside Republican Sens. John Curtis and Tim Sheehy), which they said contains guardrails to avoid improper use of the emergency declaration.

That includes an added requirement that the administration publicly notify communities of any new emergency designations and subsequent projects and a stipulation that even emergency clearing projects must comply with the established forest plan. So, if the plan prohibits timber clear-cutting, an emergency designation cannot reverse that.

“It’s specific in the bill that this is not timber; this is for fuel mitigation and forest protection,” Hickenlooper told NOTUS. “That’s how this can be used. So obviously, if people began misusing it and trying to do sneak events, I think you could expect immediate litigation.”

Rep. Ami Bera, also of California, said the criticism that this bill is a free permit to clear-cut are “legitimate concerns we’ll just have to keep an eye on.”

Bera also shared the concern that the administration would try to work around the law. But he nonetheless supports streamlining the permitting process to manage forests more readily.

“This was a negotiation. I think [Westerman] acted in good faith,” Bera said, in reference to Rep. Bruce Westerman, the Republican colead on the House version. “Now, do I trust the administration? You know, I think we’d have to keep a close eye.”