Fire Improvement and Reforming Exceptional Events Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1174, I call up the bill (H.R. 6387) to amend the Clean Air Act to require revisions to regulations governing the review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire risk, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. 6387.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act, a bipartisan bill introduced by Congressman Gabe Evans of Colorado and co-led by Congressman Adam Gray of California.

The FIRE Act ensures that States are not penalized for wildfire mitigation practices like prescribed or controlled burns and brush clearing. States currently limit these practices for fear of falling out of containment of national air quality standards.

Unlike wildfires, prescribed burns do not automatically qualify as exceptional events under the current provisions of the Clean Air Act. This is because prescribed burns are human caused, likely to recur, and preventable. As a result, prescribed burns are often counted against States for the purpose of national air quality standards.

In 2016, the EPA amended the exceptional events rule in an effort to include prescribed burns, but the attempt failed. Only one prescribed fire qualified for the exceptional events exception in the last decade.

Congress must amend the Clean Air Act to allow wildfire mitigation to be included as an exceptional events exception.

Time has taught us that agency action is not enough to address the current statutory obstacles. The FIRE Act directly amends the Clean Air Act so that prescribed burns are treated as exceptional events and States are not penalized for wildfire mitigation measures. It provides clarity and predictability for air quality planning and encourages proactive wildfire measures.

There is nearly unanimous agreement that increasing the use of prescribed fire and other wildfire mitigation practices is necessary to reduce the growing wildfire threats across the country.

With what is projected to be a severe wildfire season around the corner, Congress must modernize the Clean Air Act to ensure that wildfire mitigation practices are eligible for the exceptional events rule. The FIRE Act allows States to perform prescribed burns and wildfire mitigation activities without severe economic consequences, protecting their communities from the devastating impact of wildfires.

Mr. Speaker, I am constantly amazed at what my colleagues across the aisle say in response to these bills. They make this claim that prescribed burns will increase air pollution, when the fact is that we are trying to prevent wildfires.

When you compare the emissions from a prescribed burn to the emissions from a wildfire, it could be as little as 17 percent of what a wildfire produces. They both emit fine particulate matter and carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, but prescribed burns are managed to ensure more complete combustion and less overall polluted output per acre, whereas a wildfire consumes more fuel and produces denser and more toxic smoke.

What they are arguing for is more pollution and more dangerous fires. We have seen what has happened in California and other States, where wildfires have gotten out of control. Look at Paradise in California, the number of lives lost and the amount of destruction there. Those fires actually produced more pollutants, more toxins, and more tremendous damage.

I am, again, amazed. I guess they doubt the common sense of the average American about these issues, when the fact of the matter is that prescribed burns reduce the amount of pollutants that are emitted into the atmosphere.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is as though we are debating two different bills. I have no idea where industry comes into this. This is about protecting forests. It is about promoting wildlife. It is about reducing emissions by prescribed burns.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are interested in looking up this data, what they are saying is in direct contradiction to what the science shows: A prescribed burn reduces the amount of emissions compared to a wildfire.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. Hageman).

Mr. Speaker, I again am at a loss to understand where my Democratic colleagues are coming from with this argument about all of these problems with our air quality. We have only had one exceptional event approved, and I am not sure that it was actually executed since the exceptions were put in, the exceptional event provision was adopted by the EPA.

If you are talking about pollution from fires, it is from wildfires, uncontrolled wildfires. As I have pointed out, if they are interested in looking it up, it is clear that we reduce air pollution by having these prescribed burns.

The other thing they keep talking about is public health. Most of these wildfires occur in rural areas. The Republicans in the Working Families Tax Cut Act put in $50 billion to transform rural healthcare, and every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against it. The State of Oregon got $197.3 million this year. Again, I am just at a loss to understand where they are coming from on some of this. It is in direct conflict with what the science shows.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at what my Democratic colleagues say about these issues as far as quoting data. The data shows, as I have already pointed out, that the emissions from controlled burns, from prescribed burns, could be as low as 17 percent of what would come from a wildfire.

As a matter of fact, controlled burns consume one-sixth of the fuel per acre as an intense wildfire. As I pointed out numerous times about my Democratic colleagues and their talking about what they want to do for healthcare and worried about people's health, we put $50 billion into the Working Families Tax Cut Act to help rural healthcare, to transform rural healthcare. Every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against it.

As a matter of fact, the State of New Mexico received $211.5 million, and they voted against it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, once again, I want to point out some of the inconsistencies in the argument.

They have talked about healthcare, and I pointed out three or four times already that Congress put $50 billion into the Working Families Tax Cuts Act specifically to modernize and improve rural healthcare. They are largely the ones who suffer the most from uncontrolled wildfires. Every Member of the Democratic side of the aisle voted no.

I pointed out before that they talk about impact on senior citizens. This year, 51.4 million senior citizens paid no income tax on their Social Security. However, every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against that.

They talk about families. In the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, Congress eliminated taxes on tips. These are some of the hardest working people in the country living largely off of tips. I think, on average, they are going to get about $3,000 back. That could be used to buy needed school supplies for their children, to pay a bill, to maybe even make a repair on an automobile, or to improve their housing, which is one of the leading factors in asthma.

According to the CDC, there is no single definitive known cause for the development of asthma but indoor air quality is a significant factor that is related to housing. This is what troubles me about the opposition to this bill. The science, the data, shows that controlled burns mitigate the intensity of wildfires. It reduces the amount of emissions into the atmosphere. This is a way to improve air quality, not make it worse.

They cite climate change in the frequency and intensity of wildfires. That is exactly what we are trying to mitigate against by doing these prescribed burns.

I am amazed at how many of the policies that they propose stifle the formation of new businesses, providing more jobs and better opportunities for families when the data, particularly on this issue, is clear. This is good for the local communities. It is good for rural communities. It is good for air quality.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6387, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source