A summer day on the Golden Trout Lake in the Salmon-Challis National Forest in the East Center Idaho. (USDA Forest Service Photo)
Members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the US Senate differed in a hearing on Thursday about how the US forest service should work with the states and how the response of the federal fire should be organized.
Senators of both parties emphasized the importance of cooperation with state forest managers. While the Republicans praised the efforts of the chief Tom Schultz forest service, a former state forest administrator in Idaho and Montana, to turn to state governments, the Democrats found that President Donald Trump’s Budget request for the 2026 financial year suggested eliminating a key program for state and tribe partnerships.
The Democrats in the committee also asked a number of questions about the still dissatisfied request from the forest service when the next financial year approaches in less than three months.
Schultz informed the Senators that the budget proposal was not yet final, however, confirmed that the agency asked the states to prepare in the financial year 2026 according to discretion expenditure for the state, private and tribal forest program.
In the 2024 financial year, the program received more than 300 million US dollars in discretionary financing and other additional funds of around 300 million dollars.
The Trump budget request contains 300 million US dollars for additional funds for the program that can be used for disaster aid.
Effects of the “large, beautiful” law
The ruined democrat Martin Heinrich from New Mexico found that states after the adoption of republicans are “large, beautiful” stricter budgets. Budget Reconciliation Act This includes a variety of political changes that reduce the federal security network expenditure and at the same time extend tax cuts for high -earners.
According to the law, the countries have to pay billions more per year in order to cover a larger proportion of the most critical partnership programs for states for food aid and health insurance.
“States need this financing,” said Heinrich about the forest program. “This is an example of a successful partnership. If we do not have this financing, this is not a common responsibility, that is our federal responsibility, at a time when (state) budgets are decimated thanks to the large, regardless of the law.”
Schultz said that the state forest bikes passed on similar concerns that the administration had considered when the budget application was concluded.
The chairwoman Mike Lee von Utah said that the forest service under Schultz gave states greater flexibility to determine their own forest management guidelines.
“I would like to thank you, boss, that you have more and more authority, more and more commitment to the states and the opportunity to set a course for the proper management of these countries,” he said. “I know that Utah is really on working with them to expand these partnerships, and I know that my state is not alone in it.”
Financing versus dialogue
Democratic Senator Alex Padilla from California also blew up the administration due to the reduction in the state forestry spending.
“Every state I know from which he has a harder budget picture,” he said to Schultz. “The threat from fires is real. The threat of fires grows. How does it make sense for the federal government to zero these programs?”
Schultz replied that the agency would continue to “work in dialogue and discussion with the states”.
“But they take their resources,” said Padilla.
“That’s right,” said Schultz. “It divides this responsibility and presses it into the states.”
The Senator of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, a former governor and mayor of Denver, said that the Budget -Budget application for Trump demanded more financing responsibility to shift to state and local governments.
“I see again and again in all budgets that we see are more costs from the federal government in states and local areas that are currently going through their own budget campaigns,” he said.
Republican Montana Republican Steve Daines defended the idea of ​​greater state responsibility and said that he had determined the approach of the Gemstate to Land Management more effectively than that of the Federal Government.
“If you look at the landscapes all over Montana and look at the federal state towards state countries, I can tell you that the state does a much better job in relation to the administration of public land than the federal government,” said Daines.
New fire service
Schultz said several times that the administration had not yet completed a plan to shift the fire fighting authorities in the inner department. The responsibility is currently between the forest service, which is located below the Ministry of Agriculture, and various interior agencies, mainly the Bureau of Land Management.
Heinrich, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Catherine Cortez Masto from Nevada, expressed concerns about the lack of a plan.
Heinrich said that he was open to the restructuring efforts, but was concerned that the congress had not yet seen a blueprint.
“I think there are many of us who are more concerned about the appropriateness of this plan and would like to see this plan before using budget decisions about whether it is a good idea or not,” he said. “I am very open to various ways of fighting fires in our national forests and our public countries. But I want to see the plan.”
Wyden raised the idea in the broader sense and said that the forest service should continue to be involved in fire fighting.
“Nobody in my home state … actually told me:” Ron, we have to involve the forest service less in the fight against fires, “said Wyden.” But that is the net effect of her organizational plan. “
Schultz said that the proposed reorganization would not shorten federal fire fighting resources, but would change the federal authority, which is responsible for monitoring the problem. The administration would not employ the reorganization in this fire season, he added.
