[Pages H268-H276]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 471, FIX OUR FORESTS ACT, AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 5, LAKEN RILEY ACT

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 53 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 53

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union 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.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources or their respective designees. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No
amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House 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. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their
respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule,
House Resolution 53, providing for consideration of two measures, the
first of which is H.R. 471, the Fix Our Forests Act, to be considered
under a structured rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural
Resources, or their respective designees, provides for one motion to
recommit, and makes two amendments in order.
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of S. 5, the Laken
Riley Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees, and provides
for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule on two timely pieces
of legislation, beginning with H.R. 471, the bipartisan Fix Our Forests
Act.
Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. Forest Service, more than 1
billion acres of forest land are at risk of wildfire. Further, nearly
one-fifth of all land overseen by the Federal Government is at high or
very high risk of wildfire.
This didn't happen overnight. It is the result of the buildup of
bureaucratic red tape, burdensome regulations, and frivolous
legislation that have prevented forest management activities like
thinning, prescribed burning, and mechanical treatment.
What we are left with are dangerous wildfires occurring at record
levels and intensities. It doesn't have to be this way, though, Mr.
Speaker.
The Fix Our Forests Act takes the proper steps toward restoring
forest health, increasing resiliency to catastrophic wildfires, and
protecting communities. It does so by reforming NEPA to expedite
environmental reviews, reducing frivolous lawsuits, and increasing the
pace and scale of forest restoration projects.
Additionally, H.R. 471 promotes Federal, State, Tribal, and local
collaboration through the creation of a new fireshed center. It will
provide agencies with new technologies and other critical tools which
allow a quicker response to wildfires and the ability to implement the
most vital forest management projects immediately.
As we are unfortunately seeing more frequently, active forest
management techniques and a focus on forest health are needed now more
than ever. This bipartisan product is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for the consideration of S. 5,
the Laken Riley Act, another bipartisan piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, Laken Riley was murdered in my home State of Georgia in
February of 2024 by a Venezuelan man who was illegally present in the
United States. He previously crossed our southern border in September
of 2022, where he was paroled and released for further processing.
Between arriving here and committing his heinous act, the individual
was arrested in New York and then again in Georgia for stealing from a
Walmart. At the time of Laken Riley's murder, there was a bench warrant
out for his arrest for failing to show up in court.
Mr. Speaker, S. 5, the Laken Riley Act, as amended, requires the
Department of Homeland Security to issue a detainer for any individual
inadmissible to the United States who is charged with, is arrested for,
convicted of, admits to having committed, or admits to committing acts
which constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft,
larceny, shoplifting, assault of a law enforcement officer, or any
crime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person.
Additionally, the bill grants the attorney general of a State the
power to hold future administrations accountable by providing standing
to bring civil action against Federal officials for the failure to
enforce immigration statutes, including mandatory detention, individual
parole authority, and visa sanctions.
I commend my colleague from Georgia, Mike Collins, for his work on
this legislation. I send my condolences to Laken Riley's family.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to passing this rule. I look forward to
passing this bill in the House for the third time and sending it to
President Trump's desk.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are bringing up a rule for two bills that
will be debated on the floor this week. I look forward to that debate.
I feel compelled to focus on this majority's screwed-up priorities
which now include handing a get-out-of-free card to KKK members, Proud
Boys, and other criminals who violently beat cops within an inch of
their lives on January 6, 2021.

[[Page H269]]

I thought this election was about lowering costs. What the hell
happened? I thought it was about securing the border. I thought it was
about making sure that our communities are safe, not whatever the hell
these pardons are. These pardons are sick. They are offensive. They are
un-American.
I don't ever want to hear about law and order from the Republican
side again, Mr. Speaker, when Republicans are letting criminals back on
the streets, criminals who beat cops and tried to overthrow our
government.
There were 1,500 criminals, including over 600, who were charged with
violently assaulting police officers. I am here to talk about that on
the floor because I think it is disgusting. I think it is a disgrace.
The people Trump let out broke through windows, beat up cops, and
desecrated this beautiful symbol of our country, a building, by the
way, that terrorists tried to destroy on September 11, 2001. They
couldn't get here because they were stopped by the courageous people
onboard flight 93.
The crowd that Donald Trump sent here breached the building, and they
attacked it in a way that had never been done. It was a horrible, awful
thing that happened that day.
I was in this Chamber. I was in this room. I was in your chair, Mr.
Speaker. I took over for Speaker Pelosi when she was evacuated. I was
one of the last people off the floor. I exited through those doors.
I saw the faces of the rioters smashing windows to try to get at us.
They wanted to kill people, kill police, kill us. I saw the walls they
covered with feces. I saw them use flagpoles to beat police officers.
I saw the fear in the eyes of my Republican colleagues as they
cowered that day. I saw the bravery of law enforcement that protected
us.
Mr. Speaker, how the hell do the Republicans walk into this place
every day? How does the majority look the police officers in the eye?
How does the other side do it, knowing the people who tried to kill
them will walk free, thanks to Donald Trump?
These were brave officers who tried to hold the line against a
violent mob. They were outnumbered, and they were overwhelmed because
Donald Trump refused to lift a finger to help. The people he sent were
not peaceful protestors. They were criminals, violent, angry, vicious
people. They beat cops into the ground, leaving them bruised and
battered.
Donald Trump let them out of jail, and now he calls them heroes. He
wants to invite them to the White House. We even had colleagues who
went to a D.C. jail to celebrate their release and complained they
weren't being let out fast enough.
This is unbelievable. This is an insult to every police officer in
this country. It is an insult to the families of the people who died
because of what happened and an insult to the millions of Americans who
believe in law and order, democracy, and decency.

{time} 1230

Trump is abandoning the blue. He could have chosen to let out only
the nonviolent offenders, but he let out people who beat the cops. That
tells you all that you need to know.
I think my Republican colleagues owe it to us during this debate, the
first time we are debating on the floor since the pardons, to come down
and explain themselves. They owe America an explanation because the
people I am talking to think those pardons are shameful, disgusting,
and wrong. Mr. Speaker, I will wait for an answer, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we
are here to discuss H.R. 471 and S. 5.
I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule. The rule that
we have adopted will take up important legislation ensuring our forests
are no longer such that they are going to catch fire, as we are seeing
happen in California, and, importantly, to deal with the Laken Riley
Act.
This is the bill we passed off the House floor last year. It was
rejected by the Democrat-led Senate. They refused to move it. We moved
it last week here on the House floor and sent it over to this Senate,
now a Republican Senate, after the voters spoke. The Senate amended it,
made it, I believe, better, and sent it to the House, and now that
amended bill is on the floor of the United States House of
Representatives.
Let's remember what we are talking about. This bill is named after
Laken Riley. My friend from Georgia just discussed the facts involving
the unfortunate death of Laken Riley at the hands of someone here
illegally, someone here who had committed crimes.
I had as my guest this weekend at the inauguration a woman named
Alexis Nungaray, a wonderful woman from Houston, Texas, whose 13-year-
old little girl was murdered by people released into our country last
year by the Biden administration.
Fortunately, those policies are ending under President Trump, but
here is the truth: Never again should any American, any Texan, any
Georgian, have to deal with what was thrust upon them by the Biden
administration in terms of the damage, despair, death, destruction,
murders, and rapes that were perpetrated against the people we
represent.
This legislation would take a giant step forward to ensure that we
can stop any future administration that is not just refusing to enforce
Federal law but is actually abusing Federal law to endanger our people,
our citizens who we represent.
This legislation would simply say that we must detain some of the
worst people who are here illegally and ensure that they are not
released. We are talking about serious bodily injury. We are talking
about things that result in death, assaulting police officers. That is
all in this legislation.
In addition, in this legislation is an important provision that I was
proud to introduce with my friend Dan Bishop from North Carolina in the
SUE Act to ensure that attorneys general can sue the Federal Government
when the Federal Government is failing to do its job.
Imagine the ability of Texas, North Carolina, or Georgia, for my
colleagues to be able to say: Do you know what? Enough.
The Federal Government does not get to ignore its fundamental duty
under the Constitution to defend its citizens, and the attorneys
general of States ought to be able to stop the Federal Government when
it is endangering our people. This law would do that.
This law would honor the memory of Laken Riley. It would honor the
memory of Jocelyn Nungaray. It would honor the memory of the countless
Americans who have lost their loved ones and have been dealing with the
scourge of illegal immigration, which is endangering our people. I
proudly support it, and I proudly support this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it takes a lot of nerve to come down here and
talk to us about law and order when the gentleman who just spoke was at
the D.C. jail celebrating the release of people who attacked and beat
cops here in this Capitol, who almost killed them. Some died as a
result of their injuries.
I know my Republican friends don't want to defend these pardons
because what the President did was indefensible. He couldn't release
these people who attacked our police officers quick enough. He couldn't
release them quick enough.
The Speaker of this House was asked about January 6, about January 6
defendants like Daniel Rodriguez, who pled guilty to viciously injuring
a police officer with a weapon. The Speaker said: ``It is not my place.
It is the President's sole decision, and he made a decision, so I stand
with him on it.''
It is not your place? It is not your place? Mr. Speaker, it literally
is your place. It is your place.
Mr. Speaker, you preside over this House. You hire the Sergeant at
Arms. You oversee the captain of the Capitol Police force. If it isn't
your place, then who the hell's place is it?
I have a radical idea. How about you stand with the officers who were
beaten and bloodied protecting you rather than stand with a reality TV
wannabe dictator?
If your response to the question about the pardons of people who
attacked and injured the officers that you oversee and are responsible
for is ``it is not my place,'' my question to you is this: Who do you
work for? Do

[[Page H270]]

you think you work for President Trump?
I would suggest you do some soul searching, and while you are at it,
maybe reread the United States Constitution because you don't work for
Donald Trump. You are the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
it damn sure is your place to have an opinion on the people who beat
the officers who protect you and this institution having no
consequences for beating men and women who protect this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DesJarlais). Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President and to
direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hurd).
Mr. HURD of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman for his
commonsense piece of legislation that we are discussing this afternoon.
This is a new day in America. The days of forestry mismanagement are
coming to an end. For far too along, our national forests and the
communities that surround them have been at the mercy of unelected
Federal bureaucrats who have become beholden to misguided environmental
policies.
My district in Colorado is home to 6 of the State's 11 national
forests. We have witnessed the destructive force of poor forestry
management firsthand. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960
mandates that national forests be managed for multiple use. This
includes outdoor recreation and timber management.
Washington, D.C., has turned our national forests into national parks
by bringing timber management to a standstill and setting the stage for
the terrible disasters like those we have seen in California. We can no
longer afford to ignore the safety and well-being of our communities.
The Fix Our Forests Act lets the Forest Service do its job to restore
forest health, increase wildfire resiliency, and protect communities
like those in Colorado's Third District.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this
legislation, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and on
final passage.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will anybody on that side come down and
defend these pardons, which are indefensible?
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the
previous question, and I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in
order amendment No. 1 to provide a permanent pay fix for Federal
wildland firefighters. We tried to get this made in order in the Rules
Committee, but the Republicans said no to better benefits and a pay
raise for the people who are fighting these fires.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) to discuss this proposal.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with Mr. McGovern's
remarks condemning the unconscionable silence we hear across the aisle
in the wake of these pardons of violent criminals, seditionist thugs
who should never be pardoned or celebrated. Yet, that is exactly what
is happening even here in the building that they desecrated.
Turning to the bill at hand, one thing I hope we can agree on, which
is clearly missing from this bill, is a permanent pay raise for Federal
wildland firefighters. These brave men and women put everything on the
line. They deserve to be paid fair wages for the long hours,
dedication, and sacrifice they are putting out.
The good news is that under that Democratic leadership, Congress
approved a pay raise in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The
bad news is the authority to continue paying Federal wildland
firefighters the wages they deserve is about to run out because of
partisan politics.
Thanks to Republicans, the entire Federal Government is operating
under a continuing resolution, a short-term patch that will expire
March 23.
Good luck hiring a Federal firefighter right now, being underpaid to
start with and having a looming pay cut because of partisan politics
just weeks away.
Fixing this should be an unequivocal bipartisan priority, and we have
an opportunity to do it right now. That is why two of my Democratic
colleagues filed amendments to address these issues. Unfortunately, the
Rules Committee is refusing to allow a vote on the amendments from
Representative Neguse and Representative Lee. That is a shame.
A permanent pay raise is not merely a matter of fairness. It is a
recognition of the invaluable service these frontline heroes provide.
It is an investment in their future, ensuring they can provide for
their families and have peace of mind knowing their sacrifices are
valued.
Instead of rushing this so-called Fix Our Forests Act to the floor to
exploit a disaster in Los Angeles, we should be working together to
address a real problem and doing right by our wildland firefighters.

In a few moments, Republicans will be moving the previous question to
end debate on the rule. I urge my colleagues to vote against the
previous question because doing so, voting no, will allow Mr. Neguse's
Tim's Act to be brought forward instead of the Fix Our Forests Act,
ensuring that Federal wildland firefighters are getting the pay and
benefits they deserve.
That is the bill we should be considering instead of a bill that
rolls back our environmental laws and does nothing to help Los Angeles.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am concerned about
some of the pardons that were issued. I can't fathom what was going
through President Biden's mind when he pardoned his family members and
any of his political allies this past week. It is something that I
think does merit much more discussion on how someone just gives family
members and political allies a blanket pardon when they had not yet
been charged for the crimes they had committed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr.
Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying bill, the Fix Our Forests Act.
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I express my sincere condolences to
the families who have lost loved ones, homes, and history in the tragic
fires in southern California. Our hearts break for them, and our
prayers continue to be with them.
Today, we have an opportunity to help mitigate future forest fires
and protect not only homes and communities but critical wildlife
habitat.
Proper forest management can, in fact, help prevent forest fires. If
we follow the science, as this legislation does, we can identify the
top areas of concern and take action to address those firesheds.
This bipartisan legislation will empower States and local, Tribal,
and private partners to do critical wildfire prevention activities
necessary to prevent the tragic fires we have just seen recently and in
recent years. I also note that the legislation does not waive a single
environmental law.
Mr. Speaker, I am a conservationist. Coming from the Great Lakes, the
State of Michigan, I know the importance of clean air and clean water.
What this bill does is streamline fragmented Federal programs and makes
the existing tools more flexible and efficient.
By passing this legislation, we can help protect millions of acres
from the threat of wildfires, save lives and livelihoods and history,
and protect wildlife habitat for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman for his leadership on this
critical legislation, and I urge support for the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Georgia just changed topics so quickly back to
Biden that I have whiplash. I think I need a neck brace to be able to
follow his logic here.
Spare me your comparisons of Biden pardoning his family and Trump
pardoning violent criminals who attacked police officers on January 6.

[[Page H271]]

Do you know what? You can be against both of those actions, but they
are not the same and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same
conversation.

{time} 1245

Let me tell you about the people whom you continue to want to defend
and who have been pardoned.
Here are some of the convicted felons that Trump set free on Monday:
Steve Cappuccio, convicted of six felonies, including assaulting a
police officer. He ripped off Metro Police Officer Daniel Hodges' gas
mask. At one point during the assault he said: How do you like me now,
mother f'er?
He was pardoned by Donald Trump.
David Dempsey, sentenced to 20 years. He stomped on police officers'
heads, struck an officer in the head with a metal crutch, and attacked
police with pepper spray and broken pieces of furniture. He also
attacked a fellow rioter who was trying to disarm him, and he has a
demonstrated history of political violence.
He was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Enrique Tarrio, sentenced to 22 years. He is a former national leader
of the Proud Boys, a domestic terrorist far-right militia. He was found
guilty of seditious conspiracy. He helped plan the January 6 attack and
made sure it was violent.
He was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Guy Reffitt, sentenced to 7 years and 3 months. He brought a gun, zip
ties, body armor, and a helmet to the Capitol, presumably to try to
take hostages in an attempt to keep Trump in office after he lost.
He was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Daniel Joseph ``DJ'' Rodriguez, sentenced to over 12 years. He
repeatedly tased Officer Mike Fanone, shocking him in the neck multiple
times and causing him to lose consciousness and have a heart attack.
He was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Patrick McCaughey III, sentenced to 90 months. He assaulted police,
beat their faces and bodies with riot shields and batons that he stole
from them.
He was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Peter Francis Stager, sentenced to 4 years and 4 months. He pled
guilty to assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon. He is on video
declaring: ``Every single one of those Capitol law enforcement
officers, death is the remedy.'' Those were his words: That is the only
remedy they get.
He was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Julian Khater, sentenced to 6 years, attacked Officer Brian Sicknick
with pepper spray. Officer Sicknick died the next day after suffering
two strokes.
Edward ``Jake'' Lang was on trial for 11 charges, including swinging
a baseball bat at officers. In addition to his January 6 charges, he
began organizing a nationwide network of armed militias in all 50
States.
He was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Mr. Speaker, the criminals pardoned were not tourists. They were not
peaceful. They were violent criminals.
Here is just one example: Daniel Ball's case was dismissed today, and
he was released from jail.
Why was he in jail?
He was being held in pretrial detention because of what a judge
described as ``some of the most violent and serious offenses of any of
the charges being brought against participants in the January 6
events.'' That includes hurling an explosive device into the lower west
terrace tunnel of the Capitol, the scene of some of the most egregious
violence against police that day.
Some officers suffered from hearing loss for months.
Get this, Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ball has already been arrested again on
Federal gun charges, and he was already a two-time convicted felon for
domestic violence battery by strangulation and resisting law
enforcement with violence.
Yes, he was already arrested again. This is whom the President
pardoned. This is why my Republican friends are silent. It is because
this is indefensible.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a
Politico article titled: ``Trump freed a January 6 defendant charged
with assaulting police. DOJ had him arrested again on a gun charge.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

[From the POLITICO, Jan. 22, 2025]

Trump Freed a Jan. 6 Defendant Charged With Assualting Police. DOJ had
him Arrested Again on a Gun Charge

(By KYLE CHENEY)

A Jan. 6 defendant whose felony assault charges were
dismissed a day earlier was arrested Wednesday on federal gun
charges that have been pending for nearly two years in
Florida.
Daniel Ball, one of the hundreds charged with violence on
Jan. 6, 2021, aimed at police, was among the members of the
mob whose charges were dismissed at the behest of President
Donald Trump. Trump on Monday pardoned more than 1,000 people
who stormed the Capitol that day and ordered the Justice
Department to drop hundreds of pending cases.
Ball was being held in pretrial detention in Washington,
D.C., because of what a magistrate judge described as ``some
of the most violent and serious offenses of any of the
charges being brought against participants in the January 6
events.''
Among them, Ball is charged with hurling an ``explosive
device'' into the packed Lower West Terrace tunnel of the
Capitol, the scene of some of the most egregious violence
against police that day.
``The explosion allegedly disoriented officers and caused
hearing loss--which for some of the officers lasted months,''
Magistrate Judge Robin Meriweather noted. ``Defendant also
allegedly threw a large piece of wood into the line of
officers protecting the Capitol.''
Ball's charges were dismissed by U.S. District Judge
Rudolph Contreras on Tuesday after Trump's directive.
But Ball's charges for being a felon in possession of a
firearm remained pending and unconnected to his Jan. 6 case.
According to that indictment, Ball has previously been
convicted of domestic violence battery by strangulation in
June 2017, resisting law enforcement with violence and
battery of a law enforcement officer in October 2021.
It's unclear if U.S. marshals executed the arrest warrant
on Ball prior to his release on the Jan. 6 charges. However,
it's the first docketed federal criminal case in Washington
since Trump's inauguration.

Mr. McGOVERN. All these people were pardoned, and not a word from the
other side.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I don't have a whole number, the total number, but how
many murderers had their sentences commuted by then-President Joe
Biden?
Do you know? How many was it?
Let's see, Biden commuted the sentences for 2,500 drug offenders and
clemency for 37 of the 40 people on death row, 1 of whom shot two FBI
agents , if I am not mistaken.
So you are pretty quick to point the finger at the gentleman who was
the 45th and now the 47th President of the United States. I would
suggest to you that Donald Trump is the President of the United States
today and sitting in the White House today because your policies are so
bad because you put illegal immigrants and their rights above the
rights of American citizens.
So, again, Biden commuted a lot of sentences for a lot of drug
offenders and a lot of people who committed murder. So I don't think
you should be pointing the finger at what the 47th President of the
United States did when the 46th President of the United States is the
one who let people who shot FBI agents out.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the best we get from the gentleman is whataboutism. He
can criticize President Biden, but he can't bring himself to criticize
President Trump. He is afraid, and that is the problem.
All my Republican friends are in fear that if they question anything
that this guy does that somehow they themselves will be punished.
However, he didn't even get his facts right on the Peltier issue. The
former U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Mr. Peltier wrote in a letter to
President Biden: ``The prosecution and continued incarceration of Mr.
Peltier was and is unjust.''
He also said: ``I believe that a grant of executive clemency would
serve the best interest of justice and the best interest of our
country.''
Again, this is coming from the man who prosecuted him.
He also said that we were not able to prove that Mr. Peltier
personally committed any of the offenses that happened on the Pine
Ridge Reservation.

[[Page H272]]

Contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with the Nation's seeing the criminals
that Trump pardoned assault cops on live TV.
Please, I ask my friends across the aisle: Find me one prosecutor of
one of the cop beaters whom Trump pardoned who regret their conviction.
Which one of Trump's pardoned criminals have already served nearly 50
years in prison?
By the way, Peltier is 80 years old, and he is dying. He was not
pardoned, by the way. The gentleman is wrong on that. His sentence was
commuted so he could die at home with an ankle bracelet on. This was
done only after faith and human rights leaders like the Dalai Lama,
Nelson Mandela, and Pope Francis begged for release for years.
So to say that this is remotely the same is a joke.
Why can't my Republican friends just say that what Trump did by
pardoning vicious, violent criminals was wrong?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we should absolutely hold
immigrants accountable when they commit a crime, especially when it is
against a law enforcement officer. However, there are already existing
laws for the detention and deportation of immigrants who commit violent
crimes.
What we are talking about today is that we must hold convicted felons
accountable for attacking our very own Capitol Police. In this very
building, January 6 insurrectionists brutally attacked our Capitol
Police and other law enforcement officers. More than 140 cops suffered
injuries and went to the hospital. Five police officers died. President
Trump just pardoned the violent thugs who were convicted of those
attacks. It is ``shameless,'' ``sin verguenza,'' as we say in Spanish.
If Republicans were truly concerned about attacks on law enforcement,
they would denounce those pardons.
We just heard about the violence that was inflicted and about the
violent offenders who committed them. I am asking my Republican
colleagues to also keep in mind the faces and the names of those who
were brutally attacked.
When the majority walked into this building and they walked past
those Capitol Police who are protecting them today, do they tell them:
Good morning?
They should also tell them: I am sorry. I am sorry that my President
pardoned the people who beat you. I am sorry, and I denounce those
attacks because I honor you.
However, they do not seem to have the courage to say I am sorry to
those police officers.
It is hypocrisy to say that they care about law enforcement if they
don't denounce those pardons.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Those violent criminals whom Trump described as
peaceful and loving are being released into our communities. We have
seen the videos of the attacks, the shouts, and the pounding of Officer
Fanone, and so many others, and their cries for help. It was on video.
Americans remember it.
I ask my colleagues to remember it and to see those videos. The
convicted attackers were not peaceful.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to denounce the pardons and to vote
against this rule.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this rule is about the
Laken Riley Act and the Fix Our Forests Act. I hope people vote for it,
and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, not a word about what happened in this place on January
6. They just can't bring themselves to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question, and that is: Why won't you install
the plaque honoring the brave members of law enforcement who protected
us on January 6?
A lot of my colleagues don't know this, but Congress actually passed
a law, Public Law 117-103, on requiring the plaque to be installed on
the west front of the Capitol before March 15, 2023.
So for 21 months now, almost 2 years, this Speaker has refused to
honor the Capitol Police and other law enforcement by installing the
plaque that we all voted for.
I know it exists, Mr. Speaker. I have actually seen photos of it, so
I know it exists. I have seen photos.
Why the delay?
Why won't you put it up, Mr. Speaker?
I think I know why. It is because Republicans don't want to honor the
police who were hurt and who died after that attack.
Maybe the gentleman from Georgia can explain why the plaque is yet to
be installed. I won't hold my breath, but instead let me read the
plaque, Mr. Speaker, so Speaker Johnson and others know what it says.
It says: ``On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the
extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this
symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be
forgotten.''
Because Republicans will not, I want to take a moment to thank all
the agencies that are listed on this plaque who are being disrespected
by this leadership by refusing to honor them.
I want to say thank you to: the United States Capitol Police. I also
want to thank the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of
Columbia; Arlington County Police Department in Virginia; Fairfax
County Police Department in Virginia; Maryland Department of State
Police; Metro Transit Police Department; Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority, Montgomery County Department of Police in Maryland;
New Jersey State Police; Prince George's County Police Department in
Maryland; Prince William County Police Department in Virginia; Virginia
State Police; Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Explosives; Department
of Health and Human Services; Department of Homeland Security; Federal
Bureau of Investigation; National Guard Bureau; Pentagon Force
Protection Agency; United States Marshals Service; United States Park
Police; and United States Secret Service.
I say thank you to all of the officers from all of those agencies who
were here that day to protect our country and to protect all of us. I
appreciate you, and you should know that a lot of Americans have your
back, even if this President and the Republicans do not.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank all
of the law enforcement and first responders who protect this country on
a daily basis, and, Mr. Speaker, we know the polls show that a majority
of them voted for Donald Trump.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that to
say what he just said but not reference what happened that day and not
acknowledge the pain that has caused so many families and so many
people whom we work with every day to protect us, I have to say that is
a little bit much.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

{time} 1300

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing but unsurprising that
House Republicans have made it their top priority in their new Congress
to pass a bill, H.R. 28, designed to generate headlines rather than
solve actual problems.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on the serious flaws in this bill several
times, including last night in the Rules Committee, but it is worth
noting that since the House last considered this bill, it has been
altered with an increasingly ironic amendment.
The amendment added mandatory imprisonment for people accused of
assaulting a law enforcement officer. I say this amendment is ironic
because yesterday, just hours after taking the oath of office,
President Trump granted mass pardons for over 1,200 January 6 MAGA
rioters who had been convicted. President Trump also ordered the
dismissal of cases of hundreds more, including hundreds who assaulted
police officers with bats, poles,

[[Page H273]]

bear spray, explosives, and other weapons.
Over 140 officers were hurt that day, with injuries including crushed
spinal disks, traumatic brain injuries, heart attacks, and strokes,
while they bravely defended the Capitol and those who work here. Some
lost their lives or became permanently disabled after sustaining
injuries and horrific trauma at the hands of fellow citizens during the
MAGA attack on January 6, 2021.
In issuing those pardons, President Trump put the Presidential seal
of approval on political violence, so long as it supports him, and even
if it is directed against law enforcement.
Just to be clear, there was no case-by-case review of these
convictions. This is a blanket pardon. We are already seeing the fruits
of that incredibly dangerous act of pardoning the people who attacked
the Constitution, this Capitol, and the police officers and people
within it.
Among those attackers are dangerous felons who are not chastened or
remorseful or reformed. They feel emboldened. One of them, Daniel
Charles Ball, has just been rearrested, one day after his January 6
case was dismissed, on new weapons charges.
Another, the infamous MAGA supporter known as the QAnon Shaman,
tweeted Monday: I got a pardon baby. Thank you, President Trump. Now I
am going to buy some motha f'ing guns.
These pardons show an utter disrespect for law enforcement, our
criminal justice system, and the rule of law. They have been rightly
condemned by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the
Fraternal Order of Police, among other police organizations, but
virtually every House Republican has turned their backs on our police
and cowered in silence rather than denounce the shameful decision to
put those criminals back on our streets.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to oppose this rule and this bill.
I seek unanimous consent to include in the Record the Joint
International Association of Chiefs of Police and The Fraternal Order
of Police Statement on the Recent Presidential Pardons dated January
21, 2025.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

Joint IACP-FOP Statement on the Recent Presidential Pardons

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) have had long
standing and positive relationships with both President Trump
and President Biden and have greatly appreciated their
support of the policing profession. However, the IACP and FOP
are deeply discouraged by the recent pardons and commutations
granted by both the Biden and Trump Administrations to
individuals convicted of killing or assaulting law
enforcement officers. The IACP and FOP firmly believe that
those convicted of such crimes should serve their full
sentences.
Crimes against law enforcement are not just attacks on
individuals or public safety--they are attacks on society and
undermine the rule of law. Allowing those convicted of these
crimes to be released early diminishes accountability and
devalues the sacrifices made by courageous law enforcement
officers and their families.
When perpetrators of crimes, especially serious crimes, are
not held fully accountable, it sends a dangerous message that
the consequences for attacking law enforcement are not
severe, potentially emboldening others to commit similar acts
of violence.
The IACP and FOP call on policymakers, judicial
authorities, and community leaders to ensure that justice is
upheld by enforcing full sentences, especially in cases
involving violence against law enforcement. This approach
reaffirms our commitment to the rule of law, public safety,
and the protection of those who risk their lives for our
communities.

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the
Record an article from The Wall Street Journal today entitled: ``Trump
Pardons the Jan. 6 Cop Beaters.''
The editorial reads: ``Law and order? Back the blue? What happened to
that GOP?''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 21, 2025]

Trump Pardons the Jan. 6 Cop Beaters--Law and Order? Back the Blue?
What happened to that GOP?

(By The Editorial Board)

Republicans are busy denouncing President Biden's pre-
emptive pardons for his family and political allies, and
deservedly so. But then it's a shame you don't hear many, if
any, ruing President Trump's proclamation to pardon
unconditionally nearly all of the people who rioted at the
U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. This includes those convicted
of bludgeoning, chemical spraying, and electroshocking police
to try to keep Mr. Trump in power. Now he's springing them
from prison.
This is a rotten message from a President about political
violence done on his behalf, and it's a bait and switch.
Asked about Jan. 6 pardons in late November, Mr. Trump
projected caution. ``I'm going to do case-by-case, and if
they were nonviolent, I think they've been greatly
punished,'' he said. ``We're going to look at each individual
case.''
Taking cues from the boss, last week Vice President JD
Vance drew a clear line: ``If you committed violence on that
day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned.''
So much for that. The President's clemency proclamation
commutes prison sentences to time served for 14 named people,
including prominent leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath
Keepers, who were organized and ready for violence. Then Mr.
Trump tries to wipe Jan. 6 clean, with ``a full, complete and
unconditional pardon to all other individuals.'' The conceit
is that there are hundreds of polite Trump supporters who
ended up in the wrong place that day and have since rotted in
jail.
Out of roughly 1,600 cases filed by the feds, more than a
third included accusations of ``assaulting, resisting, or
impeding law enforcement.'' The U.S. Attorney's office said
it declined ``hundreds'' of prosecutions against people whose
only offense was entering restricted grounds near the
Capitol. Of the 1,100 sentences handed down by this year,
more than a third didn't involve prison time. The rioters who
did get jail often were charged with brutal violence,
including:
Daniel Joseph ``DJ'' Rodriguez, sentenced to 151 months,
who can be seen on video, federal prosecutors said, deploying
an ``electroshock weapon'' against a policeman who was
dragged out of the defensive line, by ``plunging it into the
officer's neck.'' The night before, he promised in a MAGA
chat group: ``There will be blood.''
William Lewis, given 37 months, ``sprayed streams of Wasp
and Hornet Killer spray at multiple police officers on four
distinct occasions,'' forcing several to flee the line and
``seek treatment for their eyes.''
Isreal James Easterday, 30 months, blasted a cop ``in the
face with pepper spray at point-blank range,'' after which
the officer ``collapsed and temporarily lost consciousness,
which enabled another rioter to steal his baton.''
Thomas Andrew Casselman, 40 months, hit multiple officers
``near their faces'' with pepper spray. His later internet
searches included, ``The statute of limitations for assault
on a police officer.''
Curtis Davis, 24 months, punched two police officers in the
head. That night he filmed a video of his fist, in which he
bragged: ``Them knuckles right there, from one of those m--
faces at the Capitol.''
Ronald Colton McAbee, 70 months, hit a cop while wearing
``reinforced brass knuckle gloves,'' and he held one down on
the ground as ``other rioters assailed the officer for over
20 seconds,'' causing a concussion.
Michael Joseph Foy, 40 months, brought a hockey stick with
a TRUMP 2020 flag attached, which he swung ``over his head
and downward at police officers as if he were chopping
wood.''
There are more like this, which everyone understood on Jan.
6 and shortly afterward. ``There is nothing patriotic about
what is occurring on Capitol Hill,'' one GOP official
tweeted. ``This is 3rd world style anti-American anarchy.''
That was Marco Rubio, now Mr. Trump's Secretary of State. He
was right. What happened that day is a stain on Mr. Trump's
legacy. By setting free the cop beaters, the President adds
another.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman thanking, in general, our law
enforcement officials, but it is troubling that he can't bring himself
to address what happened that day. My Republican friends are afraid to
debate and to discuss what happened on that day. It is so disappointing
in so many ways.
Mr. Speaker, January 6 was not a tourist day. It was a horrific
attack on the police who protect our country. I saw with my own eyes
the officers with blood on their faces, battered and bruised from
fighting off a violent mob. So many of them had to go to the hospital
to get stitches and to get medical care. They were severely wounded.
I will never forget the smell of tear gas or the horror on people's
faces as we were rushed out of this Chamber. I watched from the
Speaker's chair as

[[Page H274]]

Republicans cowered and hid for their lives that day, letting the
Capitol Police run to the front lines to protect them.
On Monday, Republicans let out the violent political extremists who
did all of this. Republicans let them back out onto the streets.
Trump called them patriots. He called them hostages. There is nothing
patriotic about beating police officers with flagpoles, Mr. Speaker.
The patriots were the law enforcement officers who protected this
institution. There is nothing patriotic about the KKK, the Oath
Keepers, or the Proud Boys. Trump pardoned them.
There is nothing patriotic about viciously assaulting police
officers. There is nothing patriotic about bashing heads and breaking
into the Capitol Building because of a deranged fantasy about
overthrowing the government. There is nothing patriotic about any of
that, but Donald Trump doesn't care. He pardoned them because he only
cares about himself.
Mr. Speaker, where is your outrage over any of this? Where is your
spine? To be silent after these pardons is terrible, and it speaks for
itself.
As for me, I stand with the police officers who were here that day. I
stand with the officers who were trying to maintain law and order. I
stand with the people who are disgusted that Donald Trump is opening
the doors and letting out the criminals who attacked them.
I don't hear a single Republican brave enough to come to this floor
and condemn these pardons. I don't hear a single one. It is cowardice.
It is hypocrisy. They are rewarding political violence and setting the
stage for much, much worse things to come.
My colleagues heard Representative Scanlon. Some of them are bragging
about how they are going out to buy more guns. What is that about?
Violent, dangerous people who beat cops, who tried to kill Members of
this body, and who tried to kill our staff were let back out onto the
streets by Donald Trump.
It is a disgrace. The Speaker should be ashamed. The Speaker owns
this now. The Speaker knows that, and the law enforcement officers of
this country know it, too. They are watching, and they will remember.
There is a great conservative, Edmund Burke, who once said that all
that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do
nothing, to be silent.
Well, I, for one, am not going to be silent. We are going to continue
to talk about this until we get it right in this country and this
Chamber.
I can't speak for my friends on the other side of the aisle, but if
today is any indication, Republicans are just hoping and praying that
it goes away and that everybody forgets. We will never forget what
happened here on January 6. The American people won't ever forget.
The American people did not vote for this. They did not vote to let
these violent criminals back onto the streets.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, this vote is on the rule to advance H.R. 471, the Fix
Our Forests Act; and S. 5, the Laken Riley Act, regardless of what you
have listened to if you have been watching this over the last hour.
This week, the House has the ability to advance significant
legislation in the House of Representatives. That is our job.
The Fix Our Forests Act can mark a return to active forest management
and return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and I
would be willing to bet that that piece of legislation probably passes
in a bipartisan manner.
The Laken Riley Act will ensure that criminals who illegally cross
our borders and endanger our communities are detained and deported
while also giving States the ability to bring civil action against any
Federal official in the future should they refuse to enforce our
country's immigration laws and put American citizens at risk by
refusing to do so.
Again, I thank the law enforcement officers, the Capitol Police
specifically, and all those who take care of us on a daily basis.
I send my condolences to Laken Riley's family.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to voting ``yes'' on this bill and
sending it to President Trump's desk for his signature. I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question,
``yes'' on the rule, and then I hope Members will vote ``yes'' on the
legislation. The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as
follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 53 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment specified in section 4 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment of the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution if
offered by Representative Lee of Nevada or a designee. That
amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and opponent.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

TITLE V--RATES OF PAY FOR WILDLAND FIREFIGHTERS

SEC. 501. SPECIAL BASE RATES OF PAY FOR WILDLAND
FIREFIGHTERS.

(a) In general.--Subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
5332 the following:

``Sec. 5332A. SPECIAL BASE RATES OF PAY FOR WILDLAND
FIREFIGHTERS

``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `firefighter' means an employee who--
``(A) is a firefighter within the meaning of section 8331
(21) or section 8401(14);
``(B) in the case of an employee who holds a supervisory or
administrative position and is subject to subchapter III of
chapter 83, but who does not qualify to be considered a
firefighter within the meaning of section 8331 (21), would
otherwise qualify if the employee had transferred directly to
that position after serving as a firefighter within the
meaning of that section;
``(C) in the case of an employee who holds a supervisory or
administrative position and is subject to chapter 84, but who
does not qualify to be considered a firefighter within the
meaning of section 8401(14), would otherwise qualify if the
employee had transferred directly to that position after
performing duties described in section 8401(14)(A) for at
least 3 years; or
``(D) in the case of an employee who is not subject to
subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84, holds a position
that the Office of Personnel Management determines would
satisfy subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) if the employee were
subject to subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84;
``(2) the term `General Schedule base rate' means an annual
rate of basic pay established under section 5332 before any
additions, such as a locality-based comparability payment
under section 5304 or 5304a or a special rate supplement
under section 5305;
``(3) the term `special base rate' means an annual rate of
basic pay payable to a wildland firefighter, before any
additions or reductions, that replaces the General Schedule
base rate otherwise applicable to the wildland firefighter
and that is administered in the same manner as a General
Schedule base rate; and
``(4) the term `wildland firefighter' means a firefighter--
``(A) who is employed by the Forest Service or the
Department of the Interior; and
``(B) the duties of the position of whom primarily relate
to fires occurring in forests, range lands, or other
wildlands, as opposed to structural fires.
``(b) Special base rates of pay.--
``(1) Entitlement to Special Rate.--Notwithstanding section
5332, a wildland firefighter is entitled to a special base
rate at grades 1 through 15, which shall--
``(A) replace the otherwise applicable General Schedule
base rate for the wildland firefighter;
``(B) be basic pay for all purposes, including the purpose
of computing a locality-based comparability payment under
section 5304 or 5304a; and
``(C) be computed as described in paragraph (2) and
adjusted at the time of adjustments in the General Schedule.
``(2) Computation.--
``(A) In general.--The special base rate for a wildland
firefighter shall be derived by increasing the otherwise
applicable General Schedule base rate for the wildland
firefighter by the following applicable percentage for the
grade of the wildland firefighter and rounding the result to
the nearest whole dollar:
``(i) For GS-1, 42 percent.
``(ii) For GS-2, 39 percent.
``(iii) For GS-3, 36 percent.
``(iv) For GS-4, 33 percent.
``(v) For GS-5, 30 percent.
``(vi) For GS-6, 27 percent.
``(vii) For GS-7, 24 percent.
``(viii) For GS-8, 21 percent.
``(ix) For GS-9, 18 percent.
``(x) For GS-10, 15 percent.
``(xi) For GS-11, 12 percent.
``(xii) For GS-12, 9 percent.
``(xiii) For GS-13, 6 percent.
``(xiv) For GS-14, 3 percent.
``(xv) For GS-15, 1.5 percent.

[[Page H275]]

``(B) Hourly, Daily, Weekly, or Biweekly Rates.--When the
special base rate with respect to a wildland firefighter is
expressed as an hourly, daily, weekly, or biweekly rate, the
special base rate shall be computed from the appropriate
annual rate of basic pay derived under subparagraph (A) in
accordance with the rules under section 5504(b).''.
``(b) Amendment to Prevailing Rate Determinations.--Section
5343 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(g) (1) For a prevailing rate employee described in
section 5342(a)(2)(A) who is a wildland firefighter, as
defined in section 5332a(a), the Secretary of Agriculture or
the Secretary of the Interior (as applicable) shall increase
the wage rates of that employee by an amount (determined at
the sole and exclusive discretion of the applicable Secretary
after consultation with the other Secretary) that is
generally consistent with the percentage increases given to
wildland firefighters in the General Schedule under section
5332a.
``(2) An increased wage rate under paragraph (1) shall be
basic pay for the same purposes as the wage rate otherwise
established under this section.
``(3) An increase under this subsection may not cause the
wage rate of an employee to increase to a rate that would
produce an annualized rate in excess of the annual rate for
level IV of the Executive Schedule.''.
``(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
5332 the following:
``5332a. Special base rates of pay for wildland
firefighters.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the first day of the first applicable
pay period beginning on or after October 1, 2025, or the date
of enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
(e) Applicability of Certain Provisions of Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act.--Notwithstanding section
40803(d)(4)(B) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(16 U.S.C. 6592(d)(4)(B)) and authority provided under the
headings ``WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT--FOREST SERVICE'' and
``WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'' in
fiscal years 2024 and 2025, the salary increase in such
section and under such headings shall not apply to the
positions described in such section 40803(d)(4)(B) for
service performed on or after the effective date described in
subsection (d) of this section.

SEC. 502. WILDLAND FIRE INCIDENT RESPONSE PREMIUM PAY.

(a) In general.--Subchapter V of chapter 55 of title 5,
United Sates Code, is amended by inserting after section
5545b the following:

``Sec. 5545C. INCIDENT RESPONSE PREMIUM PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
ENGAGED IN WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING

``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
``(A) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives;
``(B) the Committee on Oversight and Accountability of the
House of Representatives;
``(C) the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives;
``(D) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives;
``(E) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
``(F) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
``(G) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate; and
``(H) the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
of the Senate;
``(2) the term `covered employee' means an employee of the
Forest Service or the Department of the Interior who is--
``(A) a wildland firefighter, as defined in section
5332a(a); or
``(B) certified by the applicable agency to perform
wildland fire incident-related duties during the period that
employee is deployed to respond to a qualifying incident;
``(3) the term `incident response premium pay' means pay to
which a covered employee is entitled under subsection (c);
``(4) the term `prescribed fire incident' means a wildland
fire originating from a planned ignition in accordance with
applicable laws, policies, and regulations to meet specific
objectives;
``(5) the term `qualifying incident'--
``(A) means--
``(i) a wildfire incident, a prescribed fire incident, or a
severity incident; or
``(ii) an incident that the Secretary of Agriculture or the
Secretary of the Interior determines is similar in nature to
an incident described in clause (i); and
``B) does not include an initial response incident that is
contained within 36 hours; and
``(6) the term `severity incident' means an incident in
which a covered employee is prepositioned in an area in which
conditions indicate there is a high risk of wildfires.
``(b) ELIGIBILITY.--A covered employee is eligible for
incident response premium pay under this section if--
``(1) the covered employee is deployed to respond to a
qualifying incident; and
``(2) the deployment described in paragraph (1) is--
``(A) outside of the official duty station of the covered
employee; or
``(B) within the official duty station of the covered
employee and the covered employee is assigned to an incident-
adjacent fire camp or other designated field location.
``(c) Entitlement to Incident Response Premium Pay.--
``(1) In general.--A covered employee who satisfies the
conditions under subsection (b) is entitled to premium pay
for the period in which the covered employee is deployed to
respond to the applicable qualifying incident.
``(2) Computation.--
``(A) Formula.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C),
premium pay under paragraph (1) shall be paid to a covered
employee at a daily rate of 450 percent of the hourly rate of
basic pay of the covered employee for each day that the
covered employee satisfies the requirements under subsection
(b), rounded to the nearest whole cent
``(B) Limitation.--Premium pay under this subsection may
not be paid.
``(i) with respect to a covered employee for whom the
annual rate of basic pay is greater than that for step 10 of
GS-10, at a daily rate that exceeds the daily rate
established under subparagraph (A) for step 10 of GS-10; or
``(ii) to a covered employee in a total amount that exceeds
$9,000 in any calendar year.
``(C) Adjustments.--
``(i) Assessment.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior shall assess the difference between
the average total amount of compensation that was paid to
covered employees, by grade, in fiscal years 2023 and 2024.
``(ii) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date that
is 1 year after the effective date of this section, the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior
shall jointly publish a report on the results of the
assessment conducted under clause (i).
``(iii) Administrative Actions.--After publishing the
report required under clause (ii), the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management, may, in the sole and exclusive discretion of the
Secretaries acting jointly, administratively adjust the
amount of premium pay paid under this subsection (or take
other administrative action) to ensure that the average
annual amount of total compensation paid to covered
employees, by grade, is more consistent with such amount that
was paid to those employees in fiscal year 2023.
``(iv) Congressional Notification.--Not later than 3 days
after an adjustment made, or other administrative action
taken, under clause (iii) becomes final, the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a
notification regarding that adjustment or other
administrative action, as applicable.
``(d) Treatment of incident response premium pay.--Incident
response premium pay under this section--
``(1) is not considered part of the basic pay of a covered
employee for any purpose;
``(2) may not be considered in determining a covered
employee's lump-sum payment for accumulated and accrued
annual leave under section 5551 or section 5552;
``(3) may not be used in determining pay under section 8114
(relating to compensation for work injuries);
``(4) may not be considered in determining pay for hours of
paid leave or other paid time off during which the premium
pay is not payable; and
``(5) shall be disregarded in determining the minimum wage
and overtime pay to which a covered employee is entitled
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.).''.
``(b) Amendments to premium pay provisions.--Subchapter V
of chapter 55 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 5544--
``(A) by amending the section heading to read as follows:
``Wage-board overtime, Sunday rates, and other premium pay'';
and
``(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) A prevailing rate employee described in section
5342(a)(2)(A) shall receive incident response premium pay
under the same terms and conditions that apply to a covered
employee under section 5545c if that employee--
``(1) is employed by the Forest Service or the Department
of the Interior; and
``(2) (A) is a wildland firefighter, as defined in section
5332a(a); or
``(B) is certified by the applicable agency to perform
wildland fire incident-related duties during the period the
employee is deployed to respond to a qualifying incident (as
defined in section 5545c(a)).''; and
``(2) in section 5547(a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``5545c,'' after ``5545a,''.
``(c) Clerical amendments.--The table of sections for
subchapter V of chapter 55 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
``(1) by amending the item relating to section 5544 to read
as follows:
``5544. Wage-board overtime, Sunday rates, and other
premium pay.'';
``and (2) by inserting after the item relating to section
5545b the following:
``5545c. Incident response premium pay for employees
engaged in wildland firefighting.''.
``(d) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the first day of the first applicable
pay period beginning on or after October 1, 2025, or the date
of enactment of this Act, whichever is later.

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance

[[Page H276]]

of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________