wildfires are a significant threat to rural communities, and I support efforts to bring down the cost of forest treatments that would help protect these communities. This amendment, though, just uses those rural communities as a prop in order to disguise the fact that it would expand the renewable food standards definition to every single tree across our public lands. It is not limited to the wildland-urban interface where thinning would have the most impact. There are no limits on this, not for protected wilderness, beloved recreation areas, or old growth. It does not matter if the tree is cut down as part of a responsible forest restoration project or a clear-cut. This proposal is reckless and would endanger our public lands. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Editor's note · Context
Opposing an amendment related to forest treatment and renewable food standards.
Share
More from Sherrod Brown
This weekend, unelected, unaccountable, unvetted, and unconfirmed billionaire, Elon Musk, demanded every Federal worker justify their job. He demanded five reasons they deserve to keep it. Let's turn that around. Here are five things the…
It’s heartbreaking to think that all this time these products could have been harmful and it’s enraging that now we have so much evidence that we need to take action and it’s not happening.
I rise in support of H.R. 5457, the Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act. The SAMOSA Act is a straightforward, good-government bill that has strong bipartisan support from members of the Oversight Committee…
The decision was mine and Connie’s, and it was a hard decision, because I think I could do good work in either place.





