History Repeating

The Essentials Newsletter, Thirty-fifth Edition

Coming back from the holidays, I’ve struggled to focus on what is most important in this 2025 kick-off edition of the newsletter. Partly because there’s a lot going on that will impact critical infrastructure (CI) sectors – a new(ish) Administration (have you heard?), a new Congress, devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, and a sense of déjà vu. In my (insert throat-clearing sound here) 32 years in D.C., there are, shall I say, themes that seem to arise again and again, almost like a pendulum swinging, yet going unresolved. Or maybe I just want to be back in Hawaii on vacation.

In the middle of this indecision, I had a conversation with an old friend and colleague about how, when we were in our 20s and 30s and an older lobbyist would say “I remember when we worked on that issue 35 years ago,” we would roll our eyes at the reminiscence. And now, of course, we are the elder states people and we do remember when: 1) Congress tried to create healthy forests over 20 years ago; 2) there was a Republican trifecta in the House, Senate, and White House -- or a Democratic trifecta -- and there was a debate about the process for using budget reconciliation; and 3) how Congress was (and is) never more motivated than when reacting to a major crisis – the changes that were made after 9/11, for example, were swift, bipartisan, and sweeping.

Of course, I’m aware that certain elements in the current iteration of history are different. Such elements as social media, fewer meaningful relationships between Republicans and Democrats, both principals and staff (which used to be developed outside of the public eye), increasing polarization on the issues, propaganda spread by social media and traditional media, and the list goes on.

But what hasn’t changed is Congress’s drive when in reactive mode. This is a cynical view, I admit, but is the truth, nonetheless. And the reasons are understandable. Focus is a big one – with all the issues Congress and any given Administration have on their plates, a crisis gives them a reason to deal with the issue at hand, usually with the support of their constituents, at least for a window of time. Policy matters that have stalled are suddenly resurrected and passed quickly after a crisis. It is why, when I speak with people who aren’t versed in the day-to-day “sausage-making” of getting laws passed in our country, I often say it’s easier to be on the “defense” for an issue in Congress than on the offense – until it’s not. That inflection point, often a crisis or tragedy, spurs quick passage of legislation, the being on the “offense” part of lawmaking. It keeps us lobbyists (and former lobbyists) on our toes, that’s for sure.

As Congress and the Administration react to the LA fires, which have been apocalyptic in nature and devastating for many, including entire communities, my hope is that policy makers review history before deciding on an approach. And here comes the eye-rolling moment…I remember when the Clinton Administration’s Forest Service (FS) imposed “roadless” areas (Roadless - 2001 Roadless Rule) to prevent logging on federal lands. In the late 1990s, numerous congressional hearings, including in the then-Forestry Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee, reviewed that proposed policy, which was, despite the controversy surrounding the rule, finalized by the agency at the end of the Clinton Administration. As a legislative staffer on the Hill at the time, I sat through hearings on behalf of my boss where many forest health experts testified about the problems this policy would cause. While the roadless area rule only applies to covered Forest Service land, it still involves 58 million acres of forest. According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report from August 2020:

FS management of roadless areas has been contentious and is often the subject of congressional interest. Debates surrounding IRA management often center on whether current FS roadless rules specify desirable levels of resource protection or resource development, with various sides supporting or opposing the rules’ current provisions. Debates also center on which level of governance—national forest, state, or federal—should manage roadless areas and on which branch of federal government should lead roadless area policymaking.

I raise this 2001-implemented policy as many have begun to assess the reasons behind the LA wildfires.  I cannot know, nor am I implying, that the roadless-area rules are to blame in this particular case. My point is that policy makers, the media, and those impacted by these fires should understand the bigger picture through the lens of history and how that history has impacted policies underpinning how government agencies at both the federal and state levels now interact with forests. The good news is that many of the debates around these policies and others related to forest management are online, at least the ones that reached the House or Senate floors, such as the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, that passed with bipartisan support during the Bush Administration. And there are other places to go to research and understand what’s happening, such as the CRS), that now provide most of its reports online for anyone to review.

With that context and historical perspective, all of us can be more informed. Such a perspective can help establish a better tone for debate – whether at the kitchen table or in the halls of Congress – and, hopefully, lead to better policy. House and Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle had already been working on bipartisan, bicameral legislation in the last Congress, the Fix Our Forests Act, that is expected to be considered quickly in this new Congress, according to communications from a few of the bill’s champions last week: LaMalfa, Westerman, McClain Issue Joint Statement on Los Angeles Fires | Congressional Western Caucus.

During this debate and others related to the LA fires, I hope another point of context beyond historical understanding is also at the forefront. That is the need for extensive resilient infrastructure buildouts in our country. These needed buildouts have been acknowledged on both sides of the aisle via Biden-supported legislation like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. While the details will be debated, of course, the urgency has become more acute in recent months with ever-increasing forecasts for electricity demand from AI/data center usage and electrification of transportation and buildings. Manufacturing infrastructure in the U.S. is needed to meet this demand, among other needs. In the case of additional electric infrastructure in forested areas, there can be risks, which are increasingly being managed, for example, via early warning signals from technology deployments to detect fire before it impacts the infrastructure. This innovative technology could potentially be used to help land managers, fire agencies, and others to gather data and extend their situational awareness. Language in the Fix Our Forests Act could spur some of this collaboration.

We need to build things within this country, now almost more than ever from a national security standpoint. We also need to better manage our natural resources. Hopefully, we’ll seek to do both with an informed perspective and pragmatic approach.