Forest Service Reorg - Progress or Politics

[BuzzH]

That has never seemed to hinder the full speed ahead approach.

Indeed...I know its tough to imagine.

 

[Irrelevant]

Back on track...

Seems the administration is violating the law with the "reorg"...

PL 119-74, Div. C, Title V, Sec. 505 (Consolidated Appropriations of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026)

SEC. 505. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2026, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that: (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or activity; (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; (5) reorganizes or renames offices, programs, or activities; (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities presently performed by Federal employees; (7) augments existing programs, projects, or activities in excess of $500,000 or 5 percent, whichever is less, or reduces by 5 percent funding for any program, project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 5 percent; (8) results from any general savings, including savings from a reduction in personnel, which would result in a change in existing programs, projects, or activities as approved by Congress; unless the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified 30 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.

Um, I clearly don't understand.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6938/text

your quoted section is found under Division A, Title V, Sec 505. Div C doesn't contain it. There was only one instance of "relocates" found in the bill text.

 

[SAJ-99]

View attachment 405755

Just want him to be transparent. Like most good HT debates, it will not be a debate about what is best, but what is best for him.

 

[NR_Hunter]

Here is another gem we get to consider:

The Trump administration's proposed 2027 budget includes a $10 billion "Presidential Capital Stewardship Program" for D.C. beautification and construction, while simultaneously slashing National Park Service (NPS) funding by roughly 25% and cutting over $200 million in staffing. This proposal includes dismantling U.S. Forest Service research and reducing wildfire management capacity.
D.C. Beautification ($10B): The funds would be used for Washington, D.C. federal building improvements, parks, and projects in time for the nation's 250th birthday.

This is not a R or D issue, this is a fundamental attack on our collective parks, public lands and the support for them.
So instead of systematically improving, sustaining and fixing things across the entire country, we get to see this wannabe king baby put up arches and gold plate everything around him in DC. Got it....

Randy's first point on this is unfortunately far too accurate and the long-play the anti-public land cartel is pushing - remove all tools and money to help improve things, show everyone how broken and ineffective it is, then privatize it for a select few to get even richer. It is infuriating. My Irish side is wanting to resurrect the IRA for a while.......

Real talk I just hanged this flag last week