H.R. 10000 (119th)Bill Overview

Emergency Mountain Pine Beetle Response Act

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
Jul 30, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consid…

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

Establishes a competitive Mountain Pine Beetle Response Program within the Forest Service to fund emergency response projects on National Forest System lands. Eligible sponsors (states, tribes, water districts, utilities, local governments) may receive grants for activities like removing and processing beetle-killed trees, thinning, reforestation, ecological restoration, and watershed stabilization.

Why people may split

Tradeoff between salvage logging and long-term ecological restoration

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a clear new grant authority to address mountain pine beetle emergencies and provides a basic statutory framework (responsible official, eligible sponsors, eligible activities, selection priorities, and a simple disbursement rule), but it omits critical programmatic elements such as funding authorization, detailed application and selection procedures, timelines for implementation, and meaningful accountability and evaluation requirements.

Establishes a competitive Mountain Pine Beetle Response Program within the Forest Service to fund emergency response projects on National Forest System lands.

Eligible sponsors (states, tribes, water districts, utilities, local governments) may receive grants for activities like removing and processing beetle-killed trees, thinning, reforestation, ecological restoration, and watershed stabilization.

Priorities include protecting municipal water supplies, reducing wildfire risk in wildland-urban interfaces, addressing areas with high beetle-caused mortality, and aligning with state forest or watershed plans.

Passage45/100

Content is narrow and bipartisan-friendly, but absence of funding authorization and need to fit into appropriations or must-pass vehicles lowers standalone odds.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a clear new grant authority to address mountain pine beetle emergencies and provides a basic statutory framework (responsible official, eligible sponsors, eligible activities, selection priorities, and a simple disbursement rule), but it omits critical programmatic elements such as funding authorization, detailed application and selection procedures, timelines for implementation, and meaningful accountability and evaluation requirements.

Contention35/100

Tradeoff between salvage logging and long-term ecological restoration

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governmentsFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitAccelerated hazard-tree removal could reduce wildfire risk to communities and critical infrastructure.
  • Local governmentsGrants for removal and processing likely increase local forestry, hauling, and mill jobs.
  • Local governmentsProgram activities target municipal water protection and watershed stabilization, reducing erosion and sediment deliver…
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenProgram may incentivize salvage logging that prioritizes wood removal over ecological recovery.
  • Potential burdenShort disbursement deadlines tied to completion attestations could complicate multi-year or phased restoration projects.
  • Federal agenciesThe bill lacks specified authorization amounts, creating uncertainty about actual federal funding availability.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Tradeoff between salvage logging and long-term ecological restoration
Progressive75%

Generally favorable because the bill funds restoration, watershed protection, and wildfire-risk reduction on public lands.

Concerned about ensuring ecological integrity, tribal consultation, and preventing misuse as a vehicle for excessive salvage logging.

Would seek stronger safeguards, native-species reforestation, and transparency provisions.

Leans supportive
Centrist80%

Likely supportive as a targeted, practical response to a forest health emergency that protects infrastructure and water.

Sees merit in competitive grants and specified priorities, while noting funding, oversight, and measurable outcomes need clearer detail.

Would push for accountability and cost-effectiveness measures.

Leans supportive
Conservative60%

Generally positive about addressing beetle outbreaks that threaten water, infrastructure, and fire risk; approves inclusion of utilities and local sponsors.

Wary of creating a new federal program and ongoing spending without clear sunset or state primacy.

Prefers more local control and private-sector involvement.

Split reaction
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood45/100

Content is narrow and bipartisan-friendly, but absence of funding authorization and need to fit into appropriations or must-pass vehicles lowers standalone odds.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No explicit appropriation or authorized funding amount included
  • Potential overlap with existing Forest Service grant authorities
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Tradeoff between salvage logging and long-term ecological restoration

Content is narrow and bipartisan-friendly, but absence of funding authorization and need to fit into appropriations or must-pass vehicles l…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a clear new grant authority to address mountain pine beetle emergencies and provides a basic statutory framework (responsible official, eligible sponsors, eli…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis