[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 111 (Thursday, September 5, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6073-H6074]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PREVENTING FOREST FIRES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, once again, millions of acres out west have
burned, causing billions of dollars in damage. We were warned in the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health in early 1998 and early 2000
that this was going to happen; and then a few months later in 2000, 7
million acres burned, causing $10 billion worth of damage.
If I went out and burned down one tree in a national forest, I would
be arrested; and yet, because of the policies of the past
administration and following these extremist environmental groups,
these policies have caused millions and millions of acres out west to
burn and caused billions of dollars' worth of damage.
This year, 20 firefighters have lost their lives because of the fires
out there. Also one of my constituents, a young woman firefighter in an
accident fighting one of the fires, has been paralyzed from the waist
down.
Extremist groups, Mr. Speaker, protest any time anyone wants to cut
any trees, even though we have many millions more acres in forest land
now than 50 or 100 years ago. I will repeat that. We have many millions
more acres in forest land now than 50 or 100 or 150 years ago. These
groups have driven many small logging companies out of business. Most
of these fires have been caused by groups which have stopped even the
thinning of forests or the removal of dead and dying trees, resulting
in a tremendous buildup of fuel on the floors of our national forests.
The Washington Times had a front page story a few days ago which
said, ``There are simply too many trees.'' It
[[Page H6074]]
quoted Dale Bosworth, head the U.S. Forest Service, who said, ``We have
so many more trees out there than under natural conditions. There might
have been 40 or 50 Ponderosa pine per acre at one time. Now you have
several hundred per acre.''
The June 27 Washington Post had a headline reading, ``Did politics
put a match to West wild lands?''
As I said, we were warned in the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health that these fires would occur, also in early 1998 that we had
some 40 million acres in imminent and immediate danger of catastrophic
fires. Yet the political strengths of environmental groups were too
strong to do anything about it.
Jay Ambrose, director of editorial policy for the Scripps-Howard
newspaper chain, wrote that the most flammable and dead trees and
underbrush should have been removed, but ``the extreme
environmentalists hate the prospect. It is unconscionable to them that
anyone might make money off the forests. Never mind that a multi-use,
private-public plan would help save the national forests from high-heat
scorching fires that will slow renewed growth, and never mind that
mechanical thinning would give firefighters a chance of controlling
fires and protecting homes without risking their own lives.''
{time} 1145
Mr. Ambrose ended by saying, ``The extremist ideology spits on
private enterprise.''
Mr. Speaker, these fires are continuing. We have been holding a
hearing today in the Committee on Resources about this important issue
with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture.
The Congress passed a law in the mid-1980s that the environmentalists
wanted saying that we would not cut more than 80 percent of the new
growth in the national forests. Now we have approximately 23 billion
board feet of new growth each year, but we are only allowing less than
3 billion board feet, less than one-seventh of the new growth to be
cut. This is less than half of the dead and dying trees. This has led
to a tremendous fuel buildup on the floor of the forests and is the
main reason for these fires that we have been having out West.
Robert Nelson, a professor at the University of Maryland, wrote a
column and said, ``In fact, over the last decade, it was more important
to the Clinton administration to promote wilderness values by creating
roadless areas and taking other actions to exclude a human presence.
This aggravated last summer's tinderbox forest conditions and continues
to threaten public land.'' He said Federal policies have ``produced an
enormous buildup of small trees, underbrush and deadwood that provide
excess fuels to feed flames.''
Mr. Speaker, you have to cut some trees to have a healthy forest and
prevent forest fires, yet, amazingly, there are extremists that oppose
even the removal of dead and dying trees.
Professor Nelson said in many Federal forests, tree density has
increased since the 1940s from 50 per acre to 300 to 500 per acre and
that these forests are ``filled with dense strands of small, stressed
trees and plants that combine with any deadwood to provide virtual
kindling wood for forest fires.''
I recently read Bill Bryson's book about hiking the Appalachian
Trail. He noted that New England was only 30 percent in forest land in
1850, but is 70 percent in forest land today. The Knoxville News-
Sentinel reported a couple of years ago that Tennessee was 36 percent
in forest land in 1950, while today it is almost half in forest land.
Yet, if I went in any school in my district in Tennessee and asked the
students there if there are more trees today than 50 or 150 years ago,
they would probably all say there are many, many fewer trees today.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a tremendous amount of brainwashing going
on about this type of issue, but we need to cut some trees so we can
stop these horrendous forest fires out West.
____________________