[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 20, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4277-H4286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1904, HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION
ACT OF 2003
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 239 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 239
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1904) to improve the
capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of
the Interior to plan and conduct hazardous fuels reduction
projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land
Management lands aimed at protecting communities, watersheds,
and certain other at-risks lands from catastrophic wildfire,
to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats
to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic
wildfire, across the landscape, and for other purposes. The
bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate on the bill, as amended, with 30 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Agriculture, 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Resources, and 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further
amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on
Rules, if offered by Representative George Miller of
California or his designee, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as
read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and
(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my namesake, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 239
provides for the consideration of H.R. 1904 under a modified closed
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate in the House with 30
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Resources,
[[Page H4278]]
and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule
waives all points of order against the bill and provides that the
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The rule
also makes in order the amendment printed in part B of the report if
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) or his
designee which shall be considered as read and shall be separately
debated for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent. Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the
amendment printed in part B of the report and provides one motion to
recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003,
is a measure that would enable the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior to better protect communities, watersheds, and certain other
at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfires by conducting hazardous fuels
reduction projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land
Management lands all across the United States.
The summers of 2000 and 2002 were the two largest and most
destructive fire seasons in the past 50 years. Last year alone, Mr.
Speaker, American taxpayers spent in excess of $1.5 billion to contain
wildfires which claimed the lives of 23 firefighters. This subject hits
particularly close to home for this Member because tragically, the
summer before last, four of my constituents lost their lives fighting
the Thirty Mile Fire in my district. A contributing factor in that fire
and many similarly explosive wildfires destroying forests and
rangelands at such an alarming rate is the unprecedented buildup of
dead, dying, and diseased timber on these Federal lands. For a variety
of reasons, including improved firefighting techniques and legally
required environmental restrictions, the natural processes by which,
until relatively recently, nature has rid forests of highly inflammable
undergrowth have been overridden. The result has been to turn many of
our forests and rangelands into virtual tinderboxes waiting to explode
with oftentimes tragic results.
H.R. 1904 is designed to restore some much-needed balance to the
management of our forests and rangelands. Through the use of
environmentally responsible thinning, prescribed burns and other
scientifically validated management practices, overstocked forests can
be returned to a more natural balance, and the risks of catastrophic
wildfires as well as insect and disease infestations greatly reduced.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing H.R. 1904
would cost $12 million in fiscal year 2004 and $278 million over the
next 5 years. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and is
projected to impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, Federal funds authorized under this act would
actually benefit State, local, and tribal governments. Members from the
West and Southeast, particularly, are acutely aware that the fire
season will soon be upon us again in full force. We need to move this
legislation as rapidly as possible.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the
rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1904.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time;
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule and
the underlying bill. Typically during debate on the rule, the minority
expresses its outrage at the process by which the underlying bill is
coming to the floor. We talk about the limited time that we have had to
consider the content of the bill as well as the lack of opportunities
that we have to offer amendments. Today is no different. I again come
to the floor in disgust by the majority's rule which makes in order a
meager 1 of the 11 amendments that were offered by Democrats, many of
which, I note, addressed some of the bill's most controversial
provisions. These commonsense amendments held the potential to
transform a controversial bill into one that the entire House can
support. Instead, the American people will never hear a discussion on
these amendments because the Republican majority has shut off debate.
As I examined the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, it became
increasingly obvious that the only ``healthy'' thing about this bill is
the pocketbooks of the timber and logging industries and the only
``restoration'' that is being done is in the campaign coffers of the
majority just in time for election day 2004. President Theodore
Roosevelt, the Republican conservationist, told Congress in 1907: ``The
conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute
the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of
our national life.''
We are now faced with a vote clearly indicative of the concerns
raised by President Roosevelt nearly 1 century ago. Whether we answer
the challenge made by the late President or allow his legacy to fall
victim to an influential timber lobby is a decision that Members will
have to make later today. Republicans have crafted a bill that makes
their approach toward curbing wildfires quite clear: if there are not
any trees in the forests, then there will not be any forest fires. This
approach is as infantile as it is misguided. The reality is H.R. 1904
opens up thousands upon thousands of forest acres to logging and
destruction. With the passage of this bill, much of the 150 national
forests spread across some 230 million acres of land initially set
aside for protection nearly 100 years ago will again be under attack.
The majority's drafting of a logging bill under the guise of wildfire
prevention mocks the seriousness of the issue. In 2002 alone, wildfires
burned more than 6.5 million acres at a cost to taxpayers of more than
$1 billion. Hundreds of families were evacuated, and uncontrollable
fires caused millions of dollars of damage and the death of
firefighters. This bill not only loosens current law regarding the
logging and controlled burning of our Nation's forests but it also
eviscerates environmental studies and the ability of organizations and
private citizens to submit appeals on the cutting down of as many as 20
million acres. Under the Republican bill, appeals are subject to
unnecessary and unrealistic deadlines which insult the process. Federal
judges are held to judicial deadlines that fail to consider caseloads
and complexities of the appeal.
The irony of a December 2002 White House press release entitled
``Reducing the Threat of Catastrophic Wildfires and Improving Forest
Health'' is shocking. The release notes, ``The President's Healthy
Forest Initiative will ensure that needed environmental reviews and
public review processes are conducted in the most efficient and
effective way possible.'' It continues, ``The Departments of
Agriculture and Interior will propose steps to promote early and more
meaningful public participation on forest health project appeals.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1904 certainly ensures that the public review
process is efficient. It just eliminates the process before it even
begins. Efficient? Yes. Democratic and patriotic? Absolutely not.
Democrats, on the other hand, have submitted a fair, realistic, and
noncontroversial substitute. It places priority on the protection of
communities and water supplies most directly threatened by potential
wildfires. And it requires that 85 percent of any funds appropriated
under the bill are spent for projects in communities and watersheds.
The Democratic substitute also protects community infrastructure and
expands areas protected from logging under the bill.
{time} 1145
It does not alter current judicial review and appeals procedures, and
it authorizes nearly $4 billion for hazardous fuels reduction work. The
Democratic substitute is as strong as the majority's bill is in areas
where our two sides agree. But, most importantly, the Democratic
substitute is stronger in the areas where the majority's bill fails.
Teddy Roosevelt once noted, ``Forests are the lungs of our land,
purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our
[[Page H4279]]
people.'' He continued: ``A Nation that destroys its soil destroys
itself.''
This bill, Mr. Speaker, destroys our national forests and does little
to preserve the strength of the American people. We must not allow the
late President Roosevelt's warning to be realized by the 108th
Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a valued member of
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings), my friend and colleague on the Committee on Rules, for
yielding to me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the modified closed rule and the
underlying legislation, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. In
crafting this rule, the Committee on Rules has worked to maintain the
bipartisan coalition of support this important legislation has gathered
while also providing the minority the opportunity to offer a substitute
amendment drafted by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
for the consideration of all the Members of the House.
I commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for introducing
this bill and the House Committee on Resources, Committee on
Agriculture, and the Committee on the Judiciary for the time and effort
they have invested in bringing this very important and well-crafted
legislation to the House floor.
I support balanced forest management designed to protect plant and
animal habitats, while ensuring that forests are still available for
the enjoyment of local communities. One way I believe we can attain
this goal is through President Bush's ``Healthy Forests Initiative,''
which has been introduced as H.R. 1904.
The fire seasons of 2000 and 2002 were by most standards the worst
the United States has seen in the past 50 years. Many scientists argue
that these wildfires occurred because many forest have unnaturally high
fuel loads, such as dead trees and dense undergrowth.
Unfortunately, it currently takes Federal land managers upwards of
several years to carry out forest health projects such as controlled
burning and thinning, as there are various bureaucratic and judicial
obstacles that must be dealt with before a project can begin. H.R. 1904
would empower local land managers with the tools they need to
expeditiously carry out forest health projects and would increase the
speed and efficiency with which the United States Forest Service and
other Federal agencies make regulatory decisions.
Furthermore, this legislation would improve the capacity of the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and
conduct hazardous fuel reduction projects on National Forest System and
Bureau of Land Management lands to help protect communities and
forestlands from catastrophic wildfires. It would also direct Federal
land managers to establish early detection programs for insect and
disease infestation in forests before they reach epidemic levels.
Maintaining the health of our forests is critical and should not be
impeded by needless bureaucratic obstacles. If forest health projects
are not carried out, a forest will naturally cleanse itself through
wildfires that can cause damage to the health of the forest ecosystems,
endangered species and air and water quality.
The American people, their property, and our environment are
threatened by catastrophic fires and environmental degradation. These
unnaturally extreme fires are caused by a crisis of deteriorating
forest and rangeland health, the result of a century of well-
intentioned but misguided land management.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may
proceed to debate the underlying legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I had hoped today that we would have a fair and balanced rule.
Traditionally, when the Committee on Resources, formerly the Committee
on Natural Resources, formerly the Committee on the Interior during my
time here in Congress, has brought important bills to the floor, they
have been under open rules with each and every Member being allowed to
offer amendments. I had two amendments that would have improved this
bill which might have given it a better chance of actually becoming law
instead of just scoring big political points.
Unfortunately, neither of those amendments are to be allowed because
the House is in a hurry. A hurry for what? So we can get out for golf
games this afternoon? We are going to be done between 4 and 5 o'clock
this afternoon so Members can make phone calls for the big Republican
fundraiser tomorrow night? I do not know. But for some reason the
United States House of Representatives cannot work after 4 o'clock in
the afternoon and allow Members whose districts are most affected by
this legislation an opportunity to offer amendments. That is absolutely
outrageous, unconscionable, and of course violates everything the
Republicans promised in the ``Contract on America'' when they took over
the House.
But I am sure there is a good reason why they shut us down and they
will not allow the amendments. Maybe because they are afraid some of
those amendments might win, might improve the bill, might go against
the wishes of the White House who is running this process.
We had a good, collaborative, bipartisan process going last fall. We
reached agreement on a bill. It would have actually had a very good
chance of becoming law. Instead, suddenly this bill springs up on a
Friday afternoon to be considered in full committee the next Wednesday
without one single public hearing, without even consideration in the
subcommittee, and it was being driven by the White House.
The Republicans would never vote for this bill if we had a Democratic
administration, even this exact bill. It gives total discretion to the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Assistant Secretary who runs the
Forest Service and the Secretary of the Interior over what and where
they will apply this bill. They do not have to prioritize. They do not
have to go and protect communities first. They do not have to protect
old growth. No. In fact, this bill will rely upon harvesting old
growth, which can be done without appeal by the Secretary under this
bill. Sometimes only in thousand acre segments, sometimes in smaller
segments, timber harvesting.
There is no money in this bill. This is a very expensive process. One
hundred years of mismanagement of the national forests cannot be fixed
on the cheap. There is no money in this bill. There was money in the
bipartisan substitute last fall, but the White House will not allow
them to ask for money because they want to pretend this can be done for
nothing.
It cannot be done for nothing. They will just give the contracts to
people, and they will go out there and clear the stuff out and just
take what they get. But, guess what, the brush, the underbrush and the
little dead poles and the small trees, they are not worth much. So what
are they going to have to do to carry out this bill? They are going to
harvest the old growth, the large fire-resistant trees that are what we
should be leaving according to all the scientists while we clear out
the understory and the underbrush.
But that will be harvested or not harvested at the discretion of Mark
Ray and other bureaucrats in the administration. Appointed bureaucrats
will have the discretion, total discretion without appeal, virtually
without being able to go to court because their decisions have to get
deference in the courts.
We could have done something real. We could have done something
bipartisan. We could have done something that would become law. We
could have done something that would begin to address the 100 years of
mismanagement of our forests and deal with the real threats to my
community.
There are going to be a lot of people talking today who do not have a
darn thing at risk. I have got people and communities at risk. The
largest fire in the country burned a good deal of
[[Page H4280]]
my district last year, and we are still threatened.
I feel very strongly about this, and I am offended that I cannot
offer a single amendment, get one vote on one substitute, and the House
is going to rush out of here at 4 or 5 o'clock for people's golf games
or fundraising phone calls. That is outrageous.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington
State for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the
underlying legislation, and I appreciate the passion that my friend
from Oregon brings to this debate because I am trying very hard now to
control very real emotion on my side. From my perspective, having
represented rural Arizona in the Congress of the United States, having
had the Rodeo-Chedeski fire burn hundreds of thousands of acres, Mr.
Speaker, I bring to the floor a photo that is worth a thousand words of
verbiage because it tells the tale of what transpired in the White
Mountains of Arizona in the wake of the Rodeo-Chedeski fire, and it
tells the story compellingly.
The area in the upper part of this photograph was treated. Effective
forest management was utilized. The untreated area, there were delays
through appeals and paralysis by analysis; and the Members see what
happened.
I listened with interest to my friend from Florida who in curious
fashion said we do not have to worry about trees if there are no trees
there. I do not know what rhetorical point he was trying to make, but
the fact is Members of this Congress, including 16 of my friends on the
other side of the aisle, have signed on to this Healthy Forest
Initiative because we have to get something done, precisely because of
the concerns of my friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) who preceded me
here in the well, precisely because of the damage that is done to
communities and to people who live in those communities and, yes, to
endangered species.
Do my colleagues realize the Rodeo-Chedeski fire, we had air
pollution caused by particulates that far exceeds what goes on in the
rush hour in the metropolitan area of Phoenix? Do my colleagues realize
that, in fact, the water pollution and the damage to watersheds and the
ability of people in those areas to have healthy drinking water is
taken away because of the fire?
Mr. Speaker, the fact is we are coming here. When we strip away all
the histionics and all the theatrics and all the arguments about
process, at the end of the day we are faced with this question: Will
the House of Representatives, will this People's House, embrace an
effective healthy forest initiative that is broad-based, that will
preserve endangered species, that will preserve the integrity of
watersheds, that will preserve air quality if we take these steps now?
Because, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, in the words of Professor
Wallace Covington in Northern Arizona University, a widely respected
forest health expert, the question is not if there will be another
wildfire but when.
Do we continue through theatrics and delay to subject the people of
rural America to the threat of catastrophic wildfire?
This is too important to leave to politics as usual. Rise in support
of the rule, support the base bill, and reject any amendment that would
try to restrict this to certain geographic areas.
I thank my colleagues for their time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Just to answer my friend regarding what he thought was a rhetorical
question, what I merely was suggesting was that the majority's bill
will eliminate forests and if it eliminates forests then there will not
be any wildfires.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the fact is what happened in that last
fire eliminated 100,000 acres of habitat to the Mexican spotted owl. So
I would suggest to my friend, rather than any misguided notion on the
motives on this side, I am actually working to protect the forests, and
I thank him for his concern.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if it is
that this bill will not destroy forests, then I do not know how to
read. It is just that simple.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very serious bill we have
on the floor today of the House of Representatives.
Some time ago, I visited with a couple parents of one of the
firefighters who was killed in the fire in Washington State that the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) made reference to. It seems to
me in the memory of all firefighters and for those families that the
U.S. House of Representatives owes it to the men and women affected by
fire to allow democracy on the floor of the House, to give time to a
bill where we will consider some of these amendments that should have
been allowed for a vote.
Why is the House in such a hurry that it cannot work past 4 o'clock
in the afternoon when we have got firefighters potentially losing their
lives out in these forests?
{time} 1200
I am ashamed that on the floor of the House of Representatives with
that loss we cannot allow a full and fair consideration of more than
one single, lousy amendment to this bill.
I would posit that that great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, would be
spinning in his grave if he knew about this effectively closed rule,
because he was a champion of participatory democracy and a champion of
the forest. Neither democracy nor forest are served by this rule, which
shuts off honest and full debate in this House.
Let me address just one amendment that this rule denies the House the
opportunity to deal with, and that was an amendment I had, went to the
Committee on Rules with, that would preserve the heart of our
environmental policies when it comes to our forests. The heart of the
National Environmental Protection Act simply requires our agencies to
consider at least one alternative to the proposal on how they are going
to deal with the fuel reduction program in a no-action consideration.
Is that too much to ask simply to preserve the heart of our
environmental policy when it comes to our forests? Are the special
interests so powerful on the floor of the House that we cannot even
debate, we cannot even vote on an amendment to preserve the very heart
of the EPA act when it comes to our forests?
It is not just me saying it is the heart; it is the law of the United
States of America. I want to quote from the Code of Federal
Regulations. Right now in our law, our agencies are compelled to one
alternative, to consider no action when they consider these fuels
reduction programs. It says: ``Alternatives including the proposed
action. This section is the heart of the environmental impact
statement. It should present the environmental impacts of the proposal
and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the
issues and providing a clear basis for the choice among options by the
decision-maker and the public.''
Is it too much to preserve the heart of environmental protection? My
amendment would simply allow the House to vote that we should compel
our agencies to think and use their scientific information to think
about at least one alternative to the proposal.
We should be working arm in arm to design a bipartisan fuels
reduction program, one that protects the public, one that does not
allow one person in one bureaucracy to decide we are going down this
road and blind ourself to the other. We got into this pickle due to
ignorance, and now this rule will continue that path of ignorance in
our forests. Reject this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
Mr. Speaker, the weeds are in the garden. We had a full congressional
[[Page H4281]]
hearing, open to the public, sunshine laws, in Flagstaff, Arizona. Some
said they would come and did not show up. Everyone from both sides was
invited.
The weeds are in the garden. In your own garden, you weed out those
spindly, dry weeds. On the public lands of America, we are being
stopped from weeding out those spindly pines called ``dog hair
thickets.'' They add so much to the fuel load that when you visit rural
Arizona this year, when you come to the Grand Canyon, visit Sedona, I
want you to know if a fire starts in Sedona, Arizona, with the upwinds,
with the prevailing terrain, it will overtake Flagstaff by that
evening. There is nothing to stop it. We have got to be able to thin
the forest with a holistic approach.
I want Members to know also the West is being devastated by millions
of bark beetles. These bark beetles are growing at such an epidemic
proportion that unless we are allowed to thin the forest, we will not
be able to take care of this infestation.
I urge full support of the rule for the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act. I ask Members on both sides to embrace the idea that we clean the
weeds out of the garden.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a bill, but in equally
strong opposition to the rule. I do not know how much longer that this
House is going to continue to suppress the rights of the minority to be
heard on the floor of the House. There was a little news last week
about the 51 Democrats in Texas that used the rules of the house to go
into Oklahoma to stop a bill from passing. Many people do not
understand why they did that.
Today is another example of the frustration on the minority side when
the rule does not allow free and open debate on this floor on issues. I
disagree with my friend from Oregon and will oppose his amendment. I
disagree with my friends on this side of the aisle who contend that
this bill does all the bad things to our national forests, because it
does not, in my opinion.
I have spent about 6 to 8 years working with chairman Bob Smith of
Oregon, and now the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and
listening to all of the opposing arguments. In the Committee on
Agriculture we had an open rule. Anybody could offer an amendment and
have full debate on these issues.
What is different about the floor of the House? Why is it that, day
after day after day, we come here and we say we cannot debate these
issues openly and honestly.
I do not understand this. This was not the Contract with America.
Some of you remember when I used to stand with you when you were in the
minority and oppose the majority on this side when they would not allow
you to have your amendments. And we came up with a rule. We came up
with a rule that said if you have got one Democrat and one Republican
that is for something, put it out on the floor and let it be discussed.
Give us a time limit, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 1 minute; but just let it
be debated.
That is what this House should be all about. That is not what the
pattern of rules does. And to those who wonder why the 51 did what they
did, remember, who is causing it in the House of Representatives? The
same person, same persons, are causing it in the Texas legislature.
What are we afraid of? I am for you. I am for the bill. I think it
ought to be voted on. But my colleagues on this side who have a
different opinion have every absolute right to have their issues
debated within the confines of reasonable time restraints.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule today. It will
pass. But I have asked the chairman and I ask the leadership and I ask
my colleagues on the other side, please do not continue this pattern of
not allowing free and open debate. We should not be afraid. We have a
good bill today. I am prepared to argue and oppose amendments, I am
prepared to support the bill. It is a good bill. But why do we not
allow free and open debate?
The answer to that question, to those who wonder why the 51 in Texas
exercised their rights under the rules, this is a good example of the
frustration building on this side of the aisle.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussion on the floor
already about a variety of different fuels reduction plans and whose is
best. Let me just show you what a fuel reduction plan is from the
environmental community.
This is a fuel reduction plan from the environmental wackos. They
want to leave forests in a state where that is the only outcome when a
fire starts. You have a conflagration. It is not just a fire; it is a
fire that consumes everything in its path for miles around.
Such a fire was in my district in this last year, the 139,000-acre
Hayman Fire, just one of several record-breaking fires that touched the
West last year in the worst wildfire in Colorado history. The fire
destroyed 133 homes and filled reservoirs with soot and sediment.
Another example of that: the Colorado Hayman Fire dumped colossal
loads of mud and soot into Denver's largest supply of drinking water.
The air was filled with toxic gas. The State Department of Public
Health and Environment advised people living as far from Denver as
Wyoming to stay in their homes, shut their windows, and use fans and
air filtration devices until the fire was extinguished.
This is a picture of Denver on June 8, the day before the fire. This
is a picture of Denver on June 9, the day of the fire.
By the way, another good example of the bizarre rules in which we
operate is that fire, the smoke from that fire, is not counted against
Denver for clean air; but any kind of pollution that is prior to that
is counted against our clean air days. But a smoke that completely
almost blurs the city, that is not counted by EPA.
The Hayman Fire cost more than $39 million to extinguish and millions
more in cleanup and restoration costs that continue to grow. The fire
incinerated large areas of habitat for threatened or endangered
species. One of those species may even disappear as a result of the
fire.
This is not a partisan problem. In fact, the Democratic leader in the
U.S. Senate last year became so fed up with the delays and procedural
requirements blocking the implementation of thinning work in South
Dakota that he inserted a sweeping rider in the 2002 supplemental
appropriations bill suspending all legal and administrative
requirements in an effort to get the work done.
The fact that such drastic action has to be taken to facilitate the
completion is a striking commentary on how broken this process is.
Congress should not have to legislate individual thinning projects.
Support the rule and support the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying
bill. I heard my colleagues, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio)
and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), speak with great passion
about the need to pass legislation that would remove this threat of
catastrophic wildfire; and I want to associate myself with their
remarks and their concerns.
I heard my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), talk
about the broad-based nature of the bill before us today; but I would
beg to differ with my colleague. There are more of us that would join
the gentleman if the rule were more broadly structured and if the bill
broadened the coalition.
In the end we are trying to raise trust with this legislation. We are
trying to create a sense in all of our communities that are threatened
by catastrophic wildfire that we will focus our efforts on the so-
called red zones and in our watersheds where our water supplies are at
risk. In Colorado, the red
[[Page H4282]]
zone is 6 million acres alone. That is where people and property come
into contact with forests that are in unhealthy conditions.
I offered a number of amendments in the Committee on Resources and
the Committee on Agriculture, and I distilled those down to two
amendments that I took to the Committee on Rules. One would have
focused 70 percent of the dollars that we would spend in the red zones
where the risk is the greatest. That amendment was rejected by the
Committee on Rules.
I offered a second amendment, also sponsored by my friend, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), and the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Inslee), which would streamline the NEPA process but not entirely
toss it out. If we eliminate all public input, we are going to reduce
the levels of trust, the levels of involvement; and in the end, we are
going to see additional litigation and stalemate.
This legislation needs to be passed, but it has to come out of the
House in a form that the Senate would support. I worry. I am concerned.
I believe that this bill as it is constructed would not be acceptable
to the Senate.
What are we going to find ourselves in again? We are going to be in a
gridlock situation and see more litigation, more stall, more lack of
attention to our forests; and in the end, our efforts are going to be
counterproductive.
So I urge the Members to defeat this rule, to broaden the rule to
allow debate, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm),
so eloquently pointed out to us earlier. Let us go back to the days of
more open rules, where we take the time in the House to really work
together to create a broad-based bill that the Senate and the President
could support.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, and in
particular the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), the
gentleman from Colorado (Chairman McGinnis), and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden), for their hard work in bringing this much-needed
legislation to the floor.
{time} 1215
Through President Bush's leadership, we are at long last taking
proactive steps here today to provide some major relief from the
regulatory quagmire that continues to put our forests and communities
in serious jeopardy. The public health and safety risk posed by
catastrophic fires can no longer be ignored. With each passing year
that we allow good management to be hijacked by radical
environmentalists, people's lives are put at risk. We can't stop these
fires, but we know that by thinning our forests in an environmentally
sensitive way we can make them healthier and more fire-resilient,
reducing their fire size and destructive potential.
But analysis gridlock and the appeals and lawsuits by radical
environmentalists have stymied good forest management. The Forest
Service chief Dale Bosworth recently testified to Congress that his
agency is being strangled by analysis paralysis. They spend up to 40
percent of their time in planning and assessment.
Mr. Speaker, clearly, Congress could not have intended our
environmental laws to aid and abet a public health and safety risk and
a risk to the environment that they were enacted to protect. I urge my
colleagues to support the rule and allow us to consider this important
bill which will restore some common sense to a system gone awry.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has
a great deal of insight with reference to environmental matters.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in
permitting me to speak on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I caught a note common to both my friend, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and my friend, the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Hayworth), that this is too important to play politics.
There is much divergence on opinion in terms of forest health. There
are those in the environmental community that would point out that
heavily logged areas actually are those that have suffered most in
firefighting.
But there are many areas of agreement. The Democratic substitute
captures those areas of agreement. It would focus funding and fire
protection activity where it is needed most, in the sensitive interface
surrounding communities. It would require that 85 percent of the
funding be spent in and around those same communities and water
supplies. It keeps the activities out of the controversial areas, like
the roadless areas and old-growth forests. It shortens the appeals
process but does not shut out the public or tamper with judicial
review. Most importantly, it starts rebuilding trust between the many
parties that are constantly at odds regarding policies regarding public
land.
I understand why some of our friends in the rural communities, some
of our environmental friends, get extremely cranky about this. We need
to start rebuilding a sense of confidence and trust that we can work
together to solve problems. This Democratic substitute would do so.
It would, unlike the underlying bill, actually put authorized money,
$4.5 billion, that could be spent to help these timber-dependent
communities revitalize their local economies, putting people to work to
make communities safer.
In the long run, unless we are willing to take a broader view of what
goes on in the flame zone where the drought areas are and those that
have development encroaching in the forestlands, unless and until we
change our view about how we manage and protect them, we are going to
be faced with this problem time and time again.
But as dangerous as forest fires are, I would suggest as far as this
institution, an inability of our being able to come together to work
cooperatively to build the trust out in the broader community is
equally as dangerous, equally as troubling.
I am going to vote against the rule and hope that we can change the
nature of it so that people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) and I on this side of the aisle can debate our legitimate
differences, offer up proposals, but allow the whole House to work its
will.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation.
This rule is the result of many hours of committee work, many hours
of considering all of the amendments that the opponents of this
legislation and this rule right now say they have never had a chance to
voice or to discuss.
This has gone through the Committee on Resources, it has gone through
the Committee on Agriculture, it has gone through the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Committee on Rules. At that point and at that time
these folks well know that the rendering process, the deliberative
process that is provided them in the committee is an opportunity to
make those points at that time and avoid that same kind of confusion on
this floor.
Now, this is reasonable and it is sensible legislation. It is
reasonable if we want to protect the habitat for all species, including
those that are endangered. It is responsible if we want to protect the
watershed.
Mr. Speaker, the watershed in Idaho is not around the 201
communities. It includes that 35 million acres of Federal ground in the
State of Idaho. That is where our watershed is. There is no watershed
close to the communities. Most of that watershed is out in the forests.
If Members really believe in clean water, then they have to have a
clean watershed.
Finally, at no other time could I think of on this floor would this
body not come together if they saw a disaster, a natural disaster, a
flood, a coming hurricane, that we would not marshal every one of our
forces, all of the elements that we have available to us and attack
that potential disaster to preserve property, to preserve lives, to
preserve habitat, to preserve clean water, and to preserve the values
that we have in this Nation.
So I hope that Members will join me in supporting this rule, because
those of us who really want habitat, those of us who really want clean
water, and those of us who want to avert coming disaster ask for
Members' support on this legislation and this rule.
[[Page H4283]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3
minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), a
former Attorney General who had responsibilities with reference to the
environment close up.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for that introduction.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the issue of how this bill was
legislated, because I think it is very important that we understand the
process that we went through. The process we used here is an
abomination. When we were hearing this bill in the Committee on
Resources, we did not even have a bill. It was a committee print is
what we are talking about. So we didn't have a bill.
We were given very short notice. It was only a matter of days. That
committee print was not even heard in committee. It was directly marked
up. So we have completely cut out any legislative history for the
Committee on Resources.
This is something that has been unprecedented. It is something on
this floor of the House we should not stand for. That alone, that
alone, the violation of the Committee on Rules of ramming through a
committee print which is not even a bill, that alone should get Members
of Congress mad about voting against this bill, and it should be a
bipartisan vote against this rule that is before us today.
The thing that I do not understand is why. Why are our friends on the
other side of the aisle so worried about letting the public be heard?
They have short-changed the public. They have not had a hearing that
has allowed the public in. This is something that I think goes to the
heart of the democratic process.
The other two good, solid reasons to vote against this rule are that
amendments in committee, very, very important amendments in this
committee, were voted on in committee and yet denied here on the floor
in the rule, in this closed rule process.
The first one was an amendment that I offered in the Subcommittee on
Judicial Review, which was also offered in the Committee on the
Judiciary by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Those amendments have been
denied in this rule, even though there were close votes, so there is no
attention to this on the floor.
Judicial review, why is that important? The judicial review
provisions in this bill rig the system in favor of the Federal
Government. The Federal agencies are favored over citizens. Basically,
there are provisions telling the Federal judiciary, telling the
judiciary, if there is any doubt here, if there is any ambiguity,
decide on behalf of the Federal government.
We have never worked the system that way. This is an issue that
should be debated on the floor. We have been denied the ability to
debate this issue on the floor, and that alone I think, Native
Americans were also shut out on an amendment. That is very important.
There is a tradition of working in a bipartisan way.
The second amendment, in addition to judicial review, the second
amendment which was offered in committee on this, apparently there was
agreement by the bill's sponsor and by others in the room, saying, yes,
we forgot Native Americans, we forgot Native Americans. But I have
worked all day today to try to get, and since the committee hearing, a
Native American amendment in there. Native Americans lost some of the
biggest forests, as members from Arizona know. They lost some of the
most largest forests in this devastation, and they should have an
amendment, they should be included. We should be able to go forward
with a Native American amendment. But, once again, it has been denied.
The democratic process has not been followed. Two crucial amendments
have been denied on the floor. I would ask that all Members vote to
defeat this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I have enjoyed this debate today and also have enjoyed this debate we
have had over the past couple of years. It sounds as if we have not
debated this issue at all. We have. We have had countless hearings, two
in Arizona, on this issue. So this issue has been debated.
I would suggest that while we are fiddling here, Arizona is burning.
That is what we saw last year, certainly. The largest of the wildfires
across the country was in Arizona. We lost a half a million acres. I
would suggest that those who say there are differing opinions as to
whether or not treated forests fare better after a big wildfire or
during a big wildfire than untreated forests, that debate was settled
in Arizona. Pictures have already been shown today of the difference in
the forests that have been treated and those that have not.
I had the good fortune to grow up just a few miles from where that
fire was raging last year. To watch what has happened since then, to
watch the devastation in those communities that have not been able to
even get into the forest and to salvage what little is left because of
lawsuits already filed, or the Forest Service having to wait an entire
year to put out contracts, simply to go through the process that it
takes.
In Arizona, 11 of the 15 decisions to implement mechanical fuel
treatment methods were appealed, and two of those were litigated. We do
have a problem.
The Native Americans were mentioned. They certainly need some more
exemptions and need to have their process moved forward.
But I would like to suggest that if you look at the tribal forests,
if you look at the reservation land in Arizona, if it fared far better
than the other lands simply because they have a more expedited process,
that is what we are looking for here.
This is not an extreme piece of legislation. It is more tinkering
around the edges if we go with the substitute.
Let me just suggest that while we are talking about what is political
and what is good policy, one of the debates that we had and one of the
amendments that is part of the Democratic substitute would narrow the
so-called red zone around communities where the Democrats would like us
to focus all of our activity to one-half mile.
Now, if we consider that in Arizona the fire, the Rodeo-Chedeski fire
at times had embers that actually jumped 3 miles, 3 miles, more than
six times the so-called red zone that the Democrat substitute would
protect, I would suggest that it does no good to go ahead and protect
an area for a half-mile around a community when we have a fire that
will jump as much as 3 miles.
So if we have a process that actually sets good policy, then we will
set politics aside. I would suggest that is what this bill does. I
would urge support of the rule and support of the underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who has been a
leader on this issue.
{time} 1230
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to show you here on these
charts what we are talking about. I think for the folks here in the
Chamber and at home, they are tired of talking. They are tired of
debating. They are tired of process debates. But what they are really
tired of is fires.
Now, this is an area that the President of the United States visited
last summer in Jackson County, the Squire's Peak Fire. It is an example
of how a fire on treated land looks when it is burning. This is what it
looks like after it has burned. So you wonder whether treatment works
or not, here is your example. During the burn. After the burn. Here is
where it had not been treated.
President Bush stood right here on this area and met with the
firefighters who actually took this picture as they escaped this area.
They had been doing work there prior to the fire and then converted
over to be firefighters. This is what it looks like when you have not
treated an area. This is what it looks like after that area burns. This
is what it looks like.
I am tired of black forests. I want green forests. The underlying
bill
[[Page H4284]]
would not touch Squire's Peak because it says 85 percent of the work
has to be within half a mile. This is, I do not know, 6, 10 miles away
from Medford. It was a long drive up there in the motorcade.
This is what I am trying to prevent from happening. I want treatment
on these lands because it is people I represent whose homes are being
burned, whose watersheds are threatened. Entire communities are on 30-
minute evacuation notices. They are tired of us debating this and
putting off decisions. We have another fire season upon us right now.
190 million acres of America's forest lands across this country are
subject to this kind of fire if we do not do the kind of forest work
that we are advocating in this legislation.
This is what you get. Who wants that? Do you think spotted owls
thrive in this? No. Any endangered species? No.
So we want to get in and be able to do this work in an expedited
manner that involves people at the front ends like the Western
Governors Association that says needs to be done, so that we involve
people in the planning process in the beginning rather than let them
send in 37 cent appeals at the end when they have never participated in
the project. So we do that. We bring them into the front end of this,
and we streamline the appeals process.
Yes, we say to the courts, when you do a preliminary injunction every
45 days, you need to find out the effect of taking no action. Because
when you are treating lands you are taking action, and you get fires
that result in lands that look like that. When you delay and you do not
take action, this is the outcome: burned, dead, sterilized forests and
soils.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) have any further speakers?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we have one more speaker, and
we are waiting for her to return.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my
distinguished friend and Member for yielding me time, and I thank the
Members that are involved in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for 17 years; and, as Members
know, I work issues involving fire protection. I have been in every
State in the country. I have been on the forest fires myself in
California, Colorado, Montana, Oklahoma, Washington, and Idaho, to name
a few, not as a Member of Congress but as one of those out there trying
to learn lessons as to how we can better respond.
Mr. Speaker, I want to support the President's healthy forests
initiative, but I am here today to put the President and the
administration on notice because I am not happy.
Mr. Speaker, it was just 6 years ago when I chaired the Subcommittee
on Research of the Committee on Science; and in looking for solutions
to apply technology to solve problems with forests fires, I was able to
put $14 million of DOD money into using our classified satellite system
to detect forest and wildlands fires when they start and to have that
information transmitted instantly to the local responders. It makes
sense. You put the fire out when it starts, you do not have a problem.
Mr. Speaker, that was 6 years ago. The money was spent. The
technology was developed. The software system exists, but there was a
debate over which agency would head it up, the NRO, NOAA, DOD, FEMA.
Guess where it is today, Mr. Speaker, as America burns? The software
that we paid for to protect America's forests and wildlands is sitting
in boxes in Crystal City because the agencies are feuding over who will
run the program.
Mr. Speaker, I will not accept this. I have used the process
available to me. I talked to Joe Allbaugh when he headed FEMA. I have
talked to the administration, to the White House; and today we have no
response. The use of this is scheduled for 2006; $7 million today would
put the program in place in time for this fire season.
So if we do not have it in place, we are going to spend billions of
dollars in the amount of money necessary to respond to forest fires
when $6 million today would put into place the fire program that exists
in boxes in Crystal City and has been sitting there for 4 years.
We should have offered an amendment to the bill, but I want to give
the President the benefit of the doubt. But I am putting you on notice.
If we do not get this program operational this year, it is the fault of
the White House and this Congress, because the technology is there to
detect and deal with these fires as soon as they occur. The
firefighters know that. The State forest firefighter leaders know that.
It is about time that we responded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The Chair will state that the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 3 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at this time our speaker has not arrived, but I do wish
to speaker vigorously in closing in opposition to this modified closed
rule.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) put it best earlier, the
question is how long are we going to shut down the minority views. This
is patently obvious from the speakers that we have heard here today
that several of them have amendments that would help this process, not
harm it at all. And the will of this body is being thwarted by those
who would shut off the debate for whatever reason, and it is difficult
to fathom a good reason that Members who represent significant numbers
of people in this country are not having an opportunity to be heard.
On one matter alone, the curtailing of judicial review, I can speak
from personal experience that we talk an awful lot about what impact
legislation has on various institutions that are the beneficiaries of
what we did. In the Federal judiciary there can be no real guidelines
when a judge is trying to understand the process that has come to him
or her, and what we have done by restricting ing judicial review is
cause the public to be shut out.
I think that is an abomination. I think this rule is too restrictive,
and I would urge all Members to please oppose the rule, notwithstanding
your views with reference to the substantive-based bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me
time.
I would say I think the rule is very well structured. The rules takes
into account all of the different parties that have come together on
this bill and some of the parties who oppose this bill. It gives ample
opportunity for those who oppose the bill, as well as giving ample
opportunity to those of us who feel it is time that we take back the
management of these forests and put it in the hands of what we call the
``green hats,'' our forest rangers.
What has happened over a period of time because of a very well-
thought-out strategy, and that was in the seventies and the eighties,
the radical environmental organizations, some of my colleagues will
speak on their behalf today, they decided that they could never win the
debate against the people that work for the Forest Service, for the
VLM, the people that work in the forest every day of the week, the
people that were educated in the forest.
So they decided what they needed to do is manage the forest through a
paralysis by litigation, through paralysis by analysis, or through
paralysis by emotional-based decision. So what they have done very
meticulously is move this to Washington, D.C. where you have heard the
argument just a few minutes ago that we in the United States Congress
ought to be dictating to the United States Forest Service what the
diameter of a tree is before they are allowed to cut it down. Give me a
break. That we in the United States Congress ought to be dictating
[[Page H4285]]
to the Forest Service that we here in the U.S. Congress know that a
fire is going to stop one half mile into the urban interface and not
one inch beyond it; and that the U.S. Forest Service should not have
the authority to go ahead and thin beyond that half mile. Come on.
This rule allows for ample debate. This is a well-structured rule,
and I have been looking forward to this day for a long time to argue
about the substance of the issue we have in front of us, and that is do
we save our forests or do we not. And I think the answer is going to be
very clear. I think with overwhelming support, bipartisan support, this
bill is going to pass. I urge support of the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule and this issue, as has been repeated
several times, this issue from a policy standpoint has been debated for
a long time. It is time for us to take action in this body. So I urge
my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 1904
which endangers our national forests and our civil rights.
This bill contains provisions whose impact may stretch well beyond
national forests and into our courtroom struggles for civil rights,
disability access, and labor protections, but this rule does not give
us the opportunity to amend that language.
In the West, we recognize the dangers of fires and the need to
protect our communities, but the so-called ``Healthy Forest Restoration
Act'' is not the answer.
This bill ignores common sense ways to reduce the risk of fires to
communities, while opening up our national heritage to the timber
companies.
In addition to the potential damage to our national forests this bill
also has the potential to wreck havoc on our judicial system, and our
civil rights.
The far-reaching implications of H.R. 1904's judicial review
provisions have sparked opposition to this bill from a diverse
coalition, which includes national environmental, civil rights,
disability, women's, and labor organizations, including the NAACP and
the National Organization of Women.
This bill would place forest projects ahead of any other civil or
criminal case before the courts, and it creates inequality in the
courts by requiring judges to give deference to Federal bureaucrats.
This would tip the scales of justice in favor of proponents of
logging and set a dangerous precedent for favoring agencies when courts
consider the public interest that could affect disability, civil
rights, and labor law, among other areas.
Rather than protecting national forests and communities, the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act threatens our judicial system and our ecosystem
with far-reaching consequences.
There are better solutions to preventing wildfires, than increasing
rampant logging and interfering with the judicial process. I urge you
to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on H.R. 1904.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The Chair announces that this vote will be followed by two votes on
motions to suspend the rules considered earlier today. These votes will
be on S. 330 and H.R. 1925 and will be 5 minutes each.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 179, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 195]
YEAS--234
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--179
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Boyd
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--21
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Bell
Bishop (GA)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Burns
Case
Combest
Conyers
Cox
Davis (TN)
Doyle
Istook
Miller, Gary
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Northup
Spratt
Stupak
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1300
Messrs. LAMPSON, MILLER of North Carolina, SHERMAN, HOYER
[[Page H4286]]
and DOGGETT changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, I was
unavoidably detained and was unable to register my vote. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________