Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 160 (Thursday, November 6, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 160 (Thursday, November 6, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10547-H10553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CALLING FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today the House asked for conferees to
meet with the other Chamber to work out differences on the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act, H.R. 1904. This evening, I am pleased to be
joined by some of my colleagues on the House side to talk about the
importance of this legislation that passed the House of Representatives
nearly 6 months ago and, yet, has still not been resolved.
This issue has been debated for literally years. Former Committee on
Agriculture Chairman Bob Smith of Oregon attempted to address this
issue after the Sierra Grande fire which destroyed hundreds of homes in
New Mexico in the year 2000. The other Chamber considered similar
measures. Last year, a similar bill was reported out of the Committee
on Resources.
This year, I worked with two other distinguished full committee
chairmen, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) of the Committee on
Resources and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the
Committee on the Judiciary. We crafted a bipartisan bill that garnered
90 cosponsors. The bill went through three full committee markups
before coming to the floor. Our bill takes a truly national approach to
a national problem. We passed this bill on May 20 of this year by an
overwhelming and bipartisan majority.
I think it is critical to note that we appointed conferees today. We
also unanimously accepted a motion from the minority to instruct our
conferees to finish work on this bill within 1 week. The fact that the
whole House agreed to these instructions shows the urgency of starting
these negotiations but, because of a small group in the other Chamber,
the essential step of appointing conferees is being delayed. Any
further obstruction from the minority party in the other body thwarts
the will of not only the 80 members of the other Chamber who voted in
favor of their version, but of the entire U.S. House of
Representatives.
Since we passed this bill, almost 6 months have elapsed. While H.R.
1904 languished in the other Chamber, 169 days have gone by, over 3.5
million acres have burned, 30 firefighters have died, and 20 civilians
have perished as a result of the fury of catastrophic wildfires. The
California wildfires of the last 2 weeks provided a stark reminder of
the need to act to prevent future disasters. It was only when the
California wildfires were dominating the nightly news that the other
Chamber saw fit to take up this critical bill, with an 80 to 14 vote on
the measure, which seemed to indicate a sense of urgency on the part of
the other Chamber.
Unfortunately, the minority party of the other Chamber is still not
allowing the naming of conferees. They are refusing to do so in spite
of the fact that they know the differences between the two bills are
not insurmountable. They are refusing to do so in spite of the fact
that an agreement that could result in real action to improve forest
health is easily within reach.
The goals of the two bills are strikingly similar. Both seek to
address the issues that have tied the hands of our forest managers:
NEPA analysis that drags on for months, administrative appeals that
spring up at the last minute, and court actions that stall proposed
projects for so long that they are moot long before the judicial
process concludes.

[[Page H10548]]

Now, I do not want to downplay the fact that there are differences.
Their version of the bill added over 100 pages of text and five whole
new titles that were not in our version. While there is obviously a
good deal of work to be done, we owe it to the people who have fought
these fires and the neighbors of our Federal forests who have been
threatened, evacuated, or left homeless, to finish the job and produce
a bill that the President can sign.
All of these issues can be resolved. The only thing preventing us
from beginning this resolution is the refusal by the minority in the
other Chamber to allow the appointment of their conferees. This action
negates the legislative process which calls for a bicameral conference
committee to work out any differences between two versions of the same
bill, and it is the only thing preventing us from taking steps to
protect our communities, our forests, and our watersheds from
catastrophic wildfires.
It is important to remember that the House bill received widespread
support when it came to this floor. The Society of American Foresters
praised it for giving new tools to forest managers to protect our
forests. The National Volunteer Fire Council praised it for reducing
the threat faced by their members when they are on the fire line. Many
of the same groups, as well as the International Association of Fire
Chiefs, have asked us to go to conference to address specific issues
and finalize a bill. That is my strong desire as well as the desire of
the vast majority of those in this House.

There are over 190 million acres of forests and rangelands which
remain at risk of catastrophic wildfire, insect, and disease, a
landmass larger than New England. Our bill takes the modest step of
addressing the hazardous conditions on only 20 million acres of this
total. At the same time, it takes an innovative approach to forest
health on private forestlands, creating new programs to detect and
suppress such forest pests as the Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, the Emerald
Ash Borer, and the Gypsy Moth. In short, it takes a national approach
to a national problem.
It is time to put partisan politics aside, so that we can bring forth
a bill before the end of the session which can prevent future
catastrophic forest fires and to begin improving the health of our
Nation's forests. It would compound the tragedy still unfolding in
California if last week's vote in the other Chamber was just for show.
A tiny minority should not be allowed to continue the dilatory tactics
that have caused this bill to languish until the end of the session.
Time is short. The fires are smoldering in California, and the
conditions that created these infernos will only get worse unless
Congress acts now.
I would now like to recognize several of my colleagues who have
supported our bill as it moved quickly through the House and whose
districts badly need the attention H.R. 1904 would provide. First,
someone who understands this problem exceedingly well, because the
State of Colorado has experienced some very difficult problems with
forest fires this year and in previous years, particularly last year. I
recall the devastation to the water supply for the City of Denver,
something that is of great concern to us that our bill addresses, but
that some would like to delete from it because they only want to allow
work being done in what are called ``beauty strips'' around urban
areas, overlooking the fact that the watersheds for many, many
communities around the country are protected by our national forests
and ruined when those forests go up in flames, and mud and ash and
everything else goes down into these important reservoirs and other
water supplies.
So at this time I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, the House passed its version of the
Healthy Forest Initiative in May of this year with an overwhelming
majority and bipartisan support. The other Chamber has had our version
of the bill for over 6 months and only passed it after fires in
southern California scorched almost 1 million acres, destroyed over
3,400 homes, and killed 20 citizens last week.
During a meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, one of our members
expressed to us his sorrow that one of his cousins had been burned to
death and her sister was burned over 85 percent of her body. One of our
own Members lost his home in this tragic event.
After we took this vote in the House, a simple motion to appoint
conferees has been blocked by the minority party, preventing the swift
conclusion of negotiations. The forest health conditions across the
country are too extreme and the threats to our citizens' lives and
property too severe for this to be a political football. In Colorado, a
beautiful State with beautiful national forests, 7.5 million acres are
at risk to fire, insects, and disease. This is more than two-thirds of
our forested acres in my State alone.
The need to provide the modest relief provided by H.R. 1904 can best
be illustrated by what the people on the front range went through
trying to protect their forest. Working in close cooperation with the
local community, conservation groups, and Colorado State University,
the Forest Service proposed a modest effort to reduce hazardous fuels
in this region. After exhaustive NEPA analysis, radical
environmentalists filed an administrative appeal, and then a lawsuit.
As the process unfolded, the Hayman fire destroyed the watershed
before the project could be implemented. My colleague, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), described this in July, how devastating
the Hayman fire was. Mr. Speaker, 138,114 acres were destroyed, and 132
homes were lost in that fire. In total, in the year of 2002, the
damages were 619,000 acres burned, 384 homes destroyed, 624 additional
structures demolished and, sadly, nine firefighters were killed in this
fire. The damage from the fires closed 26 water treatment facilities.
After two smaller fires, the Denver Water Board had to spend over $20
million cleaning up the reservoir.
The crises in our forests warrant action. It is imperative that
conferees be appointed. Partisan politics must be put aside, and
Congress must act to protect our national treasures.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to avoid
improper references to the Senate, including criticizing Senate action
or inaction.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. Her observations
are very true. One of the areas that we overlook not only are the water
pollution problems that occur, but also air pollution. The fires in
California have emitted so many toxic fumes and other forms of air
pollution that some are saying that more emissions have occurred from
just those fires in California in the last few weeks than occur from
all of the automobiles, all of the trucks, and all of the buses
emitting all year long in the country. And we saw so many evidences of
it. I have a sister who lives in southern California and experienced
the difficulty with breathing and so on. Literally millions of people
were exposed to this enormous problem. It is not simply a natural
wildfire that burns along the ground and the large trees are preserved
and so on; these fires consume everything in their path: large trees,
small trees, homes, businesses, automobiles, and even some people's
lives. And, in doing so, the devastation is truly enormous. Yet, we
ignore it as we continue to neglect our forests and not give the
professional forest managers the ability to manage those forests.
At this time, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a member of the Committee on Agriculture and
chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture who knows
something about this from problems in North Carolina.

{time} 2130

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) very much for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership
in putting together a comprehensive effort to respond to the tragedies
that have faced us in recent days. And thank goodness for rain. It
certainly was not sound management practices that have given our
valiant firefighters the breath that they needed, the time to rest, and
to hopefully bring these fires under control.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the healthy
forest initiative, which was passed by the House

[[Page H10549]]

in May with an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was finally passed
last week by the other Chamber. It is sad that it takes utter
devastation, destroyed homes, and loss of life before legislation can
finally be passed that will correct Federal policies that desperately
were needed to be changed years ago.
But now that we are in the home stretch and the House is eager to
move the conference on this legislation, a simple motion to appoint
conferees again is being blocked, as was mentioned earlier. The House
appointed conferees today. And I want to commend the gentleman from
Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and the gentleman from California
(Chairman Pombo) for their efforts and leadership in trying to move
this bill to conference as quickly and as constructively as possible.
This legislation is important in a number of States, particularly my
home State of North Carolina. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act not
only provides our Federal land managers with greater flexibility to
deal with fire dangers in the West but new authority to test innovative
detection and suppression techniques for the many pests that threaten
the Eastern forests.
The Southern pine beetle is the most significant threat to forest
health in North Carolina. Normally Southern pine beetles attack and
kill stress-weakened trees. When populations reach epidemic
proportions, even healthy trees can be attacked and overwhelmed.
In North Carolina, the beetles are affecting over 1.5 million acres
of pine. Timber valued at more than $12.4 million was destroyed last
year alone by the pine beetle. Our hardwood forests are also threatened
by invasive pests such as the gypsy moth. Gypsy moth eradication is a
high priority because of the damage it can do to trees in residential
areas as well as scenic mountain areas.
There are almost 17 million acres of private timberland in North
Carolina, representing billions of dollars in investments by private
landowners and the forest industry. The threats to these forests
threaten the economy of my State and the ecological value of these
lands. No individual landowner is equipped to deal with the pest
outbreaks on the scale that we have seen in recent years.
At this time, I would like to ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, if he would
yield for a question.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from recent meetings that we have
held that the minority leader in the other body has made a provision
and added to another bill basically a healthy forest initiative for the
State of South Dakota. However, we here are unable to move forward with
conferees at this point in order to give the same type of attention,
protection, and also commonsense land management practices to our other
States. Is this the gentleman's understanding?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Hayes) is correct. It is regrettable but nonetheless true, that
legislation was passed a couple of years ago that included a provision
placed into an appropriations bill that creates a different standard
for South Dakota.
I am quite glad that the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota
has that different standard, because they have the ability to allow the
Forest Service employees, the district rangers, and others in that
national forest to prepare the land in environmentally sensitive ways,
to protect that forest from the kind of catastrophic wildfires that we
have seen in California and Oregon and Arizona and New Mexico and
Colorado and Idaho and Montana and other States as well.
But there is absolutely no reason why the provisions in either the
bill passed by the House or the bill passed by the other body, neither
of which contain the same level of authority granted to the Forest
Service folks in South Dakota, could not be made available to the other
49 States as well. We are not even asking for as much as what South
Dakota has right now. And, yet, we are being impeded from being able to
bring this issue to a resolution.
We are so very close; the differences between the House and Senate
can be worked out. There are differences. We should not minimize them.
They are important differences. But we passed today here on the floor
of this House a motion to instruct conferees offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking democrat on the Committee on
Agriculture, a motion to instruct that says we will have an open
conference with participation by all of the conferees appointed. And,
by the way, the Speaker went ahead today and appointed those conferees.
We are ready to act. We have committed to an open process. We have
committed to a speedy process.
The motion to instruct calls for reporting back a bill to the House
by next Thursday. And that is possible if we would be able to go to
conference. But if action is not taken promptly, we will lose that
timetable. Time will slip away from us. And, of course, we are nearing
the end of this Congress. And if time slips too much, we may be unable
to complete this legislation, which President Bush very anxiously wants
to sign, supported by so many bipartisan Members of both the House and
the other body.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's not only keen
perspective on the issue but his accurate knowledge of the history. And
I would ask that if he would yield for one more question, I would like
to pursue this issue a little further in South Dakota.
My question is this: the gentleman mentioned the Black Hills National
Forest, which is a true national treasure. And I agree with him
wholeheartedly that I am very glad that this wonderful treasure has
this degree of protection. I seem to recall, particularly since my
daughter-in-law is a native of South Dakota, and a wonderful member of
my staff is also a South Dakotan, and I have enjoyed many trips there,
but were there not some catastrophic fires there as well not too long
ago?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) is correct. There have been catastrophic
fires in South Dakota, but there was even more importantly a
recognition that there were vast areas, not just the so-called beauty
strips immediately around communities, but vast areas of the Black
Hills National Forest that were at risk of catastrophic wildfire.
We are not talking about the wildfire that burns along the ground and
gets rid of the brush and things out of the area and leaves the larger
trees; but we are talking about fires that, because of the buildup of
fuel density, the trees continuing to grow, the fires being suppressed
over a long period of time, when they finally do occur, they stair-step
up from the brush into the smaller trees, into the larger trees, into
the overstory of all of the trees in an area and devastate the whole
area.
Then when it comes up to a community, no small narrow band of treated
area will keep that kind of massive fire that can sometimes leap over
long distances because of the enormous height that the flames reach and
the burning pieces. In the California fire, there was a report last
week of an instance in which a 4 by 8 piece of plywood was spotted by
one of the planes combating the fire flying through the air in flames
at 2,800 feet of altitude. Now, when these things can reach that kind
of proportion, a small strip around a community will not protect the
community. So wisely, the legislation that protects South Dakota does
not include that type of restriction.
The Forest Service there can use their judgment with proper notice to
the public and with fair hearing for people who have, as we all do, a
concern that these things be done properly, the ability to treat
various parts of the forest not simply limit it to those areas. That is
one of the things that is apparently holding up our progress here. I
think it is a serious mistake.
Mr. Speaker, we should be allowed to go in and work with the other
body to fashion legislation that will address this problem in the other
49 States.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, again I thank the gentleman for his precise
and concise information. As a matter of instruction for this body, the
conditions you describe almost duplicate the conditions in a
thunderstorm. The fire starts low, as you said; and as the heat

[[Page H10550]]

builds, it creates a tremendous upswelling of current, which, again,
has the same destructive effect as a thunderstorm which results in hail
and tornadoes. But as the gentleman very clearly illustrated, those
pieces of burning limbs, lumber, whatever the case may be, can spread
this fire in an incredibly rapid manner.
And my point in all this being that the same reasons that South
Dakota saw fit to pass local legislation are the reasons that we have
in this fine legislation that we are talking about tonight.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to make one more point. I
have heard the terms partisan, bipartisan. This is about as bipartisan
as anything could possibly be. Both parties are working very hard, way
beyond, for the most part, to reach commonsense solutions to tragic,
dangerous, destructive, and expensive fires.
I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), that to me an observation is that this is not partisan in
any way. And I use as an example, I was in the chair this afternoon,
and the discussion was about how we develop more plentiful, less
expensive sources of energy to keep our manufacturers, keep our
transportation, to create jobs and to grow our economy. And, again, it
was a bipartisan effort, Republicans and Democrats joined together in a
commonsense manner to reach agreement and to come up with policy and
solutions that are good for all America.
So what I saw there were Republicans and Democrats hand in hand
working together against the extremists who inhabit a very small
portion of the population, but have an unusual amount of sway in these
discussions.
So I would simply submit for this discussion that this is not about
disagreements between parties; this is about commonsense men and women
of good faith on both sides, Republican and Democrats, who are uniting
against a radical extreme, far way-out small segment of the community
that is costing lives and costing money.
So that is my point, Madam Speaker. This is not a partisan issue. And
I think it is important that we take it further and define it as it
really is. It is common sense versus nonsense.
So, in closing, again, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), Madam Speaker, for the time and attention. The Healthy
Forest Restoration Act provides the flexibility and resources necessary
to deal with these problems, protects millions of acres, thousands of
homes, and citizens. I hope the two Chambers can resolve their
differences and send the bill to the President as quickly as possible.
Common sense, not nonsense.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I hope that what was done by this
Congress for the State of South Dakota 2 years ago will be done for the
other 49 States as well. In fact, we do not even ask quite as much. We
simply ask for fair treatment, and we hope that we will get it soon. It
is very, very important.
Madam Speaker, I think it is interesting to note that of the speakers
we have had down here tonight, the furthest west is the gentlewoman
from Colorado. And I think this reflects that this is not simply a
Western problem; this is a problem that affects the whole country.
Because in the East while we have different types of forests, they also
suffer forest fires; but the greatest threat in the eastern forests are
the insects, and the disease, many of which are nonnative species that
have come into this country from one source or another around the
world. And we do not have the natural enemies of these species to
combat in our forests. So often times they run rampant: the pine bark
beetle that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) mentioned,
the wooly adelgid which attacks our hemlocks, the gypsy moth which
attacks our hardwoods, and the emerald ash borer which attacks our ash
trees.
Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Burns).

{time} 2145

Mr. BURNS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this
time.
Madam Speaker, it is time for us to take action. This body has done
its job. The Committee on Agriculture that the chairman does such a
wonderful job in managing brought this bill to the floor. As my
colleagues have pointed out, it was passed overwhelmingly from both
sides of the aisle, and there was not a dissension that we could not
resolve. So as we worked with the Committee on Resources and worked
with the Committee on Agriculture, we came here and passed this measure
in May. We had high hopes for swift action in the other body. We were
happy finally to see that action recently.
Unfortunately, it was only after the tragic situations in the West
and in California where so much air and water quality was damaged, and
certainly the loss of life and homes, the threats that were there, we
were certainly glad to see action; but now we face a challenge. The
challenge is moving from the two bodies to the conference committee,
and we have worked very vehemently to ensure that happens.
When this measure came to the committee, I consulted the Warnell
School of Forestry at the University of Georgia and asked them to
review the legislation and give me their input, and tell me what they
thought was best for not only Georgia's forest, but our Nation's
forests. They did a very thorough job in their advice and counsel, and
I took it.
We have the Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia. It is a place I
enjoy. I enjoy the fishing and the trout streams and the air and the
quality of life there. We have to protect it. H.R. 1904, the Healthy
Forest Initiative, is legislation that will not only protect the
Chattahoochee National Forest, but forests from North Carolina to
California, from the Dakotas to Texas, and it is important that we move
this legislation.
Certainly the biggest challenge that we face is not allowing our
forests to become the political football of the current session of
Congress. They are too important. We have over 17 million acres of
private forest land in Georgia alone. As the chairman accurately
pointed out, fires are a concern for us, but they are not the dramatic
concern that we see in the West like in California and Colorado. Our
real challenge is pests, as the gentleman from North Carolina has
pointed out.
Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I cannot help but be touched by the irony
of what the gentleman is saying. The gentleman from Georgia is a very
valued member of the Committee on Agriculture, and I have been here
slightly longer than he has, so when the gentleman came, I had an
opportunity to give him an assignment. I think he remembers the
assignment.

Madam Speaker, Georgia is known for many, many things, but the one
that we particularly enjoy is the bobwhite quail. Prime forest
management for the bobwhite quail requires controlled burning. It
requires removing fuel which prevents forest fires, but when done in a
controlled way, in the spring of the year, under proper humidity
conditions, typically at night to reduce smoke and other emissions, not
only is habitat produced, but food sources for nongame species, cover
for songbirds, all types of animals and birds, is created. Again, a
commonsense, tried-and-true practice, accepted for well over 100 years
of land management, here is a way that we actively control fuel, manage
our forests, stop disease, create habitat, and increase filtration
ability for watersheds and streams.
Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman how is that project coming?
Mr. BURNS. Madam Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that the
challenge is still there. When I was growing up, there was an abundance
of small game, especially small bobwhite quail and squirrels and
rabbits, just natural wildlife. My colleague is correct, back in that
era it was a common practice to burn the woods. We would take the
underbrush out. We would create the habitat as the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hayes) suggests, and that would provide a plentiful
environment for native species and migratory birds.
As we face the challenges today, we see fewer and fewer of our
natural habitats available for our wildlife. I think this is a bill
that promotes wildlife. It promotes best practices in our forestry. I
think the biggest concern I have is we do not need to be playing
politics with the forests of our Nations.
We have fires in Georgia. Mercifully, they are fairly small, but yet
we lost

[[Page H10551]]

over 84,000 acres of forestland to fire in the last 4 years. But as has
been pointed out, we have had a 278 percent increase in the southern
pine beetle, and that can be directly attributed to the fact that we
are not managing our forests with the best practices.
This restoration act provides our Federal land managers with the
flexibility that they need not only to deal with forest fires and fire
dangers, but also to deal with disease and pests that are invading all
of our forests. We have to suppress the pests and make sure that they
do not continue to threaten our eastern forests. Billions of dollars to
Georgia's economy are attributable to our forestry industry. There are
17 million acres that need protection. If we look at our neighboring
States of Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, we all face
similar challenges as we try to deal with the need to have healthy,
vibrant forests.
It amazes me that we cannot come to some reasonable accommodation in
a very expeditious amount of time. I would hope that as this body has
already done, as it has worked together, and as the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) has pointed out, this has been a very strong
bipartisan bill. We have worked hand in hand with both sides of the
aisle to reach a conclusion and agreement that we can move to the other
body. They took that up, they passed it by a substantial margin, even
an overwhelming margin, and now it is time for the next step. The next
step has to be for us to move forward and bring this bill to a
conference and out of conference and back to the floor of the House.
The Healthy Forest Restoration Act is indeed a national solution to a
national problem. The time for action is now. I concur with my
colleagues from Virginia and North Carolina. We need a commonsense
solution, and we have it in our midst. We need to move it through both
bodies and pass it and send it to the President.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Burns) for his comments.
Now, somebody who has experienced this problem firsthand in the State
of New Mexico has joined us. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Pearce). New Mexico last year suffered some devastating fires
which we thought would be just the thing that would cause Congress to
get over the top and get this issue resolved. Unfortunately, we fell
short; but we are back again this year, and we are as close as we have
ever been to getting this legislation through both bodies so we can
send it to the President.
Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for talking about
this critical issue in front of this body.
I grew up in New Mexico and on our vacations we would drive to
Cloudcroft, New Mexico. From the early 1950s, I noticed that there was
a place there of thousands of acres where no tree grew. It was in the
middle of pine forests in southern New Mexico, and it was always odd to
me. It was only after beginning to work in the legislature and learning
what makes a forest grow and not grow that I realized that was a forest
fire that had occurred in the middle part of the century, and over 50
years later, the soil was still sterile from the effects of that fire.

So when my constituents ask me what is a healthy forest, I tell them
one that is natural, one that grows up the way that conditions would
permit. In New Mexico, a healthy forest, generally, historically,
pictures tell us, had about 25 to 50 trees per acre. I like to ask
schoolchildren when I go around, how many trees per acre are in New
Mexico forests now? On average, we have over 1,500 trees per acre. The
trees do not get the nutrients that they need, they do not get the
water they need. In attempting to get the sunlight they need, the
small-diameter trees grow to 50, 75 and 100 feet, matching the height
of the mature trees. Then, as has been described, as a fire starts, it
uses the small diameter as kindling to get the fire burning across the
top of the entire forest, the crown fires burning just the top of the
trees, burning just the piece that will kill it, and then the healthy,
good hardwood stands rotting, waiting to just become a part of the
soil, sometimes waiting years to decay.
Another problem with an unhealthy forest is that they soak up water,
and in New Mexico which is an arid State which desperately needs water,
and we are in the fifth year of a drought, if each tree consumes only
one gallon per day, the estimates are in New Mexico, we have over a
billion too many trees, that is 1 billion gallons a day. The actual
estimates are much higher, Madam Speaker, and that trees will probably
use 100 gallons a day. And in an arid State where water is life, where
water is growth, where water is our future, we are mismanaging our
forests into unhealthy situations that are going to burn and destroy
this national treasure and this natural resource, that rob our cities
of the water they need for growth and for the population, all because
extremists in this society say we would rather watch them burn than to
cut one single tree.
There are extremists in this city who say no State, except South
Dakota, will be allowed to cut trees without the NEPA studies that are
required, no state but South Dakota, a provision that was snuck in in
the middle of the night over 3 years ago in an omnibus bill. The rest
of the States want the same permission to do commonsense thinning to
create a healthy forest. It is not a question of if our forests are
going to burn, Madam Speaker, it is a question of when our forests are
going to burn.
I flew this year between two towns in western New Mexico, and I flew
over 200,000 acres with just the stubs of smouldering trees standing.
The entire 200,000 acres was killed in just a short period of time. The
unreasonable, extreme environmentalists who will block every attempt to
do commonsense thinning which will create our healthy forests should be
ashamed. And those special interest people who in this city who will
give one State permission to do the commonsense practices of good
forest management should unlock the doors and allow the rest of us to
have access to the same commonsense approach to managing our forests,
to managing our forests to become healthy forests instead of the death
traps they are now.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Pearce) for some very commonsense observations. Just looking
across the spectrum of Members who have spoken here tonight and who
spoke here today on the motion to instruct conferees, we had Members
from Oregon, California, Colorado, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona,
all across the West they experience this problem; and then Georgia,
Virginia, North Carolina, they experience this problem. And folks from
Michigan and Pennsylvania have spoken about forestlands. We are blessed
in this country with great and bountiful forests all across America,
but we need to take care of them. And when we have to manage them
because people live in and around them and we have to fight forest
fires, that fuel density builds up. When it does, we have to give our
forest managers, the professional people, the ability to step in and do
what needs to be done.

{time} 2200

We are doing it in such a way that we expedite the process so that it
does not go for so long that the problem overtakes the solution, but at
the same time we do it in such a way that the ability of concerned
citizens to have their input in the process, to even appeal the
decisions that they think are inappropriate, to have that opportunity
to do that but do it in a way that is expedited because that is what is
needed for a problem as serious as this one.
I see that we are now joined by another Member of Congress who has
experienced this problem firsthand in his State of Montana. I would be
pleased to yield to the gentleman from Montana for him to also give his
observations about the problem with the state of forests in his State
and around the country.
Mr. REHBERG. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for taking on an
issue that we find very important in the State of Montana and
throughout the Nation and, that is, healthy forests. I have been
involved in the issue since 1988. We saw the fires exist in our State
to the tune of almost 1 million acres. As an observer, I assumed our
elected officials would do something about that. Over the course of the
next

[[Page H10552]]

few years, I watched nothing happen. Our forests continued to
deteriorate. In the year 2000 in the State of Montana, we saw almost 1
million acres burn again, and I assumed something would be done. Again,
nothing was done. When I joined the Congress, I was impressed by the
fact that our chairman now of the Committee on Resources and my
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture were willing to hold hearings
to try and find the solution to healthy forests. It does not take
rocket scientists to figure out what is wrong.
I manage resources. I am in the agriculture business in Montana. I
clearly understand a mineral cycle, a water cycle. I understand that
when you have undergrazed grass, it kills grass as much as overgrazed
grass. I notice that when you have timber, when you have underthinned
timber, it creates the same devastation as clear cutting.
But there are those within our Federal Government and there are those
within this Congress that do not understand that. When I see various
Members of the body from the other side of the Capitol making
exceptions for their State, understanding that you need a management
plan to thin their timber to create a healthier environment and they do
not want to provide that same opportunity for us, there is something
hypocritical. Shame on them. It is time that this Congress understands
that healthy forests are created. But I understand that there are only
a certain level of tools that can be used to manage our forests.
What are those tools? Prescribed burn can be a tool. Uncontrolled
fire is a catastrophe. It is stupid. But prescribed burn is a tool.
Grazing, which is something I know something about because I have
grazing animals on my operation to thin the undergrazed properties,
creates a healthy environment. So what do we do? Move some livestock in
and graze and take care of that undergrazed property.
Logging. Why do we find that timber companies are bad things? On
forest properties, on Federal properties, we tell them what to cut,
when to cut, how to cut and we ask them to use their capital, their
labor and their equipment. How can that be a problem? Unless, of
course, we do not do it right. We have some of the best environmental
laws in this country. Let us use those logging companies as a tool to
manage our forests. But we cannot get beyond the politics of creating
some kind of an argument that we do not want logging companies in our
forests. Let us use them as a tool. Let us talk about holistic
management of our forests. Let us move beyond the politics.
I think that we have a plan that we have sent to the Senate; we have
asked them to consider an opportunity, we have asked them to consider a
holistic approach to management. What do we hear? ``We have a perfect
plan. We want the House to accept it without any debate.'' How
arrogant. I have only been here for 3 years, I say to the chairman of
my Committee on Agriculture. I have only been here for 3 years, but the
arrogance of the attitude that we have got the perfect piece of
legislation being sent from the Senate is incredible. I do not
understand that kind of a concept.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pearce). The Chair would remind all
Members to avoid improper references to the Senate, including
criticizing Senate action or inaction.
Mr. REHBERG. The arrogance of somebody who makes a determination that
we do not have a dog in this fight, that we do not have an opinion,
that we do not understand the holistic management of our forests is
incredible to me. I think the taxpayer ought to be appalled. I think
the Nation ought to be appalled. And I think it is time that we make a
determination to do what the gentleman from Virginia has done in the
Committee on Agriculture with all the hearings that I sat through as a
freshman on his subcommittee and that our chairman of the Interior and
now Resources Committee has done to consider the whole healthy forests
initiative. I think we ought to take the high road; we ought to take
the approach that we have sent over to them and say, it is not entirely
about safe communities, which safe communities are important, but it is
about healthy forests. And we sent over a healthy forests policy.
And so what we really need to do is we need to sit down in the
conference committee, work out the differences, pass something along to
the President, and do what the gentleman initially suggested a number
of years ago and, that is, create truly a healthy forest policy. I
thank the gentleman for what he has done in his committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's point is very
well taken. A healthy forest means safe communities. That is what we
are really talking about here. If we get to the root cause of this
problem, which is our unhealthy forests, we will not see the kind of
disasters that we have seen in recent years that have taken lives,
taken homes, taken families away from their communities. It has been a
disaster of the highest order. While these disasters have taken place,
the Congress has watched the burning and has been inactive.
The gentleman is correct. In the subcommittee that I used to chair,
we held many, many hearings. In the full committee that I chair now, we
are holding those hearings. We moved forward with legislation. We
worked closely with the Committee on Resources and the Committee on the
Judiciary. We passed a bipartisan bill. Forty-one Democrats in the
House joined with the overwhelming majority of Republicans to pass this
bill. The ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture has been a
real pleasure to work with on this issue, even though he has
acknowledged today in his district in Texas there is so little
forestland. But he recognizes this problem in other parts of Texas and
in other parts of the country. We have worked together to move this
far. Why we cannot see the same response from other quarters where we
need to have cooperation to get this done and to move the final bill to
the President, I do not know. But nonetheless, we stand here and wait
for the opportunity to finish what we have started.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, if I might ask the gentleman from Virginia
a question. What possible reason would others within the United States
Congress want to create an exception for their own forests or their own
State and not provide the same opportunity for Virginia, Washington,
Idaho, Colorado, now California, and certainly Montana?
Mr. GOODLATTE. We mentioned this earlier. It is indeed disappointing
that the opportunity would exist for anyone to jump the gun, if you
will, to get an opportunity to do the right thing, and we are glad that
the State of South Dakota has the tools that they need to protect the
Black Hills National Forest, a precious resource. Why we would not also
have the opportunity to do that in the 49 other States where all of the
States in one way or another have problems with protecting forests, why
we would not get that, I do not know. But we stand here and we wait for
the opportunity.
Mr. REHBERG. Another question, Mr. Speaker, if I might of the
gentleman from Virginia. Is there any reason why this has not happened
in the past based upon the majorities of the Congress and the fact that
within the last year and a half this is the first time in 40 years we
have had an opportunity to effect change? Would we not now try a
different management approach? Not to say we are entirely blameless,
because certainly we supported Smokey Bear, we believed that putting
fires out, we believed that the management plan that existed in the
past perhaps had some credibility. But recognizing that it has failed,
would it not be incumbent upon us now in our new majority position to
come up with a new and more exciting, more vibrant opportunity to see
not only a healthier wildlife and a healthier environment but certainly
a safer environment for our forests?
Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman is absolutely right. There is absolutely
no question that we have to fight forest fires. We do not want to send
the message that when people go into our national forests or when
natural lightning strikes occur that we should not be getting those
firefighters out there. That is a part of saving the forests from
disastrous wildfires, not the natural fires that burn along the ground,
but the kind that stair-steps up and consumes the entire forest.
We also know that it is important to do that, to keep the communities
and people who live around those forests

[[Page H10553]]

safe. But we also know that when you do that, when you intervene like
that, you also have to take the responsibility to keep the forests
healthy in other ways, to use prescribed burns where it is appropriate
to do so. These have minimal consequences when they are done properly.
They accomplish the goal of burning out the brush on the ground. They
do not emit the kind of massive amounts of air pollution that these
catastrophic, uncontrolled wildfires have. They do not cause the same
kind of devastation to our water resources that these kinds of fires we
have seen in Colorado and California and Montana and elsewhere have.
But we need to give the Forest Service the tools to take the proper
steps.
And so I am glad the gentleman has made that observation that this
legislation that we have passed through the House with strong
bipartisan support and similar legislation that has passed through the
other body but has not yet been conferenced, has not yet had the
opportunity to resolve the differences, stands waiting for that final
resolution. We stand here waiting for the opportunity to conference
this.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, if I may in conclusion to the chairman of
the Committee on Agriculture just say very quickly that as I travel
around the State of Montana and this country, I know and I talk to
people about the fact that Federal properties in Montana, which I
represent, are owned by the taxpayers. I understand that. And so when I
ask them a question, what do you want to see from your forests, they
usually tell me, I want to see healthy wildlife. Okay. I can accept
that. They say they want to see a healthy environment. We do not get so
specific as talking about the mineral cycle and the water cycle, but it
is something that I understand. They talk about the fact that they want
to see healthy trees. When I explain to them that a dead tree that has
got beetles in it and the beetles pass on to another tree, a dead and
dying tree creates a dead and dying forest, and unless we remove the
cancer of that dead and dying tree, it will kill the forest. They say,
that, I can understand.
Then we move on to fire and I say, if you do not control the litter,
the excess, the overgrowth and the dying trees, you will create a fire
danger and that is not very bright. You know what they do? They usually
go, yeah. You know, we did not realize. If you had just told us that we
have dead and dying trees, we have wildlife that do not have enough
grass, we are creating a canopy that is killing the grass, it is
killing the trees, it is creating a safety danger and houses are
burning up and people are losing their lives, they usually go, I can
understand this issue. What do you suggest?
And then I move into talking about the tools that are available,
prescribed burn, grazing, logging, thinning and such. They go, well, we
had no idea, because that's not the story we are hearing from our
lobbyists and our special interests and our newspapers and television
stations in places like Connecticut and Rhode Island and such. And,
yeah, we own that land and we want to take care of that land and we
thank you for understanding the issue. Thank you for supporting healthy
forests.
I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his hard work, his dedication
and his effort to create the right kind of bill coming out of this
Congress. I just hope that that is what we can pass on to the President
of the United States.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the Speaker of
the House, Speaker Hastert, for the opportunity to discuss this
important issue tonight. I also want to thank my ranking member, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), without whom we would not have
come so far this year. The other committee chairmen who helped hone the
bill also deserve high praise for their efforts. I wish that I were not
here on the floor of the House pleading the case to start formal
negotiations.

{time} 2215

This issue has dragged on needlessly for the entire legislative
session. We need to discharge our duty, follow regular order, and
conduct open, fair conference processes called for by the House this
morning.

____________________