[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 170 (Friday, November 21, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H12113-H12117]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON 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 457 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 457

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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-risk 
     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. All points of order 
     against the conference report and against its consideration 
     are waived. The conference report shall be considered as 
     read.

  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 good friend and 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 457 is a 
rule

[[Page H12114]]

providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. The rule waives 
all points of order against the conference report and its consideration 
and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, recent reports of catastrophic wildfires in the West 
have helped millions of Americans to understand what Members of western 
districts have known for years, that steps must be taken to improve our 
management of national forests in order to reduce the risk of runaway 
forest fires that threaten lives, property and even entire communities.
  H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, contains several key 
measures that will enable Federal land managers to better manage 
potentially explosive stands of timber and underbrush. Passage of the 
bill would also enable local communities to play a more meaningful role 
in the management of lands that pose potential threats. H.R. 1904 would 
authorize the removal of dead, dying and diseased trees and underbrush 
from Federal lands. It would also strengthen the ability of land 
managers to pursue fire prevention strategies under an expedited system 
that would limit excessive court challenges to proposed changes in 
management plans for Federal lands.
  The bill authorizes $760 million annually for fire prevention, 
suppression and management activities, a significant increase over 
current allocations.
  Mr. Speaker, the conferees have done an excellent job of protecting 
the House position on this legislation, which passed the House by a 
large margin back in May 2003. The conferees should be commended for 
moving to complete the work on this important legislation before 
Congress adjourns and we in turn should pass it without further delay.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the 
rule and the underlying conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and 
namesake, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it was just a little over a year ago that the Biscuit 
fire was raging in southwest Oregon in an area shared by myself and the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden). We held a hearing in the Committee 
on Resources during that fire about the issue of the fuel buildup in 
our forests. After I listened to a few of the witnesses, I really did 
not ask any questions, I gave a pretty impassioned speech about how I 
was tired of the fact that we all kind of went to our political corners 
on this issue when a real solution was warranted. Surprisingly after 
the hearing I was approached by a number of Members that people would 
be surprised could sit down in a room and work together on an issue 
like this, but notably the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) came 
forward and said to me, I really agreed with a lot of what you said and 
I would like to try and work something out, as did the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). We sat down and began 
some very difficult negotiations.
  Unfortunately, last year the clock ran out on us. We had an election 
year, so we did not get the bill done. But now here we are hopefully at 
the point of adopting the bill in the House and the Senate and seeing 
it signed into law. This is not exactly the bill I would have written. 
It is not exactly what we negotiated last year, but I believe it is a 
bill that can get the job done. Most importantly, it authorizes $760 
million. I think we could even authorize and do more work than that on 
an annual basis given the unnatural buildup of fuels in the forests, 
but if we can get that money actually spent, it will provide for a lot 
of jobs. It will provide for tremendous protection for communities and 
resources.
  The bill has language about how the work should be conducted. The 
idea is to leave the big old fire-resistant trees and return the forest 
to what we call a presettlement condition, before we began unnaturally 
repressing fire more than 100 years ago with the settlement of the 
West. What you need to do, and there was a dramatic example at the 
Davis fire in central Oregon this year, you could see where the 
lodgepole pines were growing up into the crowns of the big old fire-
resistant Ponderosas and unfortunately a lot of those Ponderosas went 
because that is called a ladder fuel. It just ran up this crummy old 
lodgepole and right up into the beautiful old Ponderosa and we lost 
everything. We need to go in and remove those lodgepole pines and other 
unnatural fuel buildups. That will provide both for jobs, potentially 
for some merchantable material in certain areas, and eventually we will 
be able to manage our forests back or help return them to a state where 
low-intensity fires can burn through, fires that do not destroy whole 
stands, that do not turn the Earth into glass and sterilize it. That is 
the condition that prevails today in the West.
  This bill is not without controversy. That is again part of the 
process. I think the protections are there. People still have a right 
to appeal but appeals will be expedited. People have to participate 
meaningfully in the process. I do not have a problem with that. I think 
people should participate meaningfully in the process and we should 
open it up to everybody who is concerned. People will still have a 
right to go to court if they feel that the law is being violated but we 
are going to have the money, we are going to have the tools and if this 
administration applies this properly, if they get and spend all the 
money that is promised under this bill, we will begin a very long 
process of restoring our forests to a more natural state in the western 
United States and in a state that will not lead to a multi-number of 
catastrophic fires on an annual basis, which is the state we are seeing 
today.
  I want to thank my colleagues on that side. I neglected the Committee 
on Agriculture, where I do not serve, but I know that the Committee on 
Agriculture also played a key role in this legislation. I think we will 
be all the better for it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me this time and for bringing this rule to the floor and I 
thank the Committee on Rules for very expeditiously moving this 
process. I know that when I left the Committee on Rules last night it 
was close to 9:30 and they were still going on to other legislative 
business. So often the members of the Committee on Rules have to do 
that. Of course part of the reason for that is that we are so very near 
the end of this session of Congress. So it is critically important 
given what happened in California just a few weeks ago and what is 
going to happen again next year that we pass this legislation promptly 
so we can begin the process. It is going to take a long time.
  The gentleman from Oregon is correct. There are not enough resources 
nor are there enough acres being addressed in this legislation, but 
nonetheless this is a very important first step and this is the first 
major piece of legislation related to forestry to be passed out of a 
House-Senate conference committee in more than 20 years. This is a 
very, very important development. We have a tremendous opportunity 
today, and when the Senate acts to send to the President a good bill 
that will give us the first step in this process.
  It has been a fair process that has involved everybody in it. Over 2 
weeks ago, we came to the floor to appoint conferees. The ranking 
Democrat on the House Committee on Agriculture who has worked with us 
every step of the way, and I might add that I believe 19 of the 24 
House Democrats on the Committee on Agriculture voted for the original 
House-passed legislation, very strong bipartisan support in crafting 
this legislation. He made a motion to instruct conferees calling for 
the prompt action at an open conference to report back a bill a week 
ago. Unfortunately, the other body did not respond in that fashion and 
did not appoint their conferees until yesterday

[[Page H12115]]

morning. Nonetheless, in the meantime there was a tremendous amount of 
bipartisan and bicameral discussions going on about how to move the 
House and the Senate closer together on these pieces of legislation and 
we achieved that. Then yesterday we did have in the short period of 
time after the Senate appointed conferees the opportunity for an open 
conference, Members were given the opportunity to offer amendments, 
there was clearly a tremendous amount of consensus on both sides of the 
Capitol and in both parties on the need to move forward with this and 
we had a very expeditious conference.
  Nonetheless, I think we kept the commitment made by the House on the 
motion of the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, to have an open 
conference and to move as expeditiously as the process allowed us to 
do.
  This bill is going to allow us to take major steps to let the Forest 
Service do the job they are charged with doing, protecting our national 
forests. This will also allow us to make absolutely certain that we 
have a process that is open and fair to everybody who is concerned 
about our national forests from any perspective. We are accelerating 
the process so that when ideas about what needs to be done to protect 
our forests take place, they can take place promptly, but we are not 
excluding the public in any way from this process. They will have the 
opportunity from start to--a judicial review if that becomes 
necessary--finish to have input in the process, but it will be done in 
such a way that the system can no longer be rigged to stretch out these 
decisions for many years and have our forests destroyed in the 
meantime.

                              {time}  1015

  That is vitally important.
  I want to thank everybody who has been involved in this process. The 
gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), the Committee on Resources, 
made important contributions. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis), the subcommittee chairman, was also vitally important. He 
introduced the legislation. And certainly the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Walden) has been with us every step of the way as well. The same 
thing has been true on the other side of the aisle, whether they have 
agreed with all the measures or not. We thank them for their input.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my good 
friend.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join in 
this in thanking Members on both sides of the aisle for their 
participation and cooperation in this legislation. As the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) noted, we started some 2 years ago with the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) and others talking about what 
would be possible. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and we came 
up with what we thought was possible, we did not make it, went back 
this year and continued that process.
  And we passed a bill out of the House, a bill that I did not agree 
with in its entirety by any means, but then the Senate was also able to 
pass legislation. And as a result of those negotiations, which I wish 
had been a little bit more open, but the fact of the matter is as a 
result of those negotiations, we now have this, we will have this bill 
before us later today. And I want to thank the Committee on Rules for 
providing us this opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say this one point. I wish the firefighter 
protections that had been offered and accepted in the Senate, they were 
offered by Senator Boxer of California, would have been kept in the 
bill. I think it is important now as we see these larger, more 
catastrophic fires, as we see fires that move through residential 
areas, to understand that the firefighters there are put in jeopardy 
from many other things besides just the fires themselves, but also the 
chemicals and building materials and the rest of it that are caught up 
in these huge winds created by the fires.
  But let me say as to the bill, I think this is a bill that is a vast 
improvement over what left the House. In this compromise, in this 
conference report we will target half of the appropriated money into 
those areas most likely to have the most catastrophic fires. The rest 
of the money can be used in forest treatment and other areas of the 
national forest. That is important.
  It is also important that we involve the communities, and communities 
can come up with those plans that they think serve their area best. 
Hopefully, they will use community resources, small businesses, and 
others to develop those plans. People are also entitled to have some 
review of those plans.
  But what this bill does not allow you to do is to drag the process 
out forever, forever and ever. You have got to come in, make your case, 
you made it or you have not made it. But those rights are protected, 
and you can appeal that to court.
  Some people do not like the fact that the bill extends the urban 
interface area out to a mile and a half. The fact of the matter is when 
you see the size of some of these fires, the treatment in the urban 
interface area is nothing more than a firebreak. And a little tiny area 
is not going to stop some of these fires that we have seen over the 
last decade in the West.
  Finally, with respect to the treatment in the larger forest, the 
goods for services contracts are still allowed, but as the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) pointed out, the important part of this bill, 
what Senator Feinstein was able to do was get an authorized amount of 
money in here, because if we just do it on goods for services, we will 
either have to cut down all the trees to save them in order to get 
enough money to carry out the project, or we will not be able to treat 
those areas, as we saw in southern California, of negligible timber 
value but high risk to the communities.
  And so we need to have an appropriation to follow this authorization 
so we can treat those areas of high intensity, of great potential of 
catastrophic fires, the potential to engulf communities. We have got to 
go there with some Federal dollars and some goods for services. And I 
think that is a balance that makes sense.
  I spend several weeks a year backpacking in the high country and the 
forests and parks of this country. You do not have to walk very long in 
the forest to see the need for treatment. If you love the big old 
trees, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) again pointed out, 
you have got to understand that we have allowed a ladder to build up in 
these forests. And the big ponderosas, the big sugar pines are at risk 
because of the understory, the undergrowth that is there that will take 
the flames right into the crowns. And, obviously, once in the crowns, 
with any wind they move so fast that we cannot deal with them.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I think that this is a 
product that the House should vote for. Members on both sides of the 
aisle should support this. It is very, very important to so many of our 
communities and very important to the stewardship of our natural 
resources.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), an individual that has had a great 
deal of impact on this legislation.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from 
Washington, with whom I have worked closely on this and other 
legislation to improve the great Northwest and certainly improve and 
protect America's forests. I want to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the 
Committee on Resources, and certainly my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), for their yeoman's effort on 
this legislation; my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) as well for their 
work; and certainly the President of the United States, who on not one, 
but two occasions has come out to the Northwest to drive home the point 
that we had to pass legislation that embodies the principles contained 
in H.R. 1904.
  I think it is especially important. There are not many of us who do 
not recognize that if we do not remove the ladder fuels that my 
colleague from California talked about, the old growth

[[Page H12116]]

policy that will be out there is one of let it burn, because that is 
what is happening today in America's forests. Because we have taken 
natural fire out of the equation and taken human management out of the 
equation, these forests have become completely overstocked. So it is 
like any other fire, it is about the fuel load. And the fuel load is 
such that when fire starts today, unlike 100 years ago, when it starts 
today, it burns catastrophically.
  We witnessed it in the Biscuit Fire in southern Oregon a year ago. We 
witnessed it in the B&B fire this summer in my district. We witnessed 
it in California. We can see it all across America's great forests and 
rangelands that when there is too much fuel, the fire is nearly 
uncontrollable and certainly catastrophic.
  Let us talk about the human consequences, because we saw it 
especially this year in California, but we have seen it before. Last 
year 23 firefighters lost their lives, and the American taxpayer spent 
$1.5 billion containing 2002's record fires.
  This shows you a scene that, unfortunately, is one that has been seen 
far too often: a home that has been destroyed in a forested area. This 
next shot shows you what happens to fish habitat. This was in my 
district in eastern Oregon, a fire that took place in 1989. This is a 
stream that used to be part of the spring Chinook salmon habitat. You 
can see it is nothing but a mudflow here. There is no buffer. These are 
all dead trees. It looks like a moonscape or a Mars-scape. This was in 
the Wallowa Whitman National Forest. This is what you get when you 
cannot control forest fires.
  This, on the other hand, is an example of how a fire that has been 
treated like we are talking about treating performs. This is an area 
where President Bush accompanied me and Senator Smith and others, 
Senator Wyden, up to the Squires Peak fire in 2002. And you can see 
where the land had been treated, there are good healthy trees left 
behind. There is a fire burning here, but it has fallen to the ground, 
because that is what happens when you treat in these areas. The fire 
drops to the ground, and our firefighters are able to control and 
contain it. The damage is not that significant. In fact, it can be very 
positive in terms of when a fire burns like this to regenerate.
  But just on the other side of this hill where the same people who 
fought the fire have been doing the thinning work, it was completely 
obvious because they had not thinned there yet. Where they had not 
thinned, the fire had been in the canopy, it had been at the top. It 
had been catastrophic and extraordinarily destructive.
  Finally, let me make this point. By streamlining this process we are 
going to be able to get in and do this kind of work sooner so we do not 
end up with that kind of devastation I showed you earlier. But we also, 
as a policy, as a Congress, need to take a look at what happens after a 
catastrophic fire. How can we get in and restore America's great 
conifer forests instead of letting them become brush? How do we get in 
and protect the habitat that remains after a fire and improve it so our 
fish runs can come back? That is a debate we will have to have in the 
future.
  Today, though, I am delighted that we are at this point with a 
comprehensive bipartisan, bicameral plan that will move us an enormous 
generation forward to protect and preserve America's forests, create 
jobs in our rural communities, and make sure fire, when it burns, is 
not catastrophic.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) and the ranking members. I know that they have done a 
serious and yoeperson's job in bringing us this far, which, while I 
thank them, I still have reservations, and I know the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden) and I have talked about them. But that does not 
mean that they did not work hard.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee), my good friend.
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, actually the way this final 
package was developed was a continuation of the sad deterioration of an 
effort to actually reach consensus in this body. And the reason I say 
that is the way this package was put together is some folks went into a 
closed room and excluded other Members of the House from consideration. 
In fact, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest 
Health of the Committee on Resources was excluded from consideration to 
try to reach a consensus product here, as was virtually anyone who 
questioned the original bill who left the House.
  This is the system, if you can imagine, when they are sitting around 
a table in Iraq right now and they ask, how do you do democracy in 
America, I guess you would have to say, in the House we just have this 
secret group and exclude Members from the minority party who are 
ranking Members. And that is what happened here, and it is unfortunate 
because we may have been able to reach a consensus of unanimity here on 
the House floor.
  Now, let me point out a couple significant concerns with this final 
product. Number one, it does not cut the mustard in saving our houses 
and our towns from fire. We just witnessed this enormous devastation in 
California as a result of these fires, hundreds and hundreds of houses 
that were burned. And we do not have enough money in the Federal 
Treasury to come close to treating all of the acres that need 
treatment. At most, under this bill, we will only treat about 2 percent 
of the acres that need treating a year in our forests. That means we 
have got to be smart and target our resources where it is going to do 
the most good, and where it is going to do the most good fastest is 
around our homes and our towns to prevent the devastation that happened 
in California.
  It ought to be a clear, unanimous consensus in this House that we put 
the majority of our resources protecting our families and our homes and 
our towns. And this bill does not do it. Yes, it is better than the 
House version because it says 50 percent, but what are you going to 
tell people next time? Sure, you had 200 houses burned, we will save 
100 of them this time. Well, 50 percent is not good enough saying we 
are just going to save half your town; 50 percent is not good enough 
when we say we are going to save half your subdivision.
  We ought to put a clear majority of our resources in protecting these 
belts, these protective moats, if you will, around our houses, and we 
are not doing it. Why we are not doing it? Because the timber industry 
has driven a lot of this debate. Who is for this is the timber 
industry. And who is against it is the Sierra Club. And it is too bad 
we did not really reach a consensus when we could have on this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), who has worked extremely hard on 
this issue and has been working on this issue.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. 
I also thank the Members and my colleagues on the Democratic side who 
worked with me on my bill. This is a bill I introduced. I have been 
working on it in great detail for a number of years.
  Now, it is true that in the process I did not include 435 Members to 
come to our meetings to come to some kind of compromise. Now, there are 
reasons I did not include 435. First of all, that is not routine. 
Second of all, we could not get them all into one location. Third of 
all, not very many of them were interested. They are interested, most 
of them, in the final product, but they are not interested because they 
have their own priorities in putting this together.
  And, finally, there is a very definite class of people that you 
cannot bring in to a room and expect a compromise. My good colleague, 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), is not one of those people 
that I felt that I could bring into these negotiations and come out 
with anything positive.

                              {time}  1030

  I have got to get people in there that are willing to come up with a 
solution, and I will give you two good examples, two very ardent 
spokesmen for the environment, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Those are about two of the toughest individuals on this House floor 
when it

[[Page H12117]]

comes to speaking about environmental issues. While the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), for example, is very tough on environmental 
issues, the fact is I can negotiate with the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller). I can negotiate with the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio). And that is exactly why the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and myself and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), 
that is exactly why that group of people came together to work out a 
compromise with the Senate to come up with a bill that is good for all 
of us.
  So what we are seeing today is not opposition to the content of the 
bill by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). What we are seeing 
with all due respect to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is 
sour grapes. Hey, I did not get to play in the game. I was not invited 
to the meeting.
  As I said, there is a reason why the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee) was not invited to the meeting. I wanted a meeting with 
production. I needed to have a meeting that would come out with a 
product that could pass both the Senate and the House and accomplish 
something out there with our forests, and that is exactly what this 
bill does. That is exactly why we should pass this rule and that is 
exactly why I expect this bill in both the Senate and the House, the 
Senate and the House, to pass with bipartisan; that is, Republican and 
Democratic, support.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I thank again my good friend from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) for having yielded me time.
  As the gentleman previously mentioned, this is a typical rule for a 
conference report and I will not oppose it. I will, however, oppose the 
underlying conference report, not because my good friend said it would 
not have been productive to have some of us in the conference. I do not 
serve on the committee so I do not know how I got thrown into that. I 
would not have been in the conference in the first place and perhaps he 
should not have been.
  But, Mr. Speaker, President Theodore Roosevelt told Congress in 1907, 
``The conservation of our natural resources and the proper use 
constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other 
problem of our national life.''
  Indeed, it does, Mr. Speaker.
  In 2002 alone, wildfires burned more than 6\1/2\ million acres at a 
cost to taxpayers of more than $1 billion. Hundreds of families were 
evacuated and uncontrollable fires caused millions of dollars worth of 
damage. The images of the recent wildfires in southern California are 
fresh in our minds and pictures of homes burning to the ground and 
thoughts of livelihoods being destroyed will never be forgotten.
  Yes, the underlying report takes significant steps to improve our 
ability to combat and mitigate wildfires. And, again, I congratulate 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) and their ranking members and their committee for their 
work. But in my opinion it goes a bit too far. And for anyone who says 
that this or any other bill is not a perfect bill but we should support 
it anyway, I say absolutely not. If we know that a problem exists in 
the legislation, then let us fix it. Let us fix it before it becomes 
law.
  The underlying conference report loosens current law regarding the 
logging and controlled burning of our Nation's forests. Moreover, it 
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 report, appeals are subject to, in my view, 
unnecessary and unrealistic deadliness that insult the process and 
force Federal judges to adhere to judicial deadlines that make it 
impossible to fully consider the complexities of the appeal.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when more than half of the United States is 
experiencing some form of drought and dryness, it is critical for 
Congress to consider legislation that is proactive in defending and 
responding to the adverse effects of wildfires. And I spoke last night 
with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and my friends in the Committee on Rules about 
the fact that drought is an attendant feature that must deal with our 
concerns about forest fires.
  It is equally critical for Congress to also consider legislation that 
helps communities mitigate the effects of the reoccurring events that 
often result in an excessive and prolonged fire season. In fact, my 
colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Montana 
(Mr. Rehberg) and I have introduced a bill that does just that. H.R. 
2781, the National Drought Preparedness Act, moves our country away 
from an ad hoc response-oriented approach and towards a more proactive 
mitigation-based approach.
  Our bill provides States and local communities with the resources and 
tools to develop drought preparedness plans and think about the 
ramifications of drought before we find ourselves in one.
  We are now faced with a vote clearly indicative of the concerns 
raised by President Roosevelt nearly one 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.
  I realize we do not oppose removing excess vegetation that increases 
the risk and facilitates the spread of wildfires. I certainly do not 
take issue with the report's efforts to address insect manifestations 
in forests. It is, in fact, crucial that Congress address these two 
issues.
  What I do take issue with, however, is why the majority cannot just 
stop there. Instead, it uses the report to further its agenda under the 
blanket of healthy forests. Cutting down national forests and limiting 
public participation and administrative reviews does not get us any 
closer to stopping the spread of wildfires, and it certainly does not 
make our forests any healthier.
  Teddy Roosevelt once noted, ``Forests are the lungs of our land, 
purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.'' He 
continued, ``A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself.''
  Mr. Speaker, we must not allow the late President Roosevelt's warning 
to be realized by the 108th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support 
the rule and oppose the underlying report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill that this rule allows to be taken up is a very 
significant piece of legislation, and I just want to make one point 
that I do not think has been made in the debate on this rule regarding 
this underlying legislation, and that is that this legislation is 
geared towards what we call multiple use areas within our national 
system, our national forests and our BLM lands. Multiple use by 
definition means it should be open for recreation, commercial activity, 
and so forth. But, unfortunately, with policies that have been enacted 
de facto in the past 10 or 15 years, in fact, we have closed up these 
multiple use areas.
  This legislation addresses these problems that have built up for a 
time and as a result has built up to unhealthy forests and unhealthy 
BLM lands. So it is a significant first start, an extremely significant 
first start.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and 
support the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________