[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 62 (Thursday, May 18, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FOREST EMERGENCY RECOVERY AND RESEARCH ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 17, 2006

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4200) to 
     improve the ability of the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior to promptly implement recovery 
     treatments in response to catastrophic events affecting 
     Federal lands under their jurisdiction, including the removal 
     of dead and damaged trees and the implementation of 
     reforestation treatments, to support the recovery of non-
     Federal lands damaged by catastrophic events, to revitalize 
     Forest Service experimental forests, and for other purposes:

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I cannot support this bill in 
its current form.
  H.R. 4200 focuses on actions to be taken after a ``catastrophic 
event,'' defined as any one of various natural disasters or events.
  For Colorado, this misses the point--our most pressing issue is the 
increased likelihood of severe wildfires that endanger human life and 
property (and municipal water supplies) resulting from a combination of 
increased fuel stocks (itself the result of various causes, including 
past fire-suppression policies), drought, and widespread insect 
infestations.
  So, what we need is accelerated action to reduce hazardous fuels in 
the ``red zones'' before the communities that adjoin or intermingle 
with the forests are confronted with severe wildfires--not legislation 
that aims at speeding salvage or restoration after the damage has been 
done.
  The bill also has serious flaws. I will not attempt to list them all, 
because they have been discussed fat length in today's debate. But I 
think it is worth emphasizing that while it is doubtful that the 
legislation is necessary anywhere it seems clear that there are certain 
lands to which it should not apply, including (1) National Conservation 
Areas and National Recreation Areas; (2) lands that have been 
recommended for wilderness by the President; (3) wilderness study 
areas; (4) BLM-designated areas of critical environmental concern; (5) 
lands recommended for wilderness in a Forest Service or BLM land-
management plan; (6) the Fossil Ridge Recreation Management Area in 
Colorado; (7) the Bowen Gulch Protection Area in Colorado; (8) the 
Piedra, Roubideau, and Tabeguache Areas in Colorado; (9) the James Peak 
Protection Area in Colorado; and (10) the Arapaho National Recreation 
Area in Colorado. Further, I think the bill should include language to 
make clear that it will not change the requirement of section 103(d) of 
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which requires that at least 50% 
of the fuel-reduction funds must be used for projects in the wildland-
urban interface--the ``red zone'' lands.
  In the Resources Committee, I offered an amendment to make those 
changes, and also supported amendments offered by other Members. 
Unfortunately, those amendments were not adopted.
  Similarly, I voted for the Rahall, DeFazio, Inslee, and Udall of New 
Mexico amendments when the House considered the bill earlier today.
  Regrettably, however, the House did not agree to revise the bill as 
proposed in those amendments. And because I think the bill should not 
be enacted without those changes, I must vote against it.

                          ____________________