[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 163 (Thursday, October 25, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H12095-H12096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              BE PREPARED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, ``Be prepared'' is the motto of the Boy 
Scouts of America. Unfortunately, for those Californians now in harm's 
way, the leadership of the U.S. Forest Service doesn't have the same 
commitment. Three years ago, the fleet of airplanes with firefighting 
capabilities available to the Forest Service declined dramatically, due 
to both attrition and accidents. I contacted the head of the Forest 
Service and aggressively suggested that steps be taken to ensure a 
surge capability in firefighting aircraft should a major conflagration 
erupt.
  Much to my chagrin, the leadership at the National Forest Service was 
not responsive and our fire fighting aviation assets were permitted to 
dwindle. I continued to push the case for preparedness, focusing on the 
certification of specially designed Russian firefighting airplanes, so 
that water bombers would be available if our own depleted air assets 
were insufficient to handle an emergency. The availability of large 
American aircraft, like the DC-10, converted for firefighting purposes, 
was also suggested as a possible backup should the current number of 
firefighting aircraft prove inadequate.
  The bureaucratic response from the U.S. Forest Service was 
disheartening, which is an understatement. The leadership did 
everything they could not to do anything. They bent over backwards to 
justify not taking steps to be prepared for the worst scenario. It 
appeared to be ``good ol' boyism'' and bureaucratic obstructionism with 
a vengeance. After all my pleas and demands, the Forest Service refused 
to take the steps necessary to be prepared for the worst. That 
intransigence was the order of the day at the Forest Service as late as 
December of last year, 2006.
  The people of California are now suffering. It was only the 
intervention of Gov. Schwarzenegger that kept the privately developed 
fire fighting DC-10 available for the awe-inspiring part it is now 
playing in the current battle against the flames that have engulfed 
huge chunks of California. That DC-10, however, as well as the Russian 
waterbombers, is still not permitted to fight fires on the Federal 
lands in California, or elsewhere.
  When the fire is extinguished and an-evaluation is done, one thing 
that must be determined is whether or not a lack of aviation fire-
fighting capacity undercut the courageous efforts of those confronting 
this enormous blazing inferno. Did people lose their homes because the 
waterbombers weren't there to save the day? One way or the other, those 
who made the decision to do nothing at the U.S. Forest Service will be 
held accountable.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 2005.
     Mr. Dale Bosworth,
     Chief, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chief Bosworth: I write once again regarding the issue 
     of the availability, in case of emergency, of the Russian 
     fleet of firefighting aircraft as addressed in your letter of 
     August 25, 2005.
       Your letter represents an unacceptable and unwarranted 
     change from what you stated in a meeting in my office on July 
     1, 2005. At the conclusion of that meeting it was my clear 
     understanding that the United States Forest Service (USFS) 
     would undertake specific steps to see that Russian air-
     tankers would be available to use in an emergency, should 
     enough American firefighting assets not be available to 
     respond to an extraordinary challenge.
       In your most recent correspondence of August 25, you once 
     again assert that Federal Aviation Administration 
     certification is a prerequisite for any action to be taken by 
     the USFS to ensure Russian firefighting planes could be used 
     if necessary. However, as you expressed to me in our meeting, 
     this is an USFS internal rule, not required by any statute. 
     Such a policy, I believe, and you agreed, can and should be 
     put aside if it could endanger life and property in this 
     extremely volatile fire season. If another significant fire 
     explodes in addition to the wildfires now raging in Southern 
     California, USFS assets may be stretched dangerously thin. I 
     think that we can agree that bureaucratic procedures and 
     regulatory impediments not required by law should not get in 
     the way of these Russian planes being made available and used 
     if life and property is otherwise in danger. If steps must be 
     taken to ensure the interoperability of these Russian assets 
     with our existing fleet in case of such an emergency, then 
     why not take those steps? You seemed to agree with that logic 
     at our July meeting.
       Your letter, however, represents a reversal of what I 
     believed was agreed upon in our conversation. That is no 
     small matter. After Hurricane Katrina, the American public 
     will not stand for decisions, in the face of an impending 
     calamity, made with more mind to political turf protection 
     than helping people. Steps must be taken to ensure that all 
     options are available in case we face massive wildfires in 
     the West. If the worst case scenario occurs and all options 
     that could have been available are not, there will be a 
     severe accounting. In the meantime, I find the USFS's 
     inaction to be deplorable.
       I look forward to your prompt response and, above all, 
     action in response to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Dana Rohrabacher,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, December 8, 2006.
     Mr. Mark Rey,
     Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, 
         Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Natural 
         Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Rey: Let me first express my regret about the 
     death of your firefighters, especially Pablo Cerda, in the 
     Esperanza fire. Pablo was one of my constituents, a Fountain 
     Valley High School graduate. His tragic death is one of the 
     primary reasons for this letter.
       Your June 21, 2006 response to my April 5, 2006 letter was 
     not responsive to the specifics that I requested. Your letter 
     contained the same information that has been relayed to me in 
     the past by your agency. There has been a disconnect between 
     presentation information and the written responses, as 
     indicated in my September 29, 2005 letter to Mr. Bosworth. 
     For example, your second and third paragraphs which mention 
     an initial attack response rate of 98.5 for the 2005 fire 
     season are misleading. Initial attack rates have nothing to 
     do with the availability of aircraft to support the 
     firefighters on the ground. Initial attack concerns the use 
     of resources nearest to the fire, not the availability and 
     position of the federally funded aircraft to attack the fire.
       I am still concerned that we have neither the correct tools 
     nor the operational plans that are required to reduce the 
     fire risk to California. Your response did not specifically 
     answer my questions regarding the operations, logistics, and 
     communications compatibility plans that must be in place if 
     we are to use foreign assets to support firefighting in the 
     U.S. In addition to my concerns about the availability of the 
     Russian fleet of firefighting aircraft in case of emergency, 
     I now have concerns about the overall management of our fire 
     tanker fleet. The newest large tanker aircraft that is 
     available, a DC-10 tanker, was created with private 
     financing. This aircraft was not used until the day after the 
     fire crew was overwhelmed in the Esperanza fire when the DC-
     10 tanker was used for six drops. The request and funding for 
     the operations of this aircraft was done by the state of 
     California, not

[[Page H12096]]

     the federal government. This incident calls into question 
     your written response that the firefighting forces are 
     adequate to address the fire suppression needs in the western 
     United States. It appears that the 16 large air tankers were 
     not adequate since the use of the DC-10 had to be funded by 
     the state of California.
       The responsibility for airworthiness and safety of aircraft 
     over the United States is the responsibility of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, not the Forest Service. The FAA has 
     the category of Public Use Aircraft for aircraft used to 
     fight fires, if aircraft wish to be used to save lives and 
     property. For example, the National Guard C-130's are public 
     use aircraft and do not have to pass the additional 
     requirements of the Forest Service. We allowed the IL-76 
     flights into Little Rock Air Force Base after Katrina when 
     they brought supplies to our citizens. Not to consider new or 
     foreign aircraft under the excuse of interagency safety and 
     airworthiness standards is a red herring which has cost the 
     country both in funds, in property and in lives destroyed and 
     at risk. Your unwillingness to take the necessary steps to 
     ensure the availability of large aircraft in situations in 
     which the current assets are not sufficient is 
     unconscionable.
       To summarize, your response was again filled with the bland 
     generalities on this issue and it continues to leave me with 
     no confidence. The failure during the Esperanza fire 
     validates my lack of confidence in your organization and 
     decisions. Since we are at the end of the 2006 fire season, I 
     want to be ensured that we are better prepared for the 2007 
     fire season than we were for this season. To this end I am 
     talking to Senator Feinstein and others to ensure that this 
     issue is not ignored until more firefighters lose their lives 
     and property and homes are destroyed. I am also involved in a 
     private evaluation of this issue. Unless I receive 
     satisfactory explanations, there will be a painfully harsh 
     critique of your decision making on this issue. I expect to 
     hear from you in detail before the first of the year.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Dana Rohrabacher,
     Member of Congress.

                          ____________________