[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.
____________________