[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5462-H5466]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is recognized for
48 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to control
this next 48 minutes as we explain how significant this Secure Rural
Schools fix is and how important it is that we do something on a
program that, quite frankly, is not sustainable.
So at this time I would like to recognize, if not the father, the
godfather of Secure Rural Schools, the gentleman from Oregon. His State
is impacted significantly by this program. It is a significant issue to
the school kids of Oregon. Mr. Walden of Oregon is someone who has
talked about this for many years and knows the significance and the
importance of this particular issue. So I gladly yield to the gentleman
from Oregon to explain his take on the Secure Rural Schools issue.
Mr. WALDEN. Well, I thank the gentleman from Utah, the chairman of
the Forestry Subcommittee, a subcommittee that a number of years ago I
had the great privilege and honor to chair when we passed legislation,
as we're going to do in this House once again, to not only make
America's great forests healthy, but also then to stop the devastation
that we heard from the gentleman from California. We have so much work
to do to continue the legacy of real environmentalism, which is healthy
forests and healthy communities.
When President Theodore Roosevelt created the great forest reserves
back in 1905, thereabouts, he said they have to be in partnership with
the communities and the communities have to be supportive of this. The
great purpose of this creation of forest reserves, in a speech he gave
in your home State, as a matter of fact, in Utah, I believe, was wood
for woodmaking, for homebuilding, water for agriculture, which means
the preservation of healthy forests, in the real term preservation--
which is what I want--not what we're seeing in Yosemite National Park
and the surrounding areas, the focus of 400 square miles of
devastation, not what we saw in Oregon this summer where the smoke was
so thick in the Rogue Valley that they had to cancel performances at
the Shakespeare Theater. The restaurants literally shut down. The
people had to wear masks. I called into the call center of one of the
phone companies and the attendant there said to me, he said, It's smoky
in here inside the building.
This is not what we want out of our forests. It's not what our
taxpayers want. It's not what the schoolchildren want. Because, you
see, we've lost the jobs; we've lost the revenue from the jobs. We've
got sheriffs in counties in my district that now have maybe one deputy.
We had situations of violence, 911 calls. A woman was being attacked
and basically told by the 911 folks, We don't have anybody to send. Can
you tell him to go away?
You can't make this stuff up.
I thank Chairman Hastings, Chairman Bishop, and others for bringing
this bill forward. Let me tell you what it means in a State like mine.
In 2012, the Oregon Department of Forestry, in collaboration with
other State and Federal agencies, issued a report to Oregon Governor
John Kitzhaber stating that, over the 20-year period from 1980 to 2000,
wildfires in eastern Oregon burned approximately 553,000 acres, with an
average fire size of 26,000 acres. Over the last 10 years, in that same
area, it has burned 1 million acres, averaging 93,000 acres in size.
That means wildfires have tripled in size in the last 30 years. Not all
of those are in forests. Some of them are grasslands. But the point is
it's out of control and it's very, very deadly and expensive. And it's
unacceptable.
The Oregon Forest Resources Institute reported that, since 1990, the
timber harvest from Federal forestlands in the great State of Oregon
has dropped by more than 90 percent--90 percent reduction since 1990 in
harvested timber off Federal lands. In fact, 60 percent of Oregon's
forestland is owned/controlled--but not really managed--by the Federal
Government. It now contributes less than 12 percent of the State's
total timber harvest. Sixty percent owned by and controlled by the
Federal Government, 12 percent of timber harvest.
What does that mean for timber dependent communities? Counties that
have like 50, 60, 70 percent Federal ownership, my friend who taught
school knows you don't have a tax base, and now you don't have jobs
because now you're not doing harvest. You can't turn and entice some
big company to come in. This is a forested, rural area, a long way from
freeways in most cases but not all.
So what does that mean? Nine out of 20 counties I represent face
double-digit unemployment today. Sixteen of the 20 counties I represent
have more than 14 percent of their populations living in poverty in
America.
Here's a chart that shows what's happening. It shows mill closures in
Oregon over the last 30 years. We've lost three-fourths of our mills
and 30,000 mill jobs. Just recently, we lost another in. One Josephine
County, the Rough & Ready mill closed after nearly 100 years. The
owners were ready to invest $2 million in upgrades, and they said, We
can't count on a timber supply off the Federal ground that surrounds
them. There went 87 jobs.
I want to show you another picture. I have used it before over the
years. It is indicative of what happens in a fire. This is Kaleb and
Ashley after the Egley fire, which burned 140,000 acres in Harney
County, 2007. It just shows the devastation, these young children out
there.
And what does it mean for our kids? The chairman asked about that.
The Oregon Department of Education says 60 percent of the
schoolchildren in the county where this fire occurred are eligible for
free and reduced lunch. There's poverty all over the West, and there's
a way to end that and produce jobs and revenue and have healthy forests
rather than what we see today.
The chairman's bill would require foresters to look at the
sustainable yield a forest could produce and then only seek to harvest
half of that, of the sustainable yield, and only on land that is
suitable for timber harvest. It says, if you're going to appeal a plan,
you had to at least be involved in the process. We put that in the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act that passed this body overwhelmingly
and I think passed the Senate--huge support--signed by then-President
Bush into law. It had great effect, but limited in terms of what we
need to do. But it had that provision in there. It strikes a balance.
You need to participate in the process in order to have a right to
appeal.
{time} 1745
It includes a 1-year bridge payment. This gets your schools issue for
the counties who currently have lost or will lose their funding for
emergency services, for roads, and for schools in the Secure Rural
Schools side. This is a bridge to put people back to work in the woods
when coupled with active management. This is balance--this is balance.
The bill also has an Oregon-specific provision. Not everything I
would necessarily do if I could write it on my own, but do you know
what? You don't get that process here. We've put together a good plan
with Representatives DeFazio and Schrader. We've worked through our
differences. We forged a balanced plan that would create thousands of
new jobs. Creators saved up to 3,000 jobs in Oregon in these very
unique lands called the O&C Lands. It ensures the health of these
[[Page H5463]]
lands for future generations. It provides long-term management and
certainty of funding for our local services and schools and roads and
law enforcement that lie within these counties.
According to Governor Kitzhaber's O&C Lands Report, it would generate
$120 million per year in county revenue. We don't come back here to the
Federal taxpayer and say, Give us another check, give us another
handout. We say, Let us manage our own lands and do it under the Oregon
State Forest Practices Act, which is one of the leading environmental
laws in the country for balance, for sustainable forest health and
management. Do it under that and we'll create the jobs and save them,
we'll create the revenue for our schools.
Let me tell you about the protections that you will get. It provides:
Activities near streams, lakes, and wetlands must include water
quality protection. Something we all agree on.
Wildlife trees and down logs have to be left in most large clear-cut
areas. Clear-cut sizes are limited to 120 acres. Now, some will say,
Oh, my gosh, 120 acres. Let me tell you that the Douglas Complex fire
that burned this summer burned 48,000 acres. If there isn't a more
destructive clear-cut than that, I don't know what it is. And do you
know what? After it burns, there's no requirement they go in and
replant. If you harvest 128 acres, you're required to go in and
replant, and those trees have to survive, and you go in right away.
Let me show you what happens after a fire to the environment. There's
no stream setback here. Fire knows no bounds. Our legislation says you
can't harvest near that, near a stream, you have to have setbacks. We
believe in the environment. This is what you get when you don't manage.
You see, lack of action has an impact in a dynamic forest
environment. Doing nothing doesn't mean the forest gets better. It
means it gets overcrowded, overstocked, and when you get fire--and
we'll always have it--it just won't burn naturally anymore. It will
blow up, like my friend and colleague from California has experienced
in the Yosemite fire and like we've experienced all over the West this
summer and will every summer thereafter.
The Forest Service now spends more fighting fire than anything else.
They ought to change their name to the U.S. Fire Service.
We've got to get back to managing these lands, and this legislation
does that. I thank the committee for its incredible work. I thank you
for bringing this to the floor. I look forward to voting for it when it
comes to the floor. Together we'll get back to proper, thoughtful,
constructive management of our Federal forests. We'll take care of that
trust the people put in us to take care of their lands, and we'll take
care of the people as well.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman for his comments here.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard now from three Members from the west
coast--one from California, one from Oregon and one from Washington--
who have explained the situation and how this particular act is,
indeed, a solution to the problems that those west coast States are
finding in their forestry efforts.
But this also impacts the interior of this country, so I would like
to yield a few minutes to the representative from the State of Montana,
who represents the entire State of Montana, to explain how this has an
impact on interior State forests, as well as the coastal State forests.
I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines) to explain what's
happening in his State.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, and I thank
the chairman for reserving this hour for this very important issue,
saving our national forests and our forested communities, which is very
important to my home State of Montana.
H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests and Healthy Communities Act
is important to Montana because many of our counties in Montana rely on
the forest economy or at least the relics of what used to be one.
Several decades ago, Montana forests supported local timber jobs and
provided a steady revenue stream for our counties and schools.
In fact, I remember growing up when I was riding in the back seat,
mom and dad in front in the station wagon and I would be in back with
my sisters, we would watch logging trucks drive up and down our
highways. Our counties enjoyed the benefits of the receipts from timber
sales. It used to help support our schools.
But today, as I now drive around the State representing the State of
Montana, most of our forest counties struggle with unemployment. In
fact, Lincoln County, the most northwest county of my State, which is
comprised mostly of national forest land, it used to generate timber
jobs. They now face double digit unemployment.
The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest faces a very high mortality
rate due to beetle kill. The tragedy here as we drive all over the
State this time of year, we are seeing forest fires on one hand and
then standing dead timber on the other that has died because of beetle
kill. We can't even go in and harvest the dead trees, which we have a
couple years to do so, because of the onerous process here on our
national forest.
Inflexible and outdated Federal laws like the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act have imposed a huge
administrative burden on Federal agencies, which limits our timber
industry's access to wood and ultimately resulted in the mismanagement
of our forests, allowing places where we love to recreate instead to
burn up in smoke. And when they burn up in smoke, as the gentleman from
Oregon mentioned, it threatens our watersheds as well.
In fact, so far over 100,000 acres in Montana have burned this year.
The number of large fires--large fires--has been as high as five just
this week. My son last year played high school football his senior
year. We had ``Friday Night Lights'' high school football games in
Montana canceled because of air quality, because of forest fires.
Laws like NEPA and the Endangered Species Act are often the basis of
lawsuits. These aren't filed by the rank and file Montanans who are
working to collaborate to improve access to our national forests, but
they're filed by fringe extreme groups to halt healthy timber
management projects that could help prevent these fires and,
importantly, create hundreds of jobs.
In fact, in one of our hearings in our committee, a top national
forest official, Deputy Chief Jim Hubbard, said litigation has played a
huge role in blocking responsible timber sales in Montana and other
region 1 States, including projects supported by collaborative groups
consisting of timber as well as conservation leaders. To quote Mr.
Hubbard, he said this: ``It has virtually shut things down on the
national forest.''
As the gentleman from Oregon mentioned, the numbers in Montana are
the same. Timber harvests are down 90 percent on our Federal lands from
where they were when I was growing up.
Mr. Chairman, something must be done, and I'm glad to join you in
introducing this very important bill. H.R. 1526 will help revitalize
the timber industry throughout Montana and create thousands of good,
high-paying jobs. It also tackles beetle kill, protecting our
environment for future generations and reducing the threat of
catastrophic wildfires in Montana.
The Restoring Healthy Forests and Healthy Communities Act will cut
the red tape that has held up responsible forest management in timber
production. It also includes comprehensive reforms to discourage and
limit the flood of frivolous appeals and litigation. It requires the
Forest Service to increase timber harvest on non-wilderness lands now
that it will have much needed latitude to do the work it knows how to
do.
This improved management will protect the health of our forests, the
health of our watersheds, the safety of our communities, and allow jobs
to return to the timber industry. In addition, the legislation restores
the Federal Government's commitment to provide 25 percent of timber
sales receipts to timber counties. It extends the Secure Rural Schools
program pending the full operation of the new timber program.
SRS has provided crucial stopgap funding to timber counties after
timber sales, and the corresponding receipts, after they plunged in
recent decades. It is the taxpayer now who is funding
[[Page H5464]]
that gap when instead we could have the timber industry cutting down
trees and supplying jobs and supplying revenue to support our schools.
Recently, we welcomed Chuck Roady, the vice president and general
manager of F. H. Stoltze Land and Lumber in Columbia Falls, Montana. He
came back to Washington, D.C., as a witness for a House Natural
Resources hearing on forest and fire management.
During the hearing, Chuck perfectly summed up the challenges we face.
He said:
This is a nonpartisan, nonregional issue. It's simply the
case of doing the right thing to manage our public forest. If
we don't, Mother Nature is going to do it for us, and when
she does it, it's uncontrollable and catastrophic.
Mr. Speaker, I could not have conveyed our challenges any better than
that. We all know too well how devastating wildfires can be to our
communities and our local economies.
I urge passing the Restoring Healthy Forests and Healthy Communities
Act.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the
gentleman from Montana.
Very few people realize the Federal Government actually owns 1 out of
every 3 acres in this country, but it is disproportionate. So, of the
13 Western States, 54 percent of the land mass is actually owned by the
Federal Government. The 33 States east of the Western States only have
4 percent of their land. Which simply means no one actually east of
Denver quite understands how this relationship necessarily works. It
also means that the unfortunate truth is, as we've already heard, that
private and State forests are today healthier than the Federal forest
system. But those of us in the West realize this firsthand because
those are our neighbors, those are the areas that surround our
communities.
I'm glad to hear from the next two speakers who will be talking--they
are from Colorado. The first one is the gentleman from Colorado
Springs, who is on the Natural Resources Committee, and he's going to
explain the significant situation that they find in Colorado with our
forest health situation.
I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah. It's great
to serve on the committee as a subcommittee chairman with him. And we
serve with Chairman Doc Hastings, who is doing a great job on these
issues.
The bill, H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy
Communities Act, is a long-term solution to help put hardworking
Americans back to work and ensure that these rural counties have a
stable source of revenue to help pay for schools and teachers. It was
introduced by my friend and colleague, Representative Scott Tipton, of
Colorado, and I am a cosponsor.
Over a century ago, the Federal Government made a promise to actively
manage our forests and share 25 percent of the revenues generated from
timber sales with counties containing national forest land. This is
funding that rural counties depend on to help fund vital services, such
as education and roads. But the Federal Government has failed to uphold
this commitment and has cut back on active management of our national
forests.
This lack of active forest management not only deprives counties of
revenue to help fund schools and roads but also inhibits job creation
and makes our national forests increasingly susceptible to wildfires
and invasive species. Currently, there are over 21 active large
wildfires burning right now in eight States. Over 406,000 acres are
burning, with only 2 of the 21 fires contained.
This year, to date there have been over 35,000 fires with almost 4
million acres burned. Last year, the tragic Waldo Canyon fire occurred
on Federal land in my Colorado district, claiming two lives and
destroying almost 500 homes.
H.R. 1526 will help improve forest health and prevent catastrophic
wildfires by allowing greater State and local involvement in wildfire
prevention on Federal lands. It will help improve local forest
management by allowing counties to actively manage portions of national
forest land.
Restoring active management of our national forests would ensure a
stable, predictable revenue stream for counties and schools. Active
management would also promote healthier forests, reduce the risk of
wildfires, and decrease our reliance on foreign countries for timber
and paper goods.
I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Lamborn has already
introduced the concept of what's taking place in Colorado and the bill
for Mr. Tipton, let's turn now to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tipton) to also explain the significance of why he actually did that
particular bill.
Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Chairman Bishop. I certainly appreciate your
leadership on this issue, along with Chairman Hastings.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague had just described some of the challenges
that we've been facing in Colorado. I would like to be able to expand
upon that.
Not long ago, I was at the incident command centers in Monte Vista,
Colorado, on the east side of the Rockies, and also in Pagosa Springs,
on the west side of the Rockies, to be able to visit the incident
command centers trying to deal with the West Fork Complex fire.
{time} 1800
How big is the fire? It's 170 square miles and counting. We are not
talking 170 acres. We are talking 170 square miles of forests in my
district.
The challenges that this is going to bring in terms of being able to
deal with endangered species, in terms of water quality, in terms of
tourism and the economy in western Colorado can probably not yet be
numbered. That is why the Restoring Healthy Forests Act is a bill whose
time has come.
The National Interagency Fire Center reported this week that there
have been 35,000-plus fires in the United States in 2013 alone.
Devastating bark beetle infestation, prolonged drought conditions, and
unnaturally dense forests--these have all combined with ineffective
forest management for a devastating fire season. These factors have led
to a significant increase in the magnitude and in the number of
wildfires in the country over the past decade.
So far this year, 3.9 million acres have already burned, and these
figures continue to grow with 21 active, large wildfires. The property
damage and costs associated with these wildfires is tremendous; and to
date, the Forest Service has already spent over a billion dollars in
fire suppression alone. In 2012, the Forest Service spent only $296
million on hazardous fuels reduction; whereas, they spent $1.77 billion
on wildfire suppression at that same time.
Part of this is a planning process. We have dealt with leadership in
the Forest Service. They've talked about computer models which their
own folks are telling us simply don't work. We have to be able to get
in and effectively manage these forests, to be able to treat them in a
responsible way, to be able to build for our communities, and to be
able to make sure that our children are able to see the same forests
that we grew up living in.
The cost of proactive healthy forest management is, indeed, far less
than the cost of wildfire suppression. When it comes to our forests, an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; but instead of ramping up
forest management efforts and addressing hazardous conditions in the
West, the Interior Department has proposed to cut the budget by 48
percent for hazardous fuels reduction in 2014, and the Forest Service
has proposed reducing this proactive management by a further 24
percent. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have expressed
outrage at this approach of further reducing funding for hazardous
fuels.
Under the current management system, a cumbersome regulatory
framework has further inhibited active forest management while
excessive litigation has obstructed projects that would prevent
devastating wildfires and protect our vital water supplies and precious
species habitats. The status quo is not working, and immediate action
is needed to be able to fix this broken system.
Our forest management package, H.R. 1526, would allow greater State
and local involvement in wildfire prevention on Federal lands in order
to expedite hazardous fuels reduction projects and reduce litigation.
In doing so, it would help restore sustainable
[[Page H5465]]
timber harvesting, create jobs, and provide reliable sources of revenue
for rural education and infrastructure.
H.R. 1526 also addresses the shortfall in county revenue for schools
and critical services caused by a lack of timber harvest by requiring
the Forest Service to produce at least half of the sustainable annual
yield of timber required under the 1908 law and to share 25 percent of
those receipts with our rural counties.
In order to meet this goal while providing for healthy forests, the
bill includes the local management framework by directing the Forest
Service to prioritize hazardous fuels reduction projects proposed by
Governors and affected counties and tribes. To expedite locally based
healthy forest projects, this package builds on the positive
streamlining procedures implemented under the bipartisan Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
I am pleased to have been able to work with Chairman Bishop and
Chairman Hastings on this bill. It's time that we stand together to be
able to return health to our forests in a proactive, responsible, and
positive way. H.R. 1526 accomplishes that goal.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the last two speakers from Colorado for
explaining the situation they are facing within their State on Federal
forest land.
Before we turn to somebody from the East who gets what we're talking
about here, let's continue with the backbone of the Rocky Mountains by
turning some time over to the Representative from the State of Wyoming
(Mrs. Lummis) in order for her to explain how this impacts her State.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also thank Chairman
Hastings of the Natural Resources Committee for bringing this important
legislation to the attention of the American people, especially after
this tremendous fire season that we've had in the West for the past 3
or 4 years, in which we have lost valuable natural resources, jobs,
wildlife, livestock, people, houses. It is an unnecessary devastation
that always amazes me as we would bring about legislation to address
regional haze, which has no environmental impact other than to reduce
the viewsheds or the damage to the viewshed, when the damage to the
viewshed is being caused by our inattentiveness in managing our
national forests.
I want to talk, Mr. Chairman, about forest health and about the
benefits of logging to have healthy forests, vibrant wildlife, and
clean water and air.
The air is cleaner when the West is not on fire. The water is cleaner
when protected from the ash that goes down the hills, into the streams,
choking the oxygen out of our streams, which then, in turn, kills our
fish. That reduces fishing opportunities, and it reduces a vibrant fish
population.
In addition to providing clean air by lack of fire, clean water due
to lack of fire, by logging, we can actually have more vibrant,
widespread wildlife habitat and water for that habitat. When we log and
do it in a manner that preserves the natural contours in our forests,
we can have high mountain meadows with forages that will keep elk,
deer, and other species on those high mountain meadows longer in the
year, thereby providing habitat for a vibrant, healthy, diverse,
ungulate population and for the species that share that ecosystem
habitat. So it's good for wildlife.
Furthermore, it's good for the health of the forests, themselves,
because, if you would look, for example, at the Medicine Bow National
Forest and the Routt National Forest across the border in Colorado,
these two forests have been absolutely denuded of lodgepole pine by the
bark beetle with the exception of the young trees in the areas that
have previously been logged. The healthy areas of the Medicine Bow
National Forest in Wyoming and the Routt National Forest in Colorado
are the areas that were previously logged, because there is a diversity
of the age of the trees, thereby having a young, more resilient,
healthy tree intermingled with stands of medium-maturity and high-
maturity trees. The combination of the old growth, the medium-maturity
trees, and the young trees makes for a more vibrant, healthy forest
that can better withstand an onslaught like the bark beetle epidemic
that has devastated so much of the Intermountain West.
So we have addressed clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat through
the opportunity for high mountain meadows, and we have addressed the
health of the trees, themselves. All this can happen while we have jobs
in logging, while we have opportunities for revenues for schools.
The point here is we are all part of this ecosystem--the people, the
animals, the air, the water, the trees. All can benefit by this bill.
This is a commonsense solution that has taken Americans decades to
understand and appreciate the importance of, but that has never been
more apparent than it was this summer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important dialogue.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentlelady from Wyoming for
being with us and talking about the concepts that are going on and what
we can do for our future.
If I could, Mr. Speaker, at the turn of the 20th century, the so-
called ``progressive era,'' there was a paradigm shift that took place
in the United States in which the government decided to basically keep
all of the land. It was based on three premises:
The first is that the West had to be protected from itself. The
second is that only somebody in Washington, D.C., would have the vision
to make decisions that could impact the rest of the Nation, and if
there were ever a conflict between what local leaders or local
officials wanted and what D.C. wanted, D.C. obviously had the better
advantage.
The result of that is, as you have heard from the people here today,
that our forest system is not as healthy as it used to be or ought to
be. The communities that relied upon the timber industry to survive and
the school systems in those areas that relied upon the timber industry
to survive have been decimated, and our solution as a Congress and as
an administration is simply to find a temporary payment to these
solutions with actually no revenue source to make them permanent.
What we have now done since 2000, when the Secure Rural School
Program started, is spend $6 billion, which has come from the pockets
of those who live in the East, to fund a temporary program when what we
actually need is a long-term solution that works--that puts people to
work, that finds a real source of funding for education services and
provides a real solution for what we need, a solution that will provide
for healthy forests, a solution that will provide for vibrant
communities and for the support of our public school system. That is,
indeed, what this proposal for the Secure Rural School Program attempts
to do.
Mr. Speaker, about 20 years ago, a former Democrat Member of this
House, who is now part of the Senate leadership--I realize that's an
oxymoron, ``Senate leadership''--but he was here, and he gave an
impassioned speech upon this floor that dealt with the controversial
decision of Major League Baseball's potentially switching to aluminum
bats. As that Representative from Illinois, who is now a Senator, rose,
he said:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the desecration of a great
American symbol. No, I am not referring to flag burning; I am
referring to the baseball bat.
Several experts tell us that the wooden baseball bat is
doomed to extinction . . . Please, do not tell me that wooden
bats are too expensive . . . Please, do not try to sell me on
the notion that these metal clubs will make better hitters .
. . If we forsake the great Americana of broken-bat singles
and pine tar, we will have certainly lost our way as a
Nation.
His conclusion was simply this:
I do not want to hear about saving trees. Any tree in
America would gladly give its life for the glory of a day at
home plate.
As much as I agree with his statements, I'd like to take his comment
one step further and say that, not only would any tree in America
gladly give its life for the glory of a day at bat at home plate, but
any tree in America would gladly be overjoyed to give its life to help
fund the education of our kids.
The solution is that we don't need all trees to provide the bats or
the education funding--just some of the trees. In fact, by not cutting
them all, you actually save and improve the health of the forests; but
if you don't do it, we lose these trees to fire, and every burned tree
is a burned baseball bat,
[[Page H5466]]
and that is not good for the psyche of this particular country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time in order to turn the
management time of this Special Order over to Mr. Thompson of
Pennsylvania so that he may speak and also introduce a couple of more
speakers whom we have still to talk about this vital issue of Secure
Rural Schools and how this House has finally come up with a solution--a
long-term, lasting solution--to this particular problem.
____________________