[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 157 (Wednesday, September 28, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8124-H8125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
                       SHOULD WE HAVE RURAL TOWNS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I am pointing to a map here showing the 
several fires we have had in Northern California. This is only a small 
snippet. There is much more besides that that I could show you.
  This is mostly in my district, the First District of Northern 
California here over several years. The Dixie fire being the big one 
here last year, about a million acres. The Camp fire that a lot of 
people have heard about that consumed the town of Paradise back in 
2018; but there are many others.
  So what am I talking about here today? The idea that rural America 
isn't worth saving; isn't worth having. So as we contemplate fire after 
fire and the recovery from there, there are those who are questioning 
should we have rural towns anymore; should we have people living in 
them; should we help them recover?
  I go back to the root of the problem. First, I think the answer is 
yes because we need rural towns. We need people out there that are the 
productive people that used to do amazing things before regulations and 
environmental groups shut them down; we would not have the products 
that come from these areas.
  So, not only rebuild them, but let's do the things that help them to 
thrive. Because it isn't just about some jobs in a rural town, it is 
also about everybody in this country prospering from the products that 
come from there.
  What am I talking about? In this area, timber, lumber products, paper 
products. Heaven knows, we use a lot of paper around here. Do we want 
that to come from the United States, from our workers, from our 
productive lands, or do we want to continue as the United States, for 
some reason, is the Number 2 importer of wood products in the world. 
And yet, we are burning millions of acres across the West every year. 
Why is that?
  I could also say mining used to occur more heavily here and in other 
parts, anywhere from Minnesota all through the Western States, as well.
  And farming, which is under attack. The water is being taken away 
from many of the farmers in my district and in California in general 
because it is going for environmental purposes.
  So yes, rural America feels under attack. So a recent Los Angeles 
Times article comes out saying, should billions continue to be spent 
rebuilding burned towns? This is the case for calling it quits.
  I appreciate the L.A. Times is covering the fires that affected 
California; most recently, the Dixie fire in the town of Greenville, 
which is 75 percent wiped out from that fire; the town of Paradise 4 
years before, 90 percent wiped out.
  But I wish they would tell the whole story. They didn't tell my part 
of the story. Yes, it is difficult to keep asking for money back in 
D.C. to come help, whether it is one of my disasters--I am sure my 
colleagues in the South like right now are dealing with in Florida. Do 
they enjoy having to come back to help get rebuild money for Florida 
after the hurricanes they are dealing with, or flood or what have you?
  No, they don't enjoy that, and I don't think we want to have to ask 
taxpayers for it.
  But fire is something we can manage. We can't manage the weather. We 
can't stop hurricanes. We can't stop other things like that. But do we 
have the ability to manage our forests in such a way that towns would 
not be subject so much to immediate wildfire; harvesting buffers around 
them; putting fire breaks up, things like that.
  And then when you do rebuild the town, they are building them with 
newer, better materials for the housing and things like that. There are 
underground power lines, so it is not going to be the same town that 
went up a hundred years ago that started out as a timber town, as a 
mining town, or even an ag town.
  So it does improve. It does get better. It is worth the value 
because, the bottom line is, even though we want to blame climate 
change and say that is the big problem, we have got to kick people out 
of rural areas; we have got to kick them out of these communities 
because of climate change.
  Well, if the climate is changing, then what are we going to do about 
it? Are we going to not have timber products? Are we going to not 
ensure the safety of those areas? Because we still need these people 
out there producing these products. If you want to have electric cars, 
someone has got to do some mining somewhere, right?
  And the mandate keeps coming down the pike in my own State and more 
and more around the country, and we are not going to have those 
products. We are not going to have wood and timber products, paper 
products coming from somewhere besides being imported; and you know 
what happens when we get too dependent on import. Ask anybody getting 
natural gas in Europe what that looks like.

  Our food; everybody is seeing food prices skyrocketing at the 
shelves, and sometimes that very shelf is empty. With all the acres 
that got left out because the water got taken away this

[[Page H8125]]

year in California, food shelves are going to be even more empty and 
prices even higher.
  Someone in rural America has to be producing something. So for people 
to say that well, climate change, times are changing, we have to shift 
in a new direction, and we don't need these people there, and we don't 
need these towns there, we do need these towns. We need them there, and 
we need to help them to thrive by letting them manage the timber to 
begin with.

                          ____________________