[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8854-8855]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  WE MUST USE OUR NATURAL RESOURCES IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY BALANCED WAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moran of Kansas). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the forest fires in Los Alamos and Nevada 
have highlighted what may have become a much bigger problem. One of the 
subcommittees on which I serve is the Subcommittee on Forest and Forest 
Health of the Committee on Resources.
  We heard testimony a few months ago that almost 40 million acres of 
Federal land out West was in imminent danger of catastrophic forest 
fires. This is because environmental extremists fanatically, sometimes 
even violently, oppose cutting any trees in our national forests.
  Forestry experts tell us that we have to cut some trees to have 
healthy forests, yet some of these extremists oppose even the removal 
of dead and dying trees, thus causing huge fuel buildups on the floors 
of these forests, leading to forest fires.
  The Los Alamos fire was a so-called controlled burn set by Federal 
bureaucrats that simply got out of control. Of course, we all know that 
no Federal bureaucrat has ever made a mistake, or at least one that 
they have been held accountable for.
  The leading environmental extremist, Secretary Babbitt, said on 
television last week that our forests are now 100 times more dangerous 
than they were 100 years ago, but it is because of the very policies 
that he has been advocating. If we do not start cutting more trees in 
the national forests soon, then in the very near future we are going to 
see forest fires that make the Los Alamos disaster look like peanuts in 
comparison.
  Yet some of these environmental extremists want the forests to be 
thinned only by forest fires because that is the ``natural way,'' and 
the way it occurred before man started populating the Earth, and, 
according to the extremists, messed things up.
  Last year in the subcommittee we were told that the Congress in the 
mid 1980s passed what was then proclaimed as a great pro-environment 
law that we would not allow cutting of more than 80 percent of the new 
growth in the national forests. Since then, we have repeatedly reduced 
that percentage, stopping it altogether in some places. From the pro-
environment law of 80 percent 15 or 16 years ago, we now allow 
harvesting of less than one-seventh of the new growth in our national 
forests.
  National forests have about 23 billion board feet of new growth each 
year. Today we cut less than 3 billion board feet, or only about 12 or 
13 percent of the new growth. There are about 6 billion board feet of 
dead or dying trees in the national forests, yet these extremists will 
not even permit the removal of these dead trees.
  Now we are cutting less than half of the dead and dying trees, and 
unbelievably, some people want it stopped altogether. Environmental 
extremists have had such an impact that many schoolchildren have almost 
been brainwashed about these things. They never hear the other side. If 
I went to any school in Knoxville and told them I was against cutting 
any trees in the national forests, they would probably think that was a 
really good thing. They never stop to think that we have to cut trees 
if we want to build houses or furniture, or have books, newspapers, 
toilet paper, and many, many other products.
  Also, it we keep limiting and restricting where and how trees are 
cut, it will drive the prices for homes and many other items much 
higher than they already are. Even now, lumber dealers tell me they are 
having to import all kinds of Canadian lumber because we have cut out 
or halted so much U.S. lumber production.
  When extremists get our lumber production in our national forests 
reduced so drastically, it helps big businesses and other countries, 
but it destroys jobs and drives up prices in this country. The people 
it hurts the most are the lower-income and working people in this 
country.
  I know most of these environmental extremists come from very wealthy 
families, and I know they are more or less insulated from the harm that 
they do. But I think it is really sad that they destroy so many jobs 
and drive up prices for so many people who really cannot afford it.
  I am not talking about cutting any trees in our 356 national parks, I 
am talking about cutting trees in our national forests so they can grow 
and be healthy and keep lumber prices down.
  Our national forests cover 191 million acres. I know when people look 
at a map of the United States on one page in the book, the country 
looks small. Yet, 191 million acres is equal to about 325 Great Smoky 
Mountain National Parks. Most people who go to the Great Smokies think 
it is huge. Yet I am talking about forests that cover more than 300 
times the Great Smokies, and this does not count any of the land in our 
national parks or the land the Bureau of Land Management controls.
  The Federal government owns over 30 percent of the land in this 
Nation today. State and local governments and quasi-governmental 
agencies own another 20 percent. Half of the land is in some type of 
public ownership.
  What is most disturbing, though, is how government at all levels has 
been taking over private land at such a rapid rate in the last 30 
years, and perhaps even more dangerous, putting so many rules, 
regulations, restrictions, and red tape on the shrinking amount of land 
that still remains in private lands today.
  Yet, there are some of these environmental extremists who are not 
satisfied with half of the land and want even more.
  There is something known as the Wildlands Project, which I first read 
about in the Washington Post, which advocates taking half the private 
land in the U.S. and placing it in public ownership.
  This may sound OK until some bureaucrat comes and takes your home or 
your property.
  Also, we could not emphasize enough that private property is one of 
the main keys to our freedom and our prosperity. It is one of the main 
things that has set us apart from countries like Russia and Cuba and 
other socialist or communist nations.
  These national forests are not national monuments. They are natural 
resources, renewable resources.
  Whenever some of these extremists are confronted by loggers who have 
lost jobs or communities that have been devastated, they always say 
just promote tourism.
  Well tourism is an industry filled with minimum or low wage jobs. 
Even more importantly, it is just not possible to turn our whole

[[Page 8855]]

country into tourist attractions or base our whole economy on tourism.
  I know these environmental groups have to scare people and 
continually raise the bar so that their contributions will keep coming 
in.
  I know, too, that many big companies, and particularly big multi-
national corporations are helped by extreme environmental rules because 
they drive so many small and medium-sized businesses out of business or 
force them to merge. So many contributors for these groups come from 
these big companies, often headquartered in other countries.
  But, Mr. Speaker, if we want to continue having a strong economy, 
with good jobs and half-way reasonable prices, and especially if we 
want to have a free country, we must use our natural resources in an 
environmentally balanced way.
  We cannot stop cutting trees, digging for coal, and drilling for oil 
and continue to have the good life that we fortunately enjoy today.

                          ____________________