[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16132-16133]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        PREVENTING FOREST FIRES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 16133]]

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, once again, millions of acres out west have 
burned, causing billions of dollars in damage. We were warned in the 
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health in early 1998 and early 2000 
that this was going to happen; and then a few months later in 2000, 7 
million acres burned, causing $10 billion worth of damage.
  If I went out and burned down one tree in a national forest, I would 
be arrested; and yet, because of the policies of the past 
administration and following these extremist environmental groups, 
these policies have caused millions and millions of acres out west to 
burn and caused billions of dollars' worth of damage.
  This year, 20 firefighters have lost their lives because of the fires 
out there. Also one of my constituents, a young woman firefighter in an 
accident fighting one of the fires, has been paralyzed from the waist 
down.
  Extremist groups, Mr. Speaker, protest any time anyone wants to cut 
any trees, even though we have many millions more acres in forest land 
now than 50 or 100 years ago. I will repeat that. We have many millions 
more acres in forest land now than 50 or 100 or 150 years ago. These 
groups have driven many small logging companies out of business. Most 
of these fires have been caused by groups which have stopped even the 
thinning of forests or the removal of dead and dying trees, resulting 
in a tremendous buildup of fuel on the floors of our national forests.
  The Washington Times had a front page story a few days ago which 
said, ``There are simply too many trees.'' It quoted Dale Bosworth, 
head the U.S. Forest Service, who said, ``We have so many more trees 
out there than under natural conditions. There might have been 40 or 50 
Ponderosa pine per acre at one time. Now you have several hundred per 
acre.''
  The June 27 Washington Post had a headline reading, ``Did politics 
put a match to West wild lands?''
  As I said, we were warned in the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest 
Health that these fires would occur, also in early 1998 that we had 
some 40 million acres in imminent and immediate danger of catastrophic 
fires. Yet the political strengths of environmental groups were too 
strong to do anything about it.
  Jay Ambrose, director of editorial policy for the Scripps-Howard 
newspaper chain, wrote that the most flammable and dead trees and 
underbrush should have been removed, but ``the extreme 
environmentalists hate the prospect. It is unconscionable to them that 
anyone might make money off the forests. Never mind that a multi-use, 
private-public plan would help save the national forests from high-heat 
scorching fires that will slow renewed growth, and never mind that 
mechanical thinning would give firefighters a chance of controlling 
fires and protecting homes without risking their own lives.''

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Ambrose ended by saying, ``The extremist ideology spits on 
private enterprise.''
  Mr. Speaker, these fires are continuing. We have been holding a 
hearing today in the Committee on Resources about this important issue 
with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture. 
The Congress passed a law in the mid-1980s that the environmentalists 
wanted saying that we would not cut more than 80 percent of the new 
growth in the national forests. Now we have approximately 23 billion 
board feet of new growth each year, but we are only allowing less than 
3 billion board feet, less than one-seventh of the new growth to be 
cut. This is less than half of the dead and dying trees. This has led 
to a tremendous fuel buildup on the floor of the forests and is the 
main reason for these fires that we have been having out West.
  Robert Nelson, a professor at the University of Maryland, wrote a 
column and said, ``In fact, over the last decade, it was more important 
to the Clinton administration to promote wilderness values by creating 
roadless areas and taking other actions to exclude a human presence. 
This aggravated last summer's tinderbox forest conditions and continues 
to threaten public land.'' He said Federal policies have ``produced an 
enormous buildup of small trees, underbrush and deadwood that provide 
excess fuels to feed flames.''
  Mr. Speaker, you have to cut some trees to have a healthy forest and 
prevent forest fires, yet, amazingly, there are extremists that oppose 
even the removal of dead and dying trees.
  Professor Nelson said in many Federal forests, tree density has 
increased since the 1940s from 50 per acre to 300 to 500 per acre and 
that these forests are ``filled with dense strands of small, stressed 
trees and plants that combine with any deadwood to provide virtual 
kindling wood for forest fires.''
  I recently read Bill Bryson's book about hiking the Appalachian 
Trail. He noted that New England was only 30 percent in forest land in 
1850, but is 70 percent in forest land today. The Knoxville News-
Sentinel reported a couple of years ago that Tennessee was 36 percent 
in forest land in 1950, while today it is almost half in forest land. 
Yet, if I went in any school in my district in Tennessee and asked the 
students there if there are more trees today than 50 or 150 years ago, 
they would probably all say there are many, many fewer trees today.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a tremendous amount of brainwashing going 
on about this type of issue, but we need to cut some trees so we can 
stop these horrendous forest fires out West.

                          ____________________