[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27491-27497]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    CALLING FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today the House asked for conferees to 
meet with the other Chamber to work out differences on the Healthy 
Forest Restoration Act, H.R. 1904. This evening, I am pleased to be 
joined by some of my colleagues on the House side to talk about the 
importance of this legislation that passed the House of Representatives 
nearly 6 months ago and, yet, has still not been resolved.
  This issue has been debated for literally years. Former Committee on 
Agriculture Chairman Bob Smith of Oregon attempted to address this 
issue after the Sierra Grande fire which destroyed hundreds of homes in 
New Mexico in the year 2000. The other Chamber considered similar 
measures. Last year, a similar bill was reported out of the Committee 
on Resources.
  This year, I worked with two other distinguished full committee 
chairmen, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) of the Committee on 
Resources and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. We crafted a bipartisan bill that garnered 
90 cosponsors. The bill went through three full committee markups 
before coming to the floor. Our bill takes a truly national approach to 
a national problem. We passed this bill on May 20 of this year by an 
overwhelming and bipartisan majority.
  I think it is critical to note that we appointed conferees today. We 
also unanimously accepted a motion from the minority to instruct our 
conferees to finish work on this bill within 1 week. The fact that the 
whole House agreed to these instructions shows the urgency of starting 
these negotiations but, because of a small group in the other Chamber, 
the essential step of appointing conferees is being delayed. Any 
further obstruction from the minority party in the other body thwarts 
the will of not only the 80 members of the other Chamber who voted in 
favor of their version, but of the entire U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  Since we passed this bill, almost 6 months have elapsed. While H.R. 
1904 languished in the other Chamber, 169 days have gone by, over 3.5 
million acres have burned, 30 firefighters have died, and 20 civilians 
have perished as a result of the fury of catastrophic wildfires. The 
California wildfires of the last 2 weeks provided a stark reminder of 
the need to act to prevent future disasters. It was only when the 
California wildfires were dominating the nightly news that the other 
Chamber saw fit to take up this critical bill, with an 80 to 14 vote on 
the measure, which seemed to indicate a sense of urgency on the part of 
the other Chamber.
  Unfortunately, the minority party of the other Chamber is still not 
allowing the naming of conferees. They are refusing to do so in spite 
of the fact that they know the differences between the two bills are 
not insurmountable. They are refusing to do so in spite of the fact 
that an agreement that could result in real action to improve forest 
health is easily within reach.
  The goals of the two bills are strikingly similar. Both seek to 
address the issues that have tied the hands of our forest managers: 
NEPA analysis that drags on for months, administrative appeals that 
spring up at the last minute, and court actions that stall proposed 
projects for so long that they are moot long before the judicial 
process concludes.
  Now, I do not want to downplay the fact that there are differences. 
Their version of the bill added over 100 pages of text and five whole 
new titles that were not in our version. While there is obviously a 
good deal of work to be done, we owe it to the people who have fought 
these fires and the neighbors of our Federal forests who have been 
threatened, evacuated, or left homeless, to finish the job and produce 
a bill that the President can sign.
  All of these issues can be resolved. The only thing preventing us 
from beginning this resolution is the refusal by the minority in the 
other Chamber to allow the appointment of their conferees. This action 
negates the legislative process which calls for a bicameral conference 
committee to work out any differences between two versions of the same 
bill, and it is the only thing preventing us from taking steps to 
protect our communities, our forests, and our watersheds from 
catastrophic wildfires.
  It is important to remember that the House bill received widespread 
support when it came to this floor. The Society of American Foresters 
praised it for giving new tools to forest managers to protect our 
forests. The National Volunteer Fire Council praised it for reducing 
the threat faced by their members when they are on the fire line. Many 
of the same groups, as well as the International Association of Fire 
Chiefs, have asked us to go to conference to address specific issues 
and finalize a bill. That is my strong desire as well as the desire of 
the vast majority of those in this House.
  There are over 190 million acres of forests and rangelands which 
remain at risk of catastrophic wildfire, insect, and disease, a 
landmass larger than New England. Our bill takes the modest step of 
addressing the hazardous conditions on only 20 million acres of this 
total. At the same time, it takes an innovative approach to forest 
health on private forestlands, creating new programs to detect and 
suppress such forest pests as the Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, the Emerald 
Ash Borer, and the Gypsy Moth. In short, it takes a national approach 
to a national problem.
  It is time to put partisan politics aside, so that we can bring forth 
a bill before the end of the session which can prevent future 
catastrophic forest fires and to begin improving the health of our 
Nation's forests. It would compound the tragedy still unfolding in 
California if last week's vote in the other Chamber was just for show. 
A tiny minority should not be allowed to continue the dilatory tactics 
that have caused this bill to languish until the end of the session. 
Time is short. The fires are smoldering in California, and the 
conditions that created these infernos will only get worse unless 
Congress acts now.
  I would now like to recognize several of my colleagues who have 
supported our bill as it moved quickly through the House and whose 
districts badly need the attention H.R. 1904 would provide. First, 
someone who understands this problem exceedingly well, because the 
State of Colorado has experienced some very difficult problems with 
forest fires this year and in previous years, particularly last year. I 
recall the devastation to the water supply for the City of Denver, 
something that is of great concern to us that our bill addresses, but 
that some would like to delete from it because they only want to allow 
work being done in what are called ``beauty strips'' around urban 
areas, overlooking the fact that the watersheds for many, many 
communities around the country are protected by our national forests 
and ruined when those forests go up in flames, and mud and ash and 
everything else goes down into these important reservoirs and other 
water supplies.
  So at this time I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, the House passed its version of the 
Healthy Forest Initiative in May of this year with an overwhelming 
majority and bipartisan support. The other Chamber has had our version 
of the bill for over 6 months and only passed it after fires in 
southern California scorched almost 1 million acres, destroyed over 
3,400 homes, and killed 20 citizens last week.
  During a meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, one of our members 
expressed to us his sorrow that one of his cousins had been burned to 
death and her sister was burned over 85 percent of her body. One of our 
own Members lost his home in this tragic event.
  After we took this vote in the House, a simple motion to appoint 
conferees has been blocked by the minority party, preventing the swift 
conclusion

[[Page 27492]]

of negotiations. The forest health conditions across the country are 
too extreme and the threats to our citizens' lives and property too 
severe for this to be a political football. In Colorado, a beautiful 
State with beautiful national forests, 7.5 million acres are at risk to 
fire, insects, and disease. This is more than two-thirds of our 
forested acres in my State alone.
  The need to provide the modest relief provided by H.R. 1904 can best 
be illustrated by what the people on the front range went through 
trying to protect their forest. Working in close cooperation with the 
local community, conservation groups, and Colorado State University, 
the Forest Service proposed a modest effort to reduce hazardous fuels 
in this region. After exhaustive NEPA analysis, radical 
environmentalists filed an administrative appeal, and then a lawsuit.
  As the process unfolded, the Hayman fire destroyed the watershed 
before the project could be implemented. My colleague, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), described this in July, how devastating 
the Hayman fire was. Mr. Speaker, 138,114 acres were destroyed, and 132 
homes were lost in that fire. In total, in the year of 2002, the 
damages were 619,000 acres burned, 384 homes destroyed, 624 additional 
structures demolished and, sadly, nine firefighters were killed in this 
fire. The damage from the fires closed 26 water treatment facilities. 
After two smaller fires, the Denver Water Board had to spend over $20 
million cleaning up the reservoir.
  The crises in our forests warrant action. It is imperative that 
conferees be appointed. Partisan politics must be put aside, and 
Congress must act to protect our national treasures.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to avoid 
improper references to the Senate, including criticizing Senate action 
or inaction.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. Her observations 
are very true. One of the areas that we overlook not only are the water 
pollution problems that occur, but also air pollution. The fires in 
California have emitted so many toxic fumes and other forms of air 
pollution that some are saying that more emissions have occurred from 
just those fires in California in the last few weeks than occur from 
all of the automobiles, all of the trucks, and all of the buses 
emitting all year long in the country. And we saw so many evidences of 
it. I have a sister who lives in southern California and experienced 
the difficulty with breathing and so on. Literally millions of people 
were exposed to this enormous problem. It is not simply a natural 
wildfire that burns along the ground and the large trees are preserved 
and so on; these fires consume everything in their path: large trees, 
small trees, homes, businesses, automobiles, and even some people's 
lives. And, in doing so, the devastation is truly enormous. Yet, we 
ignore it as we continue to neglect our forests and not give the 
professional forest managers the ability to manage those forests.
  At this time, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a member of the Committee on Agriculture and 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture who knows 
something about this from problems in North Carolina.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) very much for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership 
in putting together a comprehensive effort to respond to the tragedies 
that have faced us in recent days. And thank goodness for rain. It 
certainly was not sound management practices that have given our 
valiant firefighters the breath that they needed, the time to rest, and 
to hopefully bring these fires under control.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the healthy 
forest initiative, which was passed by the House in May with an 
overwhelming bipartisan majority and was finally passed last week by 
the other Chamber. It is sad that it takes utter devastation, destroyed 
homes, and loss of life before legislation can finally be passed that 
will correct Federal policies that desperately were needed to be 
changed years ago.
  But now that we are in the home stretch and the House is eager to 
move the conference on this legislation, a simple motion to appoint 
conferees again is being blocked, as was mentioned earlier. The House 
appointed conferees today. And I want to commend the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Pombo) for their efforts and leadership in trying to move 
this bill to conference as quickly and as constructively as possible.
  This legislation is important in a number of States, particularly my 
home State of North Carolina. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act not 
only provides our Federal land managers with greater flexibility to 
deal with fire dangers in the West but new authority to test innovative 
detection and suppression techniques for the many pests that threaten 
the Eastern forests.
  The Southern pine beetle is the most significant threat to forest 
health in North Carolina. Normally Southern pine beetles attack and 
kill stress-weakened trees. When populations reach epidemic 
proportions, even healthy trees can be attacked and overwhelmed.
  In North Carolina, the beetles are affecting over 1.5 million acres 
of pine. Timber valued at more than $12.4 million was destroyed last 
year alone by the pine beetle. Our hardwood forests are also threatened 
by invasive pests such as the gypsy moth. Gypsy moth eradication is a 
high priority because of the damage it can do to trees in residential 
areas as well as scenic mountain areas.
  There are almost 17 million acres of private timberland in North 
Carolina, representing billions of dollars in investments by private 
landowners and the forest industry. The threats to these forests 
threaten the economy of my State and the ecological value of these 
lands. No individual landowner is equipped to deal with the pest 
outbreaks on the scale that we have seen in recent years.
  At this time, I would like to ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, if he would 
yield for a question.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from recent meetings that we have 
held that the minority leader in the other body has made a provision 
and added to another bill basically a healthy forest initiative for the 
State of South Dakota. However, we here are unable to move forward with 
conferees at this point in order to give the same type of attention, 
protection, and also commonsense land management practices to our other 
States. Is this the gentleman's understanding?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Hayes) is correct. It is regrettable but nonetheless true, that 
legislation was passed a couple of years ago that included a provision 
placed into an appropriations bill that creates a different standard 
for South Dakota.
  I am quite glad that the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota 
has that different standard, because they have the ability to allow the 
Forest Service employees, the district rangers, and others in that 
national forest to prepare the land in environmentally sensitive ways, 
to protect that forest from the kind of catastrophic wildfires that we 
have seen in California and Oregon and Arizona and New Mexico and 
Colorado and Idaho and Montana and other States as well.
  But there is absolutely no reason why the provisions in either the 
bill passed by the House or the bill passed by the other body, neither 
of which contain the same level of authority granted to the Forest 
Service folks in South Dakota, could not be made available to the other 
49 States as well. We are not even asking for as much as what South 
Dakota has right now. And, yet, we are being impeded from being able to 
bring this issue to a resolution.

[[Page 27493]]

  We are so very close; the differences between the House and Senate 
can be worked out. There are differences. We should not minimize them. 
They are important differences. But we passed today here on the floor 
of this House a motion to instruct conferees offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking democrat on the Committee on 
Agriculture, a motion to instruct that says we will have an open 
conference with participation by all of the conferees appointed. And, 
by the way, the Speaker went ahead today and appointed those conferees. 
We are ready to act. We have committed to an open process. We have 
committed to a speedy process.
  The motion to instruct calls for reporting back a bill to the House 
by next Thursday. And that is possible if we would be able to go to 
conference. But if action is not taken promptly, we will lose that 
timetable. Time will slip away from us. And, of course, we are nearing 
the end of this Congress. And if time slips too much, we may be unable 
to complete this legislation, which President Bush very anxiously wants 
to sign, supported by so many bipartisan Members of both the House and 
the other body.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's not only keen 
perspective on the issue but his accurate knowledge of the history. And 
I would ask that if he would yield for one more question, I would like 
to pursue this issue a little further in South Dakota.
  My question is this: the gentleman mentioned the Black Hills National 
Forest, which is a true national treasure. And I agree with him 
wholeheartedly that I am very glad that this wonderful treasure has 
this degree of protection. I seem to recall, particularly since my 
daughter-in-law is a native of South Dakota, and a wonderful member of 
my staff is also a South Dakotan, and I have enjoyed many trips there, 
but were there not some catastrophic fires there as well not too long 
ago?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) is correct. There have been catastrophic 
fires in South Dakota, but there was even more importantly a 
recognition that there were vast areas, not just the so-called beauty 
strips immediately around communities, but vast areas of the Black 
Hills National Forest that were at risk of catastrophic wildfire.
  We are not talking about the wildfire that burns along the ground and 
gets rid of the brush and things out of the area and leaves the larger 
trees; but we are talking about fires that, because of the buildup of 
fuel density, the trees continuing to grow, the fires being suppressed 
over a long period of time, when they finally do occur, they stair-step 
up from the brush into the smaller trees, into the larger trees, into 
the overstory of all of the trees in an area and devastate the whole 
area.
  Then when it comes up to a community, no small narrow band of treated 
area will keep that kind of massive fire that can sometimes leap over 
long distances because of the enormous height that the flames reach and 
the burning pieces. In the California fire, there was a report last 
week of an instance in which a 4 by 8 piece of plywood was spotted by 
one of the planes combating the fire flying through the air in flames 
at 2,800 feet of altitude. Now, when these things can reach that kind 
of proportion, a small strip around a community will not protect the 
community. So wisely, the legislation that protects South Dakota does 
not include that type of restriction.
  The Forest Service there can use their judgment with proper notice to 
the public and with fair hearing for people who have, as we all do, a 
concern that these things be done properly, the ability to treat 
various parts of the forest not simply limit it to those areas. That is 
one of the things that is apparently holding up our progress here. I 
think it is a serious mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be allowed to go in and work with the other 
body to fashion legislation that will address this problem in the other 
49 States.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, again I thank the gentleman for his precise 
and concise information. As a matter of instruction for this body, the 
conditions you describe almost duplicate the conditions in a 
thunderstorm. The fire starts low, as you said; and as the heat builds, 
it creates a tremendous upswelling of current, which, again, has the 
same destructive effect as a thunderstorm which results in hail and 
tornadoes. But as the gentleman very clearly illustrated, those pieces 
of burning limbs, lumber, whatever the case may be, can spread this 
fire in an incredibly rapid manner.
  And my point in all this being that the same reasons that South 
Dakota saw fit to pass local legislation are the reasons that we have 
in this fine legislation that we are talking about tonight.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to make one more point. I 
have heard the terms partisan, bipartisan. This is about as bipartisan 
as anything could possibly be. Both parties are working very hard, way 
beyond, for the most part, to reach commonsense solutions to tragic, 
dangerous, destructive, and expensive fires.
  I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), that to me an observation is that this is not partisan in 
any way. And I use as an example, I was in the chair this afternoon, 
and the discussion was about how we develop more plentiful, less 
expensive sources of energy to keep our manufacturers, keep our 
transportation, to create jobs and to grow our economy. And, again, it 
was a bipartisan effort, Republicans and Democrats joined together in a 
commonsense manner to reach agreement and to come up with policy and 
solutions that are good for all America.
  So what I saw there were Republicans and Democrats hand in hand 
working together against the extremists who inhabit a very small 
portion of the population, but have an unusual amount of sway in these 
discussions.
  So I would simply submit for this discussion that this is not about 
disagreements between parties; this is about commonsense men and women 
of good faith on both sides, Republican and Democrats, who are uniting 
against a radical extreme, far way-out small segment of the community 
that is costing lives and costing money.
  So that is my point, Madam Speaker. This is not a partisan issue. And 
I think it is important that we take it further and define it as it 
really is. It is common sense versus nonsense.
  So, in closing, again, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), Madam Speaker, for the time and attention. The Healthy 
Forest Restoration Act provides the flexibility and resources necessary 
to deal with these problems, protects millions of acres, thousands of 
homes, and citizens. I hope the two Chambers can resolve their 
differences and send the bill to the President as quickly as possible. 
Common sense, not nonsense.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I hope that what was done by this 
Congress for the State of South Dakota 2 years ago will be done for the 
other 49 States as well. In fact, we do not even ask quite as much. We 
simply ask for fair treatment, and we hope that we will get it soon. It 
is very, very important.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is interesting to note that of the speakers 
we have had down here tonight, the furthest west is the gentlewoman 
from Colorado. And I think this reflects that this is not simply a 
Western problem; this is a problem that affects the whole country. 
Because in the East while we have different types of forests, they also 
suffer forest fires; but the greatest threat in the eastern forests are 
the insects, and the disease, many of which are nonnative species that 
have come into this country from one source or another around the 
world. And we do not have the natural enemies of these species to 
combat in our forests. So often times they run rampant: the pine bark 
beetle that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) mentioned, 
the wooly adelgid which attacks our hemlocks, the gypsy moth which 
attacks our hardwoods, and the emerald ash borer which attacks our ash 
trees.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Burns).

[[Page 27494]]



                              {time}  2145

  Mr. BURNS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, it is time for us to take action. This body has done 
its job. The Committee on Agriculture that the chairman does such a 
wonderful job in managing brought this bill to the floor. As my 
colleagues have pointed out, it was passed overwhelmingly from both 
sides of the aisle, and there was not a dissension that we could not 
resolve. So as we worked with the Committee on Resources and worked 
with the Committee on Agriculture, we came here and passed this measure 
in May. We had high hopes for swift action in the other body. We were 
happy finally to see that action recently.
  Unfortunately, it was only after the tragic situations in the West 
and in California where so much air and water quality was damaged, and 
certainly the loss of life and homes, the threats that were there, we 
were certainly glad to see action; but now we face a challenge. The 
challenge is moving from the two bodies to the conference committee, 
and we have worked very vehemently to ensure that happens.
  When this measure came to the committee, I consulted the Warnell 
School of Forestry at the University of Georgia and asked them to 
review the legislation and give me their input, and tell me what they 
thought was best for not only Georgia's forest, but our Nation's 
forests. They did a very thorough job in their advice and counsel, and 
I took it.
  We have the Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia. It is a place I 
enjoy. I enjoy the fishing and the trout streams and the air and the 
quality of life there. We have to protect it. H.R. 1904, the Healthy 
Forest Initiative, is legislation that will not only protect the 
Chattahoochee National Forest, but forests from North Carolina to 
California, from the Dakotas to Texas, and it is important that we move 
this legislation.
  Certainly the biggest challenge that we face is not allowing our 
forests to become the political football of the current session of 
Congress. They are too important. We have over 17 million acres of 
private forest land in Georgia alone. As the chairman accurately 
pointed out, fires are a concern for us, but they are not the dramatic 
concern that we see in the West like in California and Colorado. Our 
real challenge is pests, as the gentleman from North Carolina has 
pointed out.
  Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I cannot help but be touched by the irony 
of what the gentleman is saying. The gentleman from Georgia is a very 
valued member of the Committee on Agriculture, and I have been here 
slightly longer than he has, so when the gentleman came, I had an 
opportunity to give him an assignment. I think he remembers the 
assignment.
  Madam Speaker, Georgia is known for many, many things, but the one 
that we particularly enjoy is the bobwhite quail. Prime forest 
management for the bobwhite quail requires controlled burning. It 
requires removing fuel which prevents forest fires, but when done in a 
controlled way, in the spring of the year, under proper humidity 
conditions, typically at night to reduce smoke and other emissions, not 
only is habitat produced, but food sources for nongame species, cover 
for songbirds, all types of animals and birds, is created. Again, a 
commonsense, tried-and-true practice, accepted for well over 100 years 
of land management, here is a way that we actively control fuel, manage 
our forests, stop disease, create habitat, and increase filtration 
ability for watersheds and streams.
  Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman how is that project coming?
  Mr. BURNS. Madam Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that the 
challenge is still there. When I was growing up, there was an abundance 
of small game, especially small bobwhite quail and squirrels and 
rabbits, just natural wildlife. My colleague is correct, back in that 
era it was a common practice to burn the woods. We would take the 
underbrush out. We would create the habitat as the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hayes) suggests, and that would provide a plentiful 
environment for native species and migratory birds.
  As we face the challenges today, we see fewer and fewer of our 
natural habitats available for our wildlife. I think this is a bill 
that promotes wildlife. It promotes best practices in our forestry. I 
think the biggest concern I have is we do not need to be playing 
politics with the forests of our Nations.
  We have fires in Georgia. Mercifully, they are fairly small, but yet 
we lost over 84,000 acres of forestland to fire in the last 4 years. 
But as has been pointed out, we have had a 278 percent increase in the 
southern pine beetle, and that can be directly attributed to the fact 
that we are not managing our forests with the best practices.
  This restoration act provides our Federal land managers with the 
flexibility that they need not only to deal with forest fires and fire 
dangers, but also to deal with disease and pests that are invading all 
of our forests. We have to suppress the pests and make sure that they 
do not continue to threaten our eastern forests. Billions of dollars to 
Georgia's economy are attributable to our forestry industry. There are 
17 million acres that need protection. If we look at our neighboring 
States of Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, we all face 
similar challenges as we try to deal with the need to have healthy, 
vibrant forests.
  It amazes me that we cannot come to some reasonable accommodation in 
a very expeditious amount of time. I would hope that as this body has 
already done, as it has worked together, and as the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) has pointed out, this has been a very strong 
bipartisan bill. We have worked hand in hand with both sides of the 
aisle to reach a conclusion and agreement that we can move to the other 
body. They took that up, they passed it by a substantial margin, even 
an overwhelming margin, and now it is time for the next step. The next 
step has to be for us to move forward and bring this bill to a 
conference and out of conference and back to the floor of the House.
  The Healthy Forest Restoration Act is indeed a national solution to a 
national problem. The time for action is now. I concur with my 
colleagues from Virginia and North Carolina. We need a commonsense 
solution, and we have it in our midst. We need to move it through both 
bodies and pass it and send it to the President.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Burns) for his comments.
  Now, somebody who has experienced this problem firsthand in the State 
of New Mexico has joined us. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Pearce). New Mexico last year suffered some devastating fires 
which we thought would be just the thing that would cause Congress to 
get over the top and get this issue resolved. Unfortunately, we fell 
short; but we are back again this year, and we are as close as we have 
ever been to getting this legislation through both bodies so we can 
send it to the President.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for talking about 
this critical issue in front of this body.
  I grew up in New Mexico and on our vacations we would drive to 
Cloudcroft, New Mexico. From the early 1950s, I noticed that there was 
a place there of thousands of acres where no tree grew. It was in the 
middle of pine forests in southern New Mexico, and it was always odd to 
me. It was only after beginning to work in the legislature and learning 
what makes a forest grow and not grow that I realized that was a forest 
fire that had occurred in the middle part of the century, and over 50 
years later, the soil was still sterile from the effects of that fire.
  So when my constituents ask me what is a healthy forest, I tell them 
one that is natural, one that grows up the way that conditions would 
permit. In New Mexico, a healthy forest, generally, historically, 
pictures tell us, had about 25 to 50 trees per acre. I like to ask 
schoolchildren when I go around, how many trees per acre are in New 
Mexico forests now? On average, we have over 1,500 trees per acre. The 
trees do not get the nutrients that they need, they do not get the 
water they need. In attempting to get the sunlight

[[Page 27495]]

they need, the small-diameter trees grow to 50, 75 and 100 feet, 
matching the height of the mature trees. Then, as has been described, 
as a fire starts, it uses the small diameter as kindling to get the 
fire burning across the top of the entire forest, the crown fires 
burning just the top of the trees, burning just the piece that will 
kill it, and then the healthy, good hardwood stands rotting, waiting to 
just become a part of the soil, sometimes waiting years to decay.
  Another problem with an unhealthy forest is that they soak up water, 
and in New Mexico which is an arid State which desperately needs water, 
and we are in the fifth year of a drought, if each tree consumes only 
one gallon per day, the estimates are in New Mexico, we have over a 
billion too many trees, that is 1 billion gallons a day. The actual 
estimates are much higher, Madam Speaker, and that trees will probably 
use 100 gallons a day. And in an arid State where water is life, where 
water is growth, where water is our future, we are mismanaging our 
forests into unhealthy situations that are going to burn and destroy 
this national treasure and this natural resource, that rob our cities 
of the water they need for growth and for the population, all because 
extremists in this society say we would rather watch them burn than to 
cut one single tree.
  There are extremists in this city who say no State, except South 
Dakota, will be allowed to cut trees without the NEPA studies that are 
required, no state but South Dakota, a provision that was snuck in in 
the middle of the night over 3 years ago in an omnibus bill. The rest 
of the States want the same permission to do commonsense thinning to 
create a healthy forest. It is not a question of if our forests are 
going to burn, Madam Speaker, it is a question of when our forests are 
going to burn.
  I flew this year between two towns in western New Mexico, and I flew 
over 200,000 acres with just the stubs of smouldering trees standing. 
The entire 200,000 acres was killed in just a short period of time. The 
unreasonable, extreme environmentalists who will block every attempt to 
do commonsense thinning which will create our healthy forests should be 
ashamed. And those special interest people who in this city who will 
give one State permission to do the commonsense practices of good 
forest management should unlock the doors and allow the rest of us to 
have access to the same commonsense approach to managing our forests, 
to managing our forests to become healthy forests instead of the death 
traps they are now.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Pearce) for some very commonsense observations. Just looking 
across the spectrum of Members who have spoken here tonight and who 
spoke here today on the motion to instruct conferees, we had Members 
from Oregon, California, Colorado, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, 
all across the West they experience this problem; and then Georgia, 
Virginia, North Carolina, they experience this problem. And folks from 
Michigan and Pennsylvania have spoken about forestlands. We are blessed 
in this country with great and bountiful forests all across America, 
but we need to take care of them. And when we have to manage them 
because people live in and around them and we have to fight forest 
fires, that fuel density builds up. When it does, we have to give our 
forest managers, the professional people, the ability to step in and do 
what needs to be done.

                              {time}  2200

  We are doing it in such a way that we expedite the process so that it 
does not go for so long that the problem overtakes the solution, but at 
the same time we do it in such a way that the ability of concerned 
citizens to have their input in the process, to even appeal the 
decisions that they think are inappropriate, to have that opportunity 
to do that but do it in a way that is expedited because that is what is 
needed for a problem as serious as this one.
  I see that we are now joined by another Member of Congress who has 
experienced this problem firsthand in his State of Montana. I would be 
pleased to yield to the gentleman from Montana for him to also give his 
observations about the problem with the state of forests in his State 
and around the country.
  Mr. REHBERG. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for taking on an 
issue that we find very important in the State of Montana and 
throughout the Nation and, that is, healthy forests. I have been 
involved in the issue since 1988. We saw the fires exist in our State 
to the tune of almost 1 million acres. As an observer, I assumed our 
elected officials would do something about that. Over the course of the 
next few years, I watched nothing happen. Our forests continued to 
deteriorate. In the year 2000 in the State of Montana, we saw almost 1 
million acres burn again, and I assumed something would be done. Again, 
nothing was done. When I joined the Congress, I was impressed by the 
fact that our chairman now of the Committee on Resources and my 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture were willing to hold hearings 
to try and find the solution to healthy forests. It does not take 
rocket scientists to figure out what is wrong.
  I manage resources. I am in the agriculture business in Montana. I 
clearly understand a mineral cycle, a water cycle. I understand that 
when you have undergrazed grass, it kills grass as much as overgrazed 
grass. I notice that when you have timber, when you have underthinned 
timber, it creates the same devastation as clear cutting.
  But there are those within our Federal Government and there are those 
within this Congress that do not understand that. When I see various 
Members of the body from the other side of the Capitol making 
exceptions for their State, understanding that you need a management 
plan to thin their timber to create a healthier environment and they do 
not want to provide that same opportunity for us, there is something 
hypocritical. Shame on them. It is time that this Congress understands 
that healthy forests are created. But I understand that there are only 
a certain level of tools that can be used to manage our forests.
  What are those tools? Prescribed burn can be a tool. Uncontrolled 
fire is a catastrophe. It is stupid. But prescribed burn is a tool. 
Grazing, which is something I know something about because I have 
grazing animals on my operation to thin the undergrazed properties, 
creates a healthy environment. So what do we do? Move some livestock in 
and graze and take care of that undergrazed property.
  Logging. Why do we find that timber companies are bad things? On 
forest properties, on Federal properties, we tell them what to cut, 
when to cut, how to cut and we ask them to use their capital, their 
labor and their equipment. How can that be a problem? Unless, of 
course, we do not do it right. We have some of the best environmental 
laws in this country. Let us use those logging companies as a tool to 
manage our forests. But we cannot get beyond the politics of creating 
some kind of an argument that we do not want logging companies in our 
forests. Let us use them as a tool. Let us talk about holistic 
management of our forests. Let us move beyond the politics.
  I think that we have a plan that we have sent to the Senate; we have 
asked them to consider an opportunity, we have asked them to consider a 
holistic approach to management. What do we hear? ``We have a perfect 
plan. We want the House to accept it without any debate.'' How 
arrogant. I have only been here for 3 years, I say to the chairman of 
my Committee on Agriculture. I have only been here for 3 years, but the 
arrogance of the attitude that we have got the perfect piece of 
legislation being sent from the Senate is incredible. I do not 
understand that kind of a concept.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pearce). The Chair would remind all 
Members to avoid improper references to the Senate, including 
criticizing Senate action or inaction.
  Mr. REHBERG. The arrogance of somebody who makes a determination

[[Page 27496]]

that we do not have a dog in this fight, that we do not have an 
opinion, that we do not understand the holistic management of our 
forests is incredible to me. I think the taxpayer ought to be appalled. 
I think the Nation ought to be appalled. And I think it is time that we 
make a determination to do what the gentleman from Virginia has done in 
the Committee on Agriculture with all the hearings that I sat through 
as a freshman on his subcommittee and that our chairman of the Interior 
and now Resources Committee has done to consider the whole healthy 
forests initiative. I think we ought to take the high road; we ought to 
take the approach that we have sent over to them and say, it is not 
entirely about safe communities, which safe communities are important, 
but it is about healthy forests. And we sent over a healthy forests 
policy.
  And so what we really need to do is we need to sit down in the 
conference committee, work out the differences, pass something along to 
the President, and do what the gentleman initially suggested a number 
of years ago and, that is, create truly a healthy forest policy. I 
thank the gentleman for what he has done in his committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's point is very 
well taken. A healthy forest means safe communities. That is what we 
are really talking about here. If we get to the root cause of this 
problem, which is our unhealthy forests, we will not see the kind of 
disasters that we have seen in recent years that have taken lives, 
taken homes, taken families away from their communities. It has been a 
disaster of the highest order. While these disasters have taken place, 
the Congress has watched the burning and has been inactive.
  The gentleman is correct. In the subcommittee that I used to chair, 
we held many, many hearings. In the full committee that I chair now, we 
are holding those hearings. We moved forward with legislation. We 
worked closely with the Committee on Resources and the Committee on the 
Judiciary. We passed a bipartisan bill. Forty-one Democrats in the 
House joined with the overwhelming majority of Republicans to pass this 
bill. The ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture has been a 
real pleasure to work with on this issue, even though he has 
acknowledged today in his district in Texas there is so little 
forestland. But he recognizes this problem in other parts of Texas and 
in other parts of the country. We have worked together to move this 
far. Why we cannot see the same response from other quarters where we 
need to have cooperation to get this done and to move the final bill to 
the President, I do not know. But nonetheless, we stand here and wait 
for the opportunity to finish what we have started.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, if I might ask the gentleman from Virginia 
a question. What possible reason would others within the United States 
Congress want to create an exception for their own forests or their own 
State and not provide the same opportunity for Virginia, Washington, 
Idaho, Colorado, now California, and certainly Montana?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. We mentioned this earlier. It is indeed disappointing 
that the opportunity would exist for anyone to jump the gun, if you 
will, to get an opportunity to do the right thing, and we are glad that 
the State of South Dakota has the tools that they need to protect the 
Black Hills National Forest, a precious resource. Why we would not also 
have the opportunity to do that in the 49 other States where all of the 
States in one way or another have problems with protecting forests, why 
we would not get that, I do not know. But we stand here and we wait for 
the opportunity.
  Mr. REHBERG. Another question, Mr. Speaker, if I might of the 
gentleman from Virginia. Is there any reason why this has not happened 
in the past based upon the majorities of the Congress and the fact that 
within the last year and a half this is the first time in 40 years we 
have had an opportunity to effect change? Would we not now try a 
different management approach? Not to say we are entirely blameless, 
because certainly we supported Smokey Bear, we believed that putting 
fires out, we believed that the management plan that existed in the 
past perhaps had some credibility. But recognizing that it has failed, 
would it not be incumbent upon us now in our new majority position to 
come up with a new and more exciting, more vibrant opportunity to see 
not only a healthier wildlife and a healthier environment but certainly 
a safer environment for our forests?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman is absolutely right. There is absolutely 
no question that we have to fight forest fires. We do not want to send 
the message that when people go into our national forests or when 
natural lightning strikes occur that we should not be getting those 
firefighters out there. That is a part of saving the forests from 
disastrous wildfires, not the natural fires that burn along the ground, 
but the kind that stair-steps up and consumes the entire forest.
  We also know that it is important to do that, to keep the communities 
and people who live around those forests safe. But we also know that 
when you do that, when you intervene like that, you also have to take 
the responsibility to keep the forests healthy in other ways, to use 
prescribed burns where it is appropriate to do so. These have minimal 
consequences when they are done properly. They accomplish the goal of 
burning out the brush on the ground. They do not emit the kind of 
massive amounts of air pollution that these catastrophic, uncontrolled 
wildfires have. They do not cause the same kind of devastation to our 
water resources that these kinds of fires we have seen in Colorado and 
California and Montana and elsewhere have. But we need to give the 
Forest Service the tools to take the proper steps.
  And so I am glad the gentleman has made that observation that this 
legislation that we have passed through the House with strong 
bipartisan support and similar legislation that has passed through the 
other body but has not yet been conferenced, has not yet had the 
opportunity to resolve the differences, stands waiting for that final 
resolution. We stand here waiting for the opportunity to conference 
this.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, if I may in conclusion to the chairman of 
the Committee on Agriculture just say very quickly that as I travel 
around the State of Montana and this country, I know and I talk to 
people about the fact that Federal properties in Montana, which I 
represent, are owned by the taxpayers. I understand that. And so when I 
ask them a question, what do you want to see from your forests, they 
usually tell me, I want to see healthy wildlife. Okay. I can accept 
that. They say they want to see a healthy environment. We do not get so 
specific as talking about the mineral cycle and the water cycle, but it 
is something that I understand. They talk about the fact that they want 
to see healthy trees. When I explain to them that a dead tree that has 
got beetles in it and the beetles pass on to another tree, a dead and 
dying tree creates a dead and dying forest, and unless we remove the 
cancer of that dead and dying tree, it will kill the forest. They say, 
that, I can understand.
  Then we move on to fire and I say, if you do not control the litter, 
the excess, the overgrowth and the dying trees, you will create a fire 
danger and that is not very bright. You know what they do? They usually 
go, yeah. You know, we did not realize. If you had just told us that we 
have dead and dying trees, we have wildlife that do not have enough 
grass, we are creating a canopy that is killing the grass, it is 
killing the trees, it is creating a safety danger and houses are 
burning up and people are losing their lives, they usually go, I can 
understand this issue. What do you suggest?
  And then I move into talking about the tools that are available, 
prescribed burn, grazing, logging, thinning and such. They go, well, we 
had no idea, because that's not the story we are hearing from our 
lobbyists and our special interests and our newspapers and television 
stations in places like Connecticut and Rhode Island and such. And, 
yeah, we own that land and we want to take care of that land and we

[[Page 27497]]

thank you for understanding the issue. Thank you for supporting healthy 
forests.
  I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his hard work, his dedication 
and his effort to create the right kind of bill coming out of this 
Congress. I just hope that that is what we can pass on to the President 
of the United States.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the Speaker of 
the House, Speaker Hastert, for the opportunity to discuss this 
important issue tonight. I also want to thank my ranking member, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), without whom we would not have 
come so far this year. The other committee chairmen who helped hone the 
bill also deserve high praise for their efforts. I wish that I were not 
here on the floor of the House pleading the case to start formal 
negotiations.

                              {time}  2215

  This issue has dragged on needlessly for the entire legislative 
session. We need to discharge our duty, follow regular order, and 
conduct open, fair conference processes called for by the House this 
morning.

                          ____________________