[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12188-12197]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1904, HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION 
                              ACT OF 2003

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 239 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 239

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1904) to improve the 
     capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 
     the Interior to plan and conduct hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land 
     Management lands aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, 
     and certain other at-risks lands from catastrophic wildfire, 
     to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats 
     to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic 
     wildfire, across the landscape, and for other purposes. The 
     bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate on the bill, as amended, with 30 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Agriculture, 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Resources, and 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further 
     amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules, if offered by Representative George Miller of 
     California or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my namesake, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 239 provides for the consideration of 
H.R. 1904 under a modified closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of 
general debate in the House with 30 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Agriculture, 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources, and 
10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all 
points of order against the bill and provides that the amendment 
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The rule also makes in 
order the amendment printed in part B of the report if offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) or his designee which 
shall be considered as read and shall be separately debated for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. 
Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendment 
printed in part B of the report and provides one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, 
is a measure that would enable the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
Interior to better protect communities, watersheds, and certain other 
at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfires by conducting hazardous fuels 
reduction projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land 
Management lands all across the United States.
  The summers of 2000 and 2002 were the two largest and most 
destructive fire seasons in the past 50 years. Last year alone, Mr. 
Speaker, American taxpayers spent in excess of $1.5 billion to contain 
wildfires which claimed the lives of 23 firefighters. This subject hits 
particularly close to home for this Member because tragically, the 
summer before last, four of my constituents lost their lives fighting 
the Thirty Mile Fire in my district. A contributing factor in that fire 
and many similarly explosive wildfires destroying forests and 
rangelands at such an alarming rate is the unprecedented buildup of 
dead, dying, and diseased timber on these Federal lands. For a variety 
of reasons, including improved firefighting techniques and legally 
required environmental restrictions, the natural processes by which, 
until relatively recently, nature has rid forests of highly inflammable 
undergrowth have been overridden. The result has been to turn many of 
our forests and rangelands into virtual tinderboxes waiting to explode 
with oftentimes tragic results.
  H.R. 1904 is designed to restore some much-needed balance to the 
management of our forests and rangelands. Through the use of 
environmentally responsible thinning, prescribed burns and other 
scientifically validated management practices, overstocked forests can 
be returned to a more natural balance, and the risks of catastrophic 
wildfires as well as insect and disease infestations greatly reduced.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing H.R. 1904 
would cost $12 million in fiscal year 2004 and $278 million over the 
next 5 years. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and is 
projected to impose

[[Page 12189]]

no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 
Federal funds authorized under this act would actually benefit State, 
local, and tribal governments. Members from the West and Southeast, 
particularly, are acutely aware that the fire season will soon be upon 
us again in full force. We need to move this legislation as rapidly as 
possible.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the 
rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1904.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time; 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule and 
the underlying bill. Typically during debate on the rule, the minority 
expresses its outrage at the process by which the underlying bill is 
coming to the floor. We talk about the limited time that we have had to 
consider the content of the bill as well as the lack of opportunities 
that we have to offer amendments. Today is no different. I again come 
to the floor in disgust by the majority's rule which makes in order a 
meager 1 of the 11 amendments that were offered by Democrats, many of 
which, I note, addressed some of the bill's most controversial 
provisions. These commonsense amendments held the potential to 
transform a controversial bill into one that the entire House can 
support. Instead, the American people will never hear a discussion on 
these amendments because the Republican majority has shut off debate.
  As I examined the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, it became 
increasingly obvious that the only ``healthy'' thing about this bill is 
the pocketbooks of the timber and logging industries and the only 
``restoration'' that is being done is in the campaign coffers of the 
majority just in time for election day 2004. President Theodore 
Roosevelt, the Republican conservationist, told Congress in 1907: ``The 
conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute 
the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of 
our national life.''
  We are now faced with a vote clearly indicative of the concerns 
raised by President Roosevelt nearly 1 century ago. Whether we answer 
the challenge made by the late President or allow his legacy to fall 
victim to an influential timber lobby is a decision that Members will 
have to make later today. Republicans have crafted a bill that makes 
their approach toward curbing wildfires quite clear: if there are not 
any trees in the forests, then there will not be any forest fires. This 
approach is as infantile as it is misguided. The reality is H.R. 1904 
opens up thousands upon thousands of forest acres to logging and 
destruction. With the passage of this bill, much of the 150 national 
forests spread across some 230 million acres of land initially set 
aside for protection nearly 100 years ago will again be under attack.
  The majority's drafting of a logging bill under the guise of wildfire 
prevention mocks the seriousness of the issue. In 2002 alone, wildfires 
burned more than 6.5 million acres at a cost to taxpayers of more than 
$1 billion. Hundreds of families were evacuated, and uncontrollable 
fires caused millions of dollars of damage and the death of 
firefighters. This bill not only loosens current law regarding the 
logging and controlled burning of our Nation's forests but it also 
eviscerates environmental studies and the ability of organizations and 
private citizens to submit appeals on the cutting down of as many as 20 
million acres. Under the Republican bill, appeals are subject to 
unnecessary and unrealistic deadlines which insult the process. Federal 
judges are held to judicial deadlines that fail to consider caseloads 
and complexities of the appeal.
  The irony of a December 2002 White House press release entitled 
``Reducing the Threat of Catastrophic Wildfires and Improving Forest 
Health'' is shocking. The release notes, ``The President's Healthy 
Forest Initiative will ensure that needed environmental reviews and 
public review processes are conducted in the most efficient and 
effective way possible.'' It continues, ``The Departments of 
Agriculture and Interior will propose steps to promote early and more 
meaningful public participation on forest health project appeals.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1904 certainly ensures that the public review 
process is efficient. It just eliminates the process before it even 
begins. Efficient? Yes. Democratic and patriotic? Absolutely not. 
Democrats, on the other hand, have submitted a fair, realistic, and 
noncontroversial substitute. It places priority on the protection of 
communities and water supplies most directly threatened by potential 
wildfires. And it requires that 85 percent of any funds appropriated 
under the bill are spent for projects in communities and watersheds. 
The Democratic substitute also protects community infrastructure and 
expands areas protected from logging under the bill.

                              {time}  1145

  It does not alter current judicial review and appeals procedures, and 
it authorizes nearly $4 billion for hazardous fuels reduction work. The 
Democratic substitute is as strong as the majority's bill is in areas 
where our two sides agree. But, most importantly, the Democratic 
substitute is stronger in the areas where the majority's bill fails.
  Teddy Roosevelt once noted, ``Forests are the lungs of our land, 
purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.'' He 
continued: ``A Nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.''
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, destroys our national forests and does little 
to preserve the strength of the American people. We must not allow the 
late President Roosevelt's warning to be realized by the 108th 
Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a valued member of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings), my friend and colleague on the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding to me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the modified closed rule and the 
underlying legislation, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. In 
crafting this rule, the Committee on Rules has worked to maintain the 
bipartisan coalition of support this important legislation has gathered 
while also providing the minority the opportunity to offer a substitute 
amendment drafted by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
for the consideration of all the Members of the House.
  I commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for introducing 
this bill and the House Committee on Resources, Committee on 
Agriculture, and the Committee on the Judiciary for the time and effort 
they have invested in bringing this very important and well-crafted 
legislation to the House floor.
  I support balanced forest management designed to protect plant and 
animal habitats, while ensuring that forests are still available for 
the enjoyment of local communities. One way I believe we can attain 
this goal is through President Bush's ``Healthy Forests Initiative,'' 
which has been introduced as H.R. 1904.
  The fire seasons of 2000 and 2002 were by most standards the worst 
the United States has seen in the past 50 years. Many scientists argue 
that these wildfires occurred because many forest have unnaturally high 
fuel loads, such as dead trees and dense undergrowth.
  Unfortunately, it currently takes Federal land managers upwards of 
several years to carry out forest health projects such as controlled 
burning and thinning, as there are various bureaucratic and judicial 
obstacles that must be dealt with before a project can begin. H.R. 1904 
would empower local land managers with the tools they need to 
expeditiously carry out forest health projects and would increase the 
speed and efficiency with which the United

[[Page 12190]]

States Forest Service and other Federal agencies make regulatory 
decisions.
  Furthermore, this legislation would improve the capacity of the 
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and 
conduct hazardous fuel reduction projects on National Forest System and 
Bureau of Land Management lands to help protect communities and 
forestlands from catastrophic wildfires. It would also direct Federal 
land managers to establish early detection programs for insect and 
disease infestation in forests before they reach epidemic levels.
  Maintaining the health of our forests is critical and should not be 
impeded by needless bureaucratic obstacles. If forest health projects 
are not carried out, a forest will naturally cleanse itself through 
wildfires that can cause damage to the health of the forest ecosystems, 
endangered species and air and water quality.
  The American people, their property, and our environment are 
threatened by catastrophic fires and environmental degradation. These 
unnaturally extreme fires are caused by a crisis of deteriorating 
forest and rangeland health, the result of a century of well-
intentioned but misguided land management.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may 
proceed to debate the underlying legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I had hoped today that we would have a fair and balanced rule. 
Traditionally, when the Committee on Resources, formerly the Committee 
on Natural Resources, formerly the Committee on the Interior during my 
time here in Congress, has brought important bills to the floor, they 
have been under open rules with each and every Member being allowed to 
offer amendments. I had two amendments that would have improved this 
bill which might have given it a better chance of actually becoming law 
instead of just scoring big political points.
  Unfortunately, neither of those amendments are to be allowed because 
the House is in a hurry. A hurry for what? So we can get out for golf 
games this afternoon? We are going to be done between 4 and 5 o'clock 
this afternoon so Members can make phone calls for the big Republican 
fundraiser tomorrow night? I do not know. But for some reason the 
United States House of Representatives cannot work after 4 o'clock in 
the afternoon and allow Members whose districts are most affected by 
this legislation an opportunity to offer amendments. That is absolutely 
outrageous, unconscionable, and of course violates everything the 
Republicans promised in the ``Contract on America'' when they took over 
the House.
  But I am sure there is a good reason why they shut us down and they 
will not allow the amendments. Maybe because they are afraid some of 
those amendments might win, might improve the bill, might go against 
the wishes of the White House who is running this process.
  We had a good, collaborative, bipartisan process going last fall. We 
reached agreement on a bill. It would have actually had a very good 
chance of becoming law. Instead, suddenly this bill springs up on a 
Friday afternoon to be considered in full committee the next Wednesday 
without one single public hearing, without even consideration in the 
subcommittee, and it was being driven by the White House.
  The Republicans would never vote for this bill if we had a Democratic 
administration, even this exact bill. It gives total discretion to the 
Secretary of Agriculture and the Assistant Secretary who runs the 
Forest Service and the Secretary of the Interior over what and where 
they will apply this bill. They do not have to prioritize. They do not 
have to go and protect communities first. They do not have to protect 
old growth. No. In fact, this bill will rely upon harvesting old 
growth, which can be done without appeal by the Secretary under this 
bill. Sometimes only in thousand acre segments, sometimes in smaller 
segments, timber harvesting.
  There is no money in this bill. This is a very expensive process. One 
hundred years of mismanagement of the national forests cannot be fixed 
on the cheap. There is no money in this bill. There was money in the 
bipartisan substitute last fall, but the White House will not allow 
them to ask for money because they want to pretend this can be done for 
nothing.
  It cannot be done for nothing. They will just give the contracts to 
people, and they will go out there and clear the stuff out and just 
take what they get. But, guess what, the brush, the underbrush and the 
little dead poles and the small trees, they are not worth much. So what 
are they going to have to do to carry out this bill? They are going to 
harvest the old growth, the large fire-resistant trees that are what we 
should be leaving according to all the scientists while we clear out 
the understory and the underbrush.
  But that will be harvested or not harvested at the discretion of Mark 
Ray and other bureaucrats in the administration. Appointed bureaucrats 
will have the discretion, total discretion without appeal, virtually 
without being able to go to court because their decisions have to get 
deference in the courts.
  We could have done something real. We could have done something 
bipartisan. We could have done something that would become law. We 
could have done something that would begin to address the 100 years of 
mismanagement of our forests and deal with the real threats to my 
community.
  There are going to be a lot of people talking today who do not have a 
darn thing at risk. I have got people and communities at risk. The 
largest fire in the country burned a good deal of my district last 
year, and we are still threatened.
  I feel very strongly about this, and I am offended that I cannot 
offer a single amendment, get one vote on one substitute, and the House 
is going to rush out of here at 4 or 5 o'clock for people's golf games 
or fundraising phone calls. That is outrageous.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
State for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the 
underlying legislation, and I appreciate the passion that my friend 
from Oregon brings to this debate because I am trying very hard now to 
control very real emotion on my side. From my perspective, having 
represented rural Arizona in the Congress of the United States, having 
had the Rodeo-Chedeski fire burn hundreds of thousands of acres, Mr. 
Speaker, I bring to the floor a photo that is worth a thousand words of 
verbiage because it tells the tale of what transpired in the White 
Mountains of Arizona in the wake of the Rodeo-Chedeski fire, and it 
tells the story compellingly.
  The area in the upper part of this photograph was treated. Effective 
forest management was utilized. The untreated area, there were delays 
through appeals and paralysis by analysis; and the Members see what 
happened.
  I listened with interest to my friend from Florida who in curious 
fashion said we do not have to worry about trees if there are no trees 
there. I do not know what rhetorical point he was trying to make, but 
the fact is Members of this Congress, including 16 of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, have signed on to this Healthy Forest 
Initiative because we have to get something done, precisely because of 
the concerns of my friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) who preceded me 
here in the well, precisely because of the damage that is done to 
communities and to people who live in those communities and, yes, to 
endangered species.
  Do my colleagues realize the Rodeo-Chedeski fire, we had air 
pollution caused by particulates that far exceeds what goes on in the 
rush hour in the metropolitan area of Phoenix? Do my colleagues realize 
that, in fact, the water pollution and the damage to watersheds and the 
ability of people in

[[Page 12191]]

those areas to have healthy drinking water is taken away because of the 
fire?
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is we are coming here. When we strip away all 
the histionics and all the theatrics and all the arguments about 
process, at the end of the day we are faced with this question: Will 
the House of Representatives, will this People's House, embrace an 
effective healthy forest initiative that is broad-based, that will 
preserve endangered species, that will preserve the integrity of 
watersheds, that will preserve air quality if we take these steps now? 
Because, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, in the words of Professor 
Wallace Covington in Northern Arizona University, a widely respected 
forest health expert, the question is not if there will be another 
wildfire but when.
  Do we continue through theatrics and delay to subject the people of 
rural America to the threat of catastrophic wildfire?
  This is too important to leave to politics as usual. Rise in support 
of the rule, support the base bill, and reject any amendment that would 
try to restrict this to certain geographic areas.
  I thank my colleagues for their time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Just to answer my friend regarding what he thought was a rhetorical 
question, what I merely was suggesting was that the majority's bill 
will eliminate forests and if it eliminates forests then there will not 
be any wildfires.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the fact is what happened in that last 
fire eliminated 100,000 acres of habitat to the Mexican spotted owl. So 
I would suggest to my friend, rather than any misguided notion on the 
motives on this side, I am actually working to protect the forests, and 
I thank him for his concern.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if it is 
that this bill will not destroy forests, then I do not know how to 
read. It is just that simple.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very serious bill we have 
on the floor today of the House of Representatives.
  Some time ago, I visited with a couple parents of one of the 
firefighters who was killed in the fire in Washington State that the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) made reference to. It seems to 
me in the memory of all firefighters and for those families that the 
U.S. House of Representatives owes it to the men and women affected by 
fire to allow democracy on the floor of the House, to give time to a 
bill where we will consider some of these amendments that should have 
been allowed for a vote.
  Why is the House in such a hurry that it cannot work past 4 o'clock 
in the afternoon when we have got firefighters potentially losing their 
lives out in these forests?

                              {time}  1200

  I am ashamed that on the floor of the House of Representatives with 
that loss we cannot allow a full and fair consideration of more than 
one single, lousy amendment to this bill.
  I would posit that that great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, would be 
spinning in his grave if he knew about this effectively closed rule, 
because he was a champion of participatory democracy and a champion of 
the forest. Neither democracy nor forest are served by this rule, which 
shuts off honest and full debate in this House.
  Let me address just one amendment that this rule denies the House the 
opportunity to deal with, and that was an amendment I had, went to the 
Committee on Rules with, that would preserve the heart of our 
environmental policies when it comes to our forests. The heart of the 
National Environmental Protection Act simply requires our agencies to 
consider at least one alternative to the proposal on how they are going 
to deal with the fuel reduction program in a no-action consideration.
  Is that too much to ask simply to preserve the heart of our 
environmental policy when it comes to our forests? Are the special 
interests so powerful on the floor of the House that we cannot even 
debate, we cannot even vote on an amendment to preserve the very heart 
of the EPA act when it comes to our forests?
  It is not just me saying it is the heart; it is the law of the United 
States of America. I want to quote from the Code of Federal 
Regulations. Right now in our law, our agencies are compelled to one 
alternative, to consider no action when they consider these fuels 
reduction programs. It says: ``Alternatives including the proposed 
action. This section is the heart of the environmental impact 
statement. It should present the environmental impacts of the proposal 
and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the 
issues and providing a clear basis for the choice among options by the 
decision-maker and the public.''
  Is it too much to preserve the heart of environmental protection? My 
amendment would simply allow the House to vote that we should compel 
our agencies to think and use their scientific information to think 
about at least one alternative to the proposal.
  We should be working arm in arm to design a bipartisan fuels 
reduction program, one that protects the public, one that does not 
allow one person in one bureaucracy to decide we are going down this 
road and blind ourself to the other. We got into this pickle due to 
ignorance, and now this rule will continue that path of ignorance in 
our forests. Reject this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the weeds are in the garden. We had a full congressional 
hearing, open to the public, sunshine laws, in Flagstaff, Arizona. Some 
said they would come and did not show up. Everyone from both sides was 
invited.
  The weeds are in the garden. In your own garden, you weed out those 
spindly, dry weeds. On the public lands of America, we are being 
stopped from weeding out those spindly pines called ``dog hair 
thickets.'' They add so much to the fuel load that when you visit rural 
Arizona this year, when you come to the Grand Canyon, visit Sedona, I 
want you to know if a fire starts in Sedona, Arizona, with the upwinds, 
with the prevailing terrain, it will overtake Flagstaff by that 
evening. There is nothing to stop it. We have got to be able to thin 
the forest with a holistic approach.
  I want Members to know also the West is being devastated by millions 
of bark beetles. These bark beetles are growing at such an epidemic 
proportion that unless we are allowed to thin the forest, we will not 
be able to take care of this infestation.
  I urge full support of the rule for the Healthy Forests Restoration 
Act. I ask Members on both sides to embrace the idea that we clean the 
weeds out of the garden.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a bill, but in equally 
strong opposition to the rule. I do not know how much longer that this 
House is going to continue to suppress the rights of the minority to be 
heard on the floor of the House. There was a little news last week 
about the 51 Democrats in Texas that used the rules of the house to go 
into Oklahoma to stop a bill from passing. Many people do not 
understand why they did that.
  Today is another example of the frustration on the minority side when 
the rule does not allow free and open debate on this floor on issues. I 
disagree with my friend from Oregon and will oppose his amendment. I 
disagree with my friends on this side of the aisle who

[[Page 12192]]

contend that this bill does all the bad things to our national forests, 
because it does not, in my opinion.
  I have spent about 6 to 8 years working with chairman Bob Smith of 
Oregon, and now the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and 
listening to all of the opposing arguments. In the Committee on 
Agriculture we had an open rule. Anybody could offer an amendment and 
have full debate on these issues.
  What is different about the floor of the House? Why is it that, day 
after day after day, we come here and we say we cannot debate these 
issues openly and honestly.
  I do not understand this. This was not the Contract with America. 
Some of you remember when I used to stand with you when you were in the 
minority and oppose the majority on this side when they would not allow 
you to have your amendments. And we came up with a rule. We came up 
with a rule that said if you have got one Democrat and one Republican 
that is for something, put it out on the floor and let it be discussed. 
Give us a time limit, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 1 minute; but just let it 
be debated.
  That is what this House should be all about. That is not what the 
pattern of rules does. And to those who wonder why the 51 did what they 
did, remember, who is causing it in the House of Representatives? The 
same person, same persons, are causing it in the Texas legislature.
  What are we afraid of? I am for you. I am for the bill. I think it 
ought to be voted on. But my colleagues on this side who have a 
different opinion have every absolute right to have their issues 
debated within the confines of reasonable time restraints.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule today. It will 
pass. But I have asked the chairman and I ask the leadership and I ask 
my colleagues on the other side, please do not continue this pattern of 
not allowing free and open debate. We should not be afraid. We have a 
good bill today. I am prepared to argue and oppose amendments, I am 
prepared to support the bill. It is a good bill. But why do we not 
allow free and open debate?
  The answer to that question, to those who wonder why the 51 in Texas 
exercised their rights under the rules, this is a good example of the 
frustration building on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussion on the floor 
already about a variety of different fuels reduction plans and whose is 
best. Let me just show you what a fuel reduction plan is from the 
environmental community.
  This is a fuel reduction plan from the environmental wackos. They 
want to leave forests in a state where that is the only outcome when a 
fire starts. You have a conflagration. It is not just a fire; it is a 
fire that consumes everything in its path for miles around.
  Such a fire was in my district in this last year, the 139,000-acre 
Hayman Fire, just one of several record-breaking fires that touched the 
West last year in the worst wildfire in Colorado history. The fire 
destroyed 133 homes and filled reservoirs with soot and sediment.
  Another example of that: the Colorado Hayman Fire dumped colossal 
loads of mud and soot into Denver's largest supply of drinking water.
  The air was filled with toxic gas. The State Department of Public 
Health and Environment advised people living as far from Denver as 
Wyoming to stay in their homes, shut their windows, and use fans and 
air filtration devices until the fire was extinguished.
  This is a picture of Denver on June 8, the day before the fire. This 
is a picture of Denver on June 9, the day of the fire.
  By the way, another good example of the bizarre rules in which we 
operate is that fire, the smoke from that fire, is not counted against 
Denver for clean air; but any kind of pollution that is prior to that 
is counted against our clean air days. But a smoke that completely 
almost blurs the city, that is not counted by EPA.
  The Hayman Fire cost more than $39 million to extinguish and millions 
more in cleanup and restoration costs that continue to grow. The fire 
incinerated large areas of habitat for threatened or endangered 
species. One of those species may even disappear as a result of the 
fire.
  This is not a partisan problem. In fact, the Democratic leader in the 
U.S. Senate last year became so fed up with the delays and procedural 
requirements blocking the implementation of thinning work in South 
Dakota that he inserted a sweeping rider in the 2002 supplemental 
appropriations bill suspending all legal and administrative 
requirements in an effort to get the work done.
  The fact that such drastic action has to be taken to facilitate the 
completion is a striking commentary on how broken this process is. 
Congress should not have to legislate individual thinning projects. 
Support the rule and support the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying 
bill. I heard my colleagues, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), speak with great passion 
about the need to pass legislation that would remove this threat of 
catastrophic wildfire; and I want to associate myself with their 
remarks and their concerns.
  I heard my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), talk 
about the broad-based nature of the bill before us today; but I would 
beg to differ with my colleague. There are more of us that would join 
the gentleman if the rule were more broadly structured and if the bill 
broadened the coalition.
  In the end we are trying to raise trust with this legislation. We are 
trying to create a sense in all of our communities that are threatened 
by catastrophic wildfire that we will focus our efforts on the so-
called red zones and in our watersheds where our water supplies are at 
risk. In Colorado, the red zone is 6 million acres alone. That is where 
people and property come into contact with forests that are in 
unhealthy conditions.
  I offered a number of amendments in the Committee on Resources and 
the Committee on Agriculture, and I distilled those down to two 
amendments that I took to the Committee on Rules. One would have 
focused 70 percent of the dollars that we would spend in the red zones 
where the risk is the greatest. That amendment was rejected by the 
Committee on Rules.
  I offered a second amendment, also sponsored by my friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), and the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee), which would streamline the NEPA process but not entirely 
toss it out. If we eliminate all public input, we are going to reduce 
the levels of trust, the levels of involvement; and in the end, we are 
going to see additional litigation and stalemate.
  This legislation needs to be passed, but it has to come out of the 
House in a form that the Senate would support. I worry. I am concerned. 
I believe that this bill as it is constructed would not be acceptable 
to the Senate.
  What are we going to find ourselves in again? We are going to be in a 
gridlock situation and see more litigation, more stall, more lack of 
attention to our forests; and in the end, our efforts are going to be 
counterproductive.
  So I urge the Members to defeat this rule, to broaden the rule to 
allow debate, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), 
so eloquently pointed out to us earlier. Let us go back to the days of 
more open rules, where we take the time in the House to really work 
together to create a broad-based bill that the Senate and the President 
could support.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, and in 
particular

[[Page 12193]]

the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), the gentleman from 
Colorado (Chairman McGinnis), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden), for their hard work in bringing this much-needed legislation 
to the floor.

                              {time}  1215

  Through President Bush's leadership, we are at long last taking 
proactive steps here today to provide some major relief from the 
regulatory quagmire that continues to put our forests and communities 
in serious jeopardy. The public health and safety risk posed by 
catastrophic fires can no longer be ignored. With each passing year 
that we allow good management to be hijacked by radical 
environmentalists, people's lives are put at risk. We can't stop these 
fires, but we know that by thinning our forests in an environmentally 
sensitive way we can make them healthier and more fire-resilient, 
reducing their fire size and destructive potential.
  But analysis gridlock and the appeals and lawsuits by radical 
environmentalists have stymied good forest management. The Forest 
Service chief Dale Bosworth recently testified to Congress that his 
agency is being strangled by analysis paralysis. They spend up to 40 
percent of their time in planning and assessment.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly, Congress could not have intended our 
environmental laws to aid and abet a public health and safety risk and 
a risk to the environment that they were enacted to protect. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and allow us to consider this important 
bill which will restore some common sense to a system gone awry.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has 
a great deal of insight with reference to environmental matters.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I caught a note common to both my friend, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and my friend, the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth), that this is too important to play politics.
  There is much divergence of opinion in terms of forest health. There 
are those in the environmental community that would point out that 
heavily logged areas actually are those that have suffered most in 
firefighting.
  But there are many areas of agreement. The Democratic substitute 
captures those areas of agreement. It would focus funding and fire 
protection activity where it is needed most, in the sensitive interface 
surrounding communities. It would require that 85 percent of the 
funding be spent in and around those same communities and water 
supplies. It keeps the activities out of the controversial areas, like 
the roadless areas and old-growth forests. It shortens the appeals 
process but does not shut out the public or tamper with judicial 
review. Most importantly, it starts rebuilding trust between the many 
parties that are constantly at odds regarding policies regarding public 
land.
  I understand why some of our friends in the rural communities, some 
of our environmental friends, get extremely cranky about this. We need 
to start rebuilding a sense of confidence and trust that we can work 
together to solve problems. This Democratic substitute would do so.
  It would, unlike the underlying bill, actually put authorized money, 
$4.5 billion, that could be spent to help these timber-dependent 
communities revitalize their local economies, putting people to work to 
make communities safer.
  In the long run, unless we are willing to take a broader view of what 
goes on in the flame zone where the drought areas are and those that 
have development encroaching in the forestlands, unless and until we 
change our view about how we manage and protect them, we are going to 
be faced with this problem time and time again.
  But as dangerous as forest fires are, I would suggest as far as this 
institution, an inability of our being able to come together to work 
cooperatively to build the trust out in the broader community is 
equally as dangerous, equally as troubling.
  I am going to vote against the rule and hope that we can change the 
nature of it so that people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) and I on this side of the aisle can debate our legitimate 
differences, offer up proposals, but allow the whole House to work its 
will.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  This rule is the result of many hours of committee work, many hours 
of considering all of the amendments that the opponents of this 
legislation and this rule right now say they have never had a chance to 
voice or to discuss.
  This has gone through the Committee on Resources, it has gone through 
the Committee on Agriculture, it has gone through the Committee on the 
Judiciary and the Committee on Rules. At that point and at that time 
these folks well know that the rendering process, the deliberative 
process that is provided them in the committee is an opportunity to 
make those points at that time and avoid that same kind of confusion on 
this floor.
  Now, this is reasonable and it is sensible legislation. It is 
reasonable if we want to protect the habitat for all species, including 
those that are endangered. It is responsible if we want to protect the 
watershed.
  Mr. Speaker, the watershed in Idaho is not around the 201 
communities. It includes that 35 million acres of Federal ground in the 
State of Idaho. That is where our watershed is. There is no watershed 
close to the communities. Most of that watershed is out in the forests. 
If Members really believe in clean water, then they have to have a 
clean watershed.
  Finally, at no other time could I think of on this floor would this 
body not come together if they saw a disaster, a natural disaster, a 
flood, a coming hurricane, that we would not marshal every one of our 
forces, all of the elements that we have available to us and attack 
that potential disaster to preserve property, to preserve lives, to 
preserve habitat, to preserve clean water, and to preserve the values 
that we have in this Nation.
  So I hope that Members will join me in supporting this rule, because 
those of us who really want habitat, those of us who really want clean 
water, and those of us who want to avert coming disaster ask for 
Members' support on this legislation and this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 
minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), a 
former Attorney General who had responsibilities with reference to the 
environment close up.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for that introduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the issue of how this bill was 
legislated, because I think it is very important that we understand the 
process that we went through. The process we used here is an 
abomination. When we were hearing this bill in the Committee on 
Resources, we did not even have a bill. It was a committee print is 
what we are talking about. So we didn't have a bill.
  We were given very short notice. It was only a matter of days. That 
committee print was not even heard in committee. It was directly marked 
up. So we have completely cut out any legislative history for the 
Committee on Resources.
  This is something that has been unprecedented. It is something on 
this floor of the House we should not stand for. That alone, that 
alone, the violation of the Committee on Rules of ramming through a 
committee print which is not even a bill, that alone should get Members 
of Congress mad about voting against this bill, and it should be a 
bipartisan vote against this rule that is before us today.
  The thing that I do not understand is why. Why are our friends on the 
other side of the aisle so worried about letting the public be heard? 
They have

[[Page 12194]]

short-changed the public. They have not had a hearing that has allowed 
the public in. This is something that I think goes to the heart of the 
democratic process.
  The other two good, solid reasons to vote against this rule are that 
amendments in committee, very, very important amendments in this 
committee, were voted on in committee and yet denied here on the floor 
in the rule, in this closed rule process.
  The first one was an amendment that I offered in the Subcommittee on 
Judicial Review, which was also offered in the Committee on the 
Judiciary by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Those amendments have been 
denied in this rule, even though there were close votes, so there is no 
attention to this on the floor.
  Judicial review, why is that important? The judicial review 
provisions in this bill rig the system in favor of the Federal 
Government. The Federal agencies are favored over citizens. Basically, 
there are provisions telling the Federal judiciary, telling the 
judiciary, if there is any doubt here, if there is any ambiguity, 
decide on behalf of the Federal government.
  We have never worked the system that way. This is an issue that 
should be debated on the floor. We have been denied the ability to 
debate this issue on the floor, and that alone I think, Native 
Americans were also shut out on an amendment. That is very important. 
There is a tradition of working in a bipartisan way.
  The second amendment, in addition to judicial review, the second 
amendment which was offered in committee on this, apparently there was 
agreement by the bill's sponsor and by others in the room, saying, yes, 
we forgot Native Americans, we forgot Native Americans. But I have 
worked all day today to try to get, and since the committee hearing, a 
Native American amendment in there. Native Americans lost some of the 
biggest forests, as members from Arizona know. They lost some of the 
largest forests in this devastation, and they should have an amendment, 
they should be included. We should be able to go forward with a Native 
American amendment. But, once again, it has been denied.
  The democratic process has not been followed. Two crucial amendments 
have been denied on the floor. I would ask that all Members vote to 
defeat this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I have enjoyed this debate today and also have enjoyed this debate we 
have had over the past couple of years. It sounds as if we have not 
debated this issue at all. We have. We have had countless hearings, two 
in Arizona, on this issue. So this issue has been debated.
  I would suggest that while we are fiddling here, Arizona is burning. 
That is what we saw last year, certainly. The largest of the wildfires 
across the country was in Arizona. We lost a half a million acres. I 
would suggest that those who say there are differing opinions as to 
whether or not treated forests fare better after a big wildfire or 
during a big wildfire than untreated forests, that debate was settled 
in Arizona. Pictures have already been shown today of the difference in 
the forests that have been treated and those that have not.
  I had the good fortune to grow up just a few miles from where that 
fire was raging last year. To watch what has happened since then, to 
watch the devastation in those communities that have not been able to 
even get into the forest and to salvage what little is left because of 
lawsuits already filed, or the Forest Service having to wait an entire 
year to put out contracts, simply to go through the process that it 
takes.
  In Arizona, 11 of the 15 decisions to implement mechanical fuel 
treatment methods were appealed, and two of those were litigated. We do 
have a problem.
  The Native Americans were mentioned. They certainly need some more 
exemptions and need to have their process moved forward.
  But I would like to suggest that if you look at the tribal forests, 
if you look at the reservation land in Arizona, if it fared far better 
than the other lands simply because they have a more expedited process, 
that is what we are looking for here.
  This is not an extreme piece of legislation. It is more tinkering 
around the edges if we go with the substitute.
  Let me just suggest that while we are talking about what is political 
and what is good policy, one of the debates that we had and one of the 
amendments that is part of the Democratic substitute would narrow the 
so-called red zone around communities where the Democrats would like us 
to focus all of our activity to one-half mile.
  Now, if we consider that in Arizona the fire, the Rodeo-Chedeski fire 
at times had embers that actually jumped 3 miles, 3 miles, more than 
six times the so-called red zone that the Democrat substitute would 
protect, I would suggest that it does no good to go ahead and protect 
an area for a half-mile around a community when we have a fire that 
will jump as much as 3 miles.
  So if we have a process that actually sets good policy, then we will 
set politics aside. I would suggest that is what this bill does. I 
would urge support of the rule and support of the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden), who has been a leader on this issue.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to show you here on these 
charts what we are talking about. I think for the folks here in the 
Chamber and at home, they are tired of talking. They are tired of 
debating. They are tired of process debates. But what they are really 
tired of is fires.
  Now, this is an area that the President of the United States visited 
last summer in Jackson County, the Squire's Peak Fire. It is an example 
of how a fire on treated land looks when it is burning. This is what it 
looks like after it has burned. So you wonder whether treatment works 
or not, here is your example. During the burn. After the burn. Here is 
where it had not been treated.
  President Bush stood right here on this area and met with the 
firefighters who actually took this picture as they escaped this area. 
They had been doing work there prior to the fire and then converted 
over to be firefighters. This is what it looks like when you have not 
treated an area. This is what it looks like after that area burns. This 
is what it looks like.
  I am tired of black forests. I want green forests. The underlying 
bill would not touch Squire's Peak because it says 85 percent of the 
work has to be within half a mile. This is, I do not know, 6, 10 miles 
away from Medford. It was a long drive up there in the motorcade.
  This is what I am trying to prevent from happening. I want treatment 
on these lands because it is people I represent whose homes are being 
burned, whose watersheds are threatened. Entire communities are on 30-
minute evacuation notices. They are tired of us debating this and 
putting off decisions. We have another fire season upon us right now. 
190 million acres of America's forest lands across this country are 
subject to this kind of fire if we do not do the kind of forest work 
that we are advocating in this legislation.
  This is what you get. Who wants that? Do you think spotted owls 
thrive in this? No. Any endangered species? No.
  So we want to get in and be able to do this work in an expedited 
manner that involves people at the front ends like the Western 
Governors Association that says needs to be done, so that we involve 
people in the planning process in the beginning rather than let them 
send in 37 cent appeals at the end when they have never participated in 
the project. So we do that. We bring

[[Page 12195]]

them into the front end of this, and we streamline the appeals process.
  Yes, we say to the courts, when you do a preliminary injunction every 
45 days, you need to find out the effect of taking no action. Because 
when you are treating lands you are taking action, and you get fires 
that result in lands that look like that. When you delay and you do not 
take action, this is the outcome: burned, dead, sterilized forests and 
soils.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) have any further speakers?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we have one more speaker, and 
we are waiting for her to return.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my 
distinguished friend and Member for yielding me time, and I thank the 
Members that are involved in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for 17 years; and, as Members 
know, I work issues involving fire protection. I have been in every 
State in the country. I have been on the forest fires myself in 
California, Colorado, Montana, Oklahoma, Washington, and Idaho, to name 
a few, not as a Member of Congress but as one of those out there trying 
to learn lessons as to how we can better respond.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to support the President's healthy forests 
initiative, but I am here today to put the President and the 
administration on notice because I am not happy.
  Mr. Speaker, it was just 6 years ago when I chaired the Subcommittee 
on Research of the Committee on Science; and in looking for solutions 
to apply technology to solve problems with forests fires, I was able to 
put $14 million of DOD money into using our classified satellite system 
to detect forest and wildlands fires when they start and to have that 
information transmitted instantly to the local responders. It makes 
sense. You put the fire out when it starts, you do not have a problem.
  Mr. Speaker, that was 6 years ago. The money was spent. The 
technology was developed. The software system exists, but there was a 
debate over which agency would head it up, the NRO, NOAA, DOD, FEMA. 
Guess where it is today, Mr. Speaker, as America burns? The software 
that we paid for to protect America's forests and wildlands is sitting 
in boxes in Crystal City because the agencies are feuding over who will 
run the program.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not accept this. I have used the process 
available to me. I talked to Joe Allbaugh when he headed FEMA. I have 
talked to the administration, to the White House; and today we have no 
response. The use of this is scheduled for 2006; $7 million today would 
put the program in place in time for this fire season.
  So if we do not have it in place, we are going to spend billions of 
dollars in the amount of money necessary to respond to forest fires 
when $6 million today would put into place the fire program that exists 
in boxes in Crystal City and has been sitting there for 4 years.
  We should have offered an amendment to the bill, but I want to give 
the President the benefit of the doubt. But I am putting you on notice. 
If we do not get this program operational this year, it is the fault of 
the White House and this Congress, because the technology is there to 
detect and deal with these fires as soon as they occur. The 
firefighters know that. The State forest firefighter leaders know that. 
It is about time that we responded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The Chair will state that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 3 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time our speaker has not arrived, but I do wish 
to speaker vigorously in closing in opposition to this modified closed 
rule.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) put it best earlier, the 
question is how long are we going to shut down the minority views. This 
is patently obvious from the speakers that we have heard here today 
that several of them have amendments that would help this process, not 
harm it at all. And the will of this body is being thwarted by those 
who would shut off the debate for whatever reason, and it is difficult 
to fathom a good reason that Members who represent significant numbers 
of people in this country are not having an opportunity to be heard.
  On one matter alone, the curtailing of judicial review, I can speak 
from personal experience that we talk an awful lot about what impact 
legislation has on various institutions that are the beneficiaries of 
what we did. In the Federal judiciary there can be no real guidelines 
when a judge is trying to understand the process that has come to him 
or her, and what we have done by restricting judicial review is causing 
the public to be shut out.
  I think that is an abomination. I think this rule is too restrictive, 
and I would urge all Members to please oppose the rule, notwithstanding 
your views with reference to the substantive-based bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
time.
  I would say I think the rule is very well structured. The rules takes 
into account all of the different parties that have come together on 
this bill and some of the parties who oppose this bill. It gives ample 
opportunity for those who oppose the bill, as well as giving ample 
opportunity to those of us who feel it is time that we take back the 
management of these forests and put it in the hands of what we call the 
``green hats,'' our forest rangers.
  What has happened over a period of time because of a very well-
thought-out strategy, and that was in the seventies and the eighties, 
the radical environmental organizations, some of my colleagues will 
speak on their behalf today, they decided that they could never win the 
debate against the people that work for the Forest Service, for the 
VLM, the people that work in the forest every day of the week, the 
people that were educated in the forest.
  So they decided what they needed to do is manage the forest through a 
paralysis by litigation, through paralysis by analysis, or through 
paralysis by emotional-based decision. So what they have done very 
meticulously is move this to Washington, D.C. where you have heard the 
argument just a few minutes ago that we in the United States Congress 
ought to be dictating to the United States Forest Service what the 
diameter of a tree is before they are allowed to cut it down. Give me a 
break. That we in the United States Congress ought to be dictating to 
the Forest Service that we here in the U.S. Congress know that a fire 
is going to stop one half mile into the urban interface and not one 
inch beyond it; and that the U.S. Forest Service should not have the 
authority to go ahead and thin beyond that half mile. Come on.
  This rule allows for ample debate. This is a well-structured rule, 
and I have been looking forward to this day for a long time to argue 
about the substance of the issue we have in front of us, and that is do 
we save our forests or do we not. And I think the answer is going to be 
very clear. I think with overwhelming support, bipartisan support, this 
bill is going to pass. I urge support of the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule and this issue, as has been repeated 
several times, this issue from a policy standpoint has been debated for 
a long time. It is time for us to take action in this body. So I urge 
my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

[[Page 12196]]


  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 1904 
which endangers our national forests and our civil rights.
  This bill contains provisions whose impact may stretch well beyond 
national forests and into our courtroom struggles for civil rights, 
disability access, and labor protections, but this rule does not give 
us the opportunity to amend that language.
  In the West, we recognize the dangers of fires and the need to 
protect our communities, but the so-called ``Healthy Forest Restoration 
Act'' is not the answer.
  This bill ignores common sense ways to reduce the risk of fires to 
communities, while opening up our national heritage to the timber 
companies.
  In addition to the potential damage to our national forests this bill 
also has the potential to wreck havoc on our judicial system, and our 
civil rights.
  The far-reaching implications of H.R. 1904's judicial review 
provisions have sparked opposition to this bill from a diverse 
coalition, which includes national environmental, civil rights, 
disability, women's, and labor organizations, including the NAACP and 
the National Organization of Women.
  This bill would place forest projects ahead of any other civil or 
criminal case before the courts, and it creates inequality in the 
courts by requiring judges to give deference to Federal bureaucrats.
  This would tip the scales of justice in favor of proponents of 
logging and set a dangerous precedent for favoring agencies when courts 
consider the public interest that could affect disability, civil 
rights, and labor law, among other areas.
  Rather than protecting national forests and communities, the Healthy 
Forest Restoration Act threatens our judicial system and our ecosystem 
with far-reaching consequences.
  There are better solutions to preventing wildfires, than increasing 
rampant logging and interfering with the judicial process. I urge you 
to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on H.R. 1904.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The Chair announces that this vote will be followed by two votes on 
motions to suspend the rules considered earlier today. These votes will 
be on S. 330 and H.R. 1925 and will be 5 minutes each.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 179, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 195]

                               YEAS--234

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--179

     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Bell
     Bishop (GA)
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burns
     Case
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cox
     Davis (TN)
     Doyle
     Istook
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Northup
     Spratt
     Stupak


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1300

  Messrs. LAMPSON, MILLER of North Carolina, SHERMAN, HOYER and DOGGETT 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

[[Page 12197]]


  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, I was 
unavoidably detained and was unable to register my vote. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________