[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8418-8429]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4200, FOREST EMERGENCY RECOVERY AND 
                              RESEARCH ACT

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 816 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 816

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4200) to improve the ability of the Secretary 
     of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to promptly 
     implement recovery treatments in response to catastrophic 
     events affecting Federal lands under their jurisdiction, 
     including the removal of dead and damaged trees and the 
     implementation of reforestation treatments, to support the 
     recovery of non-Federal lands damaged by catastrophic events, 
     to revitalize Forest Service experimental forests, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour, with 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Resources, 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Agriculture, and 20 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources 
     now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as 
     an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 
     pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
     XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Matsui), 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, H. Res. 816 provides for a structured rule and allows 
for 1 hour of general debate with 20 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by each of the chairman and ranking minority members of the 
Committee on Resources, the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  There also are four amendments, Democrat amendments, that have been 
filed with the bill made in order. Each of these amendments was 
considered in the committee markup and was defeated in those markups, 
but we have decided in the rule of fairness to allow them all to have a 
chance of debating those amendments on the floor, giving them another 
chance to convince a majority of the House Members that their approach 
to forest management is better than the bill before us.
  In testimony received in the Rules Committee, it was mentioned that 
this particular bill has had, approximately 50 times, a redrafting to 
make sure the needs of individuals were met; it was passed by strong 
bipartisan support in both the Rules Committee and the Agriculture 
Committee; it has 147 bipartisan sponsors; it has had nine hearings; 
the sponsors have traveled to forests from Oregon to Georgia; they have 
had input from Fish and Wildlife, from Tribal land managers; it has 
been endorsed by the 25,000-member National Federation of Federal 
Employees Union, by the 15,000 members of the Society of American 
Foresters and by the 12,000-member Coalition of Professional 
Firefighters.
  This bill has gone through regular order. It is as regular, it is so 
regular you would think it was sponsored by Metamucil.
  I am also very grateful to the chairman of the subcommittee who is 
the sponsor, Mr. Walden, for his work on this, as well as Mr. 
Goodlatte, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Baird, Ms. Herseth, who presented this 
bill to us, and also to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Hastings, 
who told me everything I need to know about forests, and if this bill 
is good with him, it obviously has to be a good bill.
  Those of us who live in the western States realize that we have 
enormous tracts of land, both in Forest Service land and in BLM lands, 
and the forest in those areas has been under tremendous stress in the 
past two decades. We estimate there are at least 190 million acres of 
land at risk, over 1 million acres that is currently in a restoration 
backlog. It has taken us about 2 years to begin the restoration 
process. If there is any kind of regulatory process, the average is 
3\1/2\ years.

                              {time}  1045

  Yet, in those same areas, non-Federal lands, whether it is private or 
governmental, can begin their restoration process in weeks using best 
practices that have been tried and true.
  At the Rules Committee it was mentioned after the Mt. St. Helens 
eruption, if you now go to Washington State, you can clearly see where 
the private forest management, which included selective and partial 
harvesting of dead timber, has resulted in a quicker and better 
recovery than adjacent Federal lands where the actions

[[Page 8419]]

have been hindered oftentimes by litigation.
  In my own State of Utah, the Dixie National Forest in southern Utah 
over a decade ago was infested by pine beetles, originally committed to 
only 6 acres of infestation above the Cedar Breaks National Monument, 
an area that was filled with beautiful and very tall Englemann spruce 
trees.
  The best available science protocols and the Forest Service's 
preferred alternative was a remediation plan that called for harvesting 
of a certain size of tree in the infested area. Apparently these pine 
beetles only like a certain age of trees; kind of like a fine wine of 
only a certain year is what they would consume. The forestry experts 
said that by harvesting selectively in this contained 6-acre area, they 
could contain the insects' further spread.
  Unfortunately their plan was subject to intense litigation which 
lasted for over 2 years. In that 2-year period of time, the Forest 
Service was precluded by injunction from proceeding with their 
remediation plan. The beetle, unfortunately, did not wait for those 2 
years, for the lawyers and the judges in a typical slow, deliberative 
judicial pace to solve their differences.
  Instead of 6 acres being impacted, thousands of acres were killed in 
this particular forest. Today, if you visit this area, the sad legacy 
of this litigation was that under the guise of protecting our forest, 
it was actually very extremely detrimental to our forest. What was once 
a pristine and amazingly beautiful forest is now acre after acre after 
acre of dead trees. Habitat has been lost, vegetation was lost, mud 
slides have increased, water and air quality has decreased, and soil 
erosion has increased. This area is now an extremely high risk of 
devastating fire.
  There are events that take place in our life that disrupt our forest 
system. Last year we passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to give 
tools of management to our forest experts for forest health, for 
community protection, fuel reduction and fire prevention.
  This year we are now bringing before you the Forest Emergency 
Recovery and Research Act, a commonsense recovery plan that would 
follow natural disasters affecting our forest land. This gives tools of 
rehabilitation. It is not a plantation forest which environmentalists 
do not like. There is heavy emphasis on alternative energy that can be 
used for some of the materials that will be recovered.
  You may hear some opponents of this particular bill talking the same 
old talking points of yesteryear. The important thing to remember is in 
H.R. 4200 there are three specific elements to it.
  Number one, it pursues scientific research in conjunction with land 
grant universities to improve our knowledge about postcatastrophe 
treatment. Secondly, it mandates preapproved action, subject to peer 
review, without blatant proscriptions of actions that will give best 
science efforts in controlling and preserving our forest land. Number 
three, it provides firefighter protection.
  The most treacherous and dangerous situation for a firefighter is 
always the second fire in the same area. The passage of this bill would 
eliminate the potential harm and risk not only to species, but also 
would potentially save the lives of many of our firefighters.
  This bill is such a good bill that it actually should be on the 
suspension calendar, but we are here today to consider this legislation 
on the floor under a rule. Once again, Mr. Speaker, this rule provided 
under H. Res. 816 is fair by any standard of judgment.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this underlying legislation, the 
Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. I believe it represents a 
model for how Congress can act in a methodical, reasonable and 
bipartisan manner to address vital concerns on this emotional 
environmental issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution and the underlying 
legislation in H.R. 4200.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) 
for yielding me this time, and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, our forests are a valuable natural resource. They offer 
beauty and recreation for many across the Nation. My own hometown of 
Sacramento is but a couple of hours from Tahoe National Forest. 
Throughout the year, Sacramentans can be found taking advantage of this 
proximity, using the park for hiking, skiing and camping.
  With 18 national forests and 20 million acres of national forestland 
in my home State of California, we face the challenge of a wildfire on 
almost an annual basis. Many western States deal with forest fires 
every summer.
  In addition, Americas's forests also endure damage from hurricanes, 
floods, mudslides and our natural disasters. All of these events 
require swift action from our Nation's brave network of first 
responders as well as tailored government policies to help forests 
regenerate over the long term.
  The rule before us would authorize debate on H.R. 4200, a bill which 
its supporters see as a way to speed forest recovery by loosening or 
eliminating some Federal regulations protecting our public lands. Such 
a proposal demands scrutiny and debate.
  To warrant congressional action, there must be a demonstrable need 
for such a proposal and reliable proof that the proposed solution meets 
that need. Unfortunately, the evidence on the need for this bill points 
in both directions. While some sources claim that this bill would 
improve the state of forests, other scientific accounts indicate that 
H.R. 4200 would actually hurt the forest recovery process.
  We do know that it would create a loophole to allow some industries 
to skirt compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Supporters contend that the logging industry is saddled with unfair 
government regulations which impede their postfire operations and 
ultimately hurt the forests themselves. At the same time, 35 percent of 
all logging in national forests in the past 6 years came from timber 
salvage in ways similar to this bill, accounting for $35 million to $40 
million annually. The only difference is that now these activities have 
to comply fully with NEPA and the Endangered Species Act before moving 
forward.
  While a CBO estimate projects that this bill would increase timber 
profits from salvaging by 40 percent, the first question which must be 
answered is not one of business, but one of science. Does the policy 
recommended under this bill make sense?
  As I stated at the beginning, the evidence is too murky to tell, and 
we need to spend more time learning about and debating this issue 
before we act. I am encouraged that the Rules Committee recognized this 
and made four amendments in order which will add to the public 
discourse on this bill.
  However, it is difficult to ignore the arguments of those opposed to 
H.R. 4200. One such voice comes from a January 2006 issue of Science 
Magazine. In that issue, a group of researchers published a study of 
logging in the aftermath of the 2002 Biscuit fire in Oregon. This peer-
reviewed study concluded that the impact of logging in these areas 
reduced regeneration of new trees by some 70 percent.
  This single scientific article is not the final word on such a 
complicated matter for sure, but its findings are consistent with a 
good portion of the larger body of literature on this subject. And when 
so many experts express concern with H.R. 4200, Members would be well 
advised to listen to their reservations and take time to reconsider the 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this point in the Record a letter to 
Congress signed by 169 experts in the areas of biology, ecology and 
forest management. This group of researchers includes UC Davis 
professors Dr. Robert Coats and Dr. Peter Moyle, as well as 13 other 
Californians.

                                                   March 14, 2006.
       Dear Members of Congress: The United States has made great 
     strides by relying on science to inform our decision making. 
     Science helped us travel to the moon; advance medicine and 
     health; and understand the complex web of life on land and in 
     rivers, lakes, and oceans. Science has also opened

[[Page 8420]]

     our eyes to the workings of forests and provided blueprints 
     for federal plans to better protect the abundant natural 
     resources of our public lands.
       When we, as scientists, see policies being developed that 
     run counter to the lessons of science, we feel compelled to 
     speak up. Proposed post-disturbance legislation (specifically 
     the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act [H.R. 4200] 
     and the related Forests for Future Generations Act [S. 
     2079]), crafted as a response to recent fires and other 
     disturbances, is misguided because it distorts or ignores 
     recent scientific advances. Under the labels of ``recovery'' 
     and ``restoration,'' these bills would speed logging and 
     replanting after natural disturbances.
       Although logging and replanting may seem like a reasonable 
     way to clean up and restore forests after disturbances like 
     wildland fires, such activity would actually slow the natural 
     recovery of forests and of streams and creatures within them. 
     Many scientist-reviewed studies and syntheses (please see the 
     selected citations appended to this letter) have recently 
     come to this conclusion. For example, no substantive evidence 
     supports the idea that fire-adapted forests might be improved 
     by logging after a fire. In fact, many carefully conducted 
     studies have concluded just the opposite. Most plants and 
     animals in these forests are adapted to periodic fires and 
     other natural disturbances. They have a remarkable way of 
     recovering--literally rising from the ashes--because they 
     have evolved with and even depend upon fire.
       We are concerned that H.R. 4200 and S. 2079 will bind us to 
     land management practices that, perhaps logical in the past, 
     are no longer tenable in the light of recent scientific 
     understanding. Specifically, post-disturbance logging impedes 
     regeneration of forest landscapes when it compacts soils, 
     removes or destroys so-called biological legacies (such as 
     soil organic material, seeds in the soil, large standing and 
     downed trees), damages riparian corridors, introduces or 
     spreads invasive species, causes erosion, delivers sediment 
     to streams from logging roads and steep slopes, degrades 
     water quality, and damages populations of many aquatic 
     species. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on 
     Resources (November 10, 2005), eminent forest ecologist and 
     University of Washington Professor Jerry Franklin noted that 
     logging dead trees often has greater negative impacts than 
     logging of live trees. He concluded that ``timber salvage is 
     most appropriately viewed as a `tax' on ecological 
     recovery.''
       Beyond those concerns, post-disturbance logging often 
     intensifies the potential severity of future fires by 
     concentrating the slash from logging at or near the ground. 
     Rather than leaving plant material standing--and providing 
     perching, nesting, and feeding sites for wildlife--such 
     logging abruptly moves the material to the ground. Most of 
     this material would naturally fall to the ground, adding 
     important supplies of nutrients and energy to the forest 
     floor and structure in the form of woody debris to stream 
     channels. But this naturally happens over decades, not in the 
     relatively short time associated with a logging operation. 
     Advocates of post-disturbance logging may argue that this 
     slash can be disposed of with controlled burns and other 
     treatments. Yet such treatments can severely damage 
     underlying soils, imposing other taxes on natural recovery.
       One additional tax concerns us. Postfire logging taxes the 
     public treasury. Recent analysis of postfire logging 
     operations after Oregon's Biscuit fire of 2002 shows that 
     costs of the logging operations exceeded revenue by about $14 
     million for logging that removed more than 53 million board 
     feet of timber (DellaSala et al. 2006).
       Science provides the best insight into the real 
     consequences of our policies and actions. Ironically, this 
     legislation is crafted to ignore the science by waiving 
     environmental reviews, reviews that would make use of the 
     scientific knowledge often available only because of 
     expenditures of public funds. Failure to conduct full 
     environmental reviews informed by that science will 
     inevitably lead to ecological and economic harm from post-
     disturbance logging.
       In short, neither ecological benefits nor economic 
     efficiency result from post-disturbance logging. We therefore 
     urge you to defeat these legislative efforts because they 
     will set back forest recovery. We urge you to work with your 
     fellow lawmakers to craft legislation that will rely on the 
     most up-to-date scientific knowledge to protect the natural 
     resources of the nation's public lands.
           Sincerely,
       Isabella A. Abbott, Ph.D., Wilder Professor Emerita, Botany 
     University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
       Paul Alaback, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, University of 
     Montana, Missoula, MO.
       James P. Amon, Ph.D., Professor, Wetland Biologist, 
     Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University, 
     Dayton, OH.
       Thomas H. Anderson, Ph.D., Professor, Geology, Department 
     of Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh, 
     Pittsburgh, PA.
       Robert Angus, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, University of 
     Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
       Julian D. Avery, Avian Ecologist, Eastern New Mexico 
     University, Portales, NM.
       William L. Baker, Ph.D., Department of Geography, 
     University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.
       Mark Bamberger, Ph.D., Professor, Geology and Environmental 
     Sciences, Miami University, The Union Institute & University, 
     and Capital University Oxford, OH.
       Linda Sue Barnes, Ph.D., Professor, Biology (specialty 
     Botany), Methodist College, Fayetteville, NC.
       Frank Barnwell, Ph.D., Professor, Ecology, Evolution, and 
     Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
       Carol J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Austin Peay 
     State University, Clarksville, TN.
       Craig W. Benkman, Ph.D., Professor, Zoology and Physiology, 
     University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.
       David H. Benzing, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Oberlin 
     College, Oberlin, OH.
       May R. Berenbaum, Ph.D., Swanlund Professor and Head 
     Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
       Robert L. Beschta, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Forest 
     Hydrology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
       Alfred Beulig, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, New College of 
     Florida, Sarasota, FL.
       John G. Bishop, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Biology, 
     Washington State University, Vancouver, WA.
       Scott Hoffman Black, Ecologist/Entomologist, Executive 
     Director, Portland, OR.
       David E. Blockstein, Ph.D., Chair, The Ornithological 
     Council, Washington, DC.
       Jane H. Bock, Ph.D., Professor Emerita, Ecology and 
     Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
       Reed Bowman, Ph.D., Associate Research Biologist, Head, 
     Avian Ecology Lab, Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid, 
     FL.
       David Barton Bray, Ph.D., Department of Environmental 
     Studies, Florida International University, Miami, FL.
       Richard A. Bradley, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Evolution, 
     Ecology and Organismal Biology, Ohio State University, 
     Marion, OH.
       William R. Bromer, Ph.D., Professor, Biology & 
     Environmental Science, University of St. Francis, Joliet, IL.
       Lincoln P. Brower, Ph.D., Distinguished Service Professor 
     Emeritus, Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
       David Brown, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Biology & 
     Environmental Science, Marietta College, Marietta, OH.
       Joyce Marie Brown, EPA STAR Fellow, BGSA President, Ph.D., 
     Student of Conservation Biology, University of Central 
     Florida, Orlando, FL.
       Kurt Brownell, Natural Resources Specialist, St. Paul 
     District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River 
     Natural Resource Project, La Crescent, MN.
       Bernard H. Byrnes, Ph.D., Soil Science, Wild South, 
     Moulton, AL.
       Philip D. Cantino, Ph.D., Professor, Environmental and 
     Plant Biology, Ohio University, Athens, OH.
       Ken Carloni, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, Umpqua Community 
     College, Roseburg, OR.
       Gary Carnefix, M.S., Research Associate, Pacific Rivers 
     Council, Polson, MT.
       C. Ronald Carroll, Ph.D., Professor, Institute of Ecology, 
     Co-Director for Science, River Basin Center, University of 
     Georgia, Athens, GA.
       Bobb Carson, Ph.D., Professor- and Dean-Emeritus, Dept. of 
     Earth and Environmental Sciences, College of Arts and 
     Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
       Christopher Chabot, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Plymouth 
     State University, Plymouth, NH.
       Robert Coats, Ph.D., Forest Hydrologist, University of 
     California, Davis, Davis, CA.
       Laura E. Conkey, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Geography, 
     Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
       Ian M. Cooke, Ph.D., Professor, Zoology, University of 
     Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
       Joel Cracraft, Lamont Curator and Curator-in-Charge, 
     Department of Ornithology, American Museum of Natural 
     History, New York, NY.
       David A. Culver, Ph.D., Professor, Evolution, Ecology, and 
     Organismal Biology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
       D. Robert Deal, Ph.D., Professor, Plant Biology, Shawnee 
     State University, Portsmouth, OH.
       Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, World 
     Wildlife Fund, Ashland, OR.
       Thomas H. DeLuca, Ph.D., Professor, Forest Soils, 
     University of Montana, Missoula, MT.
       Saara J. DeWalt, Ph.D., Plant Ecologist, Assistant 
     Professor, Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, 
     SC.
       Dana E. Dolsen, M.S., Forest Science, Holladay, UT.
       R. Scot Duncan, Ph.D., Restoration Ecologist, Birmingham-
     Southern College, Birmingham, AL.
       Peter W. Dunwiddie, Ph.D., Affiliate Professor, Biology, 
     University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
       Christopher W. Evans, M.A., College of Natural Sciences, 
     Hawaii Pacific University, Kaneohe, HI.
       Jonathan P. Evans, Ph.D., Director, Landscape Analysis 
     Laboratory, Associate Professor, Biology, University of the 
     South, Sewanee, TN.

[[Page 8421]]

       Thomas L. Fleischner, Ph.D., Professor, Environmental 
     Studies, Prescott College, Prescott, AZ.
       Erica Fleishman, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, 
     Department of Biological, Sciences, Stanford University, 
     Stanford, CA.
       George W. Folkerts, Ph.D., Wetland Biology, Aquatic 
     Insects, Herpetology, Natural History, Professor, Biological 
     Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
       Brian Foster, Ph.D., CRES, Zoological Society of San Diego, 
     EI Cajon, CA.
       CJ Fotheringham, M.S., Fire Ecologist, Dept. of Ecology and 
     Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, 
     Los Angeles, CA.
       Lee E. Frelich, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, University of 
     Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
       Terrence J. Frest, Ph.D., Malacologist, Seattle, WA.
       Chris Frissell, Ph.D., Senior Staff Scientist, The Pacific 
     Rivers Council Polson, MT.
       Alder Fuller, Ph.D., Ecology/Evolution, Euglena Edu/
     ProtoTista, Eugene, OR.
       Thomas M. Gehring, Ph.D., Department of Biology, Central 
     Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI.
       Donald Geiger, Ph.D., Department of Biology, University of 
     Dayton, Dayton, OH.
       Enrique Gomezdelcampo, Ph.D., Hydrologist, Center for 
     Environmental Programs, Bowling Green State University, 
     Bowling Green, OH.
       Steven Green, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, University of 
     Miami, Coral Gables, FL.
       Thurman L. Grove, Ph.D., Professor, Zoology, North Carolina 
     State University, Raleigh, NC.
       John S. Gunn, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, The Trust to 
     Conserve Northeast Forestlands, Hebron, ME.
       Judy Haggard, Wildlife Biologist, Haggard Wildlife 
     Consulting, Fieldbrook, CA.
       Richard W. Halsey, M.A., Director/Fire Ecology, California 
     Chaparral Field Institute, Escondido, CA.
       Michael Hamilton, Ph.D., Director, James San Jacinto 
     Mountains Reserve, University of California, Riverside, 
     Idyllwild, CA.
       David Hastings, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Eckerd College, 
     St. Petersburg, FL.
       Peggy S. M. Hill, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Biological 
     Science, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
       Richard T. Holmes, Ph.D., Emeritus Harris Professor, 
     Environmental, Biology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
       Thomas R. Horton, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Mycorrhizal 
     Ecology, State University of New York, College of 
     Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.
       Robert Huber, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Biological 
     Sciences, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.
       Jarvis E. Hudson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Biology, 
     Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, NC.
       Richard Hutto, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Avian Science 
     Center, Division of Biological Sciences, University of 
     Montana, Missoula, MT.
       David K. Imper, Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
     Arcata, CA.
       Timothy Ingalsbee, Ph.D., Fire Sociologist, University of 
     Oregon, Eugene, OR.
       Haruhiko Itagaki, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Kenyon 
     College, Gambier, OH.
       David G. Jenkins, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Biology, 
     University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
       Bart R. Johnson, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Landscape 
     Architecture and Environmental Studies Program, University of 
     Oregon, Eugene, OR.
       Kyle Joly, M.S., Ecology, Wildlife Biologist, Fairbanks, 
     AK.
       James R. Karr, Ph.D., Professor, Aquatics Sciences and 
     Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
       Sterling C. Keeley, Ph.D., Professor, Botany, University of 
     Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI.
       Julie E. Korb, Ph.D., Department of Biology, Fort Lewis 
     College, Durango, CO.
       Adrienne Kovach, Ph.D., Research Assistant Professor, 
     Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire, 
     Durham, NH.
       Christa Kugler, Wild Animal Keeper, Bronx Zoo, Wildlife 
     Conservation Society, New York, NY.
       Melinda Laituri, Ph.D., Geographer, Colorado State 
     University, Fort Collins, CO.
       William Z. Lidicker, Jr., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, 
     Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, 
     Berkeley, CA.
       Dale R. Lockwood, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow, Colorado 
     State University, Fort Collins, CO.
       Frank T. Logiudice, M.S., Undergraduate Program 
     Coordinator, Department of Biology, University of Central 
     Florida, Orlando, FL.
       Marilyn D. Loveless, Ph.D., Population Ecologist, 
     Professor, Biology, College of Wooster, Wooster, OH.
       Julie Maier, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Science, 
     University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
       Glenn Matlack, Ph.D., Environmental and Plant Biology, Ohio 
     University, Athens, OH.
       William W. Mautz, Ph.D., Professor, Natural Resources, 
     University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.
       Brian McCarthy, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, Ohio University, 
     Athens, OH.
       William H. McDowell, Ph.D., Professor, Water Resources 
     Management, Director, NH Water Resources Research Center, 
     University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.
       Amy B. McEuen, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, Assistant 
     Professor, Biology University of Illinois, Springfield, IL.
       Michael J. Medler, Ph.D., Department of Environmental 
     Studies, Huxley College, Western Washington University, 
     Bellingham, WA.
       Rebecca P. Meegan, Wildlife Biologist, Coastal Plains 
     Institute and Land Conservancy, Tallahassee, FL.
       Gary K. Meffe, Ph.D., Editor Conservation Biology, Dept. of 
     Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, 
     Gainesville, FL.
       Andrew G. Milroy, Natural Resources Manager, West 
     Springfield, MA.
       Richard R. Montanucci, Ph.D., Systematic Herpetologist and 
     Ecologist, Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Clemson 
     University, Clemson, SC.
       Peter B. Moyle, Ph.D., Professor, Fisheries Biology, Dept. 
     of Wildlife, Fish, & Conservation Biology, University of 
     California, Davis Davis, CA.
       Rob Mrowka, M.S., Forest Ecology, Manager, Environmental 
     Planning Division, Las Vegas, NV.
       Barry R. Noon, Ph.D., Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, & 
     Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort 
     Collins, CO.
       Eliane Norman, Ph.D., Stetson University, DeLand, FL.
       Reed Noss, Ph.D., Professor, Conservation Biology, 
     University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
       Mary O'Brien, Ph.D., Botanist/Ecologist, Grand Canyon 
     Trust, Eugene, OR.
       Dennis C. Odion, Ph.D., Vegetation Ecologist, University of 
     California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California and 
     Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR.
       John A. Osborne, Ph.D., Professor, Limnology Department of 
     Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
       Michael S. Parker, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Southern 
     Oregon University, Ashland, OR.
       Arthur Dean Partridge, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Forest 
     Disease and Insect Ecology, College of Forestry, Wildlife and 
     Range Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
       Gustav Paulay, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Florida Museum 
     of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
       David Perry, Ph.D., Ecosystem Studies and Management, 
     Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
       Crispin H. Pierce, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, 
     Environmental Public Health Program, University of Wisconsin-
     Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI.
       Jay Pitocchelli, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Saint Anselm 
     College, Manchester, NH.
       Mechthild Pohlshroder, Assistant Professor, Biology, 
     University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
       Anne Pusey, Ph.D., Behavioral Ecologist, McKnight 
     Distinguished University Professor, Ecology, Evolution, and 
     Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
       Robert Michael Pyle, Ph.D., Lepidopterist/Author, Grays 
     River, WA.
       G.S. Rahi, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Natural Sciences, 
     Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, NC.
       Karl J. Reinhard, Ph.D., Professor, School of Natural 
     Resources, Fulbright Scholar, University of Nebraska, 
     Lincoln, NE.
       Ann F. Rhoads, Ph.D., Senior Botanist, Pennsylvania. Flora 
     Project, Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania, 
     Philadelphia, PA.
       Jon Rhodes, Hydrologist, Portland, OR.
       David I. Richard, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Rollins 
     College, Winter Park, FL.
       Axel C. Ringe, Senior Scientific Analyst, Information 
     International Associates, Inc. Oak Ridge, TN.
       Oscar J. Rocha, Assistant Professor, Biological Sciences, 
     Kent State University, Kent, OH.
       Carlton L. Rockett, Ph.D., Professor, Biological Sciences, 
     Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.
       Thomas P. Rooney, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, Department of 
     Botany, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
       Steve Rothenberger, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, University 
     of Nebraska-Kearney, Kearney, NE.
       Betsie B. Rothermel, Ph.D., Assistant Research Scientist, 
     University of Georgia, Aiken, SC.
       Leanne H. Roulson, M.S., Fisheries Biologist, Bozeman, MT.
       Barbara A. (``Bitty'') Roy, Ph.D., Associate Professor, 
     Ecology University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
       Matthew Rubino, Conservation Biologist/GIS Analyst, SE-GAP/
     Biodiversity and Spatial Information Center, Department of 
     Zoology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
       James Runkle, Ph.D., Professor, Biological Sciences, Wright 
     State University, Dayton, OH.
       Melissa Savage, Ph.D., Emerita Associate Professor, 
     Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, Los 
     Angeles, CA.
       Andrew Schnabel, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Evolution and 
     Ecology, Indiana University South Bend, South Bend, IN.
       Tania Schoennagel, Ph.D., Fire Scientist, University of 
     Colorado, Boulder, CO.

[[Page 8422]]

       Bronwyn Scott, M.S., Invasive Species Ecologist, Ph.D. 
     student, University of Washington, Adjunct Life Science 
     Faculty, Bellevue Community College, Bellevue, WA.
       Bonita Shanafelt, Support Scientist, Forest Service, PNW 
     Research Station, Wenatchee, WA.
       Tony Silvaggio, Ph.D., Environmental Sociology, Department 
     of Sociology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.
       Diane E. Sklensky, Ph.D., Professor, Biological Sciences, 
     Le Moyne College, Syracuse, NY.
       David L. Smith, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Chair, 
     Department of Biological Sciences, Le Moyne College, 
     Syracuse, NY.
       Jennifer Smith, Ph.D., National Center for Ecological 
     Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa 
     Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA.
       Sherilyn G. F. Smith, Ph.D., Associate Professor, 
     Biological Sciences, Le Moyne College, Syracuse, NY.
       Erica Smithwick, Ph.D., Ecosystem Ecologist/Fire Scientist, 
     University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
       Eric B. Snyder, Ph.D., Stream Ecologist, Assistant 
     Professor, Biology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, 
     MI.
       Wayne D. Spencer, Ph.D., Senior Conservation Biologist, 
     Conservation Biology Institute, San Diego, CA.
       Timothy P. Spira, Ph.D., Plant Ecologist, Professor, 
     Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
       Stephen M. Spomer, Research Associate, Department of 
     Entomology, University of Nebaska, Lincoln, NE.
       James R. Spotila, Ph.D., Betz Chair Professor, 
     Environmental Science, Department of Bioscience and 
     Biotechnology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.
       Robert Stiles, Ph.D., Ichthyologist, Department of Biology, 
     Samford University, Birmingham, AL.
       James R. Strittholt, Ph.D., Executive Director, Landscape 
     Ecologist, Conservation Biology Institute, Corvallis, OR.
       Adam Switalski, M.S., Science Coordinator, Wildlands CPR, 
     Missoula, MT.
       Tamara Ticktin, Ph.D., Department of Botany, University of 
     Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI.
       Brian N. Tissot, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Environmental 
     Science, Washington State University Vancouver, Vancouver, 
     WA.
       David W. Tonkyn, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Biological 
     Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
       Stephen C. Trombulak, Ph.D., Professor, Biology and 
     Environmental Studies, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT.
       Robin Tyser, Ph.D., Professor, Ecology, University of 
     Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI.
       Thomas T. Veblen, Ph.D., Professor, Geography University of 
     Colorado, Boulder, CO.
       Frank von Hippel, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Aquatic 
     Ecology, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK.
       Floyd Waddle, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Fayetteville 
     State University, Fayetteville, NC.
       Robert O. Wagner, Ph.D., Wildlife Ecologist, DeRidder, LA.
       Don Waller, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, Department of Botany, 
     University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
       B. Michael Walton, Ph.D., Director, Environmental 
     Institute, Associate Professor, Biological, Geological, and 
     Environmental Sciences, Cleveland State University, 
     Cleveland, OH.
       James H. Warner, Ph.D., Ecologist, Professor Emeritus, 
     Biology, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI.
       Peter Warner, M.A., Ecology, Environmental Scientist, 
     California Department of Parks & Recreation, Little River, 
     CA.
       Vicki Watson, Ph.D., Professor and Watershed Ecologist, 
     University of Montana, Missoula, MT.
       Tom Wessels, M.S., Professor, Ecology, Antioch New England 
     Graduate School, Keene, NH.
       Cindy Deacon Williams, Fisheries Biologist, Headwaters, 
     Ashland, OR.
       Jack E. Williams, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Trout Unlimited, 
     Medford, OR.

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an excerpt from this letter because 
it illustrates the need for us to carefully consider what we are doing 
if we pass this bill.
  ``Although logging and replanting may seem like a reasonable way to 
clean up and restore forests, after disturbances like wildland fires, 
such activity would actually slow the natural recovery of forests and 
its streams and creatures within them. For example, no substantive 
evidence supports the idea that fire-adapted forests might be improved 
by logging after fire. In fact, many carefully conducted studies have 
concluded just the opposite.''
  Mr. Speaker, if Congress wants to give itself adequate time to 
investigate the evidence and debate this complex and important issue, 
it will put this bill aside. To do otherwise would ignore the voices of 
some forest management experts and scientists who contend that this 
bill will make our forests more vulnerable to fire.
  At the same time, approving this bill would needlessly undermine the 
Federal laws put in place to balance the interests of industry with 
those of the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the chairman 
of the subcommittee, as well as the sponsor of the bill, and recognized 
as probably one of our experts on forest life and forest health in this 
Congress.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak on this legislation today. H.R. 4200 comes before you today after 
more than 2 years of work by Representatives Baird, Herseth, Goodlatte, 
Gilchrest, myself and many others.
  Mr. Speaker, we have worked on more than 50 drafts of this 
legislation in an open and inclusive process, deliberately in an 
attempt to produce legislation that carefully reduces the obstacles to 
forest recovery following catastrophic events such as massive 
wildfires, blowdowns and ice storms.
  Mr. Speaker, we moved the bill successfully through the House 
Resources Committee on a 25-13 bipartisan vote, and through the House 
Agriculture Committee by a 36-3 bipartisan vote, easily defeating all 
opposing amendments.
  The Congressional Budget Office score, while showing an initial cost 
of $5 million in the first year, shows the bill will reduce spending by 
the Federal Government by $21 million from 2007 through 2011, and will 
generate hundreds of millions of dollars in net revenue for the land 
management agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, this poster next to me here shows what happens on our 
Federal forests in terms of replanting costs and salvage value.
  The longer you take to replant a forest, the more it costs. The 
longer you wait to salvage, if that is the plan, the less value you get 
out of it. This is pretty simple science, pretty simple and explanatory 
math that explains what we are trying to accomplish here. Salvage 
sooner, plant sooner, restore the forest quicker.
  We come to you today with 146 cosponsors; the support of hundreds of 
organizations and thousands of forest and conservation professionals; 
wildland firefighting organizations, the real ones, the ones that 
actually represent thousands and thousands of the people who put their 
lives on the line to extinguish the fires in our forest. Organizations 
representing labor have weighed in strongly in support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this point letters that 
I have received and others have in support of this legislation.

                                             Federal Wildland Fire


                                          Service Association,

                                                        Inkom, ID.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Walden: The FWFSA is a nation-wide 
     employee association comprised of federal wildland 
     firefighters from the five land-management agencies. Our 
     membership spans the breadth of fire positions from entry-
     level firefighters to Forest Fire & Aviation Chiefs.
       We have been asked to review HR 4200, The Forest Emergency 
     Recovery & Research Act and to provide our thoughts on this 
     legislative proposal. We are cognizant of the frequent debate 
     regarding forest policies and quite candidly often find 
     ourselves in the middle of such debates. However in reviewing 
     HR 4200, we are looking for the impact to our firefighter's 
     health and welfare. We have reviewed documents in support of 
     the measure as well as documents opposing it. With all due 
     respect to those that oppose this legislation, we don't 
     believe many of their positions or conclusions are plausible.
       In looking at the legislation strictly from a wildland 
     firefighter standpoint, this organization believes the Forest 
     Emergency Recovery & Research Act is a common sense approach 
     to addressing a number of complex issues. Therefore we are 
     pleased to offer our support of this measure.
       Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact 
     me.
           With warm regards,
                                                       Casey Judd,
                                                 Business Manager.

[[Page 8423]]

     
                                  ____
                                        International Association,


                                                of Fire Chiefs

                                        Fairfax, VA, May 16, 2006.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, 
         Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Walden: On behalf of the nearly 13,000 chief 
     fire and emergency officers members of the International 
     Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), I would like to commend 
     you for introducing H.R. 4200, the ``Forest Emergency 
     Recovery and Research Act.''
       America's fire service is tasked with responding to 
     emergencies and disasters caused by all hazards, including 
     wildland fires. As such, we understand the importance of 
     healthy forest management activities, such as reducing fuel 
     loads, to decreasing risk to communities and preventing 
     future fires. This legislation will play an important role in 
     these activities by allowing federal forest managers to 
     remove dead and dying timber in a timely manner from areas 
     affected by catastrophic events.
       Please feel free to contact Ken LaSala, Director of 
     Government Relations, at (703) 273-9815 x347, if we can be of 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                          Chief William D. Killen,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                      May 9, 2006.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: We recently read about a group 
     representing a very small handful of wildland firefighters, 
     the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology and 
     their opposition to legislation critical to the future health 
     of our national forests and rural communities. We represent 
     the majority of the organizations and individuals who are the 
     first responders in our national forests to catastrophic 
     natural disasters like wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes and 
     ice storms. We strongly support and endorse the bipartisan 
     Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act (HR 4200) 
     introduced by Representatives Greg Walden (R-OR), Brian Baird 
     (D-WA) and Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) and cosponsored by 145 of 
     their colleagues. Our employees are the firefighters, 
     airplane and helicopter pilots, hazard tree fallers, and 
     support personnel who put their lives on the line as they 
     respond to disasters in our national forests. Natural 
     catastrophes impact our nation's treasured forests on a 
     regular basis. Wildfires, tornadoes, ice storms, bug 
     infestations and windstorms are frequent occurrences which 
     often leave our national forests dead and in need of recovery 
     and restoration. HR 4200 would deliver the critical, science-
     based tools needed to repair these forests after disaster 
     strikes them.
       When dead and dying timber is left to rot in our national 
     forests, excessive fuel loads build which result in hotter, 
     faster burning, uncontrollable wildfires. The fuels and 
     intense wildfires they produce not only impair the 
     environmental health of our forests, watersheds and airsheds; 
     they also pose significantly greater danger to our 
     firefighters and the communities they try to protect. Current 
     law simply doesn't allow the science-based, proven and quick 
     treatment of our forests after a catastrophic act of nature 
     damages them, but HR 4200 would provide the badly needed 
     tools to our professional forest managers who would decide 
     the best course of action after a disaster occurs. It is 
     critical to the future of these forests, and to the 
     communities affected by their health, that federal land 
     managers are able to rapidly assess damage, determine 
     environmentally sound action plans and get to work recovering 
     damaged forests.
       Another significant benefit of this legislation is that it 
     encourages public participation, follows an overwhelmingly 
     bipartisan and congressionally approved appeals and 
     litigation process and requires collaboration with states, 
     local governments, tribes, colleges and universities, and 
     other interested parties.
       When it comes to the health of our national forests as well 
     as the health of our firefighters and other first responders, 
     we have a responsibility to get to work restoring lands 
     damaged by catastrophe. The Forest Emergency Recovery and 
     Research Act would help do just that. We are united in our 
     strong support of it and urge the House to pass it as soon as 
     possible.
           Sincerely,
       Debbie Miley, Executive Secretary, National Wildfire 
     Suppression Association.
       Tom Eversole, Executive Director, American Helicopter 
     Services & Aerial Firefighting Association.
       Mike Wheelock, President, National Environmental Fuels 
     Association.
       Bruce Ferguson, President, Ferguson Management Company.
       Don Pollard, President, GFP Inc.
       Michael Fahey, President, Columbia Helicopters Inc.
       BL Kafman President, Croman Corp.
       John Bennett, President, Northwest Contract Firefighters 
     Association.
       Eric Helpenstell, Operations Manager, Pacific Wildfire 
     International.
       John Bennett, President, Enterprise Unlimited.
       Rick Dice, President, PatRick Corp.
       Rich Denker, Executive Director, Western Forest Fire 
     Services Association.
       Shari Downhill, President, N.W. Timber Fallers Inc.
       Nelda Herman, President, Oregon Firefighting Contractors 
     Association.
       Don Moss, President, Strike Back.
       Eric Helpenstell, President, Pacific Wildfire.
       Paul Washburn, President, Washburn Contract Services Inc.
       Mike Wheelock, President, Grayback Forestry.
       Mark Gibson, General Manager, TL Forest Products.

  Mr. Speaker, let me read from the Federal Wildland Fire Service 
Organization and what they said about H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency 
Recovery and Research Act. They were asked to review the bill, and they 
did, and they provided their thoughts on this legislative proposal.
  ``We are cognizant of the frequent debate regarding forest policies, 
and quite candidly often find ourselves in the middle of such debates. 
However, in reviewing H.R. 4200, we are looking for the impact to our 
firefighters' health and welfare. We have reviewed documents in support 
of the measure, as well as documents opposing it.''

                              {time}  1100

  With all due respect to those that oppose this legislation, we don't 
believe many of their positions or conclusions are plausible. In 
looking at the legislation strictly from a wildland firefighters 
standpoint, this organization believes the Forest Emergency Recovery 
and Research Act is a commonsense approach to addressing a number of 
complex issues. Therefore, we are pleased to offer our support of this 
measure.
  This is from the Federal Wildland Fire Service Association, the real 
association that represents firefighters.
  From the International Association of Fire Chiefs, they write: 
America's Fire Service is tasked with responding to emergencies and 
disasters caused by all hazards including wildland fires. As such, we 
understand the importance of healthy forest management activities such 
as reducing fuel loads to decreasing risk to communities and preventing 
future fires. This legislation will play an important role in these 
activities by allowing Federal forest managers to remove dead and dying 
timber in a timely manner from areas affected by catastrophic events.
  The International Association of Fire Chiefs. I have a letter here 
signed by organizations representing 12,000 firefighting professionals 
and 300 companies that do the day-to-day tough work out in our forests 
to make them healthier, to put out the fires to save lives and save 
communities. They have reviewed this legislation; they understand it; 
their lives are on the line, and they support it. We have held nine 
hearings on this issue. We asked the Nation's leading scientists and 
foresters for their input. We asked the Government Accountability 
Office for their assistance. We traveled to forests from Oregon to 
Georgia, from Washington State to South Dakota. We consulted with 
tribal land managers and fish and wildlife organizations, and we 
learned much in this process.
  First, we learned that the science of forest recovery is a mixed bag, 
so the legislation proposes the most significant increase in forest 
research put forward in a decade or more. We want to continually use 
science to improve our practices, to improve our practices. So we call 
for more research, we set up the way to do it, and we fund it in this 
legislation. We embrace scientific research and improve stewardship 
that comes from it.
  Second, we learned that every non-Federal forest manager in the 
Nation, county, State, tribal, and private, has the ability to move 
more quickly after a fire or blowdown to remove the debris and restore 
the land. The forest practices used by these land managers have been 
developed and honed by trial and error over the centuries and have 
become environmentally and economically sound and successful. While 
these proven practices allow State and private land managers to act in 
a matter of weeks, the Federal process can take years.

[[Page 8424]]

  Let me show you here an example from my State of Oregon in the 
Willamette National Forest. These are two different fire scenarios, but 
they tell the story of what happens. This is the Warner Creek fire in 
the Willamette National Forest. Thirteen years later, no restoration. 
This is the forest America gets. This is the stewardship current law 
allows. This is what happens today and why we want to change the law. 
This is what happens when you can get in and manage. So this too 
happens. It is just we have got a million acres backlog like this. We 
are not being responsible stewards when we could get forests such as 
that.
  Third, while the science itself may offer competing views, there is 
broad agreement that if the decision is made in a forest to remove dead 
or dying trees and replant, quick action is best. So the conflicting 
science says do different things, manage differently, look at slopes, 
look at plant association types and all that. But if you are going to 
act, it makes more sense to act quicker rather than later.
  Fourth, as Americans we look at our wood products. Seats in this 
House are made from wood and leather. Our homes, our furniture. We are 
developing biomass facilities to produce energy. And, if we can't get 
the wood here in the United States, then we import it from abroad, 
where I daresay environmental laws are lax. So if you are going to use 
wood, doesn't it make sense to first use the burned dead wood, the 
burned dead trees rather than to cut down the green ones?
  Fifth, we learned it is important to leave behind snags and other 
debris, even if you harvest some of the trees. The birds, wildlife, and 
insects need a home, too, and this legislation directly provides for 
this need.
  We also heard from groups that plantation forests are not 
appropriate, and we agree. This legislation specifically and clearly 
speaks to this issue as well. In addition, the bill requires 100 
percent compliance with existing forest plans, plans developed by the 
agencies locally, scientifically, with complete public input that 
comply with all environmental laws. We waive no environmental laws in 
this legislation. If an activity is not allowed in the forest, it would 
not be allowed as a result of this legislation.
  Sixth, we learned from the GAO that on Federal forests of America, 
there is a million-acre backlog of untreated lands that need 
reforestation recovery work. The chief of the Forest Service testified 
that if he had the authority contained in this legislation, he would be 
able to generate the revenue needed to pay for forest recovery and 
restoration needs. He also testified that while he was able to use the 
authority in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to aid in the recovery 
efforts after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the authorities in this 
measure would have aided their work even more.
  In the months since the hurricanes struck the South, the Congress and 
the public have pummeled Federal agencies for failing to act quickly to 
clean up devastated areas. Yet it can take 3\1/2\ years for the Forest 
Service to finally get the permission from a Federal court to cut a 
burned dead tree in Oregon, and then most of the trees have lost their 
value.
  The Eyerly fire from 2002 is a perfect example of what we face. This 
fire burned in 2002. It claimed thousands of acres; to be exact, 23,573 
acres. Three years later, reforestation actions began, restoration 
actions began, and then only on 1,045 acres. And as of today, only 645 
acres are treated. These are American forests. This is what happens 
after a catastrophic event. Can you imagine in the South if we said 
after a hurricane we are going to wait 3 years to do the cleanup? 
Nobody would tolerate that. And yet in the forests of America we allow 
it to occur and we ignore it. And that is wrong, and this legislation 
would change that.
  People in my State of Oregon don't accept the notion that it should 
take 3 years to clean up after a catastrophic fire. They want green 
healthy forests restored. They understand that if the trees have value 
and it is appropriate to remove them and there is a public process that 
allows for that, including appeal which our bill does, then move 
forward. Cut the trees while they have value, if that is what the plan 
allows for, and if you follow the environmental rules which our bill 
requires.
  But remember, H.R. 4200 does not mandate a single tree be cut. It 
doesn't say that. Its expedited procedures can only be used if the 
agency can first demonstrate that there is an emergency and they need 
to act quickly. The public still has the right to appeal 
administratively and judicially. And even if this bill becomes law, 
there will still be more public involvement in the management of 
Federal lands than there is on State, county, or tribal lands. And it 
could still take the Federal agency four or five times as long to 
implement the recovery plans as these other entities.
  And some will say, well, what about this definition of emergency? If 
you don't like the definition of the emergency in our bill, then you 
had better change the definition of an emergency under the Federal 
Emergency Management Act, because they are the same. It is the same 
concept. An emergency in Florida, an emergency in Mississippi or 
Louisiana, shouldn't be any different than an emergency in our Federal 
forests. We are the stewards of the future for those forests. Kids and 
grandkids expect us to go in and do the management that the plans that 
have been developed in the public process call for and that we should 
move forward.
  I appreciate the rule under which this bill is coming to the floor 
that allows for that full and open debate and the consideration of 
competing amendments, because this is a debate America needs to have. 
It is a debate I am proud to have because this legislation is good for 
the future of our country and forests.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).
  Ms. HERSETH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of the resolution in H.R. 4200, 
the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. I have been working on 
this legislation for many months with Chairman Walden, with 
Representative Baird, Chairman Goodlatte, and many others, and I have 
appreciated their leadership on this important issue.
  I serve on both the House Resources and Agriculture Committees, and 
have been able to consider this legislation from both seats. H.R. 4200 
has been through numerous congressional hearings, including field 
hearings, extensive discussions on language and provisions, two 
committee markups, and multiple adjustments along the way. The process 
has been open and responsive to many of the concerns raised by the 
bill's opponents.
  When I first began discussing this bill with others, the 
conversations started with the recognition that our country's forest 
management system as it pertains to the aftermath of fires, hurricanes, 
and beetle infestations or other events is critically broken. Forest 
managers often have the knowledge but not the ability to respond, 
unlike their State, tribal, or county counterparts.
  In the face of this paralysis we all recognize that, far from being 
over, another crisis sometimes begins after the fire is extinguished. 
The cost of inaction is high and has been felt in my home State of 
South Dakota.
  In 1988, fire burned a portion of the Custer National Forest in 
northwestern South Dakota. The Forest Service was unable to remove any 
of the dead trees, and in 2002 the same area burned again. The second 
fire consumed most of the organic matter and new generation, inflicting 
even more harm.
  Now, pictured to my right is the reburned area. The white lines of 
ash that you see throughout this photo are what remain from the trees 
downed by the original 1988 fire. Swift action after the first fire 
could have prevented this bare landscape and could have helped the area 
to regenerate.
  I support H.R. 4200 and the corresponding rule not only because of 
the past consequences of inaction, but in anticipation of what the next 
fire season may leave us with. Many of today's forests are subject to 
drought conditions, bug infestations, and in many

[[Page 8425]]

cases an unhealthy and overgrown condition. This is certainly true in 
South Dakota. Fires in places like these pose an extra and unnatural 
risk, high-intensity fires that destroy precious sources and soils and 
in many instances damage any real chance at natural regeneration. The 
need for sensible and responsive management tools is clear.
  To meet this need, H.R. 4200 brings two new and important ideas to 
the table: a fund dedicated to post-catastrophic events science 
research, and the creation of preapproved practices. Science is the 
essential. It should be the touchstone of our management decisions, and 
in the face of new scientific evidence we should adjust the way we 
manage our forests.
  H.R. 4200 recognizes that need and creates a new program to analyze 
and better understand forest regeneration. In fact, the bill requires 
that 10 percent of the proceeds from any recovery project go toward the 
new research activity. This emphasis serves an important check on 
forest management decisions and will complement the bill's numerous 
requirements that all actions must be consistent with the underlying 
forest management plan.
  The other innovative aspect of this legislation is the creation of 
preapproved practices. As we can see from this picture, delays do have 
consequences. Fortunately, this could have been averted with swift 
action, actions enabled, but, as Mr. Walden explained, not required by 
H.R. 4200. With the completion of preapproved techniques and practices, 
we will have a library of approved actions to choose from, each 
tailored to meet unique forest recovery needs, and all of them ready 
for implementation. This process will make the most of the time we have 
before a catastrophe takes place. They will allow managers to consider 
the unique landscape and ecology of each forest. As they are drafted 
and approved, they will provide an important forum for public input and 
oversight. H.R. 4200 includes key provisions to ensure that forest 
management plans are followed. If they are followed, it preserves the 
public's role and in many instances goes even further. The bill 
language actually weighs in against plantation-like restoration 
projects and requires that new temporary roads built to achieve 
recovery projects be obliterated.
  The bill has been strengthened by many changes that I mentioned 
throughout the Resources and Agriculture Committees hearings, and I 
think that my colleagues should support it as is. I encourage them to 
do so without the addition of any further amendments. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 4200, to vote ``yes'' on the rule and on 
passage of the bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the Chairman of 
the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
rule for H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, or 
FERRA. This bill has 147 bipartisan cosponsors, including almost every 
Representative whose district includes substantial amounts of public 
forest land.
  FERRA is designed to help our professional foresters respond to 
disasters such as fires, hurricanes, and ice storms more quickly, while 
providing a dedicated source of funding to conduct research on forest 
recovery.
  In 2003, this House came together on a bipartisan basis and passed 
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. That bill was designed to help our 
public land managers move quickly to help restore forest health across 
our national forests. But with millions of acres of our public forests 
at risk of catastrophic wildfires and still others subject to disasters 
such as Hurricane Katrina, it is obvious that some forests will sustain 
catastrophic damage. The question then becomes what to do about it.

                              {time}  1115

  Our public land managers have been faced with this question over and 
over again in recent years. It has become apparent that the framework 
of existing laws and regulations discourages them from acting quickly 
to restore forests and capture the value of damaged timber.
  The Forest Service has encountered difficulties in my home State when 
insect outbreaks or ice storms have damaged our national forests. 
Between 1992 and 1994, the gypsy moth, a nonnative, invasive pest, 
defoliated over half a million acres of Virginia's national forest, 
killing trees on tens of thousands of acres. Unfortunately, the Forest 
Service conducted salvage sales on a mere 2,700 acres, a very small 
percent of the total.
  Furthermore, the response to the ice and windstorms that hit our 
forests proceeds at a snail's pace, and it can take the NEPA from 6 
months to several years to move forward with a salvage and recovery 
project. Even as the agency has attempted to use administrative rules 
to move more quickly, radical environmental groups who oppose all 
timber harvest on our public lands have sued to force even small 
projects through cumbersome appeals processes.
  H.R. 4200 would help provide some assurance that restoration projects 
would at least be considered in a timely fashion.
  I have worked closely with the bill's bipartisan lead sponsors, my 
friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentlewoman from South 
Dakota (Ms. Herseth) on this bill. The final version before you today 
reflects months of work and countless revisions to ensure that the bill 
protects the environment while ensuring that forest recovery can take 
place while damaged trees still have value.
  That is why there is broad support for H.R. 4200 within the private 
sector where it has been endorsed by more than 50 organizations, 
including professional resource managers and sportsmen's groups.
  My belief is that H.R. 4200 provides a balanced approach to forest 
recovery while sending Federal land managers a clear signal that forest 
recovery should be a priority. Delays result in wasted timber 
resources, degraded environmental conditions, and increased costs for 
taxpayers. Projects which could have paid for themselves, provided 
valuable timber to local industry, and help put our forests on the road 
to recovery wind up delayed to the point where the timber is valueless. 
Adjacent private landowners meanwhile absorb the risk as national 
forests become the source of future insect epidemics and wildfires.
  H.R. 4200 also focuses on improving the science behind forest 
recovery, and it does not waive a single environmental law. It requires 
consideration and, if appropriate, implementation of expedited 
environmental review to ensure that projects are documented and 
implemented in a timely fashion.
  As Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth told the Committee on 
Agriculture, ``H.R. 4200 would provide direction for rapid response to 
catastrophic events and allow managers and partners to spend less time 
planning and more time doing.''
  Recovering forests quickly after a disaster is common sense. Our bill 
ensures that the Forest Service will take these commonsense measures 
and back them up with sound science.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the accompanying 
legislation.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  The Ouachita National Forest, part of which is in my district, covers 
1.8 million acres in central Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma. It is 
about 70 degrees right now in Oklahoma, but in December of 2000, it was 
not so pleasant, as you can see by the photo.
  A major ice storm hit approximately 340,000 acres in the Ouachita 
Mountains, closing State highways and county roads. In recovering from 
the storm, the Forest Service obtained the approval of alternative 
arrangements under the National Environmental Policy Act. Alternative 
arrangements must be approved by the White House and have only been 
used a handful of times to allow a quick response to catastrophic 
events such as the Ouachita

[[Page 8426]]

ice storm. These arrangements allowed action on roughly 66,000 acres to 
reduce fuels and the risk of wildfire in the areas posing the greatest 
threat to public safety and private property.
  The area within the alternative arrangements zone included 1,862 
homes and 23 churches in my district. About 100 million boardfeet of 
timber was harvested; less than a third of that was damaged.
  Alternative arrangements worked, at least for the acreage that was 
treated, but the White House simply does not have the time or the staff 
needed to respond to every catastrophic event. H.R. 4200, the Forest 
Emergency Recovery and Research Act, does this.
  Ice storms and other devastating events will continue to happen. We 
need to make streamlined recovery available to public land managers.
  The Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act would help to make 
certain the next ice storm in the Ouachita National Forest and other 
parts of the country are responsibly restored.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the rule and overall 
bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. The Forest 
Emergency Recovery and Research Act is a great piece of legislation. 
Not only is it going to be good for our forests and for our 
environment, it saves the taxpayers money as well.
  This will reduce spending by about $21 million from 2007 to 2011 and 
$23 million from 2007 through 2016. In addition, the CBO has stated 
that over $122 million in additional receipts will be generated by the 
agencies. This is money that will then be available for restoration, 
reforestation and additional research.
  As a result of catastrophic events and natural disasters, there are 
over 1 million acres of public land in need of reforestation. My home 
State of Arizona had a devastating fire a couple of years ago, burning 
over 400,000 acres. Much of that acreage is in Arizona.
  I happened to drive over the weekend to my hometown of Snowflake and 
to see the forest that was devastated by that fire or those fires that 
is still yet to recover at all because we have not had people go in and 
actually manage the forests as it ought to be managed.
  This legislation will help cut through that red tape. It will save 
agency money. It will save the taxpayers money, and with $21 million in 
savings over 5 years, the opportunity to restore thousands more acres, 
this is the answer to what we have been looking for.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and my dear friend 
Congressman Walden and colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their 
work on this.
  I come to this bill as someone who has a long and proud history of 
concern for the environment. I would compare my environmental record to 
anyone in this body.
  I also represent a district that is one of the 10 most heavily 
forested districts in the United States of America. In parts of my 
district, certain counties, the unemployment rate is still in double 
digits. Small timber communities have been devastated over the past 
years by cutbacks in timber harvest and other impacts.
  This bill is a commonsense bill. We use wood. Wood has to come from 
somewhere. The choice before us is, shall we get it from dead trees or 
from live trees? Shall we get it from domestic forests where we have 
environmental and labor standards, or shall we get it from rainforests 
or the Russian Taiga where there are virtually no environmental 
standards?
  It is good for the environment, I believe, to harvest dead trees in a 
way that reduces erosion, that expedites reforestation with diverse 
natural species.
  My dear friend from California mentioned earlier, and I recognize 
there are questions about this on both sides, but my dear friend 
suggested that we might want to wait. As you heard from Mr. Walden, we 
have had a number of hearings on this. More impressively still, the 
15,000-member-strong Society of American Foresters has endorsed this 
bill.
  The fact is we do not lack evidence that this can be done. We have 
abundant evidence that it can be done responsibly. Hundreds of 
thousands of acres of land across this country have been harvested and 
reforested and is vibrant today.
  We also have evidence from natural events. I happen to represent 
Mount St. Helens. The picture beside me shows an area of industrial 
forestland harvested post-St. Helens eruption, reforested by the 
Weyerhaeuser Company. Adjacent to it is the national monument. You can 
see clearly trees have grown more rapidly in the area that was 
harvested and reforested.
  Our bill specifically says that in a national forest you not replant 
in a plantation style, but there can be no doubt that evidence is clear 
that you can have more rapid regeneration following harvests and 
replanting than in an area that is left undisturbed.
  Our bill, I should emphasize, protects national monuments and 
wilderness areas. No impact from this bill on those areas.
  The bill has also been endorsed by labor unions, the Association of 
Western Pulp and Paperworkers, the carpenters and others. Furthermore, 
it has the support of professional firefighters. The people whose lives 
depend on the situation in the woods have recognized that this bill has 
merit.
  Now, some have said, well, if you replant in the wrong way, you can 
increase fire risk. We agree, but our bill calls for you to replant in 
a right way that does not increase fire risk. The natural requirements 
of forest plans require the removal of downed timber, thereby further 
reducing the fire risk.
  When this bill came before the Rules Committee yesterday, my 
colleague Congressman Walden, Ms. Herseth and I and others encouraged 
that these four amendments be allowed. We disagree with them. We think 
they are counterproductive, but we think it is important to have an 
open debate.
  I am very proud of this legislation. If people would get past the 
rhetoric and ask themselves this simple question, if we are going to 
use wood, does it make sense to get it from dead trees or live trees; 
and if we can harvest it responsibly, gain economic benefit from doing 
so, if we do so correctly, benefit the environment as well by reducing 
erosion and restoring habitat more rapidly, should we not do so?
  Existing law prohibits us from doing that. That is why we are moving 
to change the law. We believe we can improve on existing law. We 
believe there is evidence where existing law has actually harmed the 
environment, has been economically counterproductive, and we believe 
this commonsense legislation improves upon that.
  So I urge passage of this rule, and I urge passage of this 
legislation when it comes to the floor, and I urge rejection of the 
four amendments. Though I am glad they were ruled in order, we should 
vote them down.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of H.R. 
4200, the Forest Emergency Research and Recovery Act. I tell you, is it 
not good to see common sense coming out on both sides and good things 
prevail?
  Well, excessive red tape prevents the Forest Service from being the 
best possible stewards of our public lands. While we have heard from 
many that there is no need to move quickly after a catastrophic event, 
here is an outline of the situation we face in the Gulf States. I think 
you will see we do need to move quickly, and inaction is not 
acceptable.
  The Gulf States are booming with newcomers, and many are moving in 
and living near the national forests. Hurricanes have hit and will hit, 
and when they do, they knock down trees, just as they did last fall. 
Shortly after the hurricane season ends, fire season begins.
  Forest managers need to remove the dead trees after a hurricane to 
reduce

[[Page 8427]]

the chances for catastrophic fires, and because the wood rots quickly 
in this region, management actions need to occur within months, not 
years, as is often the case. H.R. 4200 will allow for expedited cleanup 
of excess wood debris that are actually fuels.
  If a fire does occur, it is also important to move quickly to remove 
dead trees to reduce the potential for insect epidemics, which have 
happened and do happen. H.R. 4200 will allow for the expedited removal 
of burned, dead trees.
  In addition, because of the rapid growth of brush and competing 
vegetation after a catastrophic event, the planting of seedlings needs 
to happen quickly for it to be successful.
  Right here in my district in east Texas, we have one of the best 
forestry schools in the entire world, and that is at Stephen F. Austin 
University. James Hull, the State forester to the State of Texas said 
on Monday in an editorial in the Houston Chronicle, ``Red tape forces 
Federal agencies to wait as long as 2 years before properly managing 
damaged forests afflicted by wildfires and hurricanes. With every 
passing day, there are increased risks. We must adjust current 
regulations in ways to promote healthy habitat, increased water and air 
quality and growth of new trees.''
  Not to mention that we have a couple of industries that are willing 
to use the debris in order to generate energy to make that go so that 
we can free up electricity and natural gas and oil.
  I agree with the Texas State forester. I do urge my colleagues, this 
is the right thing to do. It is good for all of us. It is good for 
America, and it is good for the forests.

                              {time}  1130

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. First, we had the clean 
skies bill, that got more pollution; then we had the deficit reduction 
bill, and we had more deficit; now we have the forest recovery bill, 
which assures that we will be using less science and less common sense 
by the American people to make decisions of where and how to do forest 
recovery plans.
  This has largely been a red-herring debate to date. This is not a 
question whether we are going to have forest recovery plans and places 
to replant and places to harvest deadwood. What it is a debate about is 
where we do these recovery plans and how we do these recovery plans. 
This bill, as currently structured, guarantees two things: We will at 
times do them in the wrong place and we will at times do them in the 
wrong way.
  It does that by a repeated continuation of the terrible habit this 
Congress has gotten into, which is to repeal our environmental 
protection laws. And that is why every single environmental group 
dedicated to the preservation of our forests is very strongly opposed 
to this bill.
  Now, how is it going to be the wrong place and the wrong way? First, 
it will assure these are sometimes done in the wrong way by gutting the 
insistence that we use science. Right now, existing rules require 
bureaucracies to use science when they make decisions; to not go by 
some cookie-cutter approach that some bureaucrat in Washington sets out 
and says you can do this, that, and the other all across the Rocky 
Mountains, without ever stepping foot in the area where they are going 
to do this harvesting and replanting. Existing law requires that.
  This law, through a quite clever shell game, guts that requirement 
that Americans will use science when these decisions are made. What it 
does is it essentially says that NEPA requirements, the National 
Environmental Protection Act requirements, to use science when we make 
these decisions where to cut, which trees to cut, and how to replant. 
And it does that on page 24, in a very clever way.
  It doesn't say we gut NEPA. It doesn't say we repeal the National 
Environmental Protection Act. What it says, and I quote, ``Satisfaction 
of NEPA requirements. The following activities are deemed to satisfy 
the requirements of section 102 of the National Environmental Policy 
Act.'' What they say is, what you do here just wipes away the 
requirements of NEPA because we deem it complied with.
  We care about our forests in Washington State. The Kettle roadless 
area in eastern Washington, the Eagle Cap roadless area in western 
Washington. We want to insist that our Federal agencies use science. 
This bill removes one of the fundamental pillars of making these 
decisions. It removes science. So it does something to make sure that 
we do something the wrong way.
  But it also does something in the wrong place, and I will get to that 
when my amendment comes to preserve the roadless areas of our forests.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, here is a real-world example of why this 
legislation is so crucially important. In 1995, a storm leveled 30,000 
acres of forestland in the northern California district I represent. 
This blowdown increased the fuel load in the forest by as much as 500 
percent. Immediate action was needed to protect the landscape and, 
thereby, communities from catastrophic fire.
  Forest Service experts said it is not a matter of if a fire will 
occur, but how extensive the damage will be unless restoration proceeds 
immediately. But timely restoration work was mired in paperwork, 
appeals, and frivolous litigation. Four years later, the Megram fire 
swept through the area, fueled by the timber that was left to die on 
the forest floor. Thousands of acres that could have been protected 
were destroyed and will take a lifetime to recover.
  These two photos demonstrate the consequences of delay and inaction. 
This first photo, taken in 2004, shows the results of prompt 
reforestation efforts following the volcano fire of 1960. In 1960, 
Federal managers were able to act quickly and reforestation was 
successful. Today, foresters cannot act quickly because of red tape, 
and destroyed landscapes that you see on the left is the result. This 
other photo, taken in the Tahoe National Forest, shows just how deadly 
catastrophic fire can be to the forests and surrounding environments.
  Mr. Speaker, delay is a recipe for disaster. Swift action is needed 
to protect our forests and communities from future tragedies like that 
which occurred in my district. I urge support for the rule and H.R. 
4200.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we are here talking today about 
salvage logging. And let us first of all be clear that salvage logging 
is taking place on our public lands. And if you want a lot more salvage 
logging, this is the bill to be for. The CBO says 40 percent more 
salvage logging.
  Now, why is that a concern? Salvage logging has been found to impede 
forest regeneration. Now, that doesn't take a scientist to figure that 
out. When you have bulldozers and skidders and you are dragging trees 
that have been burned and you are dragging them through the forest, you 
are hurting the ability of that forest to regenerate. Seedlings that 
are on the ground are being destroyed. So salvage logging hurts the 
ability of the forest to regrow itself.
  It damages riparian areas. It damages riparian areas. So we are 
talking here about streams, where if you cut the forests and take these 
logs out that you will not then have the ability to then allow these 
streams to produce clean water. They silt up after this kind of salvage 
logging that occurs.
  Salvage logging also introduces and spreads invasive species, it 
causes erosion, and it degrades water quality. This is what our forests 
are all about. Our forests, we use them as watersheds. They supply us 
clean water. What this bill is all about is degrading those watersheds. 
That is what is going on here today, and they do not want to talk about 
it.
  They come and say, oh, no laws, no laws will be waived. Well, folks, 
let me tell you, this legislation exempts and waives the National 
Environmental

[[Page 8428]]

Policy Act, one of the best planning laws that has been on the books 
for 30 years; the Endangered Species Act, which has been on the books 
for 30 years; the National Historic Preservation Act and the Clean 
Water Act. These are laws that say look before you leap. Let us let the 
public be involved, let us study what we are doing before we jump into 
these situations. Significant laws are being waived, and don't believe 
what they are telling you on the other side.
  Now, we have in place adequate laws and regulations to handle 
emergency situations. This bill actually has the word ``emergency'' in 
it, implying that there is some emergency. We had a big emergency in 
this country, folks. It was Katrina, and it created one of the biggest 
salvage situations. And guess what? Down in Louisiana and Mississippi, 
they are moving forward. They are doing the salvage. They do not need a 
new law. They have done it. And if there is a real emergency, the 
agencies can go to the Council on Environmental Quality and get a 
waiver. This has never been turned down by the Council on Environmental 
Quality.
  So what are we talking about here? We are talking about science. The 
majority of peer-reviewed science says that salvage logging is not good 
for our forests. And what do these scientists say? It increases the 
forest-fire risk and it decreases forest regeneration.
  I offered an amendment in the committee, and this amendment will be 
on the floor today. That amendment says, well, if we are going to go by 
the science, which you hear talk of science on the other side, then the 
Secretary has to certify on every project. The Secretary will certify 
the project would not increase the forest-fire risk or decrease forest 
regeneration, hurt the seedlings. And the chairman and all of the 
others here are going to vote that amendment down. So I think that 
tells you what is really going on.
  We are not supporting what science says we should be doing with our 
forests. The claims are made that we are under regular order. As the 
chairman knows, this is one of the most outrageous situations to date. 
A major bill is before our Committee on Resources, the fisheries bill, 
and here we get 20 minutes for the major committee on the floor and we 
are over, running back and forth to a markup in the committee, and 
having this debate on the floor. This is not the regular order. This is 
an outrage, what is going on here, and I would hope that the chairman 
would object to this.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for a factual clarification.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the 
gentleman was in error when he quoted the Congressional Budget Office. 
This increase would not increase salvage logging by 40 percent. It 
increases the receipts from the logging that would take place that 
would be following the forest management plans, because the timber 
wouldn't deteriorate.
  That is the whole point here. We will get more money out if they make 
a decision to cut. It doesn't mean you are going to cut more trees. So 
I just wanted to put that on the record, and I submit the CBO cost 
estimate for the Record:
     H.R. 4200--Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act
       Summary: H.R. 4200 would establish new procedures for 
     responding to catastrophic events causing damage to certain 
     federal land. The legislation would direct the Secretaries of 
     Agriculture and the Interior to establish research protocols 
     for assessing methods of restoring federal land following 
     such events and would specify expedited procedures for 
     implementing projects to rehabilitate that land, which could 
     include timber harvests.
       CBO expects that enacting H.R. 4200 would increase direct 
     spending by $5 million in 2007, but would reduce it by $21 
     million over the 2007-2011 period and by $23 million over the 
     2007-2016 period. Enacting the bill would not affect 
     revenues.
       H.R. 4200 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
     (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
     governments. Federal assistance authorized by this bill would 
     benefit state, local, and tribal governments.
       Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: For this 
     estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 4200 will be enacted near the 
     start of fiscal year 2007. The estimated budgetary impact of 
     H.R. 4200 is shown in the following table. The costs of this 
     legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural 
     resources and environment) and 800 (general government).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
 
Research Protocols and Pre-Approved Management Practices:
    Estimated Budget Authority................................        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................        5       -1       -2       -2        0        0        0        0        0        0
Receipts from Timber Salvage Sales:
    Estimated Budget Authority................................        0       -4       -9      -15      -15      -15      -16      -16      -16      -16
    Estimated Outlays.........................................        0       -4       -9      -15      -15      -15      -16      -16      -16      -16
Spending of Receipts from Timber Salvage Sales:
    Estimated Budget Authority................................        0        3        7       11       11       11       12       12       12       12
    Estimated Outlays.........................................        0        0        2        5        8       10       11       12       12       12
Payments to States:
    Estimated Budget Authority................................        0        1        2        4        4        4        4        4        4        4
    Estimated Outlays.........................................        0        0        1        2        4        4        4        4        4        4
    Total:
        Estimated Budget Authority............................        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0
        Estimated Outlays.....................................        5       -5       -8      -10       -3       -1       -1        0        0        0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--* = less than $500,000.

       Basis of Estimate: H.R. 4200 would establish new procedures 
     to expedite projects to stabilize and rehabilitate federal 
     land following catastrophic events such as fires, floods, 
     explosions, and other disasters that cause significant 
     damage. Such projects might include removing damaged, 
     diseased, or insect-infested forest vegetation to improve the 
     health of such land. Under the bill, the Secretaries of 
     Agriculture and the Interior would have discretion over when 
     to use those expedited procedures to accelerate the 
     implementation of certain projects which, in some cases, 
     could include the sale of salvageable timber that has been 
     damaged by qualifying catastrophic events.
       CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4200 would increase direct 
     spending by $5 million in 2007, but would reduce it by $21 
     million over the 2007-2011 period and by $23 million over the 
     2007-2016 period. The 2007 cost includes developing research 
     protocols and lists of preapproved management practices that 
     would form the basis for using new expediting procedures 
     specified in the bill. Over the 2008-2016 period, CBO 
     estimates that those expedited procedures would result in a 
     net increase in offsetting receipts (a credit against direct 
     spending) from the sale of salvageable timber and that those 
     increased receipts would be partially offset by increased 
     direct spending for related activities. We also expect that 
     increasing receipts from such sales would increase direct 
     spending for payments to states in which those receipts are 
     generated.


        Research Protocols and Pre-Approved Management Practices

       The bill would direct the two Secretaries to develop 
     research protocols to determine the effectiveness of land 
     management practices following catastrophic events. To 
     complete that task, the Secretaries could enter into 
     cooperative agreements with land-grant colleges and 
     universities. The bill also would direct the Secretaries to 
     prepare lists of pre-approved management practices that could 
     be implemented immediately after a catastrophic event.
       Based on information from the Forest Service and the 
     Department of the Interior (DOI), CBO estimates that 
     developing the required protocols and lists would cost $5 
     million in 2007. Although H.R. 4200 would not provide new 
     funding for those activities, the legislation would allow the 
     Secretaries to use existing balances from a variety of 
     permanently appropriated funds to complete the proposed 
     tasks. Under current law, we expect those funds would be 
     spent over several

[[Page 8429]]

     years starting in 2008. Thus, relative to current law, we 
     expect that enacting H.R. 4200 would increase direct spending 
     by $5 million in 2007, but that increase would be fully 
     offset by forgone spending over the 2008-2010 period.


                   Receipts from Timber Salvage Sales

       CBO estimates that allowing the Secretaries to use 
     expedited procedures to implement land management practices 
     following qualified catastrophic events would increase 
     offsetting receipts from the sale of salvageable timber. CBO 
     expects the proposed procedures would allow the agencies to 
     hold such sales at least several months and possibly years 
     sooner than under current law. According to the Forest 
     Service and DOI, holding those sales before the damaged 
     timber begins to substantially deteriorate would increase the 
     value and volume of salvageable timber, thereby increasing 
     the amount that timber harvesters would be willing to pay for 
     it.
       Under current law, CBO estimates that receipts from salvage 
     sales following catastrophic events average between $35 
     million and $40 million annually. Based on information from 
     the Forest Service about rates of deterioration and other key 
     factors, CBO estimates that accelerating salvage sales under 
     H.R. 4200 would increase proceeds from those sales, on 
     average, by about 40 percent. Assuming the agencies would 
     phase in the use of the new procedures over several years, we 
     estimate that increases in receipts would begin in 2008 and 
     total $122 million over the 2008-2016 period.


             Spending of Receipts from Timber Salvage Sales

       Under H.R. 4200, increased receipts could be spent to 
     update research protocols required under the bill, prepare 
     and implement projects following catastrophic events, and 
     monitor the effectiveness of such projects. Based on 
     historical spending patterns for such activities, we expect 
     that there would be a lag between when receipts are collected 
     and subsequently spent. We estimate that spending of 
     increased salvage receipts would total $72 million over the 
     2008-2016 period.


                      Increased Payments to States

       Under current law, states receive payments based on the 
     level of receipts generated from federal timber sales that 
     occur within their boundaries. Starting in fiscal year 2008, 
     states will receive payments equal to 25 percent of receipts 
     generated in the previous year. For this estimate, we assume 
     that receipt-sharing formula would apply to the increased 
     proceeds from the sale of salvageable timber under H.R. 4200.
       Because the Forest Service and DOI have authority to spend 
     100 percent of receipts from timber salvage sales for 
     restoration activities, the source of funding for payments to 
     states is unclear. For this estimate, however, CBO assumes 
     that the two agencies would control spending on restoration 
     activities and use some of the new receipts generated under 
     H.R. 4200 to make those payments, which we estimate would 
     cost $27 million over the 2009-2016 period.
       Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact: H.R. 4200 
     contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
     defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
     tribal governments. Federal assistance authorized by this 
     bill would benefit state, local, and tribal governments.
       Estimate Prepared By: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll. Impact 
     on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller. 
     Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata.
       Estimate Approved By: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  As I noted at the beginning of the debate, 169 scientists, all 
experts in the field, oppose this bill because its policies will impede 
the national forest recovery process. The preponderance of scientific 
literature supports this assumption in their opinion. The letter 
concludes with the following: ``Science provides the best insight into 
the real consequences of our policies and actions.''
  I could not agree more. There seems to be a disconnect between the 
policy recommended in this bill and the consensus among the scientific 
community. For that reason, I cannot support the underlying 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to close what I 
consider to be about 50 minutes of bipartisan support for this 
particular rule and the underlying bill.
  This bill, indeed, would give us the rehabilitation tools to combine 
science and research, preapproved action, and protection of our 
firefighters, which is why the professionals who know and work and run 
our forests are all in support of this particular bill and this action. 
And knowing our goal is to get green and not black forests, and healthy 
trees not dead stumps, I urge all my colleagues to support this rule 
and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________