[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8738-8742]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1404, FEDERAL LAND ASSISTANCE, 
                     MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT ACT

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 281

       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. 1404) to authorize a supplemental funding 
     source for catastrophic emergency wildland fire suppression 
     activities on Department of the Interior and National Forest 
     System lands, to require the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a cohesive wildland 
     fire management strategy, 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 except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment 
     to the bill 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 except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. 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. 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 (Mr. Ross). The gentleman from Colorado is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman

[[Page 8739]]

from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during 
consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous materials.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 281 provides for consideration of H.R. 
1404, the Federal Land Assistance Management and Enhancement, or FLAME, 
Act under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate 
controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources.
  The rule makes in order 13 amendments, which are listed on the Rules 
Committee report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment is 
debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions.
  All Members were given an opportunity to submit amendments to the 
Rules Committee on the bill, and a number of Members on both sides of 
the aisle did so: 21 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee 
on this bill; two amendments were subsequently withdrawn; and three 
amendments were nongermane to the underlying bill. Of the remaining 16, 
13 were made in order, five of those from Republican sponsors. This was 
a very fair rule and a very fair process.
  My district and the State of Colorado are tied closely to the lands 
and landscapes that our citizens interact with on a daily basis. These 
landscapes are majestic and rugged, and define the character of 
Colorado. The FLAME Act ends a cycle of growing costs for fighting 
wildfires. These costs are draining the coffers of our Federal land 
management agencies.
  The character of our wilderness is being tested every summer when 
districts like mine and many others face the threat of wildfires, and 
anxiety grows in the minds of mountain residents and local communities. 
This anxiety has grown in recent years due to the health of forests, 
which has worsened.
  Mr. Speaker, the FLAME Act is a bill of personal interest to me and 
the residents of Colorado. My district, like many Western districts, is 
dealing with a mountain pine beetle outbreak of catastrophic 
proportions. This outbreak has killed millions of acres of lodgepole 
pines, altering the landscape, and has put more Colorado, New Mexico, 
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho communities at risk of wildfire.
  I bring your attention to this picture. This is some land in my 
district in Grand County near Granby, Colorado. My district has many 
tourists coming through it; and I have Vail, Beaver Creek, Copper 
Mountain, Winter Park. Recently, I had somebody who came through in 
July and noticed that many of our trees were red and said, ``Fall comes 
early in Colorado.'' I had to respond that, ``No, it is not fall. Our 
trees are dying.'' This is a typical landscape across many parts of the 
Mountain West of Colorado. The red trees are actually dead or in the 
process of dying, having been felled by the pine beetle. The danger is 
that when we have a forest of dead trees, it is in effect a tinderbox 
and is a major forest fire risk.
  This bill includes amendments in the underlying language that free up 
resources to help address the underlying causes of forest fires rather 
than just after the fact dealing with emergencies.
  The culprit in this particular case, the mountain pine beetle, a 
small little fellow, dendroctonus ponderosae. I have some here, life-
size. Again, not just affecting Colorado, but affecting many areas of 
our Mountain West; and, in addition to the devastation of our forests, 
visually and ecologically, creating a very real risk of forest fires, 
which this bill gives us the ability to begin to address.
  Our land management agencies are working quickly to reduce the 
potential fire risks where communities and wildlands come face to face. 
These wildland-urban interface zones, or WUI zones, are critical in 
decreasing the number and threat of catastrophic wildfires. But our 
agencies simply don't have the resources to effectively respond to the 
risk or the increased risk because of the changes. The Forest Service 
and Bureau of Land Management have multiple environmentally friendly 
projects simply waiting to be funded.
  Fire suppression costs have increased with alarming speed in recent 
years. In 2008, fire suppression costs consumed 46 percent of the 
Forest Service's budget compared to 13 percent in 1991. The account 
established in the FLAME Act frees up capital and resources for needed 
and lasting forest health improvements.
  Mr. Speaker, the beetle epidemic in the West puts Coloradans on the 
front lines of changing climate, which only further strains our 
national land management budgets. Across the Nation, climate and 
weather modeling shows our future to be growing both drier and hotter. 
These models point to extreme intense thunderstorms with insufficient 
quantities of rain.
  Our communities deserve a land management policy that not only 
reflects crucial priorities, but is unimpeded by the costs of frequent 
and overwhelming fires and the crises that arise from time to time. Our 
policy needs to make sure that, as these fires grow in scope and 
number, we are not forced to make hard choices between money and 
safety, between dealing with catastrophes and preventing them from 
occurring. This is exactly what this legislation is designed to do.
  The FLAME Act addresses the anxiety of our communities by removing 
hurdles that currently restrict the Forest Service and BLM's ability to 
proceed with projects. By establishing the FLAME fund, this bill 
separates the increasing costs of fighting fires from the annual budget 
that agencies rely on for maintenance and mitigation. This bill keeps 
the critical budget of--our Forest Service from being consumed by 
potentially just one or two major wildfires each year.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has gained the support of every 
environmentally conscious constituency, from land management agencies 
to environmental and community leaders to local governments. It has 
garnered bipartisan support, as reported out of the Natural Resources 
Committee in the 110th Congress by a voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the importance and the critical 
nature of this legislation to thousands of communities like mine across 
the Nation and to millions of acres of our public lands. This is an 
excellent opportunity to provide necessary resources to our Forest 
Service and BLM so they can do the work that they are meant to do, and 
prevent forest fires from occurring. I urge passage of the bill and the 
rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for the time, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  With the serious conditions in our Nation's forests, drought and more 
and more development closer to our forests, the size and severity of 
wildfires have dramatically increased. The costs to our public lands, 
wildlife, private property, and, most importantly, to human life have 
been tragic.
  Federal fire suppression spending has grown substantially over the 
past several years, with approximately 48 percent of the Department of 
Agriculture's Forest Service budget now accounting for these 
activities. Just over a decade ago, only 18 percent of the Forest 
Service budget was dedicated to fire suppression. Much to the detriment 
of other important programs, the Forest Service and the Department of 
the Interior have been forced to borrow funds from other agency 
accounts to cover these emergency costs. When agencies transfer funds 
from other accounts, they must reimburse those accounts when additional 
funds become available, usually through emergency supplement 
appropriations.
  This legislation that is being brought to the floor today establishes 
a fund

[[Page 8740]]

that will be separate from budgeted wildland fire suppression funding 
for the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. This fund 
will only be used for the suppression of catastrophic emergency 
wildland fires. The annual agency budgets will continue to fund 
anticipated and predicted wildland fire suppression activities. Thus, 
this fund will help ensure that fire prevention resources of the Forest 
Service and the Department of the Interior are not completely 
overwhelmed by emergency firefighting expenses. Appropriations for the 
fund will be based on the average costs incurred by these agencies to 
suppress catastrophic emergency wildland fires over the proceeding 5 
fiscal years.
  Although I support the underlying legislation, I know there is 
concern that the legislation is reactive and not proactive. A number of 
Members in the minority have expressed their concern that the 
legislation only addresses one aspect of the problem, the suppression 
funding side, without providing real relief and dealing with the 
underlying problem to help prevent wildfires. I hope that the Natural 
Resources Committee will review these concerns and work to prevent 
these devastating fires.
  Last week, I had the honor of addressing the International 
Association of Firefighters, IAFF. It was a great honor to stand before 
those courageous men and women to thank them for their noble service to 
the Nation. Firefighters put their lives in danger in order to rescue 
their fellow citizens from peril and to protect our communities. Our 
heartfelt gratitude goes out to them, and I am pleased that the 
underlying legislation recognizes the selfless acts of bravery of these 
men and women by ensuring that our firefighters have the resources 
necessary and readily available to combat the catastrophic fires that 
ravage our public lands and threaten surrounding communities.
  I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Hastings for 
their bipartisan work on the legislation. Unfortunately, in what is 
becoming quite a familiar pattern, the House majority leadership and 
the majority on the Rules Committee continue to block an open debate 
even on noncontroversial legislation.
  This legislation passed the House of Representatives by a unanimous 
voice vote last Congress. That vote clearly shows that this legislation 
has broad support from both sides of the aisle. Yet, the majority is 
apparently so afraid of losing control of the debate that even on 
something with obvious consensus support the majority blocks Members 
from offering amendments to improve the legislation.
  I reviewed some of the amendments blocked by the majority, and I 
cannot understand what is so objectionable. One amendment, for example, 
by Representative Herger would have required that any wildlife 
suppression funds in excess of amounts annually appropriated be made 
available for hazardous fuels reduction projects. Another amendment by 
Ranking Member Hastings that was blocked would have included fire 
prevention activities as part of the fire management strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go into the rest of the amendments, 
but none of them seem so objectionable that the House should be 
prevented from even considering them. The pattern is clear. The pattern 
of procedural unfairness by this majority continues. It is petty and it 
is unfortunate.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, of the 16 amendments that were germane and 
were offered, 13 were made in order, and indeed five of those were by 
Republican sponsors. And I know that the Rules Committee did give every 
consideration to amendments from both sides and indeed allow a 
reasonable number for discussion.

                              {time}  1430

  The issue is an urgent one. By freeing up the pot of money that is 
otherwise able to be used for single events or catastrophes as 
sometimes in the past it has been used for one or two events, it 
prevents ongoing forest maintenance and prevention activities. As my 
colleague from Florida mentioned, this bill does have strong bipartisan 
support. I too would like to applaud Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member 
Hastings for their work in bringing this bill before us.
  Not only my district, but many other parts of the country deserve a 
better equipped agency that can work to address the challenges faced by 
our communities on public lands. The pine beetle epidemic will leave an 
increased risk of forest fire for many years to come. And the further 
effects of climate change will put many more strains on our ecosystems 
and the economy, not just in Colorado, not just for the southern pine 
beetle in Florida, not just in areas that are currently affected, but 
indeed in public lands and areas across our great Nation. In many ways, 
this is one of the costs of climate change which this body talks about 
in other pieces of legislation from time to time.
  I would like to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the former member of 
the Rules Committee, who now is the ranking member of the Resources 
Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good 
friend and former seatmate on the Rules Committee for yielding the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, while I support the underlying goals and indeed the idea 
of this bill, I have fundamental concerns with what is lacking in both 
the bill and the rule.
  This rule and bill have focused on clearing up how to budget for 
fighting forest fires. That is good. But the Democrat leadership is 
averting its eyes and its legislative power from the need to prevent 
forest fires from happening in the first place.
  Under the Democrat majority, not a single hearing has been held on 
wildland fire prevention in this Congress, and only one hearing was 
held in the last Congress. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been 
provided to place more forested land under Federal control. But little 
has been allocated to actively manage these lands or help the Forest 
Service and Department of the Interior clear areas and create firewalls 
between populated areas and potential tinder boxes.
  I note that while this rule has been much more generous, and 
sometimes when I say that with all the closed rules we have had, even 
one amendment would be generous, but while this rule has been much more 
generous in making amendments in order than recent examples, of the 
five amendments that I filed, the two which explicitly address fire 
prevention were not allowed by the Rules Committee, as was Congressman 
Herger's amendment, a commonsense, budget-neutral one that the 
gentleman from Florida pointed out would simply say excess funds in 
this account should go to fire prevention.
  I don't understand what is wrong with even debating it. Keep in mind, 
Mr. Speaker, when we allow these amendments to be made in order, we are 
not saying they are going to pass. We are simply going to say that they 
will be made in order to debate. Why wouldn't we want to have a debate 
that says we have excess funds, and if there is no fires, so there is 
some funds left over, we will put that in fire prevention? Why, for 
goodness' sakes, could we not even debate something like that on the 
floor? But that seems to be a pattern, unfortunately, in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, we immunize our children to prevent illnesses and 
suffering. We treat our homes for termites and other pests to save us 
from expensive extermination and repairs down the line. Farmers spray 
their crops to prevent plant disease and infestation and to produce 
healthy products. Why can't we extend the same principle to our 
forests? Preventing devastating forest fires or reducing their severity 
will save money, property and even lives.
  I note that my friend from Colorado in his opening remarks made 
mention of a forest that is devastated by a beetle. There is nothing in 
this bill that prevents the beetle infestation. Now

[[Page 8741]]

there are some amendments that may address, and frankly my amendments 
that I wanted to offer would address it more fully. I think that this 
bill of carving out something to say that the Forest Service or anybody 
that fights forest fires will have a dedicated sum of money to fund 
those, I think that is good policy. But, once again, this does not 
address the underlying issues, and that is really where we should be 
focusing.
  So I hope in the future my majority colleagues will heed the words of 
the beloved icon of the Forest Service, Smokey the Bear, when he says, 
``Only you can prevent forest fires.''
  With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington had three 
amendments that were ruled in order of the several he submitted before 
the Rules Committee, and those, of course, will be given consideration. 
There are also two amendments that directly relate to our friends, the 
invasive species in this case, dendroctonus ponderosae, and other 
species in other areas.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. Yes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And 
I'm very thankful that you made three of my amendments in order. But as 
I explained in my remarks regarding the Herger amendment, when you make 
an amendment in order, you are not ensuring its passage. All you are 
ensuring is you are going to have a debate on the issue. And so I 
wonder why you wouldn't, because there were some 20 amendments, why 
didn't you make them all in order and then we would have a debate on 
all of them.
  Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, of all individuals, those who have 
served on the Rules Committee are well aware of the functions of that 
committee and have, in fact, in previous sessions of Congress 
undertaken even more severe restrictions on a number of bills. Again, 
with regard to allowing 13 of the 16 amendments that were germane I 
think is an excellent example of the Rules Committee not only doing 
their job but actually working to improve the bill.
  Our land management agencies shouldn't have to choose between 
fighting fires and preventing them or preparing our communities or 
promoting healthier forests. Our agencies should be given the tools 
that allow them to fulfill their mission statements, protecting our 
forests and serving our communities. The FLAME Act addresses these 
problems by providing a source of emergency funds to suppress severe 
fires that pose a threat to life and property. It ensures that during 
fire-fighting seasons when the agencies' budgeted fire suppression 
funds are exhausted, they won't be forced to cut other vital projects, 
indeed prevention-related and forest health-related projects as a 
result.
  I would like to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
wish my friend from Colorado had yielded to me.
  He is right. I served on the Rules Committee for 12 years. And I 
understand what it is like for the majority to have to control their 
agenda. I fully understand that. But this is the people's House. And we 
ought to be able to debate issues on where there may be some 
disagreement.
  Now you're a new Member here. I hope that at some time you will 
enjoy, and I say that in all sincerity, enjoy having a bill on the 
floor under an open rule to debate under the 5-minute rule. Now I'm not 
sure if you know what that is, but that allows every Member to speak 
for 5 minutes on a rule for unlimited time. I see my friend from 
California (Mr. Miller) sitting here. And I remember in my first term 
in 1995, we had some humongous debates on the floor here on forest 
lands, probably some other things. And those debates went well into the 
night. I remember very specifically. And at end of the day, we voted. 
And one side won and one side lost, and we went on to the next issue. 
But the pattern in this Congress has been not even to have a debate. I 
don't expect you to totally agree with me. You're new here. Maybe you 
ought to go back and look at some debates that we have had in the past 
or look at some rules.
  We are coming to a time here in this process where we call 
appropriations season. Appropriations season has historically been a 
time when there is open debate. Now, I hope I am wrong. I hope I am 
wrong. But I suspect that the Rules Committee will come up with what 
they call preprinting requirement open rules. Well, that is not an open 
rule. Just by definition, if you have a preprinting requirement, how 
can it be open? But I suspect that that is what is going to happen.
  And so, one more step here where the people, I think, will be denied 
access to their Members, their Representatives having access to an open 
debate. It just seems to me that we have gone through this year in the 
ruckus we had on the floor with AIG last week, oh, my gosh, we were 
shocked because of that provision that was in the bill. It was an 
1,100-page bill under which we had absolutely no chance to read it.
  Now, clearly, people on your side of the aisle didn't read it. 
Clearly, people in the other body didn't read it, because the whole 
debate on that was, my goodness, how could these AIG executives get the 
bonuses?
  And what is ironic about this, we found out now that one Senator 
admitted, yes, in fact, I did put that provision in there at the 
beckoning of the administration. We still don't know who in the 
administration told that Senator that that provision should be in 
there. But I only make that observation because it seems to me we 
should learn. We should learn that some of these things don't work 
good. Because the laws that we are passing are affecting all Americans. 
And if we have to come back and say, goodness, we didn't know that was 
in a particular bill, that doesn't do justice to what we as 
representatives, people's representatives, should be doing in this 
House.
  So I'm pleased that at least some of my amendments were made in 
order. I wish they all could have been made in order. I would have 
taken the consequences if the majority of my colleagues didn't agree 
with my approach to that. I would hope to have an opportunity to at 
least debate that. But I wasn't allowed that opportunity. And I think 
that is a bad trend in this House, and I hope it gets more open. But I 
suspect that will not be the case.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to wonder when our friends 
would try to connect AIG with forest health and preventing forest 
fires. Indeed we did not have to wait too long.
  This bill promotes accountability by requiring the Secretaries of 
Agriculture and Interior to monitor their accounts and anticipate 
relevant costs. This is a valuable tool in the long term to improve the 
efficacy and sustainability of our public lands management. We will 
note that the arguments being made are purely procedural. We should not 
allow these procedural issues to get in the way of what is 
substantively agreed on.
  I have heard very positive comments with regard to the substance of 
this bill from both sides of the aisle, indeed giving our land 
management agencies the flexibility they need to make sure that their 
budgets are not consumed by signal events and to focus on what they 
need to do and are, in fact, required to do under law in terms of 
forest management and forest fire risk mitigation.
  For nearly a decade, the GAO has called for our agencies to draft a 
strategy which will identify agencies to environmental and community 
leaders alike. This bill has garnered strong bipartisan support, and it 
was reported, as I mentioned before, by a voice vote from the Natural 
Resources Committee.

[[Page 8742]]

  I want to reiterate the importance of this legislation to thousands 
of communities across the Nation and to millions upon millions of acres 
of public lands. This is an excellent opportunity to provide the 
necessary resources to our Forest Service so they can do the work they 
are meant to do and indeed must do.
  I urge the passage of the bill and the rule.
  I would inquire if the gentleman from Florida has any remaining 
speakers.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I don't have any other speakers, 
but I have not yielded back.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated 
this discussion, and again, I thank Ranking Member Hastings for having 
come down during the time of debate on the rule. He has perhaps a very 
unique perspective having served on the Rules Committee for so many 
years. He knows the importance of process to the functioning of the 
House. And in addition, obviously, now he is an expert, he always has 
been, but especially now that he is day in and day out working on these 
issues in the Resources Committee, he is very much an expert on the 
underlying legislation.
  Hearing the discussion, one thing comes to mind. Mr. Hastings 
pointed, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we recognize, and I agree with 
him, we recognize that the majority obviously has a right to carry 
forth its agenda and obviously a right under the rules to pass out 
resolutions establishing the framework for debate. But some things I 
think are important to point out with regard to that. In this Congress, 
I mentioned there has been a pattern, really an excessive pattern. I 
don't believe we have passed out an open rule.

                              {time}  1445

  In other words, I don't think any legislation in this Congress; am I 
correct? I don't remember any open rules. That's really breaking with 
tradition.
  Let me explain that, Mr. Speaker. Open rules are, as Mr. Hastings 
said, frameworks by which bills are brought to the floor, where any 
Member can have an amendment, and any Member can speak on any 
amendment, for 5 minutes. And we have not seen that at all in this 
Congress. Now, that is a very significant and, I believe, unfair 
pattern that's been set.
  Now, even having said that, there is another point that I think 
should be brought out. And I think our colleague from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) has made this point more than once, and I think he's made 
it very eloquently. Issues of genuine contention, all of such issues 
should be able to be debated.
  Now, in other words, if the majority doesn't want to have an open 
rule, doesn't want every amendment possible to be presented, at least 
issues of contention that were taken before the Rules Committee in the 
form of amendments should be allowed to be heard.
  Mr. Hastings has pointed out that there is an issue in this with 
regard to this legislation, and this is consensus legislation. The 
underlying legislation has support from both sides of the aisle. But 
there is an issue of contention that was brought before the committee, 
and that is on fire prevention.
  Apparently, and I'm not an expert on this area. But apparently, there 
are objections from the extreme environmental lobby with regard to fire 
prevention being able to be debated. And the majority party, listening 
to that extreme lobby, has not allowed that issue of contention which 
should be brought before this floor to be even debated. And I think 
that's unfortunate.
  So beyond even the pattern of unfairness that has been set by this 
majority, where not even one piece of legislation has been brought 
under an open rule where everybody can file, every Member of this House 
can file amendments, beyond that even, significant issues of contention 
that Mr. Frank of Massachusetts has made clear, and I've heard him. 
He's been very explicit and, I think, eloquent when he said, no, no, 
all such issues of contention should be allowed by the Rules Committee. 
And he's gone so far even to protest his own leadership excluding 
genuine issues of contention from prior bills brought before this 
House, and I think that he deserves commendation for that.
  So, here's another example. Mr. Hastings talks about an issue of 
contention that has been shut out by the Rules Committee. So yes, Mr. 
Hastings may have had three amendments made in order, but two 
amendments that deal with the issues of contention have not been made 
in order, and that's unfortunate. That's what I'm saying with regard to 
it being, I believe, unfortunate to see unnecessary, totally 
unnecessary closing of the process, shutting out debate by the 
majority, even on noncontroversial underlying pieces of legislation 
like the one we're bringing to the floor today.
  So we have no further speakers. Again, I thank my friend from 
Colorado for his courtesy.
  At this time, since we have no further speakers, we yield back the 
balance of our time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is noteworthy of the issues 
raised by our friends, none speak to the lack of merit of this bill or, 
indeed, the 13 amendments that are allowed under this rule which will 
be subsequently discussed. We must make sure that substance takes 
priority over procedural processes which could otherwise delay a 
critical bill for the management of our public lands.
  Our public lands management agencies remain constrained every day by 
the costs of fighting wildfires, which will only worsen in coming years 
from a changing climate and increasing fuel load.
  Some critics may point fingers, but today we stand here with an 
intelligent, well-designed, responsible and bipartisan solution that 
puts our taxpayer money to good use by protecting our communities and 
preserving our national treasures.
  This rule allows for 13 amendments, including five from the minority 
party, and has given fair and due consideration to all the ideas that 
have been promoted to enhance this legislation, including many that 
actually impact, at least two amendments that reflect invasive species 
such as the pine beetle.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________