[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13324-13328]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is recognized for 
48 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to control 
this next 48 minutes as we explain how significant this Secure Rural 
Schools fix is and how important it is that we do something on a 
program that, quite frankly, is not sustainable.
  So at this time I would like to recognize, if not the father, the 
godfather of Secure Rural Schools, the gentleman from Oregon. His State 
is impacted significantly by this program. It is a significant issue to 
the school kids of Oregon. Mr. Walden of Oregon is someone who has 
talked about this for many years and knows the significance and the 
importance of this particular issue. So I gladly yield to the gentleman 
from Oregon to explain his take on the Secure Rural Schools issue.
  Mr. WALDEN. Well, I thank the gentleman from Utah, the chairman of 
the Forestry Subcommittee, a subcommittee that a number of years ago I 
had the great privilege and honor to chair when we passed legislation, 
as we're going to do in this House once again, to not only make 
America's great forests healthy, but also then to stop the devastation 
that we heard from the gentleman from California. We have so much work 
to do to continue the legacy of real environmentalism, which is healthy 
forests and healthy communities.
  When President Theodore Roosevelt created the great forest reserves 
back in 1905, thereabouts, he said they have to be in partnership with 
the communities and the communities have to be supportive of this. The 
great purpose of this creation of forest reserves, in a speech he gave 
in your home State, as a matter of fact, in Utah, I believe, was wood 
for woodmaking, for homebuilding, water for agriculture, which means 
the preservation of healthy forests, in the real term preservation--
which is what I want--not what we're seeing in Yosemite National Park 
and

[[Page 13325]]

the surrounding areas, the focus of 400 square miles of devastation, 
not what we saw in Oregon this summer where the smoke was so thick in 
the Rogue Valley that they had to cancel performances at the 
Shakespeare Theater. The restaurants literally shut down. The people 
had to wear masks. I called into the call center of one of the phone 
companies and the attendant there said to me, he said, It's smoky in 
here inside the building.
  This is not what we want out of our forests. It's not what our 
taxpayers want. It's not what the schoolchildren want. Because, you 
see, we've lost the jobs; we've lost the revenue from the jobs. We've 
got sheriffs in counties in my district that now have maybe one deputy. 
We had situations of violence, 911 calls. A woman was being attacked 
and basically told by the 911 folks, We don't have anybody to send. Can 
you tell him to go away?
  You can't make this stuff up.
  I thank Chairman Hastings, Chairman Bishop, and others for bringing 
this bill forward. Let me tell you what it means in a State like mine.
  In 2012, the Oregon Department of Forestry, in collaboration with 
other State and Federal agencies, issued a report to Oregon Governor 
John Kitzhaber stating that, over the 20-year period from 1980 to 2000, 
wildfires in eastern Oregon burned approximately 553,000 acres, with an 
average fire size of 26,000 acres. Over the last 10 years, in that same 
area, it has burned 1 million acres, averaging 93,000 acres in size. 
That means wildfires have tripled in size in the last 30 years. Not all 
of those are in forests. Some of them are grasslands. But the point is 
it's out of control and it's very, very deadly and expensive. And it's 
unacceptable.
  The Oregon Forest Resources Institute reported that, since 1990, the 
timber harvest from Federal forestlands in the great State of Oregon 
has dropped by more than 90 percent--90 percent reduction since 1990 in 
harvested timber off Federal lands. In fact, 60 percent of Oregon's 
forestland is owned/controlled--but not really managed--by the Federal 
Government. It now contributes less than 12 percent of the State's 
total timber harvest. Sixty percent owned by and controlled by the 
Federal Government, 12 percent of timber harvest.
  What does that mean for timber dependent communities? Counties that 
have like 50, 60, 70 percent Federal ownership, my friend who taught 
school knows you don't have a tax base, and now you don't have jobs 
because now you're not doing harvest. You can't turn and entice some 
big company to come in. This is a forested, rural area, a long way from 
freeways in most cases but not all.
  So what does that mean? Nine out of 20 counties I represent face 
double-digit unemployment today. Sixteen of the 20 counties I represent 
have more than 14 percent of their populations living in poverty in 
America.
  Here's a chart that shows what's happening. It shows mill closures in 
Oregon over the last 30 years. We've lost three-fourths of our mills 
and 30,000 mill jobs. Just recently, we lost another one. In Josephine 
County, the Rough & Ready mill closed after nearly 100 years. The 
owners were ready to invest $2 million in upgrades, and they said, We 
can't count on a timber supply off the Federal ground that surrounds 
them. There went 87 jobs.
  I want to show you another picture. I have used it before over the 
years. It is indicative of what happens in a fire. This is Kaleb and 
Ashley after the Egley fire, which burned 140,000 acres in Harney 
County, 2007. It just shows the devastation, these young children out 
there.
  And what does it mean for our kids? The chairman asked about that. 
The Oregon Department of Education says 60 percent of the 
schoolchildren in the county where this fire occurred are eligible for 
free and reduced lunch. There's poverty all over the West, and there's 
a way to end that and produce jobs and revenue and have healthy forests 
rather than what we see today.
  The chairman's bill would require foresters to look at the 
sustainable yield a forest could produce and then only seek to harvest 
half of that, of the sustainable yield, and only on land that is 
suitable for timber harvest. It says, if you're going to appeal a plan, 
you had to at least be involved in the process. We put that in the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act that passed this body overwhelmingly 
and I think passed the Senate--huge support--signed by then-President 
Bush into law. It had great effect, but limited in terms of what we 
need to do. But it had that provision in there. It strikes a balance. 
You need to participate in the process in order to have a right to 
appeal.

                              {time}  1745

  It includes a 1-year bridge payment. This gets your schools issue for 
the counties who currently have lost or will lose their funding for 
emergency services, for roads, and for schools in the Secure Rural 
Schools side. This is a bridge to put people back to work in the woods 
when coupled with active management. This is balance--this is balance.
  The bill also has an Oregon-specific provision. Not everything I 
would necessarily do if I could write it on my own, but do you know 
what? You don't get that process here. We've put together a good plan 
with Representatives DeFazio and Schrader. We've worked through our 
differences. We forged a balanced plan that would create thousands of 
new jobs. Creators saved up to 3,000 jobs in Oregon in these very 
unique lands called the O&C Lands. It ensures the health of these lands 
for future generations. It provides long-term management and certainty 
of funding for our local services and schools and roads and law 
enforcement that lie within these counties.
  According to Governor Kitzhaber's O&C Lands Report, it would generate 
$120 million per year in county revenue. We don't come back here to the 
Federal taxpayer and say, Give us another check, give us another 
handout. We say, Let us manage our own lands and do it under the Oregon 
State Forest Practices Act, which is one of the leading environmental 
laws in the country for balance, for sustainable forest health and 
management. Do it under that and we'll create the jobs and save them, 
we'll create the revenue for our schools.
  Let me tell you about the protections that you will get. It provides:
  Activities near streams, lakes, and wetlands must include water 
quality protection. Something we all agree on.
  Wildlife trees and down logs have to be left in most large clear-cut 
areas. Clear-cut sizes are limited to 120 acres. Now, some will say, 
Oh, my gosh, 120 acres. Let me tell you that the Douglas Complex fire 
that burned this summer burned 48,000 acres. If there isn't a more 
destructive clear-cut than that, I don't know what it is. And do you 
know what? After it burns, there's no requirement they go in and 
replant. If you harvest 128 acres, you're required to go in and 
replant, and those trees have to survive, and you go in right away.
  Let me show you what happens after a fire to the environment. There's 
no stream setback here. Fire knows no bounds. Our legislation says you 
can't harvest near that, near a stream, you have to have setbacks. We 
believe in the environment. This is what you get when you don't manage.
  You see, lack of action has an impact in a dynamic forest 
environment. Doing nothing doesn't mean the forest gets better. It 
means it gets overcrowded, overstocked, and when you get fire--and 
we'll always have it--it just won't burn naturally anymore. It will 
blow up, like my friend and colleague from California has experienced 
in the Yosemite fire and like we've experienced all over the West this 
summer and will every summer thereafter.
  The Forest Service now spends more fighting fire than anything else. 
They ought to change their name to the U.S. Fire Service.
  We've got to get back to managing these lands, and this legislation 
does that. I thank the committee for its incredible work. I thank you 
for bringing this to the floor. I look forward to voting for it when it 
comes to the floor. Together we'll get back to proper, thoughtful, 
constructive management of our Federal forests. We'll take care

[[Page 13326]]

of that trust the people put in us to take care of their lands, and 
we'll take care of the people as well.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman for his comments here.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard now from three Members from the west 
coast--one from California, one from Oregon and one from Washington--
who have explained the situation and how this particular act is, 
indeed, a solution to the problems that those west coast States are 
finding in their forestry efforts.
  But this also impacts the interior of this country, so I would like 
to yield a few minutes to the representative from the State of Montana, 
who represents the entire State of Montana, to explain how this has an 
impact on interior State forests, as well as the coastal State forests.
  I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines) to explain what's 
happening in his State.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, and I thank 
the chairman for reserving this hour for this very important issue, 
saving our national forests and our forested communities, which is very 
important to my home State of Montana.
  H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests and Healthy Communities Act 
is important to Montana because many of our counties in Montana rely on 
the forest economy or at least the relics of what used to be one. 
Several decades ago, Montana forests supported local timber jobs and 
provided a steady revenue stream for our counties and schools.
  In fact, I remember growing up when I was riding in the back seat, 
mom and dad in front in the station wagon and I would be in back with 
my sisters, we would watch logging trucks drive up and down our 
highways. Our counties enjoyed the benefits of the receipts from timber 
sales. It used to help support our schools.
  But today, as I now drive around the State representing the State of 
Montana, most of our forest counties struggle with unemployment. In 
fact, Lincoln County, the most northwest county of my State, which is 
comprised mostly of national forest land, it used to generate timber 
jobs. They now face double digit unemployment.
  The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest faces a very high mortality 
rate due to beetle kill. The tragedy here as we drive all over the 
State this time of year, we are seeing forest fires on one hand and 
then standing dead timber on the other that has died because of beetle 
kill. We can't even go in and harvest the dead trees, which we have a 
couple years to do so, because of the onerous process here on our 
national forest.
  Inflexible and outdated Federal laws like the National Environmental 
Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act have imposed a huge 
administrative burden on Federal agencies, which limits our timber 
industry's access to wood and ultimately resulted in the mismanagement 
of our forests, allowing places where we love to recreate instead to 
burn up in smoke. And when they burn up in smoke, as the gentleman from 
Oregon mentioned, it threatens our watersheds as well.
  In fact, so far over 100,000 acres in Montana have burned this year. 
The number of large fires--large fires--has been as high as five just 
this week. My son last year played high school football his senior 
year. We had ``Friday Night Lights'' high school football games in 
Montana canceled because of air quality, because of forest fires.
  Laws like NEPA and the Endangered Species Act are often the basis of 
lawsuits. These aren't filed by the rank and file Montanans who are 
working to collaborate to improve access to our national forests, but 
they're filed by fringe extreme groups to halt healthy timber 
management projects that could help prevent these fires and, 
importantly, create hundreds of jobs.
  In fact, in one of our hearings in our committee, a top national 
forest official, Deputy Chief Jim Hubbard, said litigation has played a 
huge role in blocking responsible timber sales in Montana and other 
region 1 States, including projects supported by collaborative groups 
consisting of timber as well as conservation leaders. To quote Mr. 
Hubbard, he said this: ``It has virtually shut things down on the 
national forest.''
  As the gentleman from Oregon mentioned, the numbers in Montana are 
the same. Timber harvests are down 90 percent on our Federal lands from 
where they were when I was growing up.
  Mr. Chairman, something must be done, and I'm glad to join you in 
introducing this very important bill. H.R. 1526 will help revitalize 
the timber industry throughout Montana and create thousands of good, 
high-paying jobs. It also tackles beetle kill, protecting our 
environment for future generations and reducing the threat of 
catastrophic wildfires in Montana.
  The Restoring Healthy Forests and Healthy Communities Act will cut 
the red tape that has held up responsible forest management in timber 
production. It also includes comprehensive reforms to discourage and 
limit the flood of frivolous appeals and litigation. It requires the 
Forest Service to increase timber harvest on non-wilderness lands now 
that it will have much needed latitude to do the work it knows how to 
do.
  This improved management will protect the health of our forests, the 
health of our watersheds, the safety of our communities, and allow jobs 
to return to the timber industry. In addition, the legislation restores 
the Federal Government's commitment to provide 25 percent of timber 
sales receipts to timber counties. It extends the Secure Rural Schools 
program pending the full operation of the new timber program.
  SRS has provided crucial stopgap funding to timber counties after 
timber sales, and the corresponding receipts, after they plunged in 
recent decades. It is the taxpayer now who is funding that gap when 
instead we could have the timber industry cutting down trees and 
supplying jobs and supplying revenue to support our schools.
  Recently, we welcomed Chuck Roady, the vice president and general 
manager of F. H. Stoltze Land and Lumber in Columbia Falls, Montana. He 
came back to Washington, D.C., as a witness for a House Natural 
Resources hearing on forest and fire management.
  During the hearing, Chuck perfectly summed up the challenges we face. 
He said:

       This is a nonpartisan, nonregional issue. It's simply the 
     case of doing the right thing to manage our public forest. If 
     we don't, Mother Nature is going to do it for us, and when 
     she does it, it's uncontrollable and catastrophic.

  Mr. Speaker, I could not have conveyed our challenges any better than 
that. We all know too well how devastating wildfires can be to our 
communities and our local economies.
  I urge passing the Restoring Healthy Forests and Healthy Communities 
Act.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the 
gentleman from Montana.
  Very few people realize the Federal Government actually owns 1 out of 
every 3 acres in this country, but it is disproportionate. So, of the 
13 Western States, 54 percent of the land mass is actually owned by the 
Federal Government. The 33 States east of the Western States only have 
4 percent of their land. Which simply means no one actually east of 
Denver quite understands how this relationship necessarily works. It 
also means that the unfortunate truth is, as we've already heard, that 
private and State forests are today healthier than the Federal forest 
system. But those of us in the West realize this firsthand because 
those are our neighbors, those are the areas that surround our 
communities.
  I'm glad to hear from the next two speakers who will be talking--they 
are from Colorado. The first one is the gentleman from Colorado 
Springs, who is on the Natural Resources Committee, and he's going to 
explain the significant situation that they find in Colorado with our 
forest health situation.
  I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah. It's great 
to serve on the committee as a subcommittee chairman with him. And we 
serve with Chairman Doc Hastings,

[[Page 13327]]

who is doing a great job on these issues.
  The bill, H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy 
Communities Act, is a long-term solution to help put hardworking 
Americans back to work and ensure that these rural counties have a 
stable source of revenue to help pay for schools and teachers. It was 
introduced by my friend and colleague, Representative Scott Tipton, of 
Colorado, and I am a cosponsor.
  Over a century ago, the Federal Government made a promise to actively 
manage our forests and share 25 percent of the revenues generated from 
timber sales with counties containing national forest land. This is 
funding that rural counties depend on to help fund vital services, such 
as education and roads. But the Federal Government has failed to uphold 
this commitment and has cut back on active management of our national 
forests.
  This lack of active forest management not only deprives counties of 
revenue to help fund schools and roads but also inhibits job creation 
and makes our national forests increasingly susceptible to wildfires 
and invasive species. Currently, there are over 21 active large 
wildfires burning right now in eight States. Over 406,000 acres are 
burning, with only 2 of the 21 fires contained.
  This year, to date there have been over 35,000 fires with almost 4 
million acres burned. Last year, the tragic Waldo Canyon fire occurred 
on Federal land in my Colorado district, claiming two lives and 
destroying almost 500 homes.
  H.R. 1526 will help improve forest health and prevent catastrophic 
wildfires by allowing greater State and local involvement in wildfire 
prevention on Federal lands. It will help improve local forest 
management by allowing counties to actively manage portions of national 
forest land.
  Restoring active management of our national forests would ensure a 
stable, predictable revenue stream for counties and schools. Active 
management would also promote healthier forests, reduce the risk of 
wildfires, and decrease our reliance on foreign countries for timber 
and paper goods.
  I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Lamborn has already 
introduced the concept of what's taking place in Colorado and the bill 
for Mr. Tipton, let's turn now to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tipton) to also explain the significance of why he actually did that 
particular bill.
  Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Chairman Bishop. I certainly appreciate your 
leadership on this issue, along with Chairman Hastings.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague had just described some of the challenges 
that we've been facing in Colorado. I would like to be able to expand 
upon that.
  Not long ago, I was at the incident command centers in Monte Vista, 
Colorado, on the east side of the Rockies, and also in Pagosa Springs, 
on the west side of the Rockies, to be able to visit the incident 
command centers trying to deal with the West Fork Complex fire.

                              {time}  1800

  How big is the fire? It's 170 square miles and counting. We are not 
talking 170 acres. We are talking 170 square miles of forests in my 
district.
  The challenges that this is going to bring in terms of being able to 
deal with endangered species, in terms of water quality, in terms of 
tourism and the economy in western Colorado can probably not yet be 
numbered. That is why the Restoring Healthy Forests Act is a bill whose 
time has come.
  The National Interagency Fire Center reported this week that there 
have been 35,000-plus fires in the United States in 2013 alone. 
Devastating bark beetle infestation, prolonged drought conditions, and 
unnaturally dense forests--these have all combined with ineffective 
forest management for a devastating fire season. These factors have led 
to a significant increase in the magnitude and in the number of 
wildfires in the country over the past decade.
  So far this year, 3.9 million acres have already burned, and these 
figures continue to grow with 21 active, large wildfires. The property 
damage and costs associated with these wildfires is tremendous; and to 
date, the Forest Service has already spent over a billion dollars in 
fire suppression alone. In 2012, the Forest Service spent only $296 
million on hazardous fuels reduction; whereas, they spent $1.77 billion 
on wildfire suppression at that same time.
  Part of this is a planning process. We have dealt with leadership in 
the Forest Service. They've talked about computer models which their 
own folks are telling us simply don't work. We have to be able to get 
in and effectively manage these forests, to be able to treat them in a 
responsible way, to be able to build for our communities, and to be 
able to make sure that our children are able to see the same forests 
that we grew up living in.
  The cost of proactive healthy forest management is, indeed, far less 
than the cost of wildfire suppression. When it comes to our forests, an 
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; but instead of ramping up 
forest management efforts and addressing hazardous conditions in the 
West, the Interior Department has proposed to cut the budget by 48 
percent for hazardous fuels reduction in 2014, and the Forest Service 
has proposed reducing this proactive management by a further 24 
percent. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have expressed 
outrage at this approach of further reducing funding for hazardous 
fuels.
  Under the current management system, a cumbersome regulatory 
framework has further inhibited active forest management while 
excessive litigation has obstructed projects that would prevent 
devastating wildfires and protect our vital water supplies and precious 
species habitats. The status quo is not working, and immediate action 
is needed to be able to fix this broken system.
  Our forest management package, H.R. 1526, would allow greater State 
and local involvement in wildfire prevention on Federal lands in order 
to expedite hazardous fuels reduction projects and reduce litigation. 
In doing so, it would help restore sustainable timber harvesting, 
create jobs, and provide reliable sources of revenue for rural 
education and infrastructure.
  H.R. 1526 also addresses the shortfall in county revenue for schools 
and critical services caused by a lack of timber harvest by requiring 
the Forest Service to produce at least half of the sustainable annual 
yield of timber required under the 1908 law and to share 25 percent of 
those receipts with our rural counties.
  In order to meet this goal while providing for healthy forests, the 
bill includes the local management framework by directing the Forest 
Service to prioritize hazardous fuels reduction projects proposed by 
Governors and affected counties and tribes. To expedite locally based 
healthy forest projects, this package builds on the positive 
streamlining procedures implemented under the bipartisan Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
  I am pleased to have been able to work with Chairman Bishop and 
Chairman Hastings on this bill. It's time that we stand together to be 
able to return health to our forests in a proactive, responsible, and 
positive way. H.R. 1526 accomplishes that goal.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the last two speakers from Colorado for 
explaining the situation they are facing within their State on Federal 
forest land.
  Before we turn to somebody from the East who gets what we're talking 
about here, let's continue with the backbone of the Rocky Mountains by 
turning some time over to the Representative from the State of Wyoming 
(Mrs. Lummis) in order for her to explain how this impacts her State.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also thank Chairman 
Hastings of the Natural Resources Committee for bringing this important 
legislation to the attention of the American people, especially after 
this tremendous fire season that we've had in the West for the past 3 
or 4 years, in which we have lost valuable natural resources, jobs, 
wildlife, livestock, people, houses. It is an unnecessary devastation 
that always amazes me as we

[[Page 13328]]

would bring about legislation to address regional haze, which has no 
environmental impact other than to reduce the viewsheds or the damage 
to the viewshed, when the damage to the viewshed is being caused by our 
inattentiveness in managing our national forests.
  I want to talk, Mr. Chairman, about forest health and about the 
benefits of logging to have healthy forests, vibrant wildlife, and 
clean water and air.
  The air is cleaner when the West is not on fire. The water is cleaner 
when protected from the ash that goes down the hills, into the streams, 
choking the oxygen out of our streams, which then, in turn, kills our 
fish. That reduces fishing opportunities, and it reduces a vibrant fish 
population.
  In addition to providing clean air by lack of fire, clean water due 
to lack of fire, by logging, we can actually have more vibrant, 
widespread wildlife habitat and water for that habitat. When we log and 
do it in a manner that preserves the natural contours in our forests, 
we can have high mountain meadows with forages that will keep elk, 
deer, and other species on those high mountain meadows longer in the 
year, thereby providing habitat for a vibrant, healthy, diverse, 
ungulate population and for the species that share that ecosystem 
habitat. So it's good for wildlife.
  Furthermore, it's good for the health of the forests, themselves, 
because, if you would look, for example, at the Medicine Bow National 
Forest and the Routt National Forest across the border in Colorado, 
these two forests have been absolutely denuded of lodgepole pine by the 
bark beetle with the exception of the young trees in the areas that 
have previously been logged. The healthy areas of the Medicine Bow 
National Forest in Wyoming and the Routt National Forest in Colorado 
are the areas that were previously logged, because there is a diversity 
of the age of the trees, thereby having a young, more resilient, 
healthy tree intermingled with stands of medium-maturity and high-
maturity trees. The combination of the old growth, the medium-maturity 
trees, and the young trees makes for a more vibrant, healthy forest 
that can better withstand an onslaught like the bark beetle epidemic 
that has devastated so much of the Intermountain West.
  So we have addressed clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat through 
the opportunity for high mountain meadows, and we have addressed the 
health of the trees, themselves. All this can happen while we have jobs 
in logging, while we have opportunities for revenues for schools.
  The point here is we are all part of this ecosystem--the people, the 
animals, the air, the water, the trees. All can benefit by this bill. 
This is a commonsense solution that has taken Americans decades to 
understand and appreciate the importance of, but that has never been 
more apparent than it was this summer.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important dialogue.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentlelady from Wyoming for 
being with us and talking about the concepts that are going on and what 
we can do for our future.
  If I could, Mr. Speaker, at the turn of the 20th century, the so-
called ``progressive era,'' there was a paradigm shift that took place 
in the United States in which the government decided to basically keep 
all of the land. It was based on three premises:
  The first is that the West had to be protected from itself. The 
second is that only somebody in Washington, D.C., would have the vision 
to make decisions that could impact the rest of the Nation, and if 
there were ever a conflict between what local leaders or local 
officials wanted and what D.C. wanted, D.C. obviously had the better 
advantage.
  The result of that is, as you have heard from the people here today, 
that our forest system is not as healthy as it used to be or ought to 
be. The communities that relied upon the timber industry to survive and 
the school systems in those areas that relied upon the timber industry 
to survive have been decimated, and our solution as a Congress and as 
an administration is simply to find a temporary payment to these 
solutions with actually no revenue source to make them permanent.
  What we have now done since 2000, when the Secure Rural School 
Program started, is spend $6 billion, which has come from the pockets 
of those who live in the East, to fund a temporary program when what we 
actually need is a long-term solution that works--that puts people to 
work, that finds a real source of funding for education services and 
provides a real solution for what we need, a solution that will provide 
for healthy forests, a solution that will provide for vibrant 
communities and for the support of our public school system. That is, 
indeed, what this proposal for the Secure Rural School Program attempts 
to do.
  Mr. Speaker, about 20 years ago, a former Democrat Member of this 
House, who is now part of the Senate leadership--I realize that's an 
oxymoron, ``Senate leadership''--but he was here, and he gave an 
impassioned speech upon this floor that dealt with the controversial 
decision of Major League Baseball's potentially switching to aluminum 
bats. As that Representative from Illinois, who is now a Senator, rose, 
he said:

       Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the desecration of a great 
     American symbol. No, I am not referring to flag burning; I am 
     referring to the baseball bat.
       Several experts tell us that the wooden baseball bat is 
     doomed to extinction . . . Please, do not tell me that wooden 
     bats are too expensive . . . Please, do not try to sell me on 
     the notion that these metal clubs will make better hitters . 
     . . If we forsake the great Americana of broken-bat singles 
     and pine tar, we will have certainly lost our way as a 
     Nation.

  His conclusion was simply this:

       I do not want to hear about saving trees. Any tree in 
     America would gladly give its life for the glory of a day at 
     home plate.

  As much as I agree with his statements, I'd like to take his comment 
one step further and say that, not only would any tree in America 
gladly give its life for the glory of a day at bat at home plate, but 
any tree in America would gladly be overjoyed to give its life to help 
fund the education of our kids.
  The solution is that we don't need all trees to provide the bats or 
the education funding--just some of the trees. In fact, by not cutting 
them all, you actually save and improve the health of the forests; but 
if you don't do it, we lose these trees to fire, and every burned tree 
is a burned baseball bat, and that is not good for the psyche of this 
particular country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time in order to turn the 
management time of this Special Order over to Mr. Thompson of 
Pennsylvania so that he may speak and also introduce a couple of more 
speakers whom we have still to talk about this vital issue of Secure 
Rural Schools and how this House has finally come up with a solution--a 
long-term, lasting solution--to this particular problem.

                          ____________________