[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19904-19909]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    FOREST MANAGEMENT AND WILDFIRES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House 
Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry, I am pleased to open this 
Special Order to discuss forest management and wildfires.
  Over the course of this year, many Western States, including Alaska, 
have gone through a catastrophic wildfire season, with more than 9 
million acres burned to date. This is a continuation of an 
unsustainable trend where the average number of acres burned each year 
has doubled since the 1990s. To address this, government spending on 
wildfire suppression has also doubled; yet the total amount of spending 
on forestry activities has remained the same.
  Because the cost of wildfire suppression efforts has continued to 
climb over the past 15 years, the U.S. Forest Service has repeatedly 
had to transfer money from its nonfire programs to firefighting 
efforts. In fact, this year alone, more than 50 percent of the Forest 
Service budget went toward wildfire suppression, taking funding away 
from programs and activities that promote forest health and reduction 
of underbrush, wood waste, and dead trees, which help these wildfires 
spread.
  Fire transfers also undermine timber harvesting, which is critical 
for the health of the forests as well as our rural communities and 
counties.
  In contrast to this 50 percent, only 20 years ago, the Forest Service 
was only spending as little as 13 percent, or one-sixth, of its budget 
on fire-related activities. However, this is not simply a question of 
allocating more money for fire suppression. The real solution to this 
problem is how we maintain our forests.
  I am pleased to be joined tonight by bipartisan members of the 
Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee.
  I am pleased to yield to the ranking member of that committee, 
Michelle Lujan Grisham.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Thompson, I appreciate 
this Special Order on wildfires and forest management, and I really 
appreciate your leadership on the House Agriculture Committee as 
chairman of our Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
  Most recently, the subcommittee held a hearing on the 2015 wildfire 
season and long-term fire trends, a much-needed hearing recognizing the 
concerns and urgent needs of many of our Members who watched their 
districts and States burn to unprecedented levels this year.
  What is abundantly clear from the testimony we heard, especially that 
of Forest Service Chief Tidwell, was how crippling the current wildfire 
budget system is to the agency and how, frankly, it prevents the Forest 
Service from carrying out its congressionally mandated mission.
  The current process for funding wildfire suppression is inefficient 
and wastes taxpayer dollars. Once the Forest Service exhausts their 
wildfire suppression budget, the agency is then forced to transfer 
funds from nonfire programs, which are often needed to prevent fires, 
in order to support the immediate, emergency needs of fire suppression.

                              {time}  1845

  In the last fiscal year, FY15, the Forest Service spent $700 million 
more than what Congress initially appropriated.
  Since 2004, the Forest Service has needed eight supplemental 
appropriations. This is now the norm, not the exception.
  This year's wildfire season devastated much of the Western United 
States. The Forest Service spent $1.7 billion fighting these fires. 
More than 9 million acres were burned, thousands of homes and other 
infrastructures were lost, and 13 firefighters lost their lives in the 
line of duty.
  While I am thankful New Mexico avoided any big fires this year, I 
know firsthand how devastating fires can be. For 3 years in a row, New 
Mexico endured the biggest fires the State has ever seen. The 
Whitewater-Baldy Complex, Las Conchas, and the Gila fires devastated 
our land, our resources and our communities.
  These fires are natural disasters that require emergency response and 
recovery and should, frankly, be funded the same way as hurricanes, 
floods and tornados. Now, it is clear to me that Congress needs to 
urgently fix this funding problem before more communities are destroyed 
and lives are lost.
  In addition to the ``fire borrowing'' issue, Congress also has to 
address the rising 10-year suppression cost average for wildfires. 
Rising wildfire costs means that less funding is going to nonfire 
Forest Service employees and programs each year. Because of this, the 
Forest Service now has fewer resources for recreation, research and 
development, and road maintenance.
  There are also fewer resources to carry out activities and projects 
that many say we need more of, such as NEPA analysis, timber contracts, 
timber salvage, controlled burns, and other Forest Service management 
activities.
  Lack of resources often means that these projects get delayed or 
canceled. And we aren't just talking about Forest Service projects; 
they are projects in each of our districts that are developed by our 
own constituents and partners within each of these communities.
  Now, I understand that the broken wildfire budget and rising costs 
are only part of the problem. Wildfires are burning bigger and more 
intense than ever before.
  Climate change is causing more drought, higher temperatures, bringing 
new diseases and pests to new areas, and changing the vegetation on the 
ground. Our forests are not the same forests that they were 50 years 
ago, or even 20 years ago.
  Climate change is undoubtedly changing our forest dynamics, and we 
must make our forests more resilient.
  Fixing the broken wildfire budgeting process is the most effective 
thing Congress can do to begin to address the

[[Page 19905]]

devastating wildfires that are plaguing this country.
  I also agree that we need more management work done on the ground, so 
let's work together to ensure that the Forest Service has sufficient 
resources to do their work.
  I understand that there have been talks on both the House and Senate 
side about including a budget fix in the upcoming omnibus, but that a 
deal remains elusive because some parties are unwilling to address the 
budget caps in order for wildfires to get treated as exactly what they 
are, as natural disasters. This would treat wildfire natural disasters 
just like every other natural disaster in this country.
  We out west have helped fund hurricanes, tornados and flooding in the 
Midwest and in the eastern parts of the country. We should be doing the 
same for our natural disasters out west.
  I urge Speaker Ryan, and Chairman Price of the Budget Committee, to 
recognize this simple, yet important distinction.
  House leadership, Mr. Thompson, and others, I know, we can sit down 
and we can come to an agreement to fix the broken budget process and 
address some of the management needs. I stand ready at any moment to 
have these conversations and find a path forward.
  I thank the chairman very much.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentlewoman, who is a great 
ranking member on the subcommittee, for all of her work and for her 
comments and words this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, having served on the subcommittee with the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader), he is a great advocate for forest products, 
for healthy forests, for economically healthy rural communities. We 
share that passion. I am just very thankful that he was able to, in a 
very busy schedule, make time this evening to be part of this Special 
Order.
  I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. I thank the chairman. I want to applaud you and the 
ranking member for the Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee for 
having this colloquy here tonight.
  I think it is really important for folks to understand the severity 
of the issue that is before us here. As my western colleague pointed 
out a moment ago, these wildfires are alive and well, unfortunately, 
and absolutely devastating, devastating at a level that we had never 
seen or expected before.
  These disasters, not just back east with Sandy and Katrina, but the 
wildfires that we see in New Mexico and in my home State of Oregon and 
neighboring State of Washington this summer, are absolutely 
catastrophic, and way above and beyond what we have seen in past 
decades.
  The firefighting situation has become untenable. The height of 
ridiculousness is to acknowledge the fact that firefighting costs have 
doubled over the last 15 years, on a regular basis, 8 out of 10 years, 
as was pointed out a moment ago, and not do anything about it.
  The wildfires don't go away when we put our heads in the sand. They 
continue to devastate.
  I would like to point out three, maybe four things I think are really 
important. We are talking about an omnibus bill here that everyone is 
arguing over. There are certain policy riders, I submit, that have 
nothing to do with the budget.
  There is some discussion about a fire funding fix, though, to get 
after this budgetary disaster that we have, now every year. Why not 
budget up front for this so that the resources can be allocated 
immediately?
  Secondly, not devastate the Forest Service budget, because if you 
take it out of the Forest Service budget, even temporarily, then the 
Forest Service can't do its land management work, which gets rid of the 
hazardous fuel, gets rid of the diseased trees, takes care of the pests 
to prevent the next wave of forest fires.
  This is very simple, folks. This is very simple.
  The funding fix also talks about working in a collaborative way to 
build the collaborative relationships that have eluded us so far for 
our forestry problems.
  The fix talks about working collaboratively on the NEPA process with 
folks, make sure it is done correctly, but in a way that the Forest 
Service can manage and get it done quickly.
  It talks about set-asides for small areas that could be categorically 
excluded where there is already collaborative work being done on the 
urban-rural interface and, actually, some areas to promote wildlife 
habitat.
  I mean, this is the type of thing that actually gets at what both the 
environmental community and the forest community need to have.
  One last big point I think that gets ignored a lot in this discussion 
is the economic loss that occurs as a result of these forest fires. We 
could have a lot more money for tax resources if we got after these 
fires early on.
  Right now, I have timber communities in my State where over 50 
percent of the land is Federal forest lands that go up in smoke, that 
they could otherwise be harvesting or reducing that fuel load by 
thinning, to promote jobs, economic development, and tax revenues.
  I think a small investment in this budget to offset larger costs 
later on, and adequately fight these fires, to protect rural America, 
is critical.
  Right now, rural America is not getting its fair share. There is a 
lot of talk about 9/11 and making sure our first responders get the 
health care that they need and deserve for stepping in in a disaster 
situation in New York City.
  Where is the stepping in to help my firefighters out west? These men 
and women go into toxic situations, life-threatening situations, and 
they get no respect just because we are out west.
  As the ranking member pointed out, and the chairman pointed out, 
these are devastating disasters, just as bad as tornados, just as bad 
as hurricanes. Where is the fairness to my western colleagues in 
getting their issue taken care of?
  This devastates the communities. These rural communities are poor 
already. With these fires rampaging across the landscape, they get 
poorer quicker.
  There is no Intel or Microsoft setting up in the middle of nowhere in 
the rural parts of my State and my district. They depend on natural 
resources, the good use of natural resources, resources that can be 
used for carbon sequestration by not having these fires.
  I find it amazing that, in a budgetary discussion, we are trying to 
save money, not just in the short term, but in the long term, that we 
are having trouble getting this fire funding fix that is bipartisan. 
Even the White House is behind it.
  We have an opportunity to get this done for a small amount of money 
that will be paid back over the next few years in spades. I think it is 
a shame that we can't get this thing done just instantaneous.
  I hope the discussion tonight opens the eyes of some folks about the 
discrimination that is going on against rural America, particularly out 
west.
  And I really, really, want to thank the ranking member and the 
chairman, who I have worked with closely over the years, a true friend, 
a friend of rural and forested America, for bringing this to our 
attention. Thank you very much.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for lending your 
passion and your knowledge to this important debate tonight. And I 
share your hope, that we raise the level of awareness.
  We are talking a lot about western forests, but I have to tell you, 
having an eastern forest, I represent the Fifth District of 
Pennsylvania; when these large wildfires occur out west, there is a 
large sucking sound of resources, both personnel and money, being taken 
out of our eastern forests.
  These are monies that are used to make our forests healthy. These are 
monies that are used to do timber marketing, marketing of timber and 
timber sales so that we can generate revenue to our countries, our 
school districts. So these monies really are taken away from active 
management, and active management is the key in helping cut down on the 
amount of wildfires in our forest.

[[Page 19906]]

  This involves mechanical thinning, hazardous fuel reduction projects 
and, of course, a sustainable amount of timber harvesting per the 
forced Allowable Sale Quantity, or ASQ.
  Now these various activities are essential in order to help ensure 
that the forest doesn't become an overgrown tinderbox. Areas that 
aren't properly maintained not only become tinderbox, as a risk of 
wildfires, but also for invasive species outbreaks.
  I don't know of anyone in Congress that has more expertise on this 
than our next speaker. He is a professional forester. He brings 
tremendous education and experience to Washington. We are real proud to 
have him as a part of our team working on this issue, really leading on 
this issue.
  Our next speaker is actually the author of H.R. 2647, which has been 
passed by the House of Representatives, the Resilient Federal Forest 
Act of 2015, so I am honored to yield to the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Westerman).
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
and also thank him for his leadership on this issue, a very important 
issue, and one that he has a good grasp of that I wish the rest of our 
Federal Government could get a good grasp of.
  I also would like to thank the ranking member for her remarks, and 
the gentleman from Oregon, for his remarks.
  We do have a national treasure in our forests. The U.S. Forest 
Service manages over 193 million acres of forests and grasslands from 
Maine to Alaska.
  The Forest Service was formed by President Teddy Roosevelt and his 
friend, Gifford Pinchot, who was the first Chief of the Forest Service. 
These men were true conservationists and naturalists. They understood 
the science of the forest. They understood the value of the forest, and 
they understood its contribution to society, so they worked to conserve 
that for future generations.
  Roosevelt and Pinchot hold a special place in my heart. I grew up by 
the forests that were established by Roosevelt, and I studied at the 
Yale School of Forestry that was founded by Pinchot.
  Teddy Roosevelt once said about our natural resources, he said that 
our Nation behaves well if it treats its natural resources as assets, 
which it must turn over to the next generation, increased and not 
impaired in value.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not behaving well as a Nation. We are decreasing 
and impairing the value of our forests.

                              {time}  1900

  Our forests are not just an asset; they are a treasure, a treasure 
that provides beauty, makes clean air, purifies our water, provides 
wildlife habitat, and a variety of recreational activities and 
opportunities. Our forests store carbon and provide many of the 
products that we live in, that we learn from, and that we use to 
survive every day.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a Republican failure, and it is not a 
Democratic failure. It is a congressional and an agency failure that we 
have the power to correct.
  Wildfires continue to sweep across the country. They are burning 
hotter and faster than in years past. More than 9 million acres of 
Federal land burned this year alone. Costs to fight fires and the 
number of fires burning grows every year.
  As has been mentioned so many times before, the Forest Service's 
biggest expense is firefighting. The costs of it have ballooned over 
the years. It is not just the cost of fighting fires, as the gentleman 
from Oregon said, that is the cost. We are destroying a valuable asset: 
9 million acres of Federal land and timber that goes up in smoke. These 
products could be used. They have value to them. We are not only 
spending the money to fight the fires; we are losing valuable assets 
every year.
  This year, Mr. Speaker, Congress had to appropriate an extra $700 
million to land management agencies to cover the cost of fire 
borrowing. The Forest Service is becoming a firefighting agency, unable 
to meet its mission of ``caring for the land and serving people.''
  Fire borrowing is not the only problem, and I submit that it is 
actually not even the problem. It is the symptom of a problem. It is 
the result of our current management choice that each year is becoming 
less and less management. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of 
choosing not to manage.
  Forests are dynamic, living organisms. They don't pay attention to 
what we say here in Washington, DC, or what we write in laws. The only 
thing forests know is to grow and fill their growing space and to 
absorb the sunlight. They fill the growing space, and they quit 
growing. Then they become weakened. They are subject to insect and 
disease attack. They die. We get debris on the forest floor. Lightning 
strikes, and the forest burns. If we choose not to manage the forests, 
then nature continues to manage. We don't have that luxury of saying 
that we are just not going to manage the forest.
  Our land management policies have changed for the worse simply and 
mainly because we have not been able to manage. Red tape and lawsuits 
are harming our landscapes. Forests are overgrown, and they are 
unhealthy.
  Healthy forests will lead to smaller fires that can be contained. A 
healthy forest puts less carbon in the atmosphere, and, in fact, it 
sequesters more carbon through new tree growth and reforestation. 
Simply by the biological growth curve, younger organisms grow faster so 
they are pulling more carbon out of the atmosphere. They are storing it 
in their trunks, in their leaves, and in their roots.
  The good news is the House has been behaving well. The House produced 
and passed a good piece of legislation in H.R. 2647, the Resilient 
Federal Forests Act. Now, this isn't the end-all to fix the problems 
with our forests, but it is a great first step.
  H.R. 2647 simultaneously ends fire borrowing in a fiscally 
responsible manner, but it also gives the Forest Service the tools it 
needs to create healthy forests. Healthy forests are a winning 
situation. Everybody wins with a healthy forest. Wildlife wins, and 
sports and outdoor recreation enthusiasts win. We all win with cleaner 
air, and we all win with cleaner water. Our rural communities win with 
an economic benefit. There is not a downside to having a healthy 
forest. It is good for America to have healthy forests.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to put the policy in place so that we 
can have healthy forests. It is time for the Senate to behave. It is 
time for the Senate to act on H.R. 2647 so we can end fire borrowing 
and manage our forests.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman. I thank you for 
your leadership and bringing your expertise to Washington. It is great 
to serve with you, and I appreciate all the leadership that you are 
showing, not just on this issue but so many different issues that are 
good not just for the folks of Arkansas, but for the entire Nation. So 
thank you so much for being part of this Special Order tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, a healthy forest is so incredibly important because a 
healthy forest represents, also, wealthy communities. Our rural 
communities are so dependent on the active, proper management of our 
national forests.
  These national forests didn't always exist. At one time, our 
predecessors--some going back 100 years or more--came to the table with 
the local communities, and they made a commitment that for the good of 
the Nation they would create national forests.
  Now, let's be clear. National forests are not national parks. They 
are completely different. National forests are not managed by the 
Department of the Interior and the National Park Service. National 
forests are managed by the Department of Agriculture, because they were 
set aside and established so that our Nation would always have an 
abundant, ready supply of timber. Timber was one of the initial 
industries that we had. It was so important to the past of our country, 
but important to the future of our country as well.
  As Mr. Westerman really articulated well, when you have a healthy 
forest, you have carbon sinks and you have filters. A lot of our 
watersheds originate in our national forests, so it is good for

[[Page 19907]]

clean water if they are properly managed. It is good for clean air, and 
it is good for the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, from time to time, I spend some time as a lay pastor and 
I will fill the pulpit. When I am talking to the churches, I talk about 
how a healthy church is like a healthy forest. If I go into a church 
and I see that everyone sitting in the pews has my hairline, a little 
bit of salt on the side here with gray hair, that is not a healthy 
church. It is just kind of one generation. Well, forests are the same 
way. If you want a healthy church, you need multiple generations in the 
pews. If you want a healthy forest, you need multiple generations of 
forest because it is good for the wildlife, it is good for the birds, 
and it is good for the mammals, because they need different types of 
forests at different points in their maturity in order to support that 
wildlife.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things that leads to putting pressure on 
certain species is, when we stop harvesting trees, we stop active 
management, because we know that almost every species, at different 
times in their life, need that kind of open area. They need time in 
young forest growth right through to more mature forest growth. Without 
that, these species can't be supported.
  So there are all kinds of reasons, let alone the economic health of 
our rural communities. That was a promise that was made by our 
predecessors when they took this land out of the private sector and put 
it into the public sector. It was done with a promise that they would 
always do active management in such a way to generate the revenue to be 
able to backfill for those property taxes that would have been lost.
  We have really failed at that as a nation. Our rural communities in 
and around our national forests are so challenged. Don't get me wrong. 
I think we have great people that are working for the Forest Service. I 
spend a lot of time with them. They are dedicated professionals.
  I think the Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, is an 
outstanding individual, has strong character. I like the Chief because 
his first job in the Forest Service was when he was going to college 
and he worked summers as a firefighter. I am an old firefighter. He has 
done all the jobs. He knows what it is to manage an active forest.
  We have a lot of pressures, though, that the bureaucracy has placed 
on him. We have a lot of external pressures with special interest 
groups who claim they are trying to save the forests. But the end 
result of their actions where they limit, they sue, and they prevent 
forest plans from being implemented and prevent timber management from 
occurring, they are actually killing the forests.
  Forests are living entities. If they are not actively managed, they 
will get sick and they will die. When they do, they become emitters of 
carbon. When a forest is healthy, it actually absorbs carbon. It is a 
carbon sink, as I said before.
  Mr. Speaker, let me talk about some of the statistics that show that 
much of our national forest system is unhealthy. In fact, the Forest 
Service has identified up to one-quarter of nearly 200 million acres of 
national forest land as a wildfire risk. We have seen a dramatic 
reduction, Mr. Speaker, of the harvest from our national forests from 
nearly 13 billion board feet in the 1980s to roughly 3 million board 
feet in past years.
  Let me put that into perspective and share some statistics on that. 
Let's go back to 1995. In 1995, Mr. Speaker, one-sixth of the Forest 
Service budget was used for wildfire management and mitigation. It was 
reasonable. At that point, when we were using one-sixth of the Forest 
Service budget, we were harvesting in 1995 3.8 billion board feet.
  Let's fast-forward to 2015. Now, the numbers I am going to share with 
you are from August of 2015. I readily admit I don't have the past 
couple months in this, but at this point, the Forest Service is 
spending 50 percent of its budget on fighting wildfires--50 percent.
  Think about 50 percent of your household, 50 percent of your family's 
budget, your business, or a local school. To take 50 percent of your 
budget just for this type of crisis management doesn't work. It just 
doesn't work.
  At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have only projected to harvest, at 
that point, 2.4 billion board feet. It is a big part of the lack of 
active management. We need to provide the Forest Service tools to be 
able to help them do their jobs. The high-water mark was back in 1987 
when we had 12.7 billion board feet harvested. That is a variance from 
this year of 10.3 billion board feet.
  We are constantly talking about the economic crisis that we are in 
here, and we are. We have got a debt that has been out of control. I am 
very proud to be a part of a Republican-led Congress that, for a number 
of years, on the discretionary side, we have actually reduced our 
spending, and we are starting to get our arms wrapped around mandatory 
spending. So we are doing our job.
  But there is a need for more resources, and we recognize that. There 
is a need for more revenue. We are literally burning that revenue up in 
our national forests each and every year, dramatically. How much 
revenue? I would have to say that, if you take, every year, 10.3 
billion board feet, if that is the amount that we could get our annual 
harvesting to, you have to ask yourself: How much more healthy would 
the forest be?
  If the forest is healthy, Mr. Speaker, so many fewer wildfires would 
occur at just an incredible cost, including the loss of lives. We have 
lost a tremendous number of American heroes, our firefighters from both 
the U.S. Forest Service but also volunteer firefighters like myself. 
Perhaps some professional firefighters have lost their lives because of 
the incident. It is just the crisis that we have in wildfires.
  If we would increase our harvesting, we would increase the health of 
the forest, and we could reduce wildfires and that risk. We would also 
increase revenue. I am not prepared to tell you what the average value 
of a board foot in timber harvest off our national forests is. I know 
that varies greatly.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to represent the Allegheny National Forest. I 
am proud to say that it is actually the most profitable national forest 
in the country. It is kind of puny compared to my colleagues out west. 
We are about 513,000 acres, but we have got the world's best hardwood 
cherry. Our hardwoods are what increase the value. I know that is a 
wide variance on what the value of 1 board foot in 2015 of timber 
harvested in our national forests is. But whatever that number is, 
multiply it by $10.3 billion, and that is a lot of revenue that is 
owned by the taxpayers of this country--given the fact it is their 
national forest--that we could be bringing in.
  Then the prosperity, Mr. Speaker. If we could unleash and get timber 
in closer to that sustainable rate, what that would do for our school 
districts, our kids, our families, and the jobs that would be 
stimulated in the forest products industry. It would just have an 
amazing impact, Mr. Speaker.
  Now, as we examine these issues, Mr. Speaker, it becomes easier to 
see how everything is corrected. Trees which should have been harvested 
years ago have been allowed to become fuel for forest fires, leading to 
the rise in the acreage burned that we have seen in recent years.
  There are many prospective solutions to this problem, including the 
Agricultural Act of 2014, also known as the farm bill. I am very proud 
that all the Members were involved with the farm bill. It was a great 
bipartisan bill that we did. It includes provisions to include improved 
forest management. So we have taken action. We have enacted into law 
some tools for the Forest Service.
  There is just more that we need to do, Mr. Speaker. Those tools 
include an expedited process in the planning for projects and the 
reauthorization programs, such as the stewardship contracting and the 
Good Neighbor Authority. These all improve forest health, timber sales, 
and restoration.
  Now, the House passed the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, 
which Mr. Westerman very appropriately talked about, in July.

[[Page 19908]]



                              {time}  1915

  The goal of this legislation was to provide the Forest Service with 
direction and the tools to address the challenges of litigation. I have 
to tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have forest plans that are about active 
timber management, but we have these outside groups that sue the 
government because the government reimburses their costs, even when 
they settle out of court.
  That is not why the Equal Access to Justice Act was originally 
written; not for some group that is not a direct stakeholder in terms 
of having property that is in the forest or adjoined to the forest. But 
it is litigation, it is funding, no doubt about it, it is the process, 
it is basic timber harvesting, and essential active management. I will 
come back to some of those in just a bit. I want to share some outcomes 
from the most recent hearing that we had with the Conservation and 
Forestry Subcommittee.
  I am proud to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. I 
believe that it should become law. It will have a major impact on 
reducing catastrophic wildfires across the Nation.
  The district that I represent, Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional 
District, is the home of the Allegheny National Forest, the only 
national forest in the Commonwealth. It encompasses more than 513,000 
acres across four counties, and for generations, it has formed the 
economic bedrock of small communities in that region.
  In some ways, the Allegheny is very different from our western 
forests--I have mentioned some of those--but it has many similar 
challenges, including a lack of timbering, reduced county budgets, and 
outbreaks of invasive species.
  Reforming the way we deal with wildfires and forestry management will 
have a positive effect in forests and in rural communities, not just in 
the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania, but, quite frankly, 
across the Nation.
  I look forward to hearing more from my colleagues, and taking 
opportunities in the future to host more of these Special Orders, in 
looking at ways so that we can confront the very real challenges in 
national forest regions.
  I wanted to share some of the outcomes from our most recent hearing 
that we had on this issue back on October 8. We had some great speakers 
come in, witnesses, that provided testimony from all over the country. 
I will just share with you, Mr. Speaker, some of the things that would 
be helpful, things that we need to consider. I am going to start in the 
category of increasing the efficiency and the effectiveness of forest 
management that we have, starting with giving an opportunity for State 
primacy.
  This was an idea that came out from a rancher in Washington State. 
The States tend to have less bureaucracy, they have less of a target on 
their back by these outside groups that are suing. So the State's 
success at increasing active timber management and a higher level of 
forest health. But State primacy is something that was an idea that 
came out that needs to, at least, have further consideration.
  Expanding what we call categorical exemption from NEPA analysis. That 
doesn't mean that we are not looking at the environmental impacts. That 
couldn't be further from the truth. For where it makes sense, what we 
need to do is provide a categorical exemption from a full-blown NEPA 
analysis, but we need to do that more on a landscape perspective, so a 
landscape management. We are talking large scale, 100,000 acres or 
more, being able to more efficiently, being able to more effectively, 
manage the forest.
  We have provided some categorical exemption opportunities within the 
farm bill to the Forest Service for regular maintenance activities, 
where they had to spend a tremendous amount of resources just to clear 
a power line or to do trail maintenance, or replant after a forest 
fire, wildfire. Quite frankly, their sister agencies: the Bureau of 
Land Management and the Corps of Engineers, they didn't have to do 
that. So this is just kind of common sense.
  We need to protect our active management funds. We can't be dipping 
into the funds that we use to manage the forest. That is what happened. 
That is what I referred to as that large sucking sound. It is not just 
resources. My forest supervisor, who does a great job, she was 
detailed. She went out west for a period of time. She wasn't on our 
forest doing her job because of the need for her expertise in the west 
during one of those wildfires this past year in the west. We need to 
protect our active management funds.
  There are some things that came out: a recommendation for larger air 
tankers to be able to deal with the size and the scale of the wildfires 
that are out there. We need to, obviously, reduce this litigation. Out 
of 311 projects this past year, 16 wound up in the courts. That is a 
significant number. Quite frankly, it is not necessary. Unfortunately, 
it has become a fundraising scheme for the most part. It is not 
contributing towards forest health. It, actually, is deteriorating our 
forest health. We have an increase in invasive species. We are burning 
up our forest at a record level.
  When you burn forest, you ruin that water filter, you impact water 
quality, you impact as a carbon sink. So we need to reduce the 
litigation and take steps to be able to do that.
  We do need personnel, there is no doubt about it. We have 49 percent 
fewer foresters than just in 2010. It is our professional foresters, 
the silviculturists, who are out--of knowing how to mark the timber, of 
knowing when to harvest the timber when it is at peak value. That is an 
asset owned by the American people. We shouldn't be waiting until that 
tree blows over, burns down, or is eaten by some type of bug, invasive 
species, until we harvest it. We should harvest it really at its peak 
value. That is demonstrating a fiduciary responsibility for the 
American people with this asset.
  And then certainly we need more collaborative work. Again, H.R. 2647 
would achieve that.
  So that is more efficient, more effective forest management.
  Let me look briefly at response. We do need to fund this 
appropriately. I am a supporter of a concept that would look at larger 
fires, more widespread. I don't know how we gauge that--by acreage or 
dollar value lost or dollars needed. Those really are natural 
disasters. They are as every bit a natural disaster as an earthquake, a 
hurricane, or a tornado. Those larger fires should be dealt with as 
natural disasters.
  And then other fires on a smaller scale, underneath whatever that 
threshold is set, then let's do that through regular order with the 
Forest Service budget with what we appropriate. There is a definite 
difference. That would be a recommendation. That was something that 
came out of a discussion.
  And then safe harbor for mutual aid. One rancher from Washington 
talked about a Forest Service where there was a--I don't know if it was 
a State or a private individual with a bulldozer--a CAT came up to the 
Forest Service line. Two situations. One time they asked the Forest 
Service person, who was working under the direction of somebody in the 
bureaucracy. They welcomed him in, and they saved a tremendous spread 
of that fire. And then another time where the Forest Service personnel 
said: No, we have to fill out the permits first. Well, you have got the 
wildlife burning, but we have got to fill out the permits, and we have 
got to do the paperwork. I am not judging that Forest Service employee 
because they were probably doing whatever they were told to do, and 
there was more catastrophic loss there. So some type of safe harbor 
that allows better use of mutual aid.
  I want to yield to a friend of mine because it kind of speaks to the 
efficiency and the effectiveness on the Equal Access to Justice Act. 
This is the law that we kind of talked about that really has encouraged 
radical environmental groups to file lawsuits and stop forest plans 
from occurring.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) to speak on the 
topic.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Look, we are here, and I am glad to hear what 
has come out of the Conservation and

[[Page 19909]]

Forestry Subcommittee. I just wanted to talk about that because you 
mentioned the losses in transparency on that open book. It does that. 
It has been something that has passed through this House. We just 
passed it again last week. It really just shines the light on this 
access issue and the Federal government--what we end up paying 
sometimes for these groups to sue and what our departments are paying 
out.
  What you are talking about is a healthy management of our forests, 
but it is also a healthy management of our resources. We are setting 
forth what we need to do as priorities in Congress. As someone from 
northeast Georgia, with a lot of forestry land--Chattahoochee National 
Forest--this is something we can work together on. We are glad to be a 
part of that.
  The support that you have done and the leadership that you have given 
is incredible, and we want to continue to thank you for that and be a 
part of it. That is just part of our transparency issue we have with 
the Federal Government, and also these lawsuits that have been coming 
out, and we can do that together.
  I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend him for 
the work that he is doing and the work of our forestries around the 
country.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I appreciate the gentleman's 
perspective on that.
  The Equal Access to Justice Act was a righteous piece of legislation 
when it was passed. But it was passed to be able to protect those who 
are kind of landowners, who were the big brother--the National Forest, 
or the Federal Government, was impinging on your private property 
rights.
  We all know that most individuals don't have a whole lot of money to 
be able to defend themselves. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has 
the pockets of every taxpayer. It was never meant to be hijacked by the 
way it has been. I appreciate the leadership of the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), who has been a great leader, championing kind of 
just returning to the original intent of the Equal Access to Justice 
Act. I look forward to working with the gentleman on that.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Open book access is just a great thing, and I 
appreciate it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, I have one last category I want to cover here, and that 
is how we increase the markets, because you have to have a place to 
sell timber that is harvested. There are a number of things that we can 
do.
  Just quickly, we need to expand our trade. That is why I am so 
pleased with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The trade ambassador and 
his chief negotiators actually have eliminated basically all of the 
tariffs that really hindered our ability to export whether it was raw 
timber or boards or pellets. It was just very difficult in the past. 
This trade proposal, members of the subcommittee and members of the 
full Agriculture Committee worked very closely with the trade 
ambassador to make sure that that was one of our priorities that was 
achieved, and it looks like it has been achieved. I think that is going 
to increase markets. We need to do that with all of our trade 
agreements.
  We need to expand the use of timber products within the green 
building standards, LEED standards. It is an original renewable, but it 
was excluded from those. It makes no sense whatsoever.
  We need to develop the lamination technology that has taken timber, 
and being able to use that really for skyscraper type construction very 
successfully. The research is done by our U.S. Forest Services, as well 
as our land grant universities, such as my alma mater of Penn State. 
There is great research being done, actually supported through the farm 
bill in terms of forest services, forest products.
  We need to encourage and develop the woody biomass of biofuels, 
taking that timber, that fiber, to use it for chemicals, to use it for 
fuel.
  We need to prevent the loss of market infrastructure that results in 
no beds or low beds for timber sales. In some parts of our country, our 
sawmills have been decimated. As small businesses, we need to help 
people with small businesses keep that foothold that we have and regain 
it.
  Those are just a few of the things--all not my ideas. Those all came 
out of our hearing with the October 8 subcommittee that we had on 
wildfires.
  I very much appreciate the bipartisan participation tonight by my 
colleagues on this very important issue. I think we have done some 
really good things with the farm bill to help our forest products 
industry. Again, this truly is about the health of the forest. It is 
about revenue for the country, but it is about the prosperity of rural 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have this Special Order.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________