Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4200) to improve the ability of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to promptly implement recovery treatments in response to catastrophic events affecting Federal lands under their jurisdiction, including the removal of dead and damaged trees and the implementation of reforestation treatments, to support the recovery of non-Federal lands damaged by catastrophic events, to revitalize Forest Service experimental forests, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am delighted today to bring H.R. 4200 to the House for its consideration. I have spoken on it during the debate on the rule. This legislation is extraordinarily important for America to become a better steward of her forests.

Our Committee on the Forest and Forest Health has traveled the Nation's forests. We have listened to the experts from the scientific community. We have listened to the experts in the fire-fighting community. We have held field hearings where we have heard from tribal leaders who manage forestlands and move quickly after catastrophic events. We have met with State foresters who, in many cases, are in after a major forest fire or blowdown in a matter of days, if not weeks, doing what we propose to allow your Federal Land Management Agencies to do. You see, every other manager of Federal forest does what we are trying to put in place here.

We do require that environmental laws be followed. We do provide for administrative appeal and litigation. What we require is that the underlying forest plans be followed. And if those forest plans say you can't harvest here and you have to do this sort of retention there for snags and habitat, then you have to do that. We don't change any of that. We require a site-specific evaluation, so it isn't a one-size- fits-all plan. We don't do that from here. We just say, whatever your plan called for, whatever the scientists on the ground say needs to be done, let us give our Federal land managers the authority to move quicker than they can move today if an emergency exists.

It is precisely what we expect out of our Federal Emergency Management Agency and, yes, demand: quick action after a hurricane in southern States, let us say, to clean up, to restore, to prevent erosion, to fix roads, to do the things that Americans expect and actually think are being done.

We want to protect our watersheds, and this legislation will help us do that.

The timber that comes out, if that is what the decision is, will have value. Today, when it takes 2 to 3 years to harvest a burned, dead tree that bugs have been in, that rot has occurred and nobody bids on it, it has no value, or very little by then. What the Congressional Budget Office found, unlike what my colleague from New Mexico said is, what they found is by passing this legislation, we would actually act quicker and the trees wouldn't have deteriorated, and the receipts to the Federal Government would be up 40 percent, not that we would harvest that many more trees necessarily. But you do it while they still have value. And that makes sense to the taxpayers and the forests.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the Forest Committee and the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Gutknecht.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington (Miss McMorris) to speak in favor of the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act.

Miss McMORRIS. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.

I, too, just want to rise in support of this legislation and applaud the leadership of those who have been working on this legislation that is so important to move quickly to restore forests, key watersheds, wildlife habitat, and stabilize our soils.

It is not acceptable that we continue to see thousands of acres burn because of forest fires, because of poor management on our forests, big kill, and we have these catastrophic situations take place when we are not able to take action.

I wanted to specifically speak to the provisions related to the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. I have been working on chairing a task force, and although I applaud the authors of NEPA, who truly were visionary for their time, I do believe there is an opportunity for us to improve the implementation of NEPA 35 years later. It is unfortunate that so often this is the law used through paperwork or bureaucratic means to prevent us from really taking action that is needed on our forests.

Northeastern Washington is known for its vast public forests that span over 2.6 million acres of land. These forests, and the resulting timber, play an extremely important role in our region's economy. Maintaining healthy forests is essential to those who make a living from the land and for those of us who use them for others purposes. Unfortunately, there are a number of critical issues that impact the health and the economic stability of the forests in our region.

One of my top priorities in Congress is to grow our economy and in order to do this we must protect our natural resources. Currently, the Colville Forest is dying faster than it is being maintained, leaving a large number of dead or dying trees susceptible to disease, insect infestation, and future wildfires.

I have also been interested in exploring issues affecting post-fire rehabilitation. Immediate restoration work on forests following catastrophic events is essential for reforestation and rehabilitation to be successful. As the chair of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) task force, I have unfortunately discovered that legal and procedural delays have become the norm, leaving vast areas of national forest land barren of trees for decades. This has lead to devastating impacts on wildlife habitat, soil stability and water quality.

In my district last year, just south of Pomeroy, Washington, the School Fire started on August 5th and over 13 days burned nearly 50,000 acres, destroying 215 homes, recreational cabins and outbuildings. According to James Agee, a University of Washington forest ecologist and professor who specialize in dry forest fire ecology said the area burned by the School Fire likely will take about 150 years to grow back if we let Mother Nature takes it course. That is simply not acceptable.

I co-sponsored the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act because our forests, and the resulting timber, play an extremely important role in the economy in the Pacific Northwest. Maintaining healthy forests is essential to those who make a living from the land and for those of us who use them for recreational purposes. Eastern Washington has experienced a number of deadly forest fires this season, and it is crucial that we have bipartisan legislation that will expedite the research and restoration process.

Madam Chairman, I certainly appreciate all of the work that Mr. Duncan has done on our Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, and the gentleman's comments today really, I think, make a very, very strong point.

We have more forested acres today than we did 100 years ago, and we have more trees today than we did. In fact, one of the issues we face in America's forests in the West is overstocked forests. And when forests get overstocked, then bugs come in, nature takes over, you have disease, you have stressed trees, and often they die. And then you get a fire.

You have seen earlier in the debate pictures of these forests after they have burned. Now I represent a district that is nearly 70,000 square miles, home to, I think, 10 or 11 national forests. More than half of the land mass of the district I represent is in government ownership.

I love to get out and backpack and hike. I was up on Dog Mountain this weekend in Columbia Gorge. I love these forests.

I want healthy green forests, I want to protect the watersheds. I also drive through forests that burned years ago and nothing has been done to recover them. There are valuable stands of timber there that could have been harvested to pay for the recovery effort. The Congressional Budget Office says if we allow the Forest Service and the BLM to move quicker on the projects they deem to be appropriate under their planning documents and in compliance with the Federal environmental laws, we could actually increase receipts by 40 percent from those sales. Forty percent. We could pay for the restoration work. We could restore the forests.

Now, you have heard comments today about how do we define a disaster. Well, we define it virtually identically to the way the Federal Emergency Management Agency defines a major disaster. The language is almost identical. It means any natural catastrophic catastrophe, including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowslide, drought. All of those things contribute to a catastrophe in America's forests, and so we use the same definition. So if you don't like our definition here, well then maybe we need to change FEMA. But I don't think anybody would stand for that in an emergency. If we have an emergency in a forest, the emergency doesn't end when the smoke clears.

We have also heard today, erroneously, no site evaluation. We would wipe that out. Nobody would ever have to go on the ground. That is not true. Go to page 32 of the manager's amendment that we are debating today: We require the agencies to show rationale for their decision, economic analysis and justification, an analysis of the environmental effects of the project, and how such effects will be minimized or mitigated consistent with applicable land and resource management plan. And it goes on through.

And let me say, we continually heard this nonsense that somehow you can do this without ever following the Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act or the Endangered Species, and that is simply not the case; because Americans act, and that is simply not the case; because Americans under our law would have the same right they have under existing law in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to appeal, and to appeal to a court of law who would immediately shut down a project with a temporary restraining order, stop them in their tracks if they didn't follow existing Federal law. The safeguards are in this bill to do what is needed to be done to improve America's forests, to get them back into restored status, to move quickly after a catastrophe, after a disaster, as we expect the government to do after a lot of different events that occur in our country. We just want to be able to do that in our forests as well, like every other forestland manager has the authority to do.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Why, Madam Chairman, indeed I do. I rise in opposition and seek the time.

I would like to take a moment to outline just how Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act complies with the NEPA standards and often exceeds those standards.

The Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act requires public notice, public collaboration, and an opportunity for the public to object to any proposed action. Read the bill: Pages 22, 23, 24, 25, 33, and 34. It is right there in black and white.

The judicial review requirement under this bill is identical to those in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act which Congress passed last year. See page 35. Now, we actually passed that a couple years ago, and I know my friend and colleague from West Virginia voted against it when it was in the House and voted against the conference report when it came back. So it is no surprise because he doesn't like this bill because he hated the Healthy Forest Restoration Act even after the Senate voice-voted it, as did my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Udall, opposed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. So some of the same people who are here today saying we are going to do all these awful things said the same thing a couple years ago when we passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Ironically, some of those same Members now say, oh, we are not fully implementing the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and we should be doing more on that. We wouldn't have it if they had been in charge because they voted against it every time they had an opportunity.

The Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act also requires disclosure of the decision rationale, economic analysis, and analysis of the environmental effects of the project which leads to a very transparent agency process, page 32. We require independent, third- party, scientific peer review of recovery practices. See page 13 and page 24.

These are just a few examples of how this legislation complies with the intent of NEPA, and if the agency fails to comply with all these things, we prescribe in the law they can be sued. If they fail to comply with the very laws that have been identified by my colleague, they can be sued.

These projects can be halted. We do not say do anything you want, notwithstanding any other Federal law, including all the ones you have heard listed repeatedly. Those laws still have to be complied with.

Currently there are bills that actually go further than where this bill goes. They would waive environmental documentation altogether. My friend and colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), one of the most vocal critics of this legislation, has introduced H.R. 4875, which, through categorical exclusion, would waive environmental documentation completely for insect emergency areas in Colorado. We do not do that here.

I read where one of the opponents of this legislation worked on the sale in the Biscuit fire, and said we do not need this bill, we did 16 million boardfeet of harvest, and we did it using existing laws. Yeah, they used a categorical exclusion which you cannot even do now.

We have a balanced bill here. It involves the public. It tracks with what we did with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to allow for free decisional appeals and for judicial appeal.

It is backed by all kinds of groups that love to be in the outdoors, the Bear Trust International, Boone and Crockett Club, the Bow Hunting Preservation Alliance, the Archery Trade, the Congressional Sportsmen Caucus, you go through it, people are out there enjoying the woods, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Deer Management Association, and professional firefighters groups and the Society of American Foresters.

We are trying to give our Federal land managers the troops that our State and tribal land managers have, and we are trying to allow them to be able to move quicker and still involve the public because this Member of Congress believes fundamentally the public should have the right to appeal a decision of the government, and this bill allows that.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my colleague and friend from southern Oregon, and we have tried to come together on this legislation, and we have not quite gotten there yet, but I have to rise in opposition to his amendment.

The term ``timber production land'' means different things when discussing different forests. Even in the broadest sense, land where timber is the primary objective has been steadily decreasing, reflecting a shifting focus on timber production to using harvest for other purposes, such as wildlife habitat, hazardous fuels reduction or forest health.

For example, in Oregon there are 32 million acres of BLM and national forestlands. Less than 20 percent is designated for timber production. In the State of California, of the 12 national forests in the Sierra framework, totaling over 11 million acres, only 1 percent is designated as timber production land.

These figures illustrate just what a devastating effect the amendment would have. It would be very, very restrictive, guaranteeing only a very small portion of the Nation's forests would have proper recovery efforts in the event of a catastrophe. Obviously, a quicker review and recovery is necessary than what this amendment would allow at this point.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), my friend and colleague, the coauthor of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would just comment to my colleague from Oregon that we looked at using the HFRA procedures, and they are just not fast enough. When you have a catastrophe, an emergency, the agency has testified before our committee that the Chief of the Forest Service has said, yes, I was able to use the Healthy Forest Restoration Act procedures even in Katrina because the trees were on the ground, and they posed a fire threat. I said, why can't you use those then when a forest is burned when the trees are still standing? He said it is a different threat.

He also said that had he had this, and he wants this authority, by the way, and had he had it, he would have been able to move quicker. And that is really the underlying issue here is the ability to move without upending any of the environmental laws, but move quicker procedurally. The public still has a right to input; the public still has the right to object and appeal and to stop a project if a law is being violated.

Finally, I would just conclude regarding this amendment that, indeed, it is so proscriptive that very few forests would be able to take advantage of the underlying legislation. Again, only about 1 percent the Sierra framework forest in California, most of the Southeast forests would be excluded, and actually very few in the Northwest.

So I hope my colleague from Oregon, my friend, and I can continue to work on this legislation as it moves forward to find common ground, but we think we have found pretty good balance right here, the Republicans and Democrats that are cosponsoring this bill and have worked now on the 50th draft to work out all the issues before bringing it to the Committee of the Whole for its consideration. So I urge opposition to the DeFazio amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am trying to figure out the gentleman's arguments, because I have here the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, and it talks about how if H.R. 4200 would pass, it would increase proceeds from salvage sales on average by 40 percent. Assuming the agencies would phase in the use of the new procedures over several years, we estimate increased receipts would begin in 2008 and total $122 million over the 2008 through 2016 period.

Now, they go through and have a bunch of other numbers they work through on what would be offset, but the long and short of it is that over the next 7 years, it is something like $21 million additional to the Treasury simply by eliminating the bureaucratic red tape that delays the projects until the trees have no value.

So the fiscally prudent argument here is to follow the only number sheet I can find, the Congressional Budget Office report, where the experts have evaluated the bill independently of any politics and said this bill makes money, and it makes sense.

Now, let us go to the bill. On page 25 of the manager's amendment, it talks about this issue of roadless. We were sensitive to this issue. We addressed this issue. And it requires that any preapproved management practice may not authorize any permanent road building, and any temporary road constructed as part of a preapproved management practice shall be obliterated upon conclusion of the practice and the road area restored to the extent practicable.

Now, some people will say, well, that is just in the statute. That is just in the law. They don't do it now, they won't do it then, whatever. They will make it up. The contracts also require this. The contracts written by the Forest Service that are entered into as a legal, binding document will require a bond, will require obliteration. They work all that out there, but the statute backs it up and says obliterate the temporary roads. So it is all part of the management practice that would go on, and it is codified here in the statute.

So I just am not quite sure where the gentleman is going with all this. The new roadless rule allows each of the 38 States with roadless areas to participate in the development of their own State's specific plan. A lot of these States are undergoing that now, and we should let them have that local authority to help guide the Federal Government in that planning.

Simply put, if a forest plan prohibits road building in an area, then this legislation prohibits that, because the underlying forest plans are what dictates what happens. Roadless stays roadless. H.R. 4200 will not create any new permanent roads. The only roads allowed are temporary roads, which must be removed after completion of the project. It is in the statute we propose that the Congress pass.

So we have put it in statute. I am sure it is also in the contracts that get negotiated, and we have been very clear on this. So I would urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I understand I have 2 minutes remaining.

I just want to say that this bill grants no new authority to build roads anywhere, anytime. To say so is to make it up. It is that simple. It does not say go build roads anywhere, anytime. That is not a new authority in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Again, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the national organizations that represent the men and women who put their lives on the line to put out fires support this legislation. The national organizations, the Fire Chiefs International, the Forest Firefighters folks, support this legislation because they know what it will do and how important it is.

The Udall amendment may sound plausible, may sound reasonable, and it is neither. The Udall amendment is based on the theory that salvage increases fire risk. Wildfire fighting associations representing over 12,000 firefighters disagree.

This amendment also requires that no practice may be carried out unless the Secretary certifies the practice or project will not increase fire risk or decrease forest regeneration.

Now, if you haven't been involved in this discussion like we have in nine hearings and 50 drafts, you would think, well, that sounds reasonable. We wouldn't want to do anything that would increase fire risk or maybe decrease regeneration.

Well, let me give you an example of what happens in the real world. Imagine the following scenario: Logging creates logging slash. Under contractual agreements it must be cleaned up, often within 30 days. The agency could get sued because of the increased fire risk that exists during that 30-day period.

To do a recovery after a hurricane, the Forest Service proposes a salvage sale to capture value, remove hazardous fuels and plant a mix of willow species and riparian areas and mixed conifers on the drier sites. A lawsuit could be filed saying the agency hasn't proven that one seedling that survived that fire or that hurricane would be affected. So otherwise they can get you coming and going. You can't prove that an action in the forest will not have any effect. If you go hiking in the forest, you could step on a seedling.

And I am going to tell you, if you do a project in the forest you are going to have an effect. That is why our legislation requires mitigation and minimalization.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

One of the issues here with the amendment is there no specified time period. There is no specified landscape. It is wide open.

Does this mean anytime, anywhere in the forest you might step on a seedling, then, boom, you are going to get sued?

As for Mr. Donato, let us be forthright about this. The BLM did suspend the funding while they responded to allegations they hadn't followed the rules. When they got the answers, they were satisfied with them and the funding continued and the research continues. And even Mr. Donato said, don't overinterpret my findings.

I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment.

I yield the balance of the time to the chairman of the full Resources Committee, Mr. Pombo.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just invite my dear friend from New Mexico, who spoke earlier, if he might address a question for me because I think, with respect, he is comparing apples and oranges.

He suggested that a scientific study by Oregon State University showed that postfire logging decreases forest regeneration and increases fire risk. Is the gentleman from New Mexico aware that that study gathered data 2 years postfire, not from a harvest begun 90 days after the fire, as we would allow in this bill? Is the gentleman aware of that?

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico to answer that question.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I asked a straightforward question about a study that was conducted 2 years post. I got a dissertation about the journal in which the study was published.

I happen to hold a doctorate in clinical psychology, used to teach research methods, and I will tell you that particular study, as many that we have heard today, does not apply to this. It is an apples and oranges comparison.

One of the things that has been remarkable to me, as an environmentalist, as a scientist, and as someone who represents a forested district, is the willingness of the opponents of this legislation to simply distort the truth. Elsewhere I have introduced legislation called the ``72-Hour Rule'' to give us time to read bills before we vote on them. I am coming to believe today that that is unnecessary because I do not think people do read bills before they come down here to debate.

Let me address some points that have been made. People have suggested that this dismantles laws. Not a single fundamental environmental law is dismantled by this legislation. That is a false claim.

People have suggested that there are no protections for riparian areas. My

colleague from New Mexico suggested that. We are just going to have logging right up to the streamside, it seems. That is not correct. Existing forest management plans require streamside set-asides. I can take you to fires where the harvest has been conducted, and you have got 150-foot buffers as required under existing law, law that must be followed under this proposed legislation. So we have buffers for streams.

People have suggested this bill allows for plantation-type reforestation. That, too, is false. This legislation specifically proscribes, prohibits, plantation-type reforestation and requires that you plant with diverse and dispersed natural species.

People have suggested that you inevitably increase erosion when you harvest. Dr. Korb, from the University of Montana, a Ph.D. scientist, testified that by cross-falling trees, you can actually reduce erosion, and you know that is common sense. If you have got a hillside that is barren because of a fire, and you go in and you drop some of the trees laterally, you create little check dams, and in areas where that is done, siltation has actually been reduced and salmon habitat and other habitat preserved and clean water preserved.

It is astonishing to me, astonishing, how my friends are able to cite studies that are apples and oranges comparisons and irrelevant to the legislation, how they are able to claim things about the legislation that are not, in fact, the case. If I believed half of what the opponents of this bill have claimed, I might oppose the bill myself. But I wrote the bill, along with Congressman Walden and others, so I do know what is in it. And as an environmentalist and as a scientist, it is good legislation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let us step back for just a second, because it seems some folks may not fully understand why we need this legislation. We need this legislation because following a fire or a blowdown or other catastrophic event, the wood is actually still good, but it is only good for a finite time, as Mr. Walden said in his opening remarks. Every day that you delay, the value of the wood declines.

Now, we believe that it is not a situation where you can just say, well, let us look infinitely before you leap. You have got to act, because not acting here has consequences. What this bill does is expedite a way of acting responsibly so the public has input, so that you use best available science, and then the public has an appeals process.

But beyond that, the bill contains a host of protections, and I want to underscore those. Contrary to what my friend from the Science Committee suggested, you can only cut trees that are either dead or in eminent demise. So if a tree is blown over, it can live for a year or so, but it is going to die mighty soon. There is no provision in this bill, none whatsoever, that allows you to go into a healthy stand of green trees and cut it.

Secondly, if a wilderness area or a national park burns, they are off limits. The bill doesn't touch them. Doesn't touch them.

Third, the bill does not require logging anyway. It merely says that if the managers on the ground think it can be done responsibly and economically and appropriately, they can move forward. In fact, many of the fires in the Pacific Northwest, you have hundreds of thousands of acres burned, and only 6 or 7 percent harvested.

Congressman Walden and I agree with the science that there are a number of species that depend on standing burned logs for habitat. That is why the bill specifically says you have to leave some logs. It is also why many areas would be left unharvested.

But you look at these 100,000-acre forest fires and you say if you are going to harvest 6 or 7 percent, you have plenty of habitat for those critters that depend on burned trees. But there are also species that prosper more in an open area after harvest, and if what you truly want to support is broad species diversity, you will realize net greatest overall species diversity from harvesting some areas, leaving other areas standing.

I also want to follow up on something Mr. Goodlatte said. People who don't represent forest districts may say what is in it for me; why should I care?

Here is why you should care. Because when you build your house, if you had a builder come to you and say here is your choice; we can either build this house with perfectly solid wood that came from dead trees that were killed in a fire, or we can build your house by cutting down live trees that are standing today, which would you prefer? Most Americans would say, you know, I would rather use the dead wood, if it is good structurally, to build my house; and indeed it is good structurally, but only if you harvest it promptly.

Let me go right back to basics. We use wood. It has got to come from somewhere. If you can get it from burned forests and do so responsibly and protect the environment, as this bill requires, that is where you ought to get the wood from. But if you delay that harvest unnecessarily, you will diminish the value of the wood and you will increase the adverse environmental impact.

Finally, let me say this: We make decisions in our society and we make trade-offs and balance things. My friends on the other side would say, where is your peer-review science that proves it is good for a forest to harvest burned trees?

You make sacrifices whether you harvest live trees or dead trees. In the case of a live tree, you are sacrificing a living tree. In the case of a dead tree, you are sacrificing a dead tree. The choice is pretty clear to me, and that is what this bill allows us to make: that choice.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.

Madam Chairman, just briefly, I mentioned earlier the amazement with which I have watched some of the misrepresentation that has occurred on the floor today.

I just saw it again a second ago from my good friend from Washington State. BLM did not, for the record, cancel the contract of the researcher, they suspended it following a review to make sure procedures had been followed.

I also want to talk about this criticism of planning ahead. You know, folks on my side have been in high dudgeon and great outrage at the lack of planning by FEMA prior to Hurricane Katrina. Here we are with a bill that would allow us to plan ahead, so that when disaster strikes we can respond responsibly and promptly with the best available science to protect the environment and to save the taxpayers money, and we are being criticized for advance planning.

It is a good bit paradoxical, my friends. You cannot say on the one hand we ought to plan for disasters like Katrina, but we should not plan for disasters in a forest. You should plan for both, and we have proven mechanisms for responding to both.

And here is something that has to be underscored. What we are talking about today is standard practice, standard practice by State foresters, by industrial foresters, by private timber owners, and by tribes. People who have fiduciary responsibilities to their taxpayers, to their stockholders, and to the timber owners do this every day across the country.

And if you would come with Congressman Walden and I, we can walk you through beautiful, magnificent forests that were burned one time, harvested, and regenerated. That is why we are supporting this bill.

I would just say for all of the talk on evidence, the evidence can be obtained right here with your eyes. Just come visit these forests. If 15,000 people who manage forests on the ground every day support this, this is not about giving President George Bush authority over burned fires, it is about giving the timber managers who live and work and know the ground and raise their families nearby and drink the water from the watersheds and have years of experience, that is who gets the authority under this bill.

Madam Chairman, I want to add one other environmental consideration on this, the issue of greenhouse gases. When you talk about billions of boardfeet of timber down post-Katrina, and you think about what happens if there is a secondary burn and how much carbon is put into the air, that is not good if you want to contain greenhouse gases.

Those who are concerned about global warming, as am I, and as are many of my friends who have spoken today, seriously ought to consider, you can entrap the carbon in those trees by building a home with the wood, or you can leave the carbon in those trees to burn a second time and to fill the atmosphere with smoke.

I would submit that it is better from an environmental perspective to make sure that those forests do not reburn if you can do so responsibly, and we have testimony from wildland forest fighters that by removing these trees postfire you can actually reduce the risk of subsequent fires if you reharvest.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time. I appreciate that point. This is the choice you are making. You are not choosing whether or not to use wood. We have got to use wood, and it is a darn good product.

You are going to get some from living trees, you are going to get some from burned trees, but if you have got the burned trees, use the wood responsibly, use it promptly. Sink the carbon in your house, do not put it into the atmosphere.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I want to follow up on something my good friend Mr. Duncan pointed out. In my district I mentioned earlier we have got communities with double-digit unemployment. Some of these small timber towns, the only real game in town is timber. And if there is a catastrophic fire in the vicinity of that mill and the choice is to let that wood rot or put some people to work by milling it, it is going to be mighty hard for me to go back home and look these folks in the eye and say, ``I know that there is perfectly good wood that we could get out. I know that we could build houses with it, make paper products, but you know we have to leave it completely untouched until that wood just rots.''

Now, we are not saying harvest every stick of timber. We are not saying that in every fire or blowdown you harvest anything. But if you can get economically valuable products out and if you can do it in a responsible way, then by golly you ought to do it. And that is what this bill comes down to at the end of the day.

When Congressman Walden and I visited the Timbered Rock fire, we rode out to that fire site with the forest people, the forest managers of that area. This is not about having some bureaucrat in Washington, DC, manage forests. That is actually what is happening now. We are managing through litigation. Litigation is probably the most inefficient way to manage anything. If you can avoid it, do so. The folks who actually manage these post-fire scenarios live in the communities. I talked to one fellow, he said, ``This is where I come to fish with my kids. Do you think I want to let this go forward in a way that is going to destroy the fishing? This is where we come to hunt.'' The water supply for my community is downstream from this fire. I have every investment in managing this responsibly.

The forest managers who go into that profession go into it because they love the forests. They live in the field, they know the terrain. And this bill allows them to respond promptly if there is an incident, and to use advanced planning to prepare for an incident so that they can do the most responsible thing the most promptly. That is what this thing is about. Again, it is common sense and

I am proud to have coauthored it. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. We will see some proposed amendments in a moment. I would urge rejection of those and final passage of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both gentlemen from Oregon. Both at least recognize that there is an issue here, that there is a reason to use the wood after a fire. There are two concerns I would just have about my friend Mr. DeFazio.

First of all, he cites Dean Salwasser from Oregon State University. For the record, it should show that the dean has actually endorsed this legislation. So we recognize that the land allocation values are critical.

There is a paradox in the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. DeFazio) legislation in that because other States do not necessarily designate so much land as for the primary purpose for harvest, you could actually have a paradoxical situation where burned trees end up

getting more protection than live trees, which I do not think is the gentleman's intent.

Finally, the gentleman points out that this bill does leave discretion to local land managers. We think that is a plus. You cannot legislatively legislate certainty. You cannot do it. Circumstances on the ground will change.

The bill provides sufficient flexibility for the local land managers to make the needed decisions while giving broad enough structure that those decisions occur within certain parameters, parameters like watershed protection, et cetera.

For that reason, I urge rejection of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'll just make two quick points. It is a red herring, to say the least, to say that this is about giving President Bush or the Bush administration control over our Federal forests.

Max Peterson was the former Chief of the Forest Service under a Democratic President, President Carter. This is what Max Peterson said about this bill: ``The Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act allows trained forest managers to act in accordance with carefully developed forest plans, ending compliance with environmental laws to best restore, protect, and enhance the health of our Federal forests. The legislation deserves favorable action by the House and the Senate and approval by the President.'' That is not a Bush appointee, it is a Carter appointee, a Democrat.

Let me also address this issue of 96 percent of Americans seeming to oppose the road element of this bill. That is specious. Ninety-six percent of the American public did not say this. If there has been a catastrophic fire and you could use the wood responsibly, and roads in would be built and paid for by the people pulling out the wood, and they would be immediately decommissioned so that no permanent road would remain, how do you feel about that?

That is not what they said. Essentially I think they were saying in a healthy green forest, unimpacted by fire, should we keep the roads out? Yeah. But that is a different question. It is apples and oranges.

We are talking about a situation where you have had a catastrophic event, where you would try to get the wood out. And I really want to underscore this. This is not some additional tax on the taxpayers. The people extracting the wood would be required to post a bond, a bond saying they will pay for the removal of these roads. If they renege on that bond, they not only have to pay a penalty, but they also become ineligible for future harvests, so the taxpayers are not left holding this bag.

Mr. Chairman, two things. I have spent a fair bit of time studying that. It is distressing that my friend from New Mexico, who requested a congressional hearing, was not able to answer a direct question earlier about whether or not the Donato study studied the fire 2 years post-logging or immediately post-logging. It was 2 years post, my friends. And it is irrelevant to the bill at hand.

This amendment by Mr. Udall is something that, if you like to go camping in the woods with your family, you better not support this amendment because you would have a hard time having the Secretary of the Interior certify that building a camp fire in a national forest campground does not in some way increase the risks of forest fires.

If we are going to apply this standard to everything that happens, that in no way must any action possibly increase the risk of fire or impact natural regeneration, we are going to paralyze the woods. We are not going to go camping. We are not going to drive motorized vehicles on forest service roads, we are not going to do anything. And in fact, Mr. Udall, we are not going to cut live trees either. And isn't that really the agenda, to stop all harvest on the Federal lands, live trees, burned trees, blowdown trees, drive that harvest to the rainforests, drive that harvest to the Russian Taiga, all in the name of environmental protection? That is not responsible environmental policy.

The legislation before us is good policy. This amendment is not. This amendment should be rejected out of hand.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me this time, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, our forests are a valuable natural resource. They offer beauty and recreation for many across the Nation. My own hometown of Sacramento is but a couple of hours from Tahoe National Forest. Throughout the year, Sacramentans can be found taking advantage of this proximity, using the park for hiking, skiing and camping.

With 18 national forests and 20 million acres of national forestland in my home State of California, we face the challenge of a wildfire on almost an annual basis. Many western States deal with forest fires every summer.

In addition, Americas's forests also endure damage from hurricanes, floods, mudslides and our natural disasters. All of these events require swift action from our Nation's brave network of first responders as well as tailored government policies to help forests regenerate over the long term.

The rule before us would authorize debate on H.R. 4200, a bill which its supporters see as a way to speed forest recovery by loosening or eliminating some Federal regulations protecting our public lands. Such a proposal demands scrutiny and debate.

To warrant congressional action, there must be a demonstrable need for such a proposal and reliable proof that the proposed solution meets that need. Unfortunately, the evidence on the need for this bill points in both directions. While some sources claim that this bill would improve the state of forests, other scientific accounts indicate that H.R. 4200 would actually hurt the forest recovery process.

We do know that it would create a loophole to allow some industries to skirt compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Supporters contend that the logging industry is saddled with unfair government regulations which impede their postfire operations and ultimately hurt the forests themselves. At the same time, 35 percent of all logging in national forests in the past 6 years came from timber salvage in ways similar to this bill, accounting for $35 million to $40 million annually. The only difference is that now these activities have to comply fully with NEPA and the Endangered Species Act before moving forward.

While a CBO estimate projects that this bill would increase timber profits from salvaging by 40 percent, the first question which must be answered is not one of business, but one of science. Does the policy recommended under this bill make sense?

As I stated at the beginning, the evidence is too murky to tell, and we need to spend more time learning about and debating this issue before we act. I am encouraged that the Rules Committee recognized this and made four amendments in order which will add to the public discourse on this bill.

However, it is difficult to ignore the arguments of those opposed to H.R. 4200. One such voice comes from a January 2006 issue of Science Magazine. In that issue, a group of researchers published a study of logging in the aftermath of the 2002 Biscuit fire in Oregon. This peer- reviewed study concluded that the impact of logging in these areas reduced regeneration of new trees by some 70 percent.

This single scientific article is not the final word on such a complicated matter for sure, but its findings are consistent with a good portion of the larger body of literature on this subject. And when so many experts express concern with H.R. 4200, Members would be well advised to listen to their reservations and take time to reconsider the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this point in the Record a letter to Congress signed by 169 experts in the areas of biology, ecology and forest management. This group of researchers includes UC Davis professors Dr. Robert Coats and Dr. Peter Moyle, as well as 13 other Californians.

March 14,2006.

Dear Members of Congress: The United States has made great

strides by relying on science to inform our decision making.

Science helped us travel to the moon; advance medicine and

health; and understand the complex web of life on land and in

rivers, lakes, and oceans. Science has also opened our eyes

to the workings of forests and provided blueprints for

federal plans to better protect the abundant natural

resources of our public lands.

When we, as scientists, see policies being developed that

run counter to the lessons of science, we feel compelled to

speak up. Proposed post-disturbance legislation (specifically

the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act [H.R. 4200]

and the related Forests for Future Generations Act [S.

2079]), crafted as a response to recent fires and other

disturbances, is misguided because it distorts or ignores

recent scientific advances. Under the labels of ``recovery''

and ``restoration,'' these bills would speed logging and

replanting after natural disturbances.

Although logging and replanting may seem like a reasonable

way to clean up and restore forests after disturbances like

wildland fires, such activity would actually slow the natural

recovery of forests and of streams and creatures within them.

Many scientist-reviewed studies and syntheses (please see the

selected citations appended to this letter) have recently

come to this conclusion. For example, no substantive evidence

supports the idea that fire-adapted forests might be improved

by logging after a fire. In fact, many carefully conducted

studies have concluded just the opposite. Most plants and

animals in these forests are adapted to periodic fires and

other natural disturbances. They have a remarkable way of

recovering--literally rising from the ashes--because they

have evolved with and even depend upon fire.

We are concerned that H.R. 4200 and S. 2079 will bind us to

land management practices that, perhaps logical in the past,

are no longer tenable in the light of recent scientific

understanding. Specifically, post-disturbance logging impedes

regeneration of forest landscapes when it compacts soils,

removes or destroys so-called biological legacies (such as

soil organic material, seeds in the soil, large standing and

downed trees), damages riparian corridors, introduces or

spreads invasive species, causes erosion, delivers sediment

to streams from logging roads and steep slopes, degrades

water quality, and damages populations of many aquatic

species. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on

Resources (November 10, 2005), eminent forest ecologist and

University of Washington Professor Jerry Franklin noted that

logging dead trees often has greater negative impacts than

logging of live trees. He concluded that ``timber salvage is

most appropriately viewed as a `tax' on ecological

recovery.''

Beyond those concerns, post-disturbance logging often

intensifies the potential severity of future fires by

concentrating the slash from logging at or near the ground.

Rather than leaving plant material standing--and providing

perching, nesting, and feeding sites for wildlife--such

logging abruptly moves the material to the ground. Most of

this material would naturally fall to the ground, adding

important supplies of nutrients and energy to the forest

floor and structure in the form of woody debris to stream

channels. But this naturally happens over decades, not in

the relatively short time associated with a logging

operation. Advocates of post-disturbance logging may argue

that this slash can be disposed of with controlled burns

and other treatments. Yet such treatments can severely

damage underlying soils, imposing other taxes on natural

recovery.

One additional tax concerns us. Postfire logging taxes the

public treasury. Recent analysis of postfire logging

operations after Oregon's Biscuit fire of 2002 shows that

costs of the logging operations exceeded revenue by about $14

million for logging that removed more than 53 million board

feet of timber (DellaSala et al. 2006).

Science provides the best insight into the real

consequences of our policies and actions. Ironically, this

legislation is crafted to ignore the science by waiving

environmental reviews, reviews that would make use of the

scientific knowledge often available only because of

expenditures of public funds. Failure to conduct full

environmental reviews informed by that science will

inevitably lead to ecological and economic harm from post-

disturbance logging.

In short, neither ecological benefits nor economic

efficiency result from post-disturbance logging. We therefore

urge you to defeat these legislative efforts because they

will set back forest recovery. We urge you to work with your

fellow lawmakers to craft legislation that will rely on the

most up-to-date scientific knowledge to protect the natural

resources of the nation's public lands.

Sincerely,

Isabella A. Abbott, Ph.D., Wilder Professor Emerita, Botany

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.

Paul Alaback, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, University of

Montana, Missoula, MO.

James P. Amon, Ph.D., Professor, Wetland Biologist,

Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University,

Dayton, OH.

Thomas H. Anderson, Ph.D., Professor, Geology, Department

of Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh,

Pittsburgh, PA.

Robert Angus, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, University of

Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.

Julian D. Avery, Avian Ecologist, Eastern New Mexico

University, Portales, NM.

William L. Baker, Ph.D., Department of Geography,

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Mark Bamberger, Ph.D., Professor, Geology and Environmental

Sciences, Miami University, The Union Institute & University,

and Capital University Oxford, OH.

Linda Sue Barnes, Ph.D., Professor, Biology (specialty

Botany), Methodist College, Fayetteville, NC.

Frank Barnwell, Ph.D., Professor, Ecology, Evolution, and

Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Carol J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Austin Peay

State University, Clarksville, TN.

Craig W. Benkman, Ph.D., Professor, Zoology and Physiology,

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

David H. Benzing, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Oberlin

College, Oberlin, OH.

May R. Berenbaum, Ph.D., Swanlund Professor and Head

Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.

Robert L. Beschta, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Forest

Hydrology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Alfred Beulig, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, New College of

Florida, Sarasota, FL.

John G. Bishop, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Biology,

Washington State University, Vancouver, WA.

Scott Hoffman Black, Ecologist/Entomologist, Executive

Director, Portland, OR.

David E. Blockstein, Ph.D., Chair, The Ornithological

Council, Washington, DC.

Jane H. Bock, Ph.D., Professor Emerita, Ecology and

Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Reed Bowman, Ph.D., Associate Research Biologist, Head,

Avian Ecology Lab, Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I noted at the beginning of the debate, 169 scientists, all experts in the field, oppose this bill because its policies will impede the national forest recovery process. The preponderance of scientific literature supports this assumption in their opinion. The letter concludes with the following: ``Science provides the best insight into the real consequences of our policies and actions.''

I could not agree more. There seems to be a disconnect between the policy recommended in this bill and the consensus among the scientific community. For that reason, I cannot support the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 816 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 816 provides for a structured rule and allows for 1 hour of general debate with 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by each of the chairman and ranking minority members of the Committee on Resources, the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

There also are four amendments, Democrat amendments, that have been filed with the bill made in order. Each of these amendments was considered in the committee markup and was defeated in those markups, but we have decided in the rule of fairness to allow them all to have a chance of debating those amendments on the floor, giving them another chance to convince a majority of the House Members that their approach to forest management is better than the bill before us.

In testimony received in the Rules Committee, it was mentioned that this particular bill has had, approximately 50 times, a redrafting to make sure the needs of individuals were met; it was passed by strong bipartisan support in both the Rules Committee and the Agriculture Committee; it has 147 bipartisan sponsors; it has had nine hearings; the sponsors have traveled to forests from Oregon to Georgia; they have had input from Fish and Wildlife, from Tribal land managers; it has been endorsed by the 25,000-member National Federation of Federal Employees Union, by the 15,000 members of the Society of American Foresters and by the 12,000-member Coalition of Professional Firefighters.

This bill has gone through regular order. It is as regular, it is so regular you would think it was sponsored by Metamucil.

I am also very grateful to the chairman of the subcommittee who is the sponsor, Mr. Walden, for his work on this, as well as Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Baird, Ms. Herseth, who presented this bill to us, and also to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Hastings, who told me everything I need to know about forests, and if this bill is good with him, it obviously has to be a good bill.

Those of us who live in the western States realize that we have enormous tracts of land, both in Forest Service land and in BLM lands, and the forest in those areas has been under tremendous stress in the past two decades. We estimate there are at least 190 million acres of land at risk, over 1 million acres that is currently in a restoration backlog. It has taken us about 2 years to begin the restoration process. If there is any kind of regulatory process, the average is 3\1/2\ years.

Yet, in those same areas, non-Federal lands, whether it is private or governmental, can begin their restoration process in weeks using best practices that have been tried and true.

At the Rules Committee it was mentioned after the Mt. St. Helens eruption, if you now go to Washington State, you can clearly see where the private forest management, which included selective and partial harvesting of dead timber, has resulted in a quicker and better recovery than adjacent Federal lands where the actions have been hindered oftentimes by litigation.

In my own State of Utah, the Dixie National Forest in southern Utah over a decade ago was infested by pine beetles, originally committed to only 6 acres of infestation above the Cedar Breaks National Monument, an area that was filled with beautiful and very tall Englemann spruce trees.

The best available science protocols and the Forest Service's preferred alternative was a remediation plan that called for harvesting of a certain size of tree in the infested area. Apparently these pine beetles only like a certain age of trees; kind of like a fine wine of only a certain year is what they would consume. The forestry experts said that by harvesting selectively in this contained 6-acre area, they could contain the insects' further spread.

Unfortunately their plan was subject to intense litigation which lasted for over 2 years. In that 2-year period of time, the Forest Service was precluded by injunction from proceeding with their remediation plan. The beetle, unfortunately, did not wait for those 2 years, for the lawyers and the judges in a typical slow, deliberative judicial pace to solve their differences.

Instead of 6 acres being impacted, thousands of acres were killed in this particular forest. Today, if you visit this area, the sad legacy of this litigation was that under the guise of protecting our forest, it was actually very extremely detrimental to our forest. What was once a pristine and amazingly beautiful forest is now acre after acre after acre of dead trees. Habitat has been lost, vegetation was lost, mud slides have increased, water and air quality has decreased, and soil erosion has increased. This area is now an extremely high risk of devastating fire.

There are events that take place in our life that disrupt our forest system. Last year we passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to give tools of management to our forest experts for forest health, for community protection, fuel reduction and fire prevention.

This year we are now bringing before you the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, a commonsense recovery plan that would follow natural disasters affecting our forest land. This gives tools of rehabilitation. It is not a plantation forest which environmentalists do not like. There is heavy emphasis on alternative energy that can be used for some of the materials that will be recovered.

You may hear some opponents of this particular bill talking the same old talking points of yesteryear. The important thing to remember is in H.R. 4200 there are three specific elements to it.

Number one, it pursues scientific research in conjunction with land grant universities to improve our knowledge about postcatastrophe treatment. Secondly, it mandates preapproved action, subject to peer review, without blatant proscriptions of actions that will give best science efforts in controlling and preserving our forest land. Number three, it provides firefighter protection.

The most treacherous and dangerous situation for a firefighter is always the second fire in the same area. The passage of this bill would eliminate the potential harm and risk not only to species, but also would potentially save the lives of many of our firefighters.

This bill is such a good bill that it actually should be on the suspension calendar, but we are here today to consider this legislation on the floor under a rule. Once again, Mr. Speaker, this rule provided under H. Res. 816 is fair by any standard of judgment.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this underlying legislation, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. I believe it represents a model for how Congress can act in a methodical, reasonable and bipartisan manner to address vital concerns on this emotional environmental issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution and the underlying legislation in H.R. 4200.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the sponsor of the bill, and recognized as probably one of our experts on forest life and forest health in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for a factual clarification.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to close what I consider to be about 50 minutes of bipartisan support for this particular rule and the underlying bill.

This bill, indeed, would give us the rehabilitation tools to combine science and research, preapproved action, and protection of our firefighters, which is why the professionals who know and work and run our forests are all in support of this particular bill and this action. And knowing our goal is to get green and not black forests, and healthy trees not dead stumps, I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Chairman, the people of the State of Washington deserve decisions about the Eagle Gap Wilderness area to be made based on science and public input, not the whims of President George Bush.

Why do we rush to give this President, the President with the worst environmental record in American history, more discretion, more leeway, less science, less public input? That is a bit like giving Bonnie and Clyde a relaxation of the rules against bank robbery.

There is no reason, given the record of this administration, to trust these administration policies with our national forests. But this bill will give a blank check to the whims of the political decisionmakers in the White House, not the foresters on the ground.

This, in fact, strips, strips us of the requirement that we have a site-specific decision to go out and look at these properties. Now I will tell you how bad it is. I will tell you how George Bush's administration has not respected science. When Mr. Donato, a researcher at Oregon State University, reported his paper in a well-respected journal, Science Magazine, a peer-reviewed journal, do you know what happened? Do you know what his BLM did? They canceled his contract.

That is how the Bush administration treats science. They cancel your contract if you come out with science, with an answer that is not apparently approved by Carl Rove and his political minions.

Madam Chairman, we should not be on this floor giving George Bush more authority to make more bad decisions about the national forests. Reject this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, simply put, will fix a problem with this legislation that otherwise would allow a giant loophole in our rule that now we have been fighting to maintain for some period of time to protect our roadless areas in our national forests. These roadless areas are the most pristine areas of the national forests. We have made a decision, 96 percent of Americans who have commented on the roadless areas have concluded that they want these areas managed for the clean water they provide, the recreation they provide, the aesthetics they provide rather than timber harvest through log road building.

My amendment would essentially say that we are not going to tax, we are not going to subsidize log road building anymore in these roadless areas. There are three reasons we need to do this, and they are two fiscal and one environmental. I will address first the two fiscal reasons we need to adopt this amendment.

First, this Chamber went on record in an amendment some time ago that said we are going to stop subsidizing roads with taxpayer dollars. And we essentially are going to stop, by this amendment, stop subsidizing logging roads in some of our steeper areas. These roadless areas are commonly found in our steeper, higher elevations. They are at the tops of our mountains, and they are the most expensive places to build logging roads. They are the places where the taxpayers get soaked the most in our subsidization programs.

We would say essentially that you cannot use this legislation, in our amendment, to continue that log road-building program which ends up putting the tab on the American taxpayer. This is a fiscal reason.

The second fiscal reason is it makes no sense now, it makes no sense to make a misprioritization from, instead of doing the $10 billion of backlog we already have to repair and maintain our existing mileage, enough to, I think it is 336,000 miles of existing roads, with a $10 billion backlog already. Uncle Sam already has a $10 billion commitment to get those roads and keep them from washing out. Eighty percent of these roads are not even fit. You cannot even drive your car on them.

Instead of letting people get recreational value, to drive and go up to go hunting and go fishing and take your kids on a picnic by the creek, 80 percent of these roads are falling apart. Instead of taking care of their interests, this bill would subsidize the logging industry to go in and log as a priority. Now, they have tried to fix this problem, saying these will be temporary roads. There is no such thing as

a temporary road. We have 60,000 miles of roads that should have been decommissioned already but aren't.

So there are two sound fiscal reasons to adopt this amendment, but the third is an environmental reason. We depend on these roadless areas, the Kettle River Range in Washington, the Eagle Cap roadless area in Washington, we depend on them for clean water. We depend on them for habitat. And the fact of the matter is when you build a road into a roadless area, you double the chance of fire. And that, as a science, is well proven. You may get some timber out, but you double the chance of fire, and you increase areas of road that can erode and silt our streams.

So two fiscal reasons and one environmental reason that commends this.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, there are two problems. One, although I respect the drafters of this bill, the bill does not respect the clearly expressed sentiment of the American people, because 96 percent of the American people said don't build roads; temporary, permanent, transitory, big, small, little. Ninety-six percent of the Americans who expressed their opinion on this issue said don't do what this bill does, which allows building roads in these designated roadless areas.

This ignores the clearly expressed intention of the people, and that ought to be enough in itself to endorse this particular amendment.

Now, I come back to when you look at these roadless areas, they have value that is not in this accounting, which is to keep the silt out of our streams. I respect that we might put a line in a book somewhere that will be over in the Library of Congress that says, presto change- o, these are all going to be ``temporary.'' There is also a line in a book over in the Library of Congress that says 60,000 miles that have been out there for decades are ``temporary.'' In real life, this guts roadless area rules. We need this amendment if this bill is going to pass.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to understand how anyone would oppose an amendment that simply says the administration should have what is not too onerous a burden, to certify that under the best available science this is not going to degrade that which we are trying to achieve, which is forest regeneration and suppression of fire. Is that asking too much of the Bush administration, to simply say if you are going to have a program, that you will tell the American people that it won't make things worse? We don't think that is asking too much.

And there is a point during this debate I think needs to be made, and that is that when there is a fire, it is a human instinct to get in there and want to fix things. We are fixers. We believe that we are the smarter species on the planet.

But if you look at the beautiful forests we have, if you look at the Eagle CAP wilderness, the Kettle River range in Washington State, you look at our national forests and you look at those forests, those forests are there without the intervention of President George Bush. They have evolved over decades and centuries and eons, and they are beautiful and they are healthy and they give us picnics for our kids, fishing and hunting for our cousins and our families, and clean water to drink, without the administration of George Bush going in with their chain saws and deciding what they decide to cut.

Now, given that historical fact that these forests have done very, very well without us for tens of thousands of

years, we don't think it is too much to ask that before President Bush gets out his chain saw, that he is required to certify, in the best available science, this won't make things worse.

Now I understand why they object to it, because they object to the science and the Donato study in the Science magazine from Oregon State University, they objected to it. They didn't like it. It didn't fit their political preconceptions so they put it on ice, put it on review, canceled it. Use whatever language you want.

We are saying that the science needs to be asked to be listened to, just like the American people should be. This is a commonsense amendment. I commend Mr. Udall.