FLAME Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 281 provides for consideration of H.R. 1404, the Federal Land Assistance Management and Enhancement, or FLAME, Act under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order 13 amendments, which are listed on the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

All Members were given an opportunity to submit amendments to the Rules Committee on the bill, and a number of Members on both sides of the aisle did so: 21 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee on this bill; two amendments were subsequently withdrawn; and three amendments were nongermane to the underlying bill. Of the remaining 16, 13 were made in order, five of those from Republican sponsors. This was a very fair rule and a very fair process.

My district and the State of Colorado are tied closely to the lands and landscapes that our citizens interact with on a daily basis. These landscapes are majestic and rugged, and define the character of Colorado. The FLAME Act ends a cycle of growing costs for fighting wildfires. These costs are draining the coffers of our Federal land management agencies.

The character of our wilderness is being tested every summer when districts like mine and many others face the threat of wildfires, and anxiety grows in the minds of mountain residents and local communities. This anxiety has grown in recent years due to the health of forests, which has worsened.

Mr. Speaker, the FLAME Act is a bill of personal interest to me and the residents of Colorado. My district, like many Western districts, is dealing with a mountain pine beetle outbreak of

catastrophic proportions. This outbreak has killed millions of acres of lodgepole pines, altering the landscape, and has put more Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho communities at risk of wildfire.

I bring your attention to this picture. This is some land in my district in Grand County near Granby, Colorado. My district has many tourists coming through it; and I have Vail, Beaver Creek, Copper Mountain, Winter Park. Recently, I had somebody who came through in July and noticed that many of our trees were red and said, ``Fall comes early in Colorado.'' I had to respond that, ``No, it is not fall. Our trees are dying.'' This is a typical landscape across many parts of the Mountain West of Colorado. The red trees are actually dead or in the process of dying, having been felled by the pine beetle. The danger is that when we have a forest of dead trees, it is in effect a tinderbox and is a major forest fire risk.

This bill includes amendments in the underlying language that free up resources to help address the underlying causes of forest fires rather than just after the fact dealing with emergencies.

The culprit in this particular case, the mountain pine beetle, a small little fellow, dendroctonus ponderosae. I have some here, life- size. Again, not just affecting Colorado, but affecting many areas of our Mountain West; and, in addition to the devastation of our forests, visually and ecologically, creating a very real risk of forest fires, which this bill gives us the ability to begin to address.

Our land management agencies are working quickly to reduce the potential fire risks where communities and wildlands come face to face. These wildland-urban interface zones, or WUI zones, are critical in decreasing the number and threat of catastrophic wildfires. But our agencies simply don't have the resources to effectively respond to the risk or the increased risk because of the changes. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have multiple environmentally friendly projects simply waiting to be funded.

Fire suppression costs have increased with alarming speed in recent years. In 2008, fire suppression costs consumed 46 percent of the Forest Service's budget compared to 13 percent in 1991. The account established in the FLAME Act frees up capital and resources for needed and lasting forest health improvements.

Mr. Speaker, the beetle epidemic in the West puts Coloradans on the front lines of changing climate, which only further strains our national land management budgets. Across the Nation, climate and weather modeling shows our future to be growing both drier and hotter. These models point to extreme intense thunderstorms with insufficient quantities of rain.

Our communities deserve a land management policy that not only reflects crucial priorities, but is unimpeded by the costs of frequent and overwhelming fires and the crises that arise from time to time. Our policy needs to make sure that, as these fires grow in scope and number, we are not forced to make hard choices between money and safety, between dealing with catastrophes and preventing them from occurring. This is exactly what this legislation is designed to do.

The FLAME Act addresses the anxiety of our communities by removing hurdles that currently restrict the Forest Service and BLM's ability to proceed with projects. By establishing the FLAME fund, this bill separates the increasing costs of fighting fires from the annual budget that agencies rely on for maintenance and mitigation. This bill keeps the critical budget of--our Forest Service from being consumed by potentially just one or two major wildfires each year.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has gained the support of every environmentally conscious constituency, from land management agencies to environmental and community leaders to local governments. It has garnered bipartisan support, as reported out of the Natural Resources Committee in the 110th Congress by a voice vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the importance and the critical nature of this legislation to thousands of communities like mine across the Nation and to millions of acres of our public lands. This is an excellent opportunity to provide necessary resources to our Forest Service and BLM so they can do the work that they are meant to do, and prevent forest fires from occurring. I urge passage of the bill and the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, of the 16 amendments that were germane and were offered, 13 were made in order, and indeed five of those were by Republican sponsors. And I know that the Rules Committee did give every consideration to amendments from both sides and indeed allow a reasonable number for discussion.

The issue is an urgent one. By freeing up the pot of money that is otherwise able to be used for single events or catastrophes as sometimes in the past it has been used for one or two events, it prevents ongoing forest maintenance and prevention activities. As my colleague from Florida mentioned, this bill does have strong bipartisan support. I too would like to applaud Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Hastings for their work in bringing this bill before us.

Not only my district, but many other parts of the country deserve a better equipped agency that can work to address the challenges faced by our communities on public lands. The pine beetle epidemic will leave an increased risk of forest fire for many years to come. And the further effects of climate change will put many more strains on our ecosystems and the economy, not just in Colorado, not just for the southern pine beetle in Florida, not just in areas that are currently affected, but indeed in public lands and areas across our great Nation. In many ways, this is one of the costs of climate change which this body talks about in other pieces of legislation from time to time.

I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington had three amendments that were ruled in order of the several he submitted before the Rules Committee, and those, of course, will be given consideration. There are also two amendments that directly relate to our friends, the invasive species in this case, dendroctonus ponderosae, and other species in other areas.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, of all individuals, those who have served on the Rules Committee are well aware of the functions of that committee and have, in fact, in previous sessions of Congress undertaken even more severe restrictions on a number of bills. Again, with regard to allowing 13 of the 16 amendments that were germane I think is an excellent example of the Rules Committee not only doing their job but actually working to improve the bill.

Our land management agencies shouldn't have to choose between fighting fires and preventing them or preparing our communities or promoting healthier forests. Our agencies should be given the tools that allow them to fulfill their mission statements, protecting our forests and serving our communities. The FLAME Act addresses these problems by providing a source of emergency funds to suppress severe fires that pose a threat to life and property. It ensures that during fire-fighting seasons when the agencies' budgeted fire suppression funds are exhausted, they won't be forced to cut other vital projects, indeed prevention-related and forest health-related projects as a result.

I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to wonder when our friends would try to connect AIG with forest health and preventing forest fires. Indeed we did not have to wait too long.

This bill promotes accountability by requiring the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to monitor their accounts and anticipate relevant costs. This is a valuable tool in the long term to improve the efficacy and sustainability of our public lands management. We will note that the arguments being made are purely procedural. We should not allow these procedural issues to get in the way of what is substantively agreed on.

I have heard very positive comments with regard to the substance of this bill from both sides of the aisle, indeed giving our land management agencies the flexibility they need to make sure that their budgets are not consumed by signal events and to focus on what they need to do and are, in fact, required to do under law in terms of forest management and forest fire risk mitigation.

For nearly a decade, the GAO has called for our agencies to draft a strategy which will identify agencies to environmental and community leaders alike. This bill has garnered strong bipartisan support, and it was reported, as I mentioned before, by a voice vote from the Natural Resources Committee.

I want to reiterate the importance of this legislation to thousands of communities across the Nation and to millions upon millions of acres of public lands. This is an excellent opportunity to provide the necessary resources to our Forest Service so they can do the work they are meant to do and indeed must do.

I urge the passage of the bill and the rule.

I would inquire if the gentleman from Florida has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is noteworthy of the issues raised by our friends, none speak to the lack of merit of this bill or, indeed, the 13 amendments that are allowed under this rule which will be subsequently discussed. We must make sure that substance takes priority over procedural processes which could otherwise delay a critical bill for the management of our public lands.

Our public lands management agencies remain constrained every day by the costs of fighting wildfires, which will only worsen in coming years from a changing climate and increasing fuel load.

Some critics may point fingers, but today we stand here with an intelligent, well-designed, responsible and bipartisan solution that puts our taxpayer money to good use by protecting our communities and preserving our national treasures.

This rule allows for 13 amendments, including five from the minority party, and has given fair and due consideration to all the ideas that have been promoted to enhance this legislation, including many that actually impact, at least two amendments that reflect invasive species such as the pine beetle.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the minority whip for yielding.

On Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Tuesday the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday no votes are expected.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspensions, as is the tradition, will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 and H.R. 1404, the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act.

The bill comes back, of course, it is a House bill being returned with amendments as the gentleman, I'm sure, knows, and under those circumstances, of course, we consider that there is not a motion to recommit on that kind of a procedure. So the answer there would be it would not be a motion to recommit. As the gentleman also knows, this bill came two votes short of a two-thirds majority with very significant Republican and Democratic support of the bill. This bill has been hanging around for a long period of time. It is composed largely, although not exclusively, of bills that have passed the House largely on suspension.

So the answer to the gentleman's question is we believe there has been demonstrated overwhelming support for the substance of this bill. It has been hanging around a long time. We want to see it get passed. And the answer is probably not.

Will my friend yield on that point?

As the gentleman, I'm sure, knows, many, many of the provisions, I don't know that I have the specific count, are Republican-sponsored bills in this, what the Senate packaged, as you know, so that a large percentage, I don't know exactly what the percentage is, whether it is 30 percent or 35 percent, are Republican- sponsored pieces of legislation.

It is possible. I wouldn't send out an expectation. It is being worked on. There is a strong feeling by the sponsors of the legislation, as you know, that passed in the last Congress through this House, handily, that I think in agreement with the administration that, in addition to the administration's Executive Order, legislation is necessary to give certainty to what can and cannot be done by researchers. And we obviously want to make sure that researchers understand what the law is, what the opportunities are, and what the prohibitions are so that legislation is possible. But I want to tell my friend that I did not announce it for next week. I don't expect legislation next week. I think it is possible for the week following, but I don't want to go beyond that. We will certainly let the gentleman know as soon as I know.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

My presumption is that you have now come up with a new phrase on your side of the aisle. I do know about cap-and-trade. It is talked about regularly. But maybe that is not as politically salient as ``cap-and- tax.'' It seems innovative. But if the gentleman, as I presume he is, is referring to what is commonly known by everybody else as ``cap-and- trade,'' let me say this: The Budget Committee obviously will mark up on the 25th, that is next Wednesday, we expect to bring the budget bill to the floor the following week, the last week before the Easter break. My expectation is there will be provisions in there for energy and global warming consideration. But my further expectation is it will not adopt a premise of one alternative over another, that that will be subject to the legislative process, and that one will not be chosen in the budget itself, so that voting on the budget would not be giving precedent to one alternative over another.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, the gentleman indicated that ``we have been told by the White House.'' I had some comments on how the Republican majority responded, from my perspective, without fail to

the Bush administration. We have discussions with our White House. We don't tell them. They don't tell us. We have discussions, positive discussions, on how we, together, can move this country forward.

Those discussions clearly have had reconciliation as a subject of discussions. But I will tell the gentleman that those decisions by the Budget Committee have not been made, nor have they been made by the chairman of the Budget Committee. But they clearly are part of the discussion. Reconciliation, as the gentleman knows, has been in our rules for a very long period of time. When the Republicans were in power, reconciliation was something that they used. They are in the process to facilitate the adoption of the budget and policies consistent with the budget; i.e., to reconcile the budget with the authorization and the policy with the budget that has been adopted. So I say to the gentleman that that is certainly under consideration, but no decision on that has been made.

I don't want to anticipate what the Budget Committee will do. The gentleman is referring to the placeholder that the administration suggested in the budget. They did so because they wanted to present a budget that did, in fact, anticipate possible costs. To that extent, it was probably one of the most honest budgets that we received, honest in the sense that it included the prospective costs. As you know, we have been somewhat critical in the past of costs that we knew were coming down the pike but which were not included. So the administration did that.

Now whether or not the Budget Committee itself decides to include those costs, I don't know. But I do know this, that there has been no decision on an additional TARP appropriation or authorization. Clearly, we are hopeful that we will stabilize the economy. We have moved forward in many respects on a bipartisan basis on this, certainly not in every respect.

We have done some tough things because we thought the crisis that confronted our country demanded action. We have all been very disappointed with some of the manifestations of that. And I think we are going to continue to look at this very carefully. The Financial Services Committee is marking up a bill this coming week, which I expect to have on the floor the following week, dealing with constraints on those who receive funds from the Federal Government, from the taxpayer, to shore up our economy, not to shore up those businesses, but to shore up the businesses as they relate to the impact their failure would have on the economy.

I think that the gentleman and I share a view that we certainly need to have knowledge, and we will have knowledge if the administration believes that it needs additional resources and that Congress will have that to consider. I would say that the environment for such a piece of legislation right now is not particularly good.

I think that is accurate.

That is my expectation, yes.

I thank the gentleman for his question. As you point out, on this side of the aisle we certainly have great concern for small businesses.

Although I don't want to be argumentative, the situation we find ourselves in was inherited. It was inherited from a previous administration that believed in a number of things, particularly the policies that you have offered to once again pursue, which we didn't think would work and, we think, frankly, have in some respects been a cause of the crisis that confronts this country.

Furthermore, we think that the administration's focus on deregulation and taking the regulators out of circulation was a significant cause. We also think that the failure of the Federal Reserve to enforce the 1994 law that was passed by the Congress and which was enforced by Chairman Bernanke in 2007 when he took office, which allowed the Federal Reserve the authority to oversee the subprime market, and the theory that Mr. Greenspan had that the market would regulate itself. In point of fact, we see from AIG that the market did not regulate itself. It went on a binge of irresponsibility and greed.

So I want to make it clear that while we are very concerned about small businesses, it is huge businesses that have put them in the trick bag. It was huge businesses that weren't overseen properly by the previous administration and need to be properly overseen by this administration.

Furthermore, let me say to my friend that the budget that the President has proposed eliminates the capital gains tax for individuals on the sale of certain small business stocks. It makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent. Ninety-seven percent of small businesses will receive no tax increase in 2010. There is $28 billion in loan guarantees to expand credit availability for small businesses, and support for $1.1 billion in direct disaster loans for businesses, homeowners and renters.

Furthermore, the administration has, which you just saw them take action on, a small business lending initiative, not to the big banks, not to the

huge organizations, but to small businesses. It is focused on unlocking credit for small businesses. You and I have absolute agreement on that. We need to do that. You talk to your small businesses; all of us do.

I had a meeting with my Chamber of Commerce, and we probably had a hundred small businesses in the auditorium at that point in time. You are absolutely right, they are having real trouble getting credit. I talked to a county commissioner who has a small business in Calvert County. Normally he could go into his bank and get a loan on a handshake for $30,000 or $40,000 to expand his business. This time he was looking for $40,000. He has dealt with this bank for 35 years, and they said, I don't know whether they said Mr. Clark or Mr. Commissioner, but they said, yes, but fill out the form. And it took him 30 days. Now he got it, but he has done business with that small bank for that period of time. So we share that view.

By the end of the month, the Treasury Department will start making direct purchases of up to $15 billion in securities backed by SBA loans to get the credit market for small businesses moving again.

In addition, in the Recovery Act, we eliminated, as I am sure the gentleman knows, all SBA-backed fees on SBA-backed loans, again to try to facilitate small businesses getting credit.

And it raises from 85 to 90 percent the proportion of loans that the Small Business Administration will guarantee.

Lastly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed these steps to unlock the credit markets for small businesses.

So we are very pleased at the definitive action that we have taken to further the interest you and I share of making sure that small businesses can make it in this extraordinarily bad time which we believe previous policies have caused and which we have inherited.

Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman yields back, I just want to make an observation.

I understand what the gentleman said, but the gentleman will recall, of course, that your party had a substitute that it offered that lost on a bipartisan vote, as you recall. So the gentleman did have the opportunity, his party had the opportunity, to offer a substitute which a significant number in his party did not agree with and certainly an overwhelming majority of our party did not agree with, in part because we perceived it as creating far fewer jobs. There is a difference of opinion on that, I understand that, but our perception was that it created about a third of the jobs or saved about a third of the jobs that our bill did.

But that aside, putting aside that disagreement on the figures, the fact is there is no disagreement that you had a substitute. You offered it, and it was defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as introduced, this bill contained sense of Congress language that the chairman talked about.

Since the severity of wildfires and cost of suppressing them have grown enormously in recent years as a result of the tinderbox conditions we have allowed to develop in this country, I understand why the bill sought to deal with the requirements of the Budget Act this way because, after all, we really have no choice but to try to bring the fires under control and limit their destructiveness.

Although, I can understand how this amendment came to be, because apparently the Budget Committee must feel differently with the massive deficits that we face under the President's proposed budget, and I can see why the Budget Committee is concerned about taking the FLAME fund off budget.

Nevertheless, I think this is the right amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado is intended, rightfully so, to clarify the fire suppression authority under this Act as it relates to the severe insect infestation problem in our national forests.

Although I support the amendment, I must point out that prevention is far more cost-effective than fire suppression, and until we in Congress act on measures that promote sound scientific forest management and allow the related industries to survive, we are really not comprehensively addressing this problem.

Nevertheless, this is a good amendment. I support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no objection to the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado. I know that most Forest Service employers are very frustrated over the extent to which their time is spent producing the paperwork needed to defend against or head off lawsuits. I am sure many in Congress have heard me say that as a result of these lawsuits, they spend far more time developing forest plans than implementing them. But in the case of keeping the forest fire wildfire strategy current, it makes sense to revise them from time to time.

In a few short years, drought, beetle infestation or forest life cycle can transform a forest, and what may have once been a very appropriate fire management strategy may no longer be relevant.

I hope that the Forest Service will be able to update the cohesive wildlife management strategy in a timely manner, without delays or other challenges posed by irresponsible environmental lawsuits.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment can best be described as a ``good neighbor amendment.'' This amendment will require advanced notice in writing to land owners adjacent to National Forest system lands whenever the Forest Service sets a prescribed burn.

It is important for all of us who are government officials to treat every American with respect. We owe it to neighboring property owners to let them know what we are doing when our actions may affect them.

Fires, even prescribed burns, can be dramatic events. It is simply a courtesy to keep our neighbors informed.

This commonsense amendment was included in the version of the FLAME Act that passed the House under suspension of the rules by a voice vote last year.

Some might say that the burden of notifying neighbors is too great. I suspect these are people who don't live next to national forests and they don't understand what challenges a prescribed burn can have. It is a lot more expensive to face lawsuits from private landowners who weren't given enough warning to prepare for possible problems than it might come from notifying them of a prescribed burn.

With that, Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. In order not to be a continuing example of Einstein's observation, this bill wisely requires the Secretaries to conduct a review of major wildlife incidents and report the results of the review to Congress.

My amendment simply directs that these reports include an assessment of what actions could have been taken before the fire that would have prevented or lessened the severity of the fire. I believe my amendment will increase the value and usefulness of the information gathered, and I urge its adoption.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the President has proposed that the Federal Government impose a cap- and-trade system aimed at limiting and reducing carbon emissions in our country. This cap-and-trade system is really a national energy tax that could cost $2 trillion. As a result of that, American families could pay up to $3,100 per year in higher energy and fuel costs.

Let's set aside the fact that our economy can't afford such a massive new tax on such basic essential services as electricity. Let's also set aside the fact that we'd be handicapping the American worker and small business by imposing such a tax when China and India are unapologetically racing to expand carbon emissions in their country.

The President's cap-and-trade scheme aims to curb manmade carbon emissions, but the bill before us today is about wildfires--and the fact is that we know very little about the massive carbon emissions created by such fires.

Yet, what little information we do have on wildfires is absolutely astonishing. For example, the 2003 Hayman fire in Colorado produced more CO2 than was produced by the entire population of the State of Colorado in a single year.

My amendment simply directs the Forest Service to gather information on the emissions of wildfires because such knowledge is an essential component in making national policy decisions on greenhouse gases that are based on facts and proven science and not conjecture and unproven consensus.

We can't afford to impose a $2 trillion energy tax on our economy and on American families and small businesses, especially when we weren't even aware of the massive carbon outputs of wildfires that the Federal Government is doing enough to prevent right now.

So I urge support of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico deals with what issues Federal agencies should take into account when preparing a cohesive wildland fire management strategy.

I will simply note the irony that Democrats on the Rules Committee made when they allowed this amendment to be made in order to require that the management strategy analyze how the world's atmosphere and climate might impact the frequency in severity of wildfires; and yet, my amendment to have the agencies include fire prevention practices on fire management was not made in order. Apparently, we prefer to dedicate our Federal firefighters' time to speculation about the weather and not on real on-the-ground, human-controlled actions that are proven to prevent fires from ever happening. So it seems to me our priorities, at least from the Rules Committee standpoint, might be a bit misplaced. But, nevertheless, this is a good amendment and we accept it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the majority has acknowledged with this amendment the importance of prevention.

Whether the risk be beetle infestation or other disease, we can prevent forest fires if we manage our forests. I hope in the future we can take genuine strides to prevent catastrophic fire. This amendment is just one small piece of a much broader prevention strategy that is needed.

If the gentleman is prepared to yield back, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, clearly invasive species have a role in destroying our valuable forests. My understanding is that the grants made available under this amendment would go towards programs focused on eradication of invasives.

Much like a weed infested, untended garden, our forests are being overtaken and destroyed. This condition is completely unnecessary, but our land managers now spend most of their time dealing with lawsuits, either preparing to be sued or being sued, while our forests go untreated. This is a good amendment, and I urge adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

This amendment would direct better coordination of the National Guard with

wildfires. I think it is a good amendment, and we will accept it on this side.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this amendment makes it easier for communities to qualify for grants. These funds will be well spent if they actually go towards real fuel reduction. Neither taxpayers nor communities in harm's way of potential wildfires can afford to have funds used merely to nibble around the edges, avoiding tackling the real problem of fuel buildup.

This is a good amendment. I support it.

If the gentlelady is ready to close, I will yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent opportunity, with this amendment, for us to insist that fire prevention activities be part of the overall wildland fire management equation. Mr. Goodlatte's program to encourage cooperative management across Federal, State and private forest lands is, very simply, a positive step.

Wildfires do not read maps, and they do not respect boundaries. So by taking advantage of the non-Federal fuel reduction efforts, we can, in the long run, leverage more protection. And the one thing that this bill doesn't have enough of is protection. This is a positive step in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

With the serious conditions in our Nation's forests, drought and more and more development closer to our forests, the size and severity of wildfires have dramatically increased. The costs to our public lands, wildlife, private property, and, most importantly, to human life have been tragic.

Federal fire suppression spending has grown substantially over the past several years, with approximately 48 percent of the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service budget now accounting for these activities. Just over a decade ago, only 18 percent of the Forest Service budget was dedicated to fire suppression. Much to the detriment of other important programs, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have been forced to borrow funds from other agency accounts to cover these emergency costs. When agencies transfer funds from other accounts, they must reimburse those accounts when additional funds become available, usually through emergency supplement appropriations.

This legislation that is being brought to the floor today establishes a fund that will be separate from budgeted wildland fire suppression funding for the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. This fund will only be used for the suppression of catastrophic emergency wildland fires. The annual agency budgets will continue to fund anticipated and predicted wildland fire suppression activities. Thus, this fund will help ensure that fire prevention resources of the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior are not completely overwhelmed by emergency firefighting expenses. Appropriations for the fund will be based on the average costs incurred by these agencies to suppress catastrophic emergency wildland fires over the proceeding 5 fiscal years.

Although I support the underlying legislation, I know there is concern that the legislation is reactive and not proactive. A number of Members in the minority have expressed their concern that the legislation only addresses one aspect of the problem, the suppression funding side, without providing real relief and dealing with the underlying problem to help prevent wildfires. I hope that the Natural Resources Committee will review these concerns and work to prevent these devastating fires.

Last week, I had the honor of addressing the International Association of Firefighters, IAFF. It was a great honor to stand before those courageous men and women to thank them for their noble service to the Nation. Firefighters put their lives in danger in order to rescue their fellow citizens from peril and to protect our communities. Our heartfelt gratitude goes out to them, and I am pleased that the underlying legislation recognizes the selfless acts of bravery of these men and women by ensuring that our firefighters have the resources necessary and readily available to combat the catastrophic fires that ravage our public lands and threaten surrounding communities.

I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Hastings for their bipartisan work on the legislation. Unfortunately, in what is becoming quite a familiar pattern, the House majority leadership and the majority on the Rules Committee continue to block an open debate even on noncontroversial legislation.

This legislation passed the House of Representatives by a unanimous voice vote last Congress. That vote clearly shows that this legislation has broad support from both sides of the aisle. Yet, the majority is apparently so afraid of losing control of the debate that even on something with obvious consensus support the majority blocks Members from offering amendments to improve the legislation.

I reviewed some of the amendments blocked by the majority, and I cannot understand what is so objectionable.

One amendment, for example, by Representative Herger would have required that any wildlife suppression funds in excess of amounts annually appropriated be made available for hazardous fuels reduction projects. Another amendment by Ranking Member Hastings that was blocked would have included fire prevention activities as part of the fire management strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go into the rest of the amendments, but none of them seem so objectionable that the House should be prevented from even considering them. The pattern is clear. The pattern of procedural unfairness by this majority continues. It is petty and it is unfortunate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the former member of the Rules Committee, who now is the ranking member of the Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington.

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

I don't have any other speakers, but I have not yielded back.

Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated this discussion, and again, I thank Ranking Member Hastings for having come down during the time of debate on the rule. He has perhaps a very unique perspective having served on the Rules Committee for so many years. He knows the importance of process to the functioning of the House. And in addition, obviously, now he is an expert, he always has been, but especially now that he is day in and day out working on these issues in the Resources Committee, he is very much an expert on the underlying legislation.

Hearing the discussion, one thing comes to mind. Mr. Hastings pointed, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we recognize, and I agree with him, we recognize that the majority obviously has a right to carry forth its agenda and obviously a right under the rules to pass out resolutions establishing the framework for debate. But some things I think are important to point out with regard to that. In this Congress, I mentioned there has been a pattern, really an excessive pattern. I don't believe we have passed out an open rule.

In other words, I don't think any legislation in this Congress; am I correct? I don't remember any open rules. That's really breaking with tradition.

Let me explain that, Mr. Speaker. Open rules are, as Mr. Hastings said, frameworks by which bills are brought to the floor, where any Member can have an amendment, and any Member can speak on any amendment, for 5 minutes. And we have not seen that at all in this Congress. Now, that is a very significant and, I believe, unfair pattern that's been set.

Now, even having said that, there is another point that I think should be brought out. And I think our colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has made this point more than once, and I think he's made it very eloquently. Issues of genuine contention, all of such issues should be able to be debated.

Now, in other words, if the majority doesn't want to have an open rule, doesn't want every amendment possible to be presented, at least issues of contention that were taken before the Rules Committee in the form of amendments should be allowed to be heard.

Mr. Hastings has pointed out that there is an issue in this with regard to this legislation, and this is consensus legislation. The underlying legislation has support from both sides of the aisle. But there is an issue of contention that was brought before the committee, and that is on fire prevention.

Apparently, and I'm not an expert on this area. But apparently, there are objections from the extreme environmental lobby with regard to fire prevention being able to be debated. And

the majority party, listening to that extreme lobby, has not allowed that issue of contention which should be brought before this floor to be even debated. And I think that's unfortunate.

So beyond even the pattern of unfairness that has been set by this majority, where not even one piece of legislation has been brought under an open rule where everybody can file, every Member of this House can file amendments, beyond that even, significant issues of contention that Mr. Frank of Massachusetts has made clear, and I've heard him. He's been very explicit and, I think, eloquent when he said, no, no, all such issues of contention should be allowed by the Rules Committee. And he's gone so far even to protest his own leadership excluding genuine issues of contention from prior bills brought before this House, and I think that he deserves commendation for that.

So, here's another example. Mr. Hastings talks about an issue of contention that has been shut out by the Rules Committee. So yes, Mr. Hastings may have had three amendments made in order, but two amendments that deal with the issues of contention have not been made in order, and that's unfortunate. That's what I'm saying with regard to it being, I believe, unfortunate to see unnecessary, totally unnecessary closing of the process, shutting out debate by the majority, even on noncontroversial underlying pieces of legislation like the one we're bringing to the floor today.

So we have no further speakers. Again, I thank my friend from Colorado for his courtesy.

At this time, since we have no further speakers, we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I would like to ask the gentleman that, in reference to his mention of the public lands omnibus bill, and that will be coming back to the floor, I would like to ask the gentleman, will our side, the Republicans, be given a motion to recommit or an opportunity to amend this bill?

I thank the gentleman.

As the gentleman knows, certainly there are procedures in place to waive the rules so that we can, on the minority side, have a voice in the passage of this legislation consistent with what President Obama has continued to say, which is that we should change the way this town works and continue to allow all sides to have a voice in what Congress does. I think, as we saw over the last week, evidence or results of rushing things through the House and disallowing our side to have a say in legislation may very well end up with wrong results. So I am saddened to hear that we will not be having an opportunity to offer an amendment to that bill.

Yes.

I thank the gentleman.

I think that the percentage would probably be reflected in the fact that there may be 17 or so Republican provisions in the bill out of 140 or so. So I wouldn't necessarily say, Mr. Speaker, that that would reflect what our side would amend or hope to amend the bill with. But I would like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that last week he was on the floor and he mentioned that a stem-cell bill will be coming to the floor prior to recess. And since the gentleman has not noticed the bill for next week, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman tell us if he expects it on the floor the following week?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask further questions of the gentleman, as we have been told that the budget will be marked up next week, and I am wondering from the gentleman, number one, if he expects the budget on the floor the following week? In addition to that, I am curious, as are the Members on our side of the aisle, about the subject of your discussions with Chairman Spratt as to the direction of the budget. There has been a lot of discussion publicly as well as in these halls, about the proposed cap-and-tax proposal, where some economists, those from MIT and others, predict that if we are to provide for the cap-and- tax proposal, that it will cost American families at least $3,100 every year. That, to me, is a great cause for alarm, especially given the economic times and the struggle that the working families of this country are encountering.

It was also revealed this week that the number provided for in the proposed budget has underestimated the real cost of cap-and-tax. And if that is the case, that is even more alarming given the fact that if we are looking at an over $3,000 per family tax, what is it that we are doing if we are putting that cost on anybody who pays an electric bill, anyone who pays a gas bill, anyone who buys anything manufactured in this country? So I ask the gentleman if he is contemplating that the budget proposal that will come to the floor will have that in it.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I ask whether the gentleman can tell us as to the prospect for reconciliation instructions to be included in the budget. We have heard this week that the White House has told leaders on your side of the aisle to pursue health reform through reconciliation as well. And to us, this seems like a straight-up partisan approach, something I don't think that the American people are looking for right now, especially when it comes to items such as taxes and items like health care that everyone is concerned with. There is no distinction made between hardship on health care between Republican and Democrat.

So I would like to ask the gentleman, will the budget be coming through with reconciliation instructions?

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman would also share the attitude of discussing with us the direction, just as you indicate that the White House discusses but doesn't tell you what to do. So I like that spirit of cooperation.

I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, further, about any insight you can give us as to TARP 2 budgeting. As we all know, if we do not get the banking system fixed, we won't have the credit system fixed for the small businesses of this country, and we won't see the economy get back on the path to growth. So I would ask the gentleman, is he contemplating a number in the budget? Does your conversation with Chairman Spratt indicate what we could expect there?

And I will yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman further on that note about a markup in the Financial Services Committee. I take it to mean that the Financial Services Committee will be working on a piece of legislation, not necessarily aimed at a bank fix and making sure we can get the impaired assets out of the market, but instead, from what I hear the gentleman say, that it is a bill aimed at providing a structure for those businesses, those institutions receiving TARP funds.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman. And one additional question along those lines, Mr. Speaker, could we expect then the following week for that bill to be coming to the floor?

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, we heard an announcement from the President of a plan to support small businesses. And as the gentleman knows, the Republican plan for stimulus was focused like a laser on the job creators, which are the small businesses of this economy. We know that 70 percent of the jobs come from small businesses, entrepreneurs and the self-employed. So we were very delighted to see the announcement--and I know the gentleman himself had some public comments to make, as well--lauding the move towards finally saying, if we are going to create jobs, we had better focus on small business. But my concern is, Mr. Speaker, that when you're talking about small business and the SBA, truly nine out of 10 small businesses in this country have not had any encounter with the SBA, nor do they intend to or want to.

I will tell the gentleman, in my district, I had a small business forum last week. I spoke to 25 small business people. What they are asking for is access to credit. They are looking for the banking system to work. They want their own community banks, not necessarily government strings attached to loans.

They also are looking for relief from the tax code. As we have noted on the floor several times, Mr. Speaker, the budget that was proposed by the White House actually impacts small businesses more than anyone else. In fact, 50 percent of those receiving a tax hike in accordance with the President's budget are small businesses.

So with that in mind, and given that the gentleman has applauded the move on the part of the White House to help provide relief to small businesses, I would ask the gentleman if there are any plans to include tax relief for small businesses in the majority's budget as it works its way through committee and then to the floor next week?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, how I would respond to that is let's take a step back and look at sort of the events that transpired that led up to the need for today's vote on the AIG bonus payments, okay. I think that the events if we follow them teach us a lesson.

The stimulus bill that included a provision prohibiting the government from disallowing the bonus payments was in that 1,100-page bill. I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, no one in this House read the bill in its entirety. Nor did the public have its right to know realized. I think that ought to give us the sense that we need to be much more deliberative and open about this process.

These ideas, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman is proposing to help small business, most of which we probably do agree on, but, frankly, the better way to ensure success and a positive result is to have an open process where we all have the ability to offer our ideas, that the ideas and the policies are not just handed down from the majority leader or the Speaker's office and imposed upon the will of the people of this country.

So I would just reiterate to the gentleman that if we can see our way forward to allow the minority the ability to offer up real, positive alternatives if we disagree, it would all behoove us to work in that fashion. We can end up avoiding the type of result that came from the rushed way that so-called stimulus bill passed this house.

I thank the gentleman. How I would just respond before I yield back my time is that there was a stronger bipartisan vote in favor of our substitute than there was in support of the actual bill that passed. I think that we can take that as a signal that this House ought to be open, ventilated, and available for debate.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman.