Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1404) to authorize a supplemental funding source for catastrophic emergency wildland fire suppression activities on Department of the Interior and National Forest System lands, to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a cohesive wildland fire management strategy, and for other purposes.

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of the aisle did so: 21 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee on this bill; two amendments were subsequently withdrawn; and three amendments were nongermane to the underlying bill.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.

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

I am pleased to bring before this body proactive legislation which would establish a new arsenal to provide the necessary resources to combat catastrophic wildfires.

We are all aware of the raging fires which annually sweep across parts of America. Over the last decade, wildfires have become increasingly dangerous and destructive, burning more acreage and more property more often. Yet, financially, the Federal Government continues to be ill-prepared to respond to these fires.

Every year the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the other Federal agencies are forced to dramatically shift spending priorities, rapidly increasing funding for fire fighting at the expense of other vital programs.

This ``Rob Peter to Pay Paul'' approach requires these agencies to borrow funds from other accounts, causing everything from basic maintenance to visitor services to suffer. In fact, as it stands, nearly half of the Forest Service's annual budget is spent putting out fires, causing some to point out that the agency is no longer the U.S. Forest Service, but rather, the U.S. Fire Service.

The legislation before us, the Federal Land Assistance Management Enhancement Act, or FLAME Act, is a bipartisan effort to correct course by getting out in front of these tragic fire seasons. The legislation would address the funding problem by establishing a dedicated fund for catastrophic, emergency wildland fire suppression activities, separate from appropriated, fire-fighting funding. This pot of money would be available when appropriated funds run out, saving the agencies from having to cut into nonfire programs.

The Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior would be authorized to use money from the FLAME fund only after making a specific declaration that a fire was large enough and dangerous enough to warrant such action.

The bill would also require the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to present to Congress a long-overdue, comprehensive strategy for combating wildland fire, a strategy that would address the troubling shortcomings in the agencies' response to fires identified by the Government Accountability Office and the Agriculture Department's Inspector General.

I would note that this legislation complements proposals in President Obama's proposed budget to establish a dedicated fund for catastrophic wildfires.

This legislation also enjoys the support of the five former chiefs of the Forest Service, the National Association of State Foresters, the National Association of Counties, the National Federation of Federal Employees, the Western Governors' Association, and nearly 40 other organizations.

I am honored to be joined by our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva); our Interior Appropriations chairman Norm Dicks; Interior Appropriations ranking member Simpson; and Congressman Greg Walden as original cosponsors of H.R. 1404. Agriculture chairman Collin Peterson is also a cosponsor of the bill.

Each of these Members understands that fire, and the cost of fighting it, is among the most serious issues facing our Federal land management agencies. If not addressed, this issue will continue to cost homes, businesses, communities, public lands, and lives.

The FLAME Act will allow the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to respond to these dangerous fires while also accomplishing other important aspects of their missions, including those that will prevent fires from devastating our communities in the future.

I ask my colleagues to support passage of the FLAME Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps), a very valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources that was so instrumental in bringing this legislation, as well as many other pieces of legislation out of our committee, to the floor.

I yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds.

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

The Congress, under the previous majority, in 2003 enacted the Healthy Forests Restoration Act under the guise that it was the solution to preventing wildland fires on Federal lands. Today, nearly 6 years later, fires are still raging across the country and the Federal land managers are breaking the bank trying to pay for them. Clearly, it's time to try something new--and that's what we are attempting to do in this legislation.

I would certainly note that in passing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, Congress authorized $760 million annually for hazardous fuels treatments on Federal lands. Sadly, the Bush administration continuously underfunded hazardous fuels treatments at only 65 percent of the level authorized by Congress.

The skyrocketing cost of fighting fires forced drastic reductions in other Forest Service accounts under the Bush administration. This included cuts to fire preparedness, State fire assistance, cooperative fire assistance, and hazardous fuels treatments.

The lack of investment in fire prevention under the Bush administration led to a situation where communities around the country have NEPA-approved hazardous fuels projects waiting for Federal funding.

In western States last year, there were over 1 million acres of NEPA- approved hazardous fuels projects that were awaiting funding from the Bush administration.

The FLAME Act will relieve the drain on the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior budgets to ensure that funding is not swept away from vital fire prevention activities. This is why the FLAME Act has received support from those organizations I mentioned in my opening statement--a rather broad-based list of organizations, well over 40, that are in support of the pending legislation.

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

I yield 2 minutes to someone who knows well the problems this legislation seeks to address, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I certainly understand what the gentleman from Washington is referencing. I said last year during debate on this floor to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that I certainly understand the need to develop comprehensive preventive legislation that is aimed at truly getting at the root causes of these forest fires. I would repeat to the gentleman from Washington, my respected ranking member, that if he introduces such legislation--any member introduces such legislation--we will certainly bring it forth before our committee and give it due consideration and certainly try to work on it as well as we have on this legislation to bring it to the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to recap very quickly since we are closing general debate at this point. For much of the last decade, the wildlands fire season has been expanding due to factors such as climate change and drought. Unfortunately, future trends appear to indicate that this increase will only continue.

Within the Forest Service, wildlands fire activity now accounts for nearly half of their budget. The Forest Service spent over $1 billion fighting wildland fires last year. The skyrocketing cost of fighting fires has led to the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to rob Peter to pay Paul and borrow funds from other agency accounts.

There were cuts to fire preparedness, State fire assistance, cooperative fire assistance, and hazardous fuel treatments in Forest Service budgets.

The FLAME Act will allow the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to respond to dangerous fires while also accomplishing other important parts of their mission. The act will relieve the drain on the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior budgets to ensure that funding is not swept away from vital fire prevention activities. I conclude by urging adoption of the pending measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and former seatmate on the Rules Committee for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the underlying goals and indeed the idea of this bill, I have fundamental concerns with what is lacking in both the bill and the rule.

This rule and bill have focused on clearing up how to budget for fighting forest fires. That is good. But the Democrat leadership is averting its eyes and its legislative power from the need to prevent forest fires from happening in the first place.

Under the Democrat majority, not a single hearing has been held on wildland fire prevention in this Congress, and only one hearing was held in the last Congress. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been provided to place more forested land under Federal control. But little has been allocated to actively manage these lands or help the Forest Service and Department of the Interior clear areas and create firewalls between populated areas and potential tinder boxes.

I note that while this rule has been much more generous, and sometimes when I say that with all the closed rules we have had, even one amendment would be generous, but while this rule has been much more generous in making amendments in order than recent examples, of the five amendments that I filed, the two which explicitly address fire prevention were not allowed by the Rules Committee, as was Congressman Herger's amendment, a commonsense, budget-neutral one that the gentleman from Florida pointed out would simply say excess funds in this account should go to fire prevention.

I don't understand what is wrong with even debating it. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, when we allow these amendments to be made in order, we are not saying they are going to pass. We are simply going to say that they will be made in order to debate. Why wouldn't we want to have a debate that says we have excess funds, and if there is no fires, so there is some funds left over, we will put that in fire prevention? Why, for goodness' sakes, could we not even debate something like that on the floor? But that seems to be a pattern, unfortunately, in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we immunize our children to prevent illnesses and suffering. We treat our homes for termites and other pests to save us from expensive extermination and repairs down the line. Farmers spray their crops to prevent plant disease and infestation and to produce healthy products. Why can't we extend the same principle to our forests? Preventing devastating forest fires or reducing their severity will save money, property and even lives.

I note that my friend from Colorado in his opening remarks made mention of a forest that is devastated by a beetle. There is nothing in this bill that prevents the beetle infestation. Now there are some amendments that may address, and frankly my amendments that I wanted to offer would address it more fully. I think that this bill of carving out something to say that the Forest Service or anybody that fights forest fires will have a dedicated sum of money to fund those, I think that is good policy. But, once again, this does not address the underlying issues, and that is really where we should be focusing.

So I hope in the future my majority colleagues will heed the words of the beloved icon of the Forest Service, Smokey the Bear, when he says, ``Only you can prevent forest fires.''

With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And I'm very thankful that you made three of my amendments in order. But as I explained in my remarks regarding the Herger amendment, when you make an amendment in order, you are not ensuring its passage. All you are ensuring is you are going to have a debate on the issue. And so I wonder why you wouldn't, because there were some 20 amendments, why didn't you make them all in order and then we would have a debate on all of them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I wish my friend from Colorado had yielded to me.

He is right. I served on the Rules Committee for 12 years. And I understand what it is like for the majority to have to control their agenda. I fully understand that. But this is the people's House. And we ought to be able to debate issues on where there may be some disagreement.

Now you're a new Member here. I hope that at some time you will enjoy, and I say that in all sincerity, enjoy having a bill on the floor under an open rule to debate under the 5-minute rule. Now I'm not sure if you know what that is, but that allows every Member to speak for 5 minutes on a rule for unlimited time. I see my friend from California (Mr. Miller) sitting here. And I remember in my first term in 1995, we had some humongous debates on the floor here on forest lands, probably some other things. And those debates went well into the night. I remember very specifically. And at end of the day, we voted. And one side won and one side lost, and we went on to the next issue. But the pattern in this Congress has been not even to have a debate. I don't expect you to totally agree with me. You're new here. Maybe you ought to go back and look at some debates that we have had in the past or look at some rules.

We are coming to a time here in this process where we call appropriations season. Appropriations season has historically been a time when there is open debate. Now, I hope I am wrong. I hope I am wrong. But I suspect that the Rules Committee will come up with what they call preprinting requirement open rules. Well, that is not an open rule. Just by definition, if you have a preprinting requirement, how can it be open? But I suspect that that is what is going to happen.

And so, one more step here where the people, I think, will be denied access to their Members, their Representatives having access to an open debate. It just seems to me that we have gone through this year in the ruckus we had on the floor with AIG last week, oh, my gosh, we were shocked because of that provision that was in the bill. It was an 1,100-page bill under which we had absolutely no chance to read it.

Now, clearly, people on your side of the aisle didn't read it. Clearly, people in the other body didn't read it, because the whole debate on that was, my goodness, how could these AIG executives get the bonuses?

And what is ironic about this, we found out now that one Senator admitted, yes, in fact, I did put that provision in there at the beckoning of the administration. We still don't know who in the administration told that Senator that that provision should be in there. But I only make that observation because it seems to me we should learn. We should learn that some of these things don't work good. Because the laws that we are passing are affecting all Americans. And if we have to come back and say, goodness, we didn't know that was in a particular bill, that doesn't do justice to what we as representatives, people's representatives, should be doing in this House.

So I'm pleased that at least some of my amendments were made in order. I wish they all could have been made in order. I would have taken the consequences if the majority of my colleagues didn't agree with my approach to that. I would hope to have an opportunity to at least debate that. But I wasn't allowed that opportunity. And I think that is a bad trend in this House, and I hope it gets more open. But I suspect that will not be the case.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore