Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this Congress, every Member is absolutely committed to the security of our families, our communities, and this Nation. And every Member is absolutely committed to supporting our troops and our veterans.

The real question today is not whether we are committed to security or whether or not we support the troops; the real question is how we believe that security is best achieved. On that, there is legitimate disagreement which is, or should be, what this debate is about. To have this debate is not only a right but a responsibility of the elected Representatives in a Republic such as ours. Indeed, it is to defend that very right that our young men and women are serving not only in Iraq but around the world.

None of us here today need to be reminded about the threat of terrorism from floor speeches or from Presidential homilies. But let us not forget that the terrorists of 9/11 did not originate in Iraq, they came from Afghanistan. And, with only one exception, every Member of this body, Democrat and Republican alike, voted to prosecute the war against the terrorists in Afghanistan, bring al Qaeda to justice, and topple the Taliban.

We were united then, along with virtually the entire world, and the fight was right. Iraq, however, is different. The focus on Iraq has distracted and detracted from the mission in Afghanistan and the real battle against terrorists. The President and the rest of the administration took this Nation into an unnecessary and ill-conceived war based on false threats and with a deeply flawed plan.

Before this war, I and many of our other colleagues asked the administration some fundamental questions: How many troops will this take? How many lives will be sacrificed? How long will we be there? What will it cost financially? How will we pay for it? And how will this impact our security profile elsewhere in the world?

The fact is, this administration has never answered any of those questions fully or honestly. Never. Either they know the answers and refuse to say them, which is duplicitous; or, they do not know the answers, which is incompetent. Sadly, it appears a little of both is operating.

I voted against this war from the outset, and believe to this day it was the right vote. But once we were committed and engaged, I, along with most of my colleagues, voted to continue to support our troops, to try to achieve success in our mission, and do our best to help the Iraqis rebuild their country. We fervently hoped and continue to hope the mission would succeed; but now, several years later, more than 3,000 lives later, U.S. lives alone, and nearly $1 trillion later, as we consider the President's latest proposal, we must ask again, ``Mr. President, how many lives? How long will we be there? How much will this cost? And how will you pay for it? And what does it do to the rest of our security position?''

We still have no answers to those questions. And lacking such answers, which are fundamental to the security of this country and the safety of our troops, I must vote ``yes'' on this resolution and ``no'' on expansion.

My colleagues, it is irresponsible to allow a Commander in Chief who has not been honest or accurate from the outset to continue sacrificing the lives, the bodies, and the families of our

troops in a mission that lacks a clear end point or a successful strategy. It is dangerous to permit a Commander in Chief to jeopardize our Nation's security by letting our military equipment, readiness, and troop morale continue to decline, and it is shortsighted and unwise to leave our National Guard and Reserve unprepared and under-equipped to respond to challenges overseas or at home. It is strategically unsound to concentrate so much of our intelligence resources in one nation. It is unsustainable for our economy to keep pouring billions of dollars every week into this ill-conceived plan, and to pile debt upon our children with no strategy for paying it back. It is a breach of trust to not fund the needs of our veterans when they return home. And it is immoral to leave our soldiers dying and bleeding in the midst of a centuries-old religious conflict that is not of our making and is not of our power or responsibility to resolve.

In written comments, I describe what I believe is a better course. Some of our friends have said there are no plans. I have offered a plan, and I urge you to look at it.

But before I conclude, I must also respond to those who suggest that if we don't give unquestioning support to this administration regardless of what they ask for, regardless of history, and regardless of the evidence on the ground, that we are empowering the terrorists or undermining our troops. I believe the evidence suggests, from this war, that while there may be differences of opinion about policy, this Congress and the American people have and will continue to support our troops. It is a sign of strength of our very form of government, which is, after all, what we are hoping to promote in Iraq and elsewhere in the world that we should have this debate.

Our allies and adversaries understand that if we turn the course of a failed policy and the President has not been honest with us, that is not cutting and running; that is wisdom, it is courage, and it is honesty. That is what this resolution is about. That is what we owe the soldiers who have already given their lives, and that is what we owe the families and that is what we owe the future of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, every member of this Congress, every member, regardless of political party, and regardless of their position on this war, or the resolution before us now, is equally committed to the security of this nation, our communities, and our families. And I believe every member of this Congress supports our troops and their families while they

are deployed. We must all support our veterans and their families when they return home.

Since this war began, I have attended, as many of my colleagues have, deployment ceremonies as we send the troops off to fight. I have been on the tarmac in the cold and dark mornings when they've come home to their families. I have been many times to Walter Reed to visit the wounded. I have been to funerals for the fallen and held the hands of loved ones left behind.

Over the past weeks, months, and in the years since this conflict began, I have heard from constituents on all sides of this issue, including members of our armed forces who have served or are now serving in Iraq. Some of our troops support the war in Iraq, others oppose it, some support an increase, others don't. To suggest that opposing the President's planned escalation means not supporting the troops would imply that many of the troops themselves and many of their loved ones back home don't support the troops. That suggestion simply makes no sense and we should put it to rest for good.

The real question today is not whether or not we are committed to security, or whether or not we support the troops. The real question is how we believe protecting security is best achieved. On that, there is legitimate disagreement, which is, or should be, what this debate is about. To have that debate is not only a right, but a responsibility of the elected representatives in a republic such as ours. Indeed, it is to defend that very right that our troops are being asked to serve and sacrifice not just in Iraq, but around the world.

I saw the Pentagon explode from my office window on September 11th. We all knew that thousands of our fellow citizens were dying before our eyes and I was worried about the safety of my own family. None of us need to be reminded through floor speeches or Presidential homilies about the threat of terrorism. But let us also not forget that the terrorists of that day did not come from Iraq. And let no one forget that, with only one exception, the entire House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike, all voted to authorize the use of force to destroy the Al Qaeda bases and the Taliban who harbored them in Afghanistan. That is where the terrorists of September 11th were based, that is where the central focus of the fight against terrorists was focused, and we were united, along with virtually the entire world, in that fight.

Iraq is different, and the focus on Iraq has distracted and detracted from the mission in Afghanistan and the real battle against terrorists. Administration suggestions aside, none of the terrorists of September 11th came from, or were trained in Iraq, and there were no weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush and the rest of the administration took this Nation into an unnecessary and ill conceived war based on false threats and with a deeply flawed plan. Our soldiers, their families, our economy, our overall military readiness, the Iraqi people, friends in the region, and our coalition partners, have all suffered as a result of the administration's misinformation and miscalculations.

Before this war, I, and many others, asked the administration to answer fundamental questions. How many troops will this take? How many lives will be sacrificed? How long will we be there? What will it cost financially? How will we pay for it? How will you manage internal conflicts among the Iraqi's themselves? What will be the impact on our overall security elsewhere in the world?

The fact is this administration has never answered any of those fundamental questions honestly or fully. Never. Either they knew the answers and refused to give them, or they did not know and went ahead anyway. If the first is true, they were being dishonest. If the second is true, they were incompetent. Sadly, it appears likely that both incompetence and duplicity were at work.

Unfortunately, very little has changed since this war began. As we consider the proposed escalation of the occupation in Iraq, none of the most important questions has been answered.

I voted against this war from the outset and believe to this day that was the right vote. But once we were committed and engaged, I believed, as most of my colleagues and most Americans, that we had a responsibility to support the troops and try our best to help the Iraqis rebuild their nation, establish a democratic republic, and try to restore stability. I, along with most members of this Congress, voted repeatedly to provide our troops the needed resources to succeed, and I fervently hoped the mission would be successful. To a degree, there have been successes. We determined there were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has been removed from power, and is now dead as a result of a public and open judicial process. There have been free and open elections, and Iraq has a constitution and elected government.

Those are good things. But the costs have been horrific and the key questions still have never been, perhaps cannot be, answered by this Administration. As we consider the President's latest proposal we must ask again: How many more lives? How much more will this cost? How will we pay for this? What will it do to the rest of our security internationally and at home?

Because these questions are at the core of whether or not this policy will enhance or jeopardize our troops and our security, and because the administration to this day is unwilling or incapable of answering these basic questions honestly, I must vote in favor of this resolution, and oppose further troop increases.

It is irresponsible to allow a commander in chief, who has not been honest or accurate from the outset, to continue sacrificing the lives, bodies and families of our troops to a mission that lacks a clear objective or any foreseeable endpoint.

It is recklessly dangerous to permit a commander in chief to jeopardize our nation's security by letting our military equipment, readiness and troop morale continue to decline. It is shortsighted and unwise to leave our National Guard and Reserve unprepared and under- equipped to respond to other challenges or crises abroad or within our own borders. It is wasteful and foolhardy to build the largest embassy in the world in this very small nation. It is dangerous and strategically unsound to concentrate more of our intelligence assets in this one city, leaving the rest of the world and other dangerous threats less covered. It is unsustainable for our economy to keep pouring out money, forgoing needed investments at home, and piling debt onto our children with no real plan to pay for it, and no real end in sight. It is a breach of trust to not provide the needed services for our veterans and their families when they return home. It is irrational and inaccurate to believe that securing Iraq is the real key to keeping our nation safe from terror, or that if we withdraw from Iraq the only possible outcome is for our nation to be more vulnerable. It is immoral to leave our soldiers dying and bleeding in the middle of a centuries old religious conflict that is not of our creation and is not within our power or responsibility to resolve.

For far too long we have given this President far too much credibility, far too much power, far too many lives and far too much money. It is time to stop.

Having said how I will vote, the sad but simple truth is this, neither moving forward with the President's proposed troop increase, nor voting for this resolution of disapproval, will really do what is needed to secure our own nation, solve the problems in Iraq or bring real stability to the region. There are, in fact, better alternatives to the administration proposal and those of us who oppose the President's plan should spell out what we think is the better course.

This is where I believe that better course should take us:

1. We must renew our focus on securing and rebuilding Afghanistan and increase both troop strength and financial investment in that nation along with our allied partners. The fight in Afghanistan was the real and most important fight against the terrorists of September 11th. It was justified from the beginning and remains just today, and it has the support of the world. We cannot let the Taliban regroup and reinstate their reign of terror and extremism there and we still have a chance, though it is slipping fast, to help the Afghanis establish a successful, tolerant and secure nation.

2. In Iraq, the administration should meet confidentially with the Iraqi leaders and give them a timeline with key benchmarks by which our forces will withdraw. The timeline and benchmarks should be sufficient to ensure the safety or our forces and give the elected Iraqi government a reasonable time to train their forces and strengthen their political processes, but there must be a timeline so there is real pressure for real progress. The process of conveying this information and the timeline itself should be confidential. The elected Iraqi government should then announce that it is they who are asking us to begin withdrawal, thereby strengthening their credibility and leadership while giving our nation a graceful way to exit at their request. Frankly, this should have been done by the administration before the Iraq Study Group report and before this debate in Congress, but it is still not too late.

3. While beginning a measured and strategic redeployment of our forces from Iraq, we should increase our support for infrastructure repair and shift increasing responsibility for that effort to Iraqi companies and workers and away from foreign contractors.

We should, however, maintain close oversight of the spending to ensure the resources are being used as intended and we should link continued financial support to real political and security progress on the part of the Iraqis. Further, we should prevail upon wealthy neighbors in the region, notably the Saudi Arabians and others, to expend some of their own vast funds to enhance the infrastructure effort. We should also dramatically reduce the size of the

embassy complex that is now under construction in Baghdad and we should pledge to no permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

4. To help fund the infrastructure and security activities within Iraq, and to give every Iraqi a stake in the success of their political process. An equitable means of distributing oil revenues should be created that ensures all Iraqis will benefit from the oil resources and, simultaneously, that all Iraqis will lose economically if insurgents damage those resources.

5. We should encourage the Iraqis to work more closely with moderate Arab neighbors, notably Jordan, Egypt and others in the region to help with the training of the security forces and with the reconstruction effort. This assistance has been offered since the beginning of the conflict but the Iraqis have not taken advantage of that offer to any real degree as of yet.

6. Because the Iraq conflict has had a devastating and destabilizing economic, political and social impact on friendly and moderate nations such as Jordan, Egypt and others, we should provide additional financial aid to those nations, particularly to help them deal with the influx of refugees, the high costs of energy, reductions in trade and tourism, and other adverse impacts. We cannot leave our friends to suffer from this conflict, and we dare not let the instability spread to nations that have been models of change and moderation.

7. We must also reach out once again to our traditional allies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere in the world, openly acknowledge past mistakes, spell out this new direction, and ask for their financial, diplomatic, and, if necessary, military help in making it succeed.

8. While supporting and working with friendly and moderate nations in the region and elsewhere, we should engage in direct discussions and negotiations with other nations in the region, notably Iran and Syria. We disagree profoundly with these nations on many issues, and we must not be naive or overly optimistic, but it is in our best interests to at least engage in a dialogue and search for areas where we may find common ground. The administration's refusal to do this, even through back channels, is misguided and counterproductive.

9. It is dishonest to not include the full costs of this war and the associated increases in defense spending as part of the annual budget and deficit projections. We must at last fully account for the costs of this war and fully fund our commitment to veterans when they return.

10. Our focus on the Iraq situation should not cause us to lose sight, as it has for too long, of the real goal, which is promoting broad security, stability and moderation in the region for the sake of that region itself and in the interest of our own security. Even if we could fully secure Iraq with this surge of troops, which is highly doubtful, if we do not improve our overall image and relationships in the region and the world, and if we do not do more to support moderate and friendly nations, we will see continued and worsening threats from extremist groups and rogue nations.

A key part of this effort will be playing a constructive role in working to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. We also have important and necessary work to do to improve our image and relationships within our own hemisphere and we must not ignore or neglect that work.

11. Finally, but importantly, for far too long our energy policy and dependence on petroleum has distorted our foreign policy and thereby endangered our national security, our economy, and our environment. We must recognize that energy policy is coupled with national security and we must change both policies or we will never have real and lasting security.

I urge my colleagues to consider this course, but before I conclude, I must respond to those who suggest that if we do not give unquestioning support to this administration regardless of what they ask for, regardless of history, and regardless of the evidence on the ground, we are somehow empowering the terrorists or undermining our troops. The President himself has implied that any questioning of his policies is ``politically motivated'' and anything short of further escalation is sending a message that our Nation will ``cut and run'' when things get tough.

I believe the evidence suggests the opposite. The evidence from this war is clear, while there may be differences of opinion about policy, this Congress, and the American people have, and will continue to support our troops to the fullest. The evidence is also clear that our troops will serve valiantly and effectively whenever and wherever they are called.

For the elected representatives of the people of this great nation to exercise their constitutional responsibility and demand change is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of the strength of our own republic. Perhaps more importantly, it is a sign of the strength of our very form of government itself, which is, after all, what we are hoping to promote in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. The rest of the world, our allies and adversaries alike, understand this and understand that the strength, character, courage and commitment of this Nation, its people, and the Congress are separate from, and stronger than the flaws, and mistakes of any one President or administration.

We are not turning away from the fight against terrorists or terrorism by changing course in Iraq. We are changing the course of a strategy that has been wrong from the beginning and has not gotten better. Our Nation, our Armed Forces, and our Congress are fully willing to sustain a tough fight when the fight is right and the strategy is sound. But our republic, our people, and this Congress are also strong enough, wise enough and courageous enough, to recognize the truth and change direction when the time comes. That time is now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express support for full reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act.

My district in southwest Washington state is one of the 10 most forested districts in the entire country. Because so much of the land in my district is under the control of the Forest Service, counties in my district like Lewis, Skamania, and Cowlitz rely on the Secure Rural Schools program. They are among 27 counties in Washington state that rely on funds of over $40 million a year.

These communities do not want to rely on this program, but a long series of events have left them without recourse.

For decades, heavily forested counties could rely on 25 percent of revenue generated by timber harvest in our federal forests. National Forests cannot be taxed locally, so this was a fair exchange. As timber harvest plummeted in the 1980s and 1990s, these local governments were left with barely enough funds to operate essential government services, including schools. The 2000 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act saved these communities from dying off. It has allowed them to hire teachers, keep libraries open, and provide the services that many of us take for granted.

And Secure Rural Schools is about more then county payments. The program also authorizes Resource Advisory Councils and designates 15 percent to 20 percent of the county payments towards these Councils, known as RACs. RACs bring together members of the community including environmentalists, labor groups, and local elected officials to collaborate on necessary forestry projects. These forestry projects include preventive thinning that limits the danger of fires in our forests. Over 9 million acres of land burned in fires in 2006. Collaborative efforts to prevent this damage are a model that needs to be refined and expanded. That can only happen if we continue funding the program.

For the 780 counties, 4,400 school districts, and millions of Americans affected by this program, I implore my colleagues to help reauthorize and fund the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act. If we fail to reauthorize this critical program, counties in my district will see their school district budgets cut by more than 40 percent, community programs and services will be slashed, and jobs will be lost.

We must act now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue of importance to my congressional district in Southwest Washington.

The White Pass Ski Area is located in the majestic Cascade Mountains in the Gifford Pinchot and Wenatchee National Forests. The area is commonly referred to by skiers as ``the jewel of the Pacific Northwest'' for its breathtaking views of Mt. Rainer and exciting skiing opportunities. The area, which provides critical tourism revenue to the surrounding rural communities, is now looking to expand to provide greater opportunities to skiers in the Pacific Northwest.

The Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984 added over 23,000 acres of land to the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area and removed from wilderness designation 800 acres adjacent to the White Pass Ski Area as having ``significant potential for ski development'' and urging the Secretary of Agriculture to ``utilize this potential, in accordance with applicable laws, rules and regulations.''

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allocated the 800-acre area that Congress had withdrawn from the Wilderness Area back in 1984 to Developed Recreation in recognition of the intent of Congress. However, the LRMP concurrently inventoried as roadless the same 800-acre area.

It is well-understood that it was congressional intent to permit expansion of the White Pass Ski Area. I would like to submit for the record a letter signed by all living Members of the 1984 congressional delegation, stating that it was their intent to provide for the expansion of White Pass Ski Area. In a February 3, 2004 letter, the U.S. Department of Agriculture also confirmed this congressional intent, stating: ``We agree that the intent of Congress was clearly to allow for ski area development in the Hogback Basin.''

The Fiscal Year 2007 Interior Appropriations Bill that passed the House in May of last year included important information clarifying congressional intent to permit expansion of White Pass Ski Area. The language stated:

The Committee notes that the Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984 removed from wilderness designation 800 acres of land adjacent to the White Pass Ski Area in Washington State for potential ski development. The Committee notes that the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allocated the 800-acre area as Developed Recreation to allow for ski area expansion, while concurrently inventorying the same land as roadless to reflect its current physical character. The Committee recognizes that it was the intent of Congress to permit ski area expansion into this 800-acre area and urges the Secretary of Agriculture, once the Environmental Impact Statement for the White Pass Ski Area's Master Development Plan is properly completed, to move forward expeditiously in approving the expansion plans in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.

Unfortunately, the Continuing Resolution that we are going to pass today does not include any report language, including the language clarifying congressional intent as it relates to White Pass Ski Area.

I wanted to bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues and highlight the fact that the House Appropriations Committee was prepared and willing to clarify congressional intent, and that the full House approved that clarification by voting for the Fiscal Year 2007 Interior Appropriations Bill in May. In keeping with this, I urge the Secretary of Agriculture to move forward expeditiously in approving the expansion plans in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations-- once the Environmental Impact Statement is properly completed.

July 7, 2005.

Mike Johanns,

Secretary of Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Johanns: As members of the 1984 Washington

Congressional delegation, we are writing to express our

collective dismay over an injustice that has continued over

the past 21 years.

Over two decades ago, we succeeded in passing through the

Congress the Washington Wilderness Act of 1984 (Washington

Wilderness Act; P.L. 98-339). This legislation added 23,000

acres of wilderness along and near Highway 12, while removing

from wilderness designation 800 acres that are adjacent to

the White Pass Ski Area. As reported language stated,

legislation removed the 800 acres from wilderness so the

Secretary of Agriculture could evaluate its ``significant

potential for ski area development.''

Now, twenty one years after passage of this Act, the White

Pass Ski Area remains mired down in its third attempt at

completing an Environmental Impact Study to add these acres.

Something has gone terribly wrong.

The White Pass Ski Area, which began operations in 1952, is

located at the crest of the Cascade Mountains in south-

central Washington State within the boundaries of the

Wenatchee-Okanagan and Gifford Pinchot National Forests.

Plans for expansion of the White Pass Ski Area were first

initiated in the late 1950's and included the Hogback Basin.

In 1961, the White Pass Company submitted to the Forest

Service a survey and formal request for additional expansion

area on the north slope of Hogback Mountain, and requested it

not be incorporated within the anticipated wilderness

boundary. The Forest Service concurred with the proposed

boundary adjustments.

However, these discussions were not brought forward during

Congressional evaluation of the proposed wilderness

legislation. The Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL 88-577)

subsequently incorporated the Goat Rocs Wild Area, including

most of Hogback Basin, into the National Wilderness

Preservation System as the Goat Rocks Wilderness. Despite the

incorporation of the proposed expansion area into the Goat

Rocks Wilderness, discussions concerning White Pass expansion

plans and the need for a boundary adjustment continued over

the next 20 years.

In the early 1980's supporters of the ski area approached

Congress to lobby for a wilderness boundary adjustment during

the days preceding passage of the 1984 Washington Wilderness

Act. Environmental interests were concerned with the

precedent created by adjusting the Wilderness boundary, but

``agreed with the expansion of downhill skiing opportunities

in exchange for significant expansion of Goat Rocks . . .''

(Sid Morrison letter to Supervisor O'Neal April 17, 1989).

The purpose of the 1984 Washington Wilderness Act were to

``(1) designate certain National Forest System lands in the

state of Washington as components of the National Wilderness

Preservation System, . . . and (2) insure that certain other

National Forest System lands in the State of Washington be

available for non-wilderness multiple uses.'' (PL 98-336, Sec

2(b)(1 and 2) Through the 1984 legislation, some 23,000 acres

of land were added to the Goat Rocks Wilderness while 800

acres were released from the wilderness area (refer to Goat

Rocks Add. West Side map #WA-W-109, March 1984).

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Report

(98-461) describing the legislation and its objectives

provides further explanation of the wilderness release

language in the Act. ``As reported, S. 837 would add

approximately 23,143 acres to the existing Goat Rocks

Wilderness established by Congress in 1964. In addition, some

800 acres would be deleted from the existing wilderness. The

800 acres deleted from the existing Goat Rocks Wilderness

Area have significant potential for ski development and

should be managed by the Secretary of Agriculture to utilize

this potential, in accordance with applicable laws, rules and

regulations (Senate Rpt. 98-461, page 10).''

The dilemma is that, because of multiple land use

designations for the proposed expansion area, in combination

with other procedural issues, efforts to approve expansion

plans have been repeatedly thwarted. The conflicting,

confusing and uncertain status of the subject lands needs

addressing.

The need for administrative action with respect to the

White Pass Ski Area expansion

project is evident from the 40-year history of expansion

attempts. Maintaining this area in a non-developed recreation

status is not consistent with the intent of Congress. Over

the past 21 years, various actions have continually

frustrated the intent of Congress to allow for the potential

expansion of White Pass Ski Area.

In order to prevent the failure of a third attempt to

resolve the expansion need, White Pass is committed to

complete another NEPA analysis. Based on findings from the

analysis, we the undersigned strongly urge the current

Washington Congressional delegation and the Secretary of

Agriculture to provide a vehicle for the White Pass Company

to expand into Hogback Basin without further delay and the

threat of costly appeals and judicial reviews.

We hope that you will agree that the conflicting, confusing

and uncertain status of the subject lands deserve your

thoughtful clarification, correction and resolution.

Sincerely,

Sid Morrison, U.S. Congressman 4th District, Mike Lowry,

Governor, U.S. Congressman, 7th District, Slade Gorton,

U.S. Senator, Al Swift, U.S. Congressman 2nd District,

Don Bonker, U.S. Congressman 3rd District, Norm Dicks,

U.S. Congressman 6th District, Dan Evans, U.S. Senator,

Governor, Tom Foley, U.S. Congressman 5th District.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to wish happy birthday to America's Vancouver, Vancouver, Washington. I rise in honor of the 150th birthday of Vancouver, Washington. As we say back home, Vancouver not B.C., Washington not D.C.

There was a place up north that was not founded until 29 years later, so we were the first. America's Vancouver was the first incorporated city in what is now Washington State. It hosts its proud heritage with the Vancouver National Historic Reserve. Fort Vancouver, Pearson Field, the site of the first transpolar aviation landing, a host of historic achievements and wonders.

I would invite everyone to join us in America's Vancouver on July 7 of this year as we officially celebrate America's Vancouver's 150th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article from the Columbian.

[From the Columbian, Jan. 21, 2007]

Happy 150th!

And the most-senior city in Washington state is . . .

Seattle? The biggest city in the Northwest and hub of the

state's economy, is a sad non-contender in the competition.

It was incorporated in 1869.

And Spokane? The Capital of the Inland Empire, as the

second-largest city calls itself, is practically a newborn.

It was incorporated in 1881 and just celebrated its 125th

birthday anniversary.

Walla Walla is older than that. It came into being in 1862.

But Steilacoom (near Tacoma), now there's an old city:

1854.

That was just one year after the oldest incorporated city

in Washington, Columbia City . . . Ooops . . . Columbia City

was the name as late as 1850, when it was recognized as more

than just a military or fur-trapping post. But when it was

incorporated seven years later, on Jan. 23, 1857, as the

first city in what would become Washington state, it was

Vancouver. Our Vancouver!

The real newcomer is the other Vancouver, in Canada, eh?

Incorporation: 1886. So, if nothing else, on Tuesday this

week, when Vancouver USA officially turns 150, you might

silently pledge to pay no attention the next time someone

suggests, as someone always does, that we rename our city

Fort Vancouver in order to avoid confusion with the bigger

city to the north. We were here first. Let them rename their

city.

Much of the story of Vancouver USA's early years and most

famous people is efficiently and colorfully told in words and

photographs in a special section in today's Columbian,

``Vancouver, Washington--150 Years in the Making.'' Frankly,

it's a hoot. There's also an online slide show at columbian

com/video.

Mayor Royce Pollard, who always calls the state's oldest

city ``America's Vancouver,'' will deliver his State of the

City Address on Tuesday, kicking off a year-long celebration.

While acknowledging the past, the speech will fittingly look

ahead. Pollard has titled his address, ``Pride, Progress,

Possibilities.''

The signature event of the 150th birthday will be on

Saturday, July 7, at the Vancouver National Historic Reserve,

which long-time residents still refer to as ``The Barracks''

and newer residents know as the place they have the big

fireworks shows on the Fourth of July. The hope is to get

country singer Willie Nelson out for the event. He was a disc

jockey in the mid-'50s at the old KVAN radio station, 707\1/

2\ Main St.

In a Columbian editorial on May 31, 1921, the writer was

effusive about the county and the town, noting that it was

the world's greatest prune producer, had ``industrial

possibilities second to no other city on the globe . . . has

the finest water in (the) state'' and that its ``beautiful

homes (and) wide streets elicit wonder from its visitors . .

.''

Such boosterism brings a snicker today, but you gotta love

the spirit behind it and

wish for more like it in this, Vancouver's 150th year.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.

Of the many concerns my constituents had as they looked at the Congress over the last few years, one of the most important and troubling had to do with the minimal amount of time we were repeatedly given to address important pieces of legislation. Indeed, it seemed often that the more important the legislation before us, the less time we had to read it.

My colleague from Georgia talked momentarily ago about the Medicare prescription drug benefit. During debate on that bill, there were important elements of it that no one seemed to understand. I asked repeatedly if people could explain it. I was told by one speaker on the then-majority side, You will have to ask somebody on the Ways and Means Committee; I am only on the Rules Committee. But we all voted on it. We voted on things repeatedly that we had not been given a chance to read, that were not allowed for amendment, and that was wrong. And I commend our leadership for trying to set a new tone, and I welcome the support of our colleagues on the minority side as they commit to trying to work with us.

Included in this rules package is a commitment by our leadership to allow adequate time for consideration of legislation before it comes to a vote. The situation here is this: we ought to make sure that we can look our constituents and our colleagues in the eye

and say that before we voted on this legislation, we had ample time for ourselves and our staff to study it and we knew what was in it.

For too long lobbyists have written legislation. On some of the legislation I have talked about before, I had lobbyists calling me to say I should vote for a bill, the text of which was not even available to the Members themselves.

Members of Congress have the responsibility to give themselves and one another time to study legislation, to debate it, to hear from both sides, because there are good ideas on both sides and, frankly, there are bad ideas on both sides. So let's work together in this new Congress to set a new tone and a new precedent and a new practice.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond. And let me say I acknowledge the gentleman's concern and I share it to a significant degree. Personally, I would prefer that there had been more time and more opportunity for debate in some of these measures and more opportunity for input from the minority side.

I appreciate the gentleman's point. I would just echo the sentiments of the gentleman from New York earlier.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us in these early opening days of this session is legislation that has been debated extensively and been available extensively over the past couple of months, indeed, some of it was passed in the last Congress. I would suggest that we have had time to look at this.

I would concur, and I will say that in the future, when future measures come up, especially measures that are new to this body, I will work very vigorously to ensure that the minority has adequate time to study, to debate and offer amendments to that legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank my good friend, the chairman of the committee from Alaska, for his insight and leadership in bringing this to the floor.

As has been said, this legislation would extend section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act until December 31, 2008. It is a commonsense bill. It will save jobs, protect the environment, and promote economic growth.

Section 214 was enacted in WRDA 2000 to permit non-Federal public entities to contribute funds to the Army Corps to help expedite the processing of Corps permits. This is especially important in regions such as my own where we have endangered species listed and the permitting load has grown exponentially in recent years. This permission has allowed municipalities and ports to move forward with vital infrastructure projects, and these entities that provide funding are given no partiality by the Corps in their review of the project.

However, by funding additional staff to work on specific time- intensive permits, the staff and the Corps budget is freed up to work on their permit backlog. In fact, in utilizing this authority, the Army Corps of Seattle District has seen their total average review time per project reduced from 804 days to just 69 days in the first 3 years of implementation. And the City of Seattle alone estimates the cost savings at over $5 million, again from a piece of legislation that does not cost the Federal Government a penny.

Additionally, due to urgent construction needs, thousands of Corps staff have volunteered to serve in the Katrina area as well as reconstruction areas in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again turning to the Seattle Corps as an example, they have deployed a total of 233 civilian and military staff, approximately 29 percent of their staff, to these areas. First, we appreciate the service of those staff members and their courageous work in those combat areas. At the same time, however, their departure has left a limited number of staff remaining to handle the needs of the regional area. The deployments of the soldiers and men and women serving overseas can range from 30 days to a year or more, again leaving a substantial gap. It is during such times of increased deployments and increased demand for permits that we need expedited processes such as 214, and they are vital in continuing regional growth and economic need.

This section, as was mentioned, was enacted last year unanimously as H.R. 4826, and currently is unfortunately set to expire on December 31. What we are seeking is simply an extension until the committee finishes their work on WRDA before the end of the 110th, and I share my colleague's frustration that in spite of the House, as my good friend from Alaska said, we passed it across the aisle. We are with you across the aisle; it is across the Capitol that we have got the problem with the other body, as we say.

This provision is absolutely vital to Corps activities. Although this authority exists for all regions in the country, it has been particularly utilized in the Pacific Northwest by the City of Seattle, Ports of Tacoma and Long Beach, as well as the City of San Diego and public entities in Florida as well and around Sacramento. In the Northwest we have seen the backlog in the past had grown to 1,000 permits per year, but we have been able to lower that thanks to this legislation.

I am pleased to have support of all Washington State House Members as cosponsors of the bills, as well as Members representing Oregon, Idaho, and California. Again, I would thank the chairman, Mr. Young, Ranking Member Oberstar, Water Resource Subcommittee Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Johnson, as well as their staff; and I look forward to working with them. Finally, let me give special thanks to my staff member Katie Stephens who is leaving my office this year but has worked diligently on this piece of legislation and has worked for me for several years and prior to that for Cal Dooley. I wish her all the best and I am grateful for her service

Mr. Speaker, because of Republican inaction, minimum-wage workers have not been making a living wage for years now, and are forced to work 40 hours a week for wages that don't give enough money to afford increased housing, food, health care or gas costs. Gas prices are so high right now that it takes a minimum-wage worker an entire 8- hour shift just to afford one tank of gas.

Americans should be aware that CEOs in the first 4 hours they work make more in those 4 hours than a minimum-wage worker would earn in an entire year. The American people know that $5.15 an hour is not enough to support a family, not by a darn sight.

Today, House Republicans have another chance to support expanding economic opportunity to millions of workers they have ignored for 9 years now. It is time the House Republicans think of someone other than their wealthy special interest friends and support average working Americans. Increase the minimum wage.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment is about something that we talk about a lot in this body, and that is reducing waste, fraud and abuse and the waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars. People are concerned about this in the Katrina area. They are concerned about it quite a bit in Iraq as well.

What this amendment would do is ensure that contractors are held accountable for any fraudulent claims they may make against the U.S. Government and the American taxpayers. The most pressing need for the amendment is in Iraq, where the Department of Defense reports spending $6 billion a month, a substantial portion of which currently goes to contractors.

Under present law, whistle blowers may sue contractors suspected of defrauding the government. The administration is then granted 60 days to decide if they will join the case or not. However, the administration can also continually request extensions and thereby delay making a decision, which keeps the cases sealed and unable to proceed through the courts, thereby effectively allowing any fraudulent practices to go uninterrupted and unpunished.

Since the cases are sealed, we can only estimate how many are actually pending in the value of the contracts. But one estimate that is well informed suggests that at least 50 cases are currently awaiting action.

The American taxpayers deserve their day in court. If contractors are being paid for services which they did not perform or when they did not fulfill contracted objectives, those dollars must be recovered on behalf of the American taxpayers.

My amendment would limit the Justice Department to one extension of 6 months. This mirrors a provision of the Stop Fraud in Iraq Act, H.R. 5290, which I introduced along with my colleague, Congresswoman Lofgren of California. Once the 6-month period lapses, the administration would have to decide to either join the case or to let it proceed without administration participation. One way or another, the cases must be brought before a court and resolved.

Again, this is about ensuring the taxpayer dollars are managed better, and for too long we have seen these cases delayed.

I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the Baird-Lofgren amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share my good friend from Wisconsin's commitment to trying to lower the budget deficit.

I thank my ranking member.

The gentleman from Wisconsin is well intentioned. We all, I think, recognize the need to reduce the size of this deficit.

But there is an irony here, and the irony is this: The gentleman spoke about the need for transparency and accountability. I absolutely agree. But I would ask my friends on the majority side, if we are talking about transparency, why is it that time after time after time you bring bills before this body, giving us less than 24 hours to read them? Ironically, this bill gives the President 45 days to look at legislation before filing a rescission, and then we have 14 legislative days to act on that. You do not give us 14 hours to read the original bills.

We offered in the Budget Committee a proposal that would give us 72 hours, a mere 3 days, to read thousands of pages, spending hundreds of billions of dollars. It is was ruled out of order. Why is it that in our effort to establish fiscal responsibility we do not take responsibility ourselves, we hand it to the President and say keep us from sinning once again?

We have the authority within this body to review legislation if we would just insist that the Rules Committee pass a 72-hour rule and enforce it, not override it with the appropriately named ``martial law'' rules that they do. Let us require a full two-thirds vote of this institution before any bill is brought to this floor with less than 72 hours to read.

There is a Web site people can refer to, readthebill.org, and you can check this out. It is common sense. The public supports it. If we want to start bringing this House in order, let us bring our House in order, not give the keys to the executive branch, because I fear that the Framers would not have approved that.

I thank the ranking member for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent of the gentleman from Arizona, but I rise to join my colleagues in explaining why this is so important.

We have talked about boots, we have talked about hydration systems. This same coalition is involved with making some of the finest combat knives in the world; laser sights, laser devices that can help protect aviation or even possibly one day shoot down missiles; adhesive armor, to up-armor Humvees in 4 hours to save our soldiers' lives.

The gentleman from Arizona said we don't pick winners and losers. In fact, we do. If you vote against this provision and for your amendment, you will pick our soldiers as losers. This is about providing resources to help small businesses and medium-sized businesses get state-of-the- art equipment to our soldiers.

I don't know if you have had the occasion to meet with a midsized growing business that makes this kind of equipment, but talking to them and the challenges they face in working with defense procurement proposals, defense procurement procedures and other needs are very difficult challenges. I think it is entirely appropriate that the Federal Government participate in this, along with the match that was described earlier, because this is a program that could well be a model for the

country, that will produce more effective business results and better products for our soldiers.

One final statement I would just make: We talk in this body a lot about dynamic scoring of tax cuts. There is also dynamic scoring of expenditures. I would submit to the gentleman from Arizona and to all my colleagues that for a small amount of money, we are going to stimulate manufacturing of state-of-the-art devices and equipment that will save our soldiers' lives and save this government money over the long run.

This is a good proposal, an innovative proposal, and good products that will save the lives of our soldiers will result from it. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Friends, it is absolutely true that we need friends in this region, but it is also true that it is not easy to be our friend in the region. It is not easy, first of all, because a lot of folks in that area are not very fond of the United States of America, and Egypt has been an exception and a dear friend in troubling times and in a troubling region.

It is not easy also because, as a friend, we are sometimes rather condescending.

I have listened to some of the language that has been used here. We talk about tough love. Tough love is something you do not do with someone of mutual stature; tough love is something parents do to children. I have heard language like ``get their attention.'' We have Egypt's attention. They understand that we care about democracy, but it is presumptuous of us to assume that Egyptians do not care about democracy and human rights as well.

I had the privilege of traveling to Egypt recently with some of my good colleagues. We met with a number of moderates and business leaders who said it would be counterproductive if the House of Representatives seeks to punish Egypt or teach Egypt a lesson by withholding these appropriations. It would be counterproductive. Human rights activists told me that. The reason it would be counterproductive is because Egypt has made a number of reforms that we have asked them to make. They are engaging in economic liberalization. They are engaging in progress towards democracy after thousands of years.

Our own country certainly did not start perfectly. As any African American or woman knows, we passed the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams. Our own country had a slow and tortuous progress towards full democratic participation.

Egypt is moving in that direction. If we are condescending and patronizing at this critical time, it will send the wrong message, not the right message.

Egypt has boots on the ground in Darfur helping the refugees. They are operating a field hospital in Afghanistan, treating our own wounded and Afghani civilians. Egypt has been critical to helping negotiate the tense situation with the Palestinian Authority. Egypt has been involved in training the Iraqi troops.

Yes, there are concerns. But goodness gracious, could you not turn on the TV occasionally and see demonstrators clashing with police in our own country? And do we not have other allies in that country and elsewhere on this planet that have treated journalists harshly?

If we expect perfection from our friends or we will punish them or teach them a lesson or engage in tough love, we are going to have precious few friends left in the world. Precious few. We need to treat the Egyptians with the respect their long and proud history deserves. We need to continue to support them with appropriations, and we need to work with them as partners

with mutual respect and honor in the long tradition that we have established with this great country.

I understand the good motives of the ranking member and the others who have supported this amendment. I understand their intentions and I respect that. I just think it is a strategy that may actually backfire on us in the region, and for that reason I urge rejection of this amendment and we continue to work with the Egyptian Government to encourage and support the many achievements they have made and to support future achievements as they move forward.

That is the message I heard on the ground in Egypt, and I hope my colleagues will share that and reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

It is my understanding that my respective chairman and ranking member have some concerns about the amendment, and I intend to withdraw it, therefore. However, I would like to speak to it briefly, if I may.

Many of us who have served here for a number of years still find ourselves, unfortunately, lost when we travel in the basement of this building or some of the other office buildings. That is a frustrating and sometimes humorous experience for us under normal circumstances, but in an emergency situation it could be a matter of life and death.

I am aware that there are firms that specialize in the electronic mapping of facilities precisely such as this for the purpose of helping first responders respond more quickly and ably in the event of an emergency. Indeed, schools throughout my State have been mapped in such a way, as is our capital complex in Washington State today.

What I am asking for with this amendment is the diversion of $2.4 million that is currently allocated towards the House Printing Office in order that the Architect of the Capitol could invest in an electronic mapping system to provide this function.

Let me describe briefly what can happen with these electronic mapping systems. Essentially, rather than relying on the Architect of the Capitol to have a bunch of hard copy blueprints that would be presumably folded out in a time of crisis, the entire complex would be mapped in an electronic form such that the information about the complex could be downloaded and available on laptops, PDAs or other electronic means. This could include response plans, hazardous materials locations, and paths of egress or ingress.

Imagine had Flight 93 hit this Capitol, the chaos and the smoke and the toxic fumes that would have engulfed this building, we could easily have had Members of Congress, staff, members of the public trapped in unaccessible locations that the first responders would not even know how to reach.

What we are asking for today is that we invest in a system that will make it possible for our first responders, our Capitol Police, firefighters from on grounds or off grounds to respond promptly, efficiently to save lives and to restore order as needed.

This is a relatively small investment for what could one day be a profound and important life-saving measure. I would encourage my good friends, the chairman and ranking member, to work with me in the future on this measure.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman, and hope that we might be able to work on this in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and my dear friend Congressman Walden and colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work on this.

I come to this bill as someone who has a long and proud history of concern for the environment. I would compare my environmental record to anyone in this body.

I also represent a district that is one of the 10 most heavily forested districts in the United States of America. In parts of my district, certain counties, the unemployment rate is still in double digits. Small timber communities have been devastated over the past years by cutbacks in timber harvest and other impacts.

This bill is a commonsense bill. We use wood. Wood has to come from somewhere. The choice before us is, shall we get it from dead trees or from live trees? Shall we get it from domestic forests where we have environmental and labor standards, or shall we get it from rainforests or the Russian Taiga where there are virtually no environmental standards?

It is good for the environment, I believe, to harvest dead trees in a way that reduces erosion, that expedites reforestation with diverse natural species.

My dear friend from California mentioned earlier, and I recognize there are questions about this on both sides, but my dear friend suggested that we might want to wait. As you heard from Mr. Walden, we have had a number of hearings on this. More impressively still, the 15,000-member-strong Society of American Foresters has endorsed this bill.

The fact is we do not lack evidence that this can be done. We have abundant evidence that it can be done responsibly. Hundreds of thousands of acres of land across this country have been harvested and reforested and is vibrant today.

We also have evidence from natural events. I happen to represent Mount St. Helens. The picture beside me shows an area of industrial forestland harvested post-St. Helens eruption, reforested by the Weyerhaeuser Company. Adjacent to it is the national monument. You can see clearly trees have grown more rapidly in the area that was harvested and reforested.

Our bill specifically says that in a national forest you not replant in a plantation style, but there can be no doubt that evidence is clear that you can have more rapid regeneration following harvests and replanting than in an area that is left undisturbed.

Our bill, I should emphasize, protects national monuments and wilderness areas. No impact from this bill on those areas.

The bill has also been endorsed by labor unions, the Association of Western Pulp and Paperworkers, the carpenters and others. Furthermore, it has the support of professional firefighters. The people whose lives depend on the situation in the woods have recognized that this bill has merit.

Now, some have said, well, if you replant in the wrong way, you can increase fire risk. We agree, but our bill calls for you to replant in a right way that does not increase fire risk. The natural requirements of forest plans require the removal of downed timber, thereby further reducing the fire risk.

When this bill came before the Rules Committee yesterday, my colleague Congressman Walden, Ms. Herseth and I and others encouraged that these four amendments be allowed. We disagree with them. We think they are counterproductive, but we think it is important to have an open debate.

I am very proud of this legislation. If people would get past the rhetoric and ask themselves this simple question, if we are going to use wood, does it make sense to get it from dead trees or live trees; and if we can harvest it responsibly, gain economic benefit from doing so, if we do so correctly, benefit the environment as well by reducing erosion and restoring habitat more rapidly, should we not do so?

Existing law prohibits us from doing that. That is why we are moving to change the law. We believe we can improve on existing law. We believe there is evidence where existing law has actually harmed the environment, has been economically counterproductive, and we believe this commonsense legislation improves upon that.

So I urge passage of this rule, and I urge passage of this legislation when it comes to the floor, and I urge rejection of the four amendments. Though I am glad they were ruled in order, we should vote them down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For that reason, I urge rejection of this amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a fallen soldier from my district. Army Specialist Eric King of Vancouver, Washington, was killed in Baghdad on April 22. He was 29 years old. Specialist King leaves behind his wife, Tracie, and daughters Ashlin and Shealyn, who will remember their father and husband's love of laughter, fishing, and the Northwest. His death is a tragedy not only for this family but for our community. On April 22, Specialist King was driving the lead Humvee in a convoy patrolling a Baghdad neighborhood when a roadside bomb exploded and killed King and his three comrades in the vehicle.

The Army awarded King the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Ribbon, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Iraqi Campaign Medal and Army Service Medal.

Specialist King was born in Florida and moved to Vancouver in 1996. He left a union job as a truck driver in Portland to enlist in 2004. He was assigned to the First Squadron, 67th Armored Battalion in Baghdad.

My thoughts and prayers are with Mr. King's family, and with the families and loved ones of all our nation's fallen heroes. Let this stand as a solemn reminder of just how many brave men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice and given their lives for our country.