Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Gosar of the Western Caucus for arranging this Special Order tonight and especially for his exemplary leadership as chairman of the Western Caucus.

The wildfire crisis facing our forests across the West comes down to a very simple adage. Excess timber comes out of the forest one way or the other. It is either carried out or it burns out, but it comes out.

When we carried out our excess timber, we had healthy resilient forests and we had thriving, prosperous communities. Excess timber sales from Federal lands not only generated revenues for our mountain communities, but created thousands of job.

But in the 1970s, we adopted laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act that have resulted in endlessly time-consuming and cost-prohibitive restrictions and requirements that have made the scientific management of our forests virtually impossible.

Timber sales from our Federal lands has dropped 80 percent in the intervening years, with a concomitant increase in forest fires. In California alone, the number of saw mills has

dropped from 149 in 1981 to just 27 today.

Timber that once had room to grow healthy and strong now fights for its life against other trees trying to occupy the same ground.

Average tree density in the Sierra Nevada is three to four times the density that the land can actually support. In this weakened condition, trees lose their natural defenses to drought and disease and pestilence, and they ultimately succumb to catastrophic wildfire.

Three years ago, an estimated 25 million trees in the Sierra fell victim to these stressors. Two years ago, that number doubled to 50 million trees. Last year, more than 100 million dead trees are now waiting to burn in the Sierra.

Well, after 45 years of experience with these environmental laws--all passed with the promise that they would improve our forest environment--I think we are entitled to ask: How's the forest environment doing?

All around us the answer is damning. These laws have not only failed to improve our forest environment, but they are literally killing our forests.

The same politicians responsible for these failed laws have recently conjured up two new excuses. One is climate change. The other is that we are putting out too many fires.

Putting out too many fires?

That invites an important question: Exactly which fires did they propose that we allow to burn?

Perhaps the King fire that almost wiped out the towns of Georgetown and Foresthill on its way to Lake Tahoe in 2014?

Or perhaps the Detwiler fire this year that almost wiped out the town of Mariposa on its way to the Yosemite Valley?

Or any one of the more than 1,000 fires in the Sierra that CAL FIRE has put out this year, any one of which could have grown into a megafire but for the vigilance and competence of our fire agencies?

Which of these fires would they allow to burn into a conflagration?

True, controlled burns play an important role in clearing out underbrush, but as firefighters bitterly complained to me at the command center at the Detwiler fire this year, these same laws make it virtually impossible to get permits to do the controlled burns.

The other reason that we hear is climate change. Well, let's put that to the smell test. Throughout our vast forests, it is often very easy to visually identify the property lines between well-managed private forests and the neglected Federal lands.

Now, I have seen it myself on aerial inspections. The private managed forests are green, healthy, and thriving. The neglected Federal forests are densely overcrowded and often scarred by fire because we can't even salvage the fire-killed timber while it still has value. You can literally tell from the condition of the forest where the property line is. How clever of our climate to know exactly what is the boundary line between private and government lands.

And if carbon dioxide is the problem, doesn't it make sense to mill fully grown trees to sequester the carbon and replace them with young, growing trees that absorb much higher levels of carbon?

But, again, these same laws prevent this.

This is not complicated. Our forests are catastrophically overgrown. Drought is a catalyst. It is not the cause. In overgrown forests, much snow evaporates in dense canopies and cannot reach the ground. The transpiration volume in an overgrown forest is a big problem in a normal rain year; in a drought, it becomes lethal.

Pestilence is a catalyst; it is not a cause. Healthy trees can naturally resist bark beetles; stressed trees cannot.

A properly managed forest matches the tree density to the ability of the land to support it, but we cannot properly manage our forests because of the laws now in place.

Mr. Westerman's Resilient Federal Forests Act and other measures will restore proper scientific management of our national forests, but we are running out of time to enact them, because we are running out of forests to save.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman for yielding today, I thank him for his leadership, and I thank him for arranging this hour tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 289, the Guides and Outfitters--or GO--Act, offered by my Natural Resources Committee colleague and my California neighbor, Congressman Doug LaMalfa.

For many years, we have seen increasingly severe restrictions on the public's use of the public's land. One of the most galling aspects of this exclusionary policy is the use of exorbitant fees to prevent many group events and small business services that have often been the economic mainstay of small mountain communities like those in my district in the Sierra Nevada.

This abusive practice was made possible by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement--or FLREA--Act in 2004. It unleashed a flood of complex rules, regulations, and court decisions that have gradually increased the cost of permit administration for the Forest Service and for the Bureau of Land Management, which these agencies, in turn, have used as an excuse to raise fees on the public to cost-prohibitive levels.

For example, the California Endurance Riders Association have been using the El Dorado National Forest for many years. In 2009, when they sought a simple 5-year, 10-event permit to continue doing exactly what they had been doing without incident for decades, the Forest Service demanded $11,000 in fees.

Well, they paid those fees. But the El Dorado National Forest management, nonetheless, pulled the approved permit and halted the process on utterly specious grounds. It then demanded an additional $17,000 fee, causing the Endurance Riders Association to cancel what had been a long-term civic tradition that had been a boon to the local economy.

In 2010, this outrage was repeated after the group spent $5,800 for the Fool's Gold endurance run that had been an ongoing event for more than 40 years.

Hardest hit are guides and outfitters, the folks who make it possible for visitors to fully enjoy our national lands. They are the small businesses that provide specialized knowledge, skills, and equipment that new visitors just don't possess. Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have used FLREA to require these small businesses to pay for permit processing and environmental analyses that require more than 50 hours.

These fees, along with complex planning requirements, have virtually shut down so many legitimate and traditional public events and uses. Efforts to encourage the agencies to modify and streamline the process have failed, even when those efforts were supported by agency policy.

The GO Act is a long-overdue relief of these practices. It amends FLREA to streamline the recreation permitting process and allow for increased public access to recreational opportunities on the Federal lands. The GO Act was crafted in consultation with a wide variety of recreation groups throughout the country, and it aims to reduce the cost and complexity of these permits.

Mr. Speaker, I commend and personally thank Congressman LaMalfa for listening to his constituents, the people of the Sierra Nevada, and to the thousands of recreation service providers across the country who have been begging Congress to make these changes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of American Legion Warren McKeon Post 587 as its members celebrate the 75th Anniversary of their charter in Foresthill, California.

The American Legion was first incorporated by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic veterans organization dedicated to continued devotion of America's service members and veterans. Hundreds of local American Legion posts around the country strengthen our nation one community at a time, and the Warren McKeon Post is no exception to that standard.

The American Legion Warren McKeon Post 587 was founded on September 11, 1942--just nine months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Post is named in honor of Warren Alexander McKeon, who was raised at Yankee Jim's, located three miles from Foresthill, CA, and served in the 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Division in World War I. Private McKeon was killed in action on July 18, 1918 and buried at Oise-Aisne American Cemetery in France.

The Post's 160 members serve a number of different charities including the Veterans Home of California, Travis Air Force Base Fisher House, American Legion Boys State, and Boy Scouts of America, in addition to sending care packages for troops deployed overseas.

To honor the sacrifices made by the men and women who have put themselves in harm's way to defend our nation, American Legion Warren McKeon Post 587 has built a veterans monument in front of the Foresthill Veterans Memorial Hall. The monument, to be dedicated on September 11, 2017, will serve as a permanent reminder of our nation's sacrifice in the pursuit of a free and prosperous democracy.

Mr. Speaker, the significance of this day is lost on no one. Not only is September 11th the 75th anniversary of the chartering of American Legion Warren McKeon Post 587, it also marks 16 years since the deadliest terror attack on American soil.

The monument will commemorate the heroism, selflessness, devotion and patriotism of the men and women of our nation who answered the call when our nation needed their service.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans deserve to know their contributions will never be forgotten, and it is my privilege to rise in recognition of the efforts of American Legion Warren McKeon Post 587 to honor those who stepped forth from the safety of hearth and home and into mortal peril to protect their fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks after the 2016 election, I spoke on the House floor and warned that the greatest single obstacle to meeting the expectations of the American people was the cloture rule in the Senate. I said: ``Voters elected Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress and they expect action. They'll get it from the President and from the House. But in order for the Senate to rise to this occasion, it must reform its cloture rule.''

Well, it didn't.

Now, cloture is the Senate motion to conclude debate, and it is based on a sound parliamentary principle that as long as a significant minority--currently, 40 Members of the Senate--want to continue to debate, that debate should continue. This principle assumes it is an actual debate between real people regarding the merits of the subject directly at hand, but that is not what cloture has become.

Today, any Senator can block virtually any bill simply by filing a protest, and until 60 of the 100 Senators agree to take up the bill, it cannot be heard. Thus, a motion designed to protect debate has now degenerated into a motion that very effectively prevents debate. It also hands practical control of the Senate to the Democratic minority, which can effectively veto any proposal by the majority, essentially reversing the result of the last election.

This is not some act of God or constitutional constraint that has been forced upon the Senate. No, this is a deliberate choice by Senate Republicans not to reform their cloture rule. It has rendered the Senate dysfunctional and, with it, the Congress.

Earlier this year, the Senate briefly recognized this and chose to reform cloture for Supreme Court nominations, but not for the legislation absolutely vital to the interests of our country.

The news yesterday that the President has now had to capitulate to Democratic demands on the debt limit should come as no surprise. By failing to reform cloture, Senate Republicans have effectively given Chuck Schumer operational control of the Senate.

That is how we got wrapped around the axle on repealing and replacing ObamaCare. The House could have passed a comprehensive bill that completely and cleanly abolished ObamaCare and fully replaced it with all of the market and tax reforms that Republicans agreed with and campaigned on, popular reforms that put consumers back in charge of their healthcare decisions and placed those decisions within their financial reach.

Instead, the House leadership chose to attempt this through a budget process called reconciliation, a process completely unsuited for complex policy reform. They did so for one reason: to bypass the Senate cloture rule. By adhering to the very limited and restricted requirements of budget reconciliation, the House produced a mangled, tangled mess that fell well short of the reforms we had promised and, ultimately, failed to receive even a simple majority of the Senate.

Those who supported this process argued that a clean, complete, comprehensive bill would have been dead on arrival in the Senate for lack of Democratic votes for cloture. Well, I doubt that. Quite the contrary. Had the House done its job through regular

order rather than trying to cover for the Senate Republicans' bad choice, one of two things would have happened:

Senate Democrats would have been seen as the single obstacle to a popular, comprehensive reform while ObamaCare continued to implode and, quite possibly, eight of the most vulnerable Democrats would ultimately have crossed party lines and supported this rescue of our healthcare system; or, far more likely, Senate Republicans would have been forced to come to the same conclusion that they came to with respect to the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch and reform this rule. Certainly, we couldn't have been any worse off than we are today.

I would ask that, henceforth, the House leadership stop covering for the Senate Republicans and move all of the legislation that we promised the American people to the Senate through regular order. It is time we left the management of the Senate to the Senate, stopped enabling their atrocious judgment on not reforming cloture, and made it very clear to the American public why the reforms they entrusted us to enact aren't being sent to the President.

Senator Dirksen once noted, when they feel the heat, they see the light. It is time the House and the American people adopted this maxim.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates the $150 million of discretionary spending wasted on one of the least essential programs in the entire United States Government, the so-called Essential Air Service. That is the program that subsidizes empty and near-empty planes to fly from small airports to regional hubs that are usually just a few hours away or less by car.

This was supposed to be a temporary program to allow local communities and airports to readjust to airline deregulation back in 1978.

Last year, the Essential Air Service cost a total of nearly $300 million between direct taxpayer subsidies and fees to fly near-empty planes to underused airports. $150 million of that is in our control, and this amendment zeros it out and puts it toward deficit reduction.

We are often told that we now have a $200 per person cap on the subsidies, as if that wasn't bad enough, but that is only for flights under 210 miles. It continues unlimited subsidies over that distance, and actual subsidies per passenger can be over $1,000 per seat.

Year after year we are promised reform, and year after year the cost goes up. By the way, Essential Air Service flights are flown out of Merced and Visalia airports that serve my district in the Sierra Nevada. A tiny number of people actually use them, and the alternative is hardly catastrophic. Visalia and Merced are less than an hour's drive from Fresno air terminal. But I can assure you that every person in my district who hears about this waste of their money is outraged by it.

Rural life has great advantages and great disadvantages, and it is not the job of taxpayers who choose to live elsewhere to level out the differences.

Apologists for this wasteful spending tell us it is an important economic driver for these small airports, and I am sure that is so. Whenever you give away money, the folks you are giving it to are always better off, but the folks you are taking it from are always worse off to exactly the same extent. Indeed, it is economic drivers like this that have Europe's economy right off a cliff.

Four years ago, one Member rushed to the microphone to suggest this was essential for emergency medical evacuations. Well, it has nothing to do with

that. This program subsidizes regular scheduled commercial service that practically nobody uses. If it actually had a passenger base, we wouldn't need, in effect, to hand out wads of $100 bills to the few passengers who use it, would we?

An airline that so recklessly used its funds would quickly bankrupt itself. The same principle holds true for governments.

The Washington Post is not known as a bastion of fiscal conservatism, but I cannot improve upon an editorial a few years ago when it said: ``Ideally, EAS would be zeroed out, and the $200 million we waste on it devoted to a truly national purpose: perhaps deficit reduction, military readiness, or the social safety net. Alas, if Congress and the White House were capable of making such choices, we probably never would have had sequestration in the first place.''

There are many tough calls in setting fiscal priorities, but this isn't one of them. If the House of Representatives--where all appropriations begin, with a Republican majority pledged to stop wasting money--can't even agree to cut this useless program off from the trough, how does it expect to be taken seriously on the much tougher choices that lie ahead?

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. It would cut off air service to communities that are usually just an hour or so drive from a major regional airport where they can obtain air service. This is the kindest cut of all. Eliminating a temporary program established 39 years ago has become a poster child for wasteful Federal spending.

Now, our national debt has nearly doubled in 8 years. American taxpayers will pay $269 billion this year just in interest costs on that debt. If you are an average family paying average taxes, it means that $2,200 of your taxes this year will accomplish nothing more than renting the money we have already spent.

Continuing to pay for this obsolete and wasteful program with money we don't have is simply obscene. It makes a mockery of any claim that we cut spending to the bone, and I would ask for adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 873) to authorize the Global War on Terror Memorial Foundation to establish the National Global War on Terrorism Memorial as a commemorative work in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 873, the Global War on Terrorism War Memorial Act, authored by Congressman Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, would authorize the Global War on Terror Memorial Foundation to begin the lengthy Commemorative Works Act process to establish a Global War on Terrorism Memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia. The memorial will recognize and honor the men and women who have served on Active Duty in the United States Armed Forces since the attack on our country on September 11, 2001.

The global war on terrorism is the longest conflict ever fought by the United States, and there is still no end in sight. We can and should debate the policies that have prolonged this war and denied our troops the full might and resources of our Nation. But one thing is far above and beyond any debate, and that is the heroism, selflessness, devotion, and patriotism of the men and women of our Nation who stepped forward from the safety, security, and comfort of hearth and home and into harm's way when our Nation called.

The Commemorative Works Act requires that a war be ended for at least 10 years before planning can commence on a national memorial. There is good reason for this requirement: it gives history the insight to place the war in an historic context and to begin to fully appreciate its full significance to our country and future generations.

But the war on terrorism has been fought in a decidedly different way than our past wars. We are now approaching the 16th anniversary of the attack on New York and Washington. The veterans who sacrificed so much to keep that war away from our shores deserve some tangible and lasting tribute to their patriotism and altruism while they, their families, and their fellow countrymen can know it. The Gold Star families of our fallen heroes for whom the war will never end deserve some assurance that their sons and daughters will never be forgotten by a grateful Nation.

We should remember that many of our Nation's heroes from World War II never lived to see the completion of the World War II Memorial, which was completed 59 years after the end of that conflict.

For these reasons, this measure suspends the 10-year period in current law. It doesn't repeal it. It merely sets it aside for the unique circumstances of the current war on terrorism.

I am confident that the Memorial Commission will respect and appreciate the fact that many may have yet to serve in this war, and history has not yet had time to reflect on its significance to our Nation and, indeed, to the future of Western civilization. I am sure the design they recommend will respect these facts and provide significant latitude for the completion of the memorial after this bane of Islamic terrorism has been extirpated from our planet and the long- suffering people of the Middle East have been liberated from it by the brave fighting men and women of the United States Armed Forces that this memorial will honor and thank.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 28, 2017, letter from the Congressional Budget Office providing a cost estimate for this bill.

Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, July 28, 2017.

Hon. Rob Bishop,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 873, the Global

War on Terrorism War Memorial Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Janani

Shankaran.

Sincerely,

Mark P. Hadley,

(For Keith Hall, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 873--Global War on Terrorism War Memorial Act

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on July

26, 2017

H.R. 873 would authorize the Global War on Terror Memorial

Foundation, a non-profit organization, to establish a

memorial in the District of Columbia and its environs to

commemorate members of the armed forces who served on active

duty in support of the Global War on Terrorism.

Because H.R. 873 would prohibit the use of federal funds to

establish the memorial, CBO estimates that implementing the

legislation would result in no significant costs to the

federal government.

Enacting H.R. 873 would affect direct spending; therefore,

pay-as-you-go procedures apply. The memorial project would be

subject to the requirements of the Commemorative Works Act.

Under that act, any entity that receives a permit to

construct a memorial must donate to the National Park

Foundation (a nonprofit organization) an amount equal to 10

percent of the memorial's estimated construction cost. That

amount, as well as any project funds remaining after

construction of the memorial, would be available in future

years for maintenance of the memorial.

Based on the experience of similar commemorative projects,

CBO expects that any amounts collected by the federal

government for maintenance would not be received for several

years and would be offset by an expenditure soon thereafter.

On net, CBO estimates that such effects would be

insignificant. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 873 would not increase net

direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four

consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.

H.R. 873 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and

would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Janani

Shankaran. The estimate was approved by Theresa A. Gullo,

Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), the author of this measure, one of the many thousands of Americans who stepped forward to answer their country's call.

Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue, for working with us, and I ask that he please extend our thanks to every member of the Natural Resources Committee for its effort in getting this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman from Arizona for his words and for his service. It is my honor to call him my fellow marine. As an officer, I did my best just not to get in the way of my enlisted marines, who were doing the real work. Maybe we can bring some of that same ethos here to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill that honors our post-9/11 veterans and secures their rightful place in our Nation's Capital.

Earlier this summer, I had the honor of welcoming a group of American heroes who journeyed from northeast Wisconsin to Washington, D.C., aboard the Old Glory Honor Flight. That is one of the truly incredible things we get to do as Members of Congress.

Just to watch generation after generation of veterans representing every major conflict since World War II visiting the very memorials that honor their sacrifice, their service, their commitment, their courage in those conflicts was one of the most remarkable experiences of my life.

Just as these veterans visited their respective memorials, so, too, should the brave men and women who have served and continue to serve in the ongoing war on terrorism have a memorial one day to honor their courage, their sacrifice, their commitment. But as the chairman laid out, current law does not allow for the creation for a memorial for the war on terror.

The 1986 Commemorative Works Act requires that monuments in honor of a ``. . . limited military engagement or a unit of an armed force may not be authorized . . . until at least 10 years after the officially designated end of such war or conflict.''

But as we know, this is a conflict unlike many others that have preceded it. This war will have no clear end date, no V Day or V-J Day. Threats continue to rise, so the longest ongoing conflict in our Nation's history continues. After 15 years, after over 6,800 American lives lost, there is still no end in sight.

So this memorial is for the men and women who have died fighting, those who continue to fight, those who are still joining the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a second to recognize the dedicated members of the Global War on Terrorism Memorial Foundation, many of whom are with us here today, especially Andrew Brennan, George Chewning, Chad Longell, and Matt Gannon. They have been tireless in their commitment to getting this done. Today we are taking an important step forward, but we still need to get it across the finish line, so I want to recognize their efforts.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, like most, I struggle with how to truly honor the men and women whose sacrifices far exceed my own. I was lucky. I had great marines that kept me safe, and we all came home safe. But my hope is that this memorial will serve as not only a way to honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifices, but also as a call to action for us, the living.

I believe that those we will pay tribute to through this memorial didn't risk everything just so we would sit back and praise them for keeping us safe. I would submit to you that the fallen don't want our praise. They want our participation in this incredible experiment in self-government.

If we are going to continue passing the torch of democracy from one generation to the next, then we need to build this memorial so that future generations never forget their duty to do the same, so that future generations never forget the cost of liberty.

Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support this legislation to memorialize the service of the brave men and women who have fought in the global war on terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), who has brought this legislation before us today.

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

With this vote, we will begin proceeding on this memorial and begin a process of planning a great work to honor the bravery, sacrifice, and patriotism to those who have defended Western civilization from the medieval barbarism that has reappeared in our time.

But even more importantly, we begin work on a tangible promise for future generations, a promise animated by the heroic deeds of these veterans, the promise of a coming age of liberty and justice, of peace and tolerance that will surely come. I ask for adoption of this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, this administration was elected to drain the swamp, and one of the muckiest parts is the Export-Import Bank that makes taxpayer-guarantied loans to foreign companies that buy American products, often to use in competition with American companies that get no such advantage.

Now, when politicians are picking winners and losers in the shadows, it shouldn't surprise us that we find a particularly nasty breeding ground for corruption.

We can debate the merits of the Ex-Im Bank, but one thing is undeniable: it is an agency that needs a taxpayer watchdog on its board and not just another lapdog for crony capitalists seeking to fleece the taxpayer.

Scott Garrett is a watchdog. He has sounded the alarm on the Ex-Im's more questionable loans, and his leadership on its board would restore credibility to its decisions.

The bank's supporters should welcome an independent voice that could restore its reputation, and the President should insist on it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saluting the more than 5,000 firefighters from 40 cooperating agencies that assembled under the coordination of CAL FIRE to battle the Detwiler fire that threatened Yosemite Valley and its gateway communities.

I spent Saturday at the command centers in Mariposa and Merced Counties, and what I said is what I have seen time and again at so many fires we are having these days in the Sierras: cool, calm professionalism; selflessness; and devotion to duty.

CAL FIRE is an agency that works. I want particularly to salute and thank Nancy Koerperich, CAL FIRE's unit fire chief for Madera, Merced, and Mariposa. She and her operation literally saved several towns, including Mariposa and Coulterville, from annihilation last week.

Sheriff Doug Binnewies of Mariposa County is rightly being hailed for his courage and leadership in directing the orderly evacuation of the town of Mariposa as the fire bore down upon it.

You can literally see how the fire burned right up to the town's edge. I can't tell you how many homes I saw where firefighters stopped it literally within a few feet of their front doors. CAL FIRE Battalion Chief Jeremy Rahn told me that the difference between saving and losing so many homes was defensible space.

CAL FIRE has produced a superb phone app to assist homeowners in preparing their homes so that if, God forbid, the need arises, firefighters will be able to defend them. It also provides fire alerts, and anyone in the mountain community should have it. It is free for downloading at your phone's app store.

I cannot say enough about the firefighters who have been working in triple-digit heat on 24-hour shifts to battle the flames or the air crews that dropped a staggering 500,000 gallons of fire retardant in a single day at the height of the conflagration. Their effectiveness can be seen by red borders of fire retardant that separate the blackened ground of the fire on one side from the landscape they saved on the other.

They not only saved these communities and hundreds of homes, they also stopped the fire within just a few miles of the Stanislaus National Forest, a forest that is dying because of Federal environmental restrictions on forest management. The firefighters warned that, if the fire had reached these vast stands of dead trees, the fire would have exploded with atomic force. And that is the fine point of the matter.

I spoke with Mariposa County Supervisor Marshall Long and many of the other firefighters at the Mariposa command center, and the one thing that they stressed time and again is that they need relief from the regulations that are making it almost impossible to create firebreaks, thin the forests, or remove the excess fuels.

These policies, imposed 45 years ago through legislation like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, promised to improve the forest environment. After 45 years of experience with these laws, I think we are entitled to ask: Well, how is the forest environment doing? The answer is damning. These laws have made it virtually impossible to keep our forests properly managed, and the result has been severe tree overcrowding.

The Sierra Nevada normally support between 20 and 100 trees per acre, depending upon the topography. The average tree density is now 266 trees per acre. This extreme overcrowding has stressed the trees to the point they can no longer resist drought and beetle infestation and disease. This has caused a massive tree die-off, and we have entire national forests now just waiting to explode with over 100 million dead trees.

The heroic firefighters of the Detwiler fire have kept it out of these hazard zones, but the hazard zones are still there. And consider this: we are only at the very beginning of the fire season that combines fresh brush from last year's rains with millions of dead trees that were too stressed from overcrowding to survive the drought. The firefighters I spoke with on Saturday bitterly complained that they can't even cut firebreaks to isolate these zones because of the same so-called environmental laws.

The House has pending before it the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 that would allow us to restore good forest management, but we may already have run afoul of what Churchill called history's ``terrible, chilling words: too late.''

Mr. Speaker, I call for expeditious consideration of the Resilient Federal Forests Act and other legislation aimed at restoring management to our forests in the hope that firefighters can hold these fires at bay until we restore good management to our public lands.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Jack and Marianne Cox on the occasion of their upcoming golden wedding anniversary.

Jack served for many years as chief of staff for Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr. In fact, I first met him in that capacity when I was still in high school. I have done quite a bit of aging since then. Jack and Marianne have not, which I find annoying, but there it is.

Jack was the quintessential congressional chief of staff. He was always one step behind Barry, whispering names in his ear as he went from handshake to handshake.

Jack was also one of the moving forces behind the creation of the Republican Study Committee.

Somehow he also found time to marry and raise a family in those years. And, even more surprisingly, Marianne put up with it.

Jack and Marianne have sort of retired to the town of Copperopolis, and I extend to them heartiest congratulations on the celebration of this family milestone.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the

bill (H.R. 2370) to authorize Escambia County, Florida, to convey certain property that was formerly part of Santa Rosa Island National Monument and that was conveyed to Escambia County subject to restrictions on use and reconveyance.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), the author of this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by assuaging the concerns raised by my friend from Missouri. A provision in the bill--and I will simply read it--I think, answers his concerns rather clearly. It says:

``. . . the county shall preserve in perpetuity the areas of the non- Federal land that, as of the date of enactment of this act, are dedicated for conservation, preservation, public recreation access, and public parking, in accordance with any resolutions of the Board of Commissioners of the county.''

As my friend has pointed out, Congress established the Santa Rosa National Monument and directed the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Federal land in the monument to Escambia County, Florida, back in 1946. Just 6 months later, the land was deeded to the county. Under the terms of the conveyance, Escambia County was given the authority to lease the property on Santa Rosa Island; however, they were not allowed to issue title on the property or otherwise dispose of it or reconvey it.

In the intervening years since then, Santa Rosa Island has experienced tremendous economic growth. This growth prompted county leaders to assess property taxes on the leased lands. The imposition of taxes led to several lawsuits centered on the question of whether island residents and businessowners paying lease fees for their land could be taxed, despite not having outright ownership of the property.

Courts have reached different conclusions based on differences in the language of particular leases, which has created fairness issues for the county governments of Escambia and Santa Rosa. One property may be subject to property taxes, while a virtually identical property next door may not. This uneven treatment has prompted interest in removing the deed restriction prohibiting reconveyance, which then allows the county governments to convey ownership and create a uniform tax treatment for all properties on the beach.

Recently, both Escambia County and neighboring Santa Rosa County passed resolutions asking for a Federal solution to allow current Santa Rosa Island leaseholders the option of attaining fee simple title while protecting public access to the beaches and conservation areas on the island.

I commend my colleague, Congressman Gaetz, for listening to his constituents and working to find a solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I would simply add that one of the overarching objectives of the Federal Lands Subcommittee is to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities impacted by the public lands. This bill is an example of that principle at work, and I would urge adoption of the measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1927) to amend title 54, United States Code, to establish within the National Park Service the African American Civil Rights Network, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1927, the African American Civil Rights Network Act, introduced by our distinguished committee colleague, Congressman Lacy Clay from Missouri, directs the National Park Service to identify and create a national network of historic sites, research facilities, and educational programs connected to the modern African-American civil rights movement. The network will be comprised of existing units and programs of the National Park Service related to the African-American civil rights movement as well as the properties and programs of other Federal, State, local, and private entities that join the network.

Establishing this network of historic sites connected to the African- American civil rights movement will help preserve the legacy and the struggle of the many courageous individuals who risked their lives to secure racial equality and to put the full measure of the Declaration of Independence and its sacred principles into action.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reciprocate the kind words of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay). It has been a pleasure working with him on this bill.

Shakespeare put it best:

This story shall a good man teach his son.

This bill tells that story of how the full measure of our Nation's founding principles came to fruition.

I would ask for Members' support and adoption of this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, we have just heard a very familiar theme from the Democratic side of the aisle. It is a theme they have sounded for the past decade and goes a long way to explain why America's prosperity has been stagnating. It has literally been on hold during these past 8 years.

God forbid there should be more jobs to support struggling families in this little community. God forbid our roads should ever be used to get products to people who desperately need them.

Now, it is hard for me to understand how a one-lane gravel road is going to accommodate all of that commerce. What it is going to accommodate are people who desperately need access to the neighboring city of Cold Bay.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this bill, Mr. Young's H.R. 218, on behalf of the people of King Cove, Alaska.

I want you to imagine being a resident of that tiny little community. Its only outside access is by a gravel airstrip and a little tiny harbor. It is just 20 miles from the city of Cold Bay. Cold Bay has got a regional airport, they have got medical facilities, but there is no road connecting that little town with the life-sustaining civilization just 20 miles away.

We all know of the exceptionally harsh weather conditions in that area; they routinely prevent air and sea travel out of King Cove. If you are in trouble in that weather, there is help just down the road, but there is no road.

Why is there no road? Well, we have just heard a sampling of why. It is not because of natural barriers. It is not for lack of need or financing. It is because a national wildlife refuge in a section of the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge is in between these communities and the Federal Government and leftwing environmental activists just won't hear of it.

For over 20 years, the people of King Cove have begged for this lifesaving road for their safety--not a major interstate, not a parkway, just a one-lane road. It requires only 206 acres out of the 59 million acres of designated Federal wilderness in Alaska.

Just in the last 4 years, this has been pointed out, 55 emergency medical evacuations have been made, a number of which required Coast Guard involvement or extended patient waiting times or both.

Mr. Westerman has told us just last year of the King Cove woman in her seventies suffering from heart issues medevaced from King Cove to Cold Bay by Coast Guard vessel after high winds prevented an air ambulance from landing at King Cove. In the end, it took the woman over 7 hours to reach a hospital in Anchorage.

A road between King Cove and Cold Bay would go a long way to preventing similar situations from recurring, and it would provide a potentially lifesaving evacuation route for King Cove citizens in the event of an emergency. And if it helps provide additional jobs for that little community, well, I say so much the better.

Congressman Young has tried for more than a decade to get this done, but it has been stymied by leftwing environmental activists and by ideological zealots in the bureaucracy. During

our hearing on the bill, opposition came not from any of the communities involved, but from environmental activists hundreds of miles away from King Cove, although they seemed to have mouthpieces here in this House.

In exchange for use of the 206 acres of Federal land for this road, the State of Alaska is willing to transfer 40,000 acres of State land to the Federal Government. This bill facilitates that transfer and, after two decades, finally gives permission for this little road to be built. It is long overdue.

I salute Congressman Young for his persistent pursuit of justice for the long-suffering people of King Cove.

Mr. Chair, I ask for speedy adoption of this bill by this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the efforts of Dr. Andy David, Israel's Consul General to the Pacific Northwest, who has worked tirelessly to deepen the ties between our two nations, as he completes his tour of duty at the Consulate General of Israel in San Francisco.

Dr. Andy David began his appointment as Consul General in August 2012. He has focused his work on relationship building with essential organizations such as the American Jewish Committee and promoting the special relationship between Israel and the U.S.

Throughout his career in public service, Dr. David has focused his work to advance U.S.-Israeli relations in the areas of economic development, business ties and trade opportunities.

Dr. David helped launch a cultural exchange with Israeli artists and the City of San Francisco, developing a strong exchange program with San Francisco-based artists and their Israeli counterparts.

Under Andy's guidance, the University of California system signed a new cooperation agreement with Israel designed to foster technological innovation, research, and development. This collaboration is aimed at helping American and Israeli companies increase competitiveness and improve the commercial success of both countries in global markets.

In 2014, after a series of anti-Israel rallies cropped up throughout San Francisco, Dr. David and fellow pro-Israel supporters organized a rally to show solidarity for continued U.S. support of Israel and increase morale for Israeli soldiers fighting against terrorist groups in Gaza.

Today, a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship is more important than ever. Without the selfless dedication of public servants like Dr. David, the peace and security of both nations would suffer.

The United States knows no greater friend than Israel, and Dr. David has done an extraordinary job of fostering an understanding among Americans of the importance of Israel to the security of the United States. I hope the accomplishments made by Dr. David will inspire a future generation of public servants to deepen the ties between our countries.

Mr. Speaker, the partnership between the United States and Israel will continue to reap Dr. Andy David's contributions for years to come, and I rise to express my profound gratitude for his tremendous service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of our Nation's greatest conservative minds and most eloquent voices, Bruce Herschensohn of California, on the occasion of his upcoming birthday.

I am told he is opposed to keeping an exact count of birthdays, either that or he has simply lost track, but it is a significant milestone and one for which his friends are grateful and his country is fortunate.

He served our Nation and the free peoples of the world in the U.S. Information Agency during the Cold War. Anyone who saw and was inspired by the classic tribute, ``John F. Kennedy: Years of Lightning, Day of Drums,'' has Bruce Herschensohn to thank. He went on to serve President Nixon as both speechwriter and adviser.

Anyone who lived in southern California in the late 1970s or the 1980s will remember Bruce's incisive nightly commentaries on KABC-TV and his decisive debates with John Tunney. I can tell you that they fundamentally shaped my thinking and animated my career, and I often encounter others throughout the country who trace their political roots back to his nightly conservative homilies.

Through the darkest days of the Carter malaise, Herschensohn became a beacon of hope, helping to pave the way for the Reagan Revolution. He marshaled the self-evident truths of the American founding and introduced them to a new generation that was losing its memory of them. He connected the dots between freedom and its importance to the prosperity and happiness of our society and the stability of our world. He helped lay the foundation for the Reagan administration on the Presidential transition team.

If he had had any knack or inclination for raising money, he would have served many years in the United States Senate, and both California and the Nation would have been infinitely better for it.

He was one of the earliest voices to raise the alarm over Islamist terrorism and has been one of the strongest defenders of the State of Israel through all its travails and challenges of the past half- century.

But I believe his greatest influence is through the thousands of students who have had the good fortune to study under his tutelage at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy for more than a decade. The full measure of his contributions to our Nation will be measured over the many years to come as his students take their place in shaping our Nation's policies over the next generation.

On behalf of so many who have been influenced, inspired, and ultimately motivated by the elegance of his reasoning and the eloquence of his words, I am honored to offer happy birthday wishes to Bruce Herschensohn today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 23.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, in California, 5 years of historic drought caused billions of dollars of damage to our economy, destroyed tens of thousands of jobs, and brought many communities within just months of literally running out of water, all because we couldn't store water from the wet years to assure plenty in the drought years.

Then back to back with this historic drought, we have just had one of the wettest winters on record. Massive torrents of water threatened entire communities on its way to be wasted in the Pacific Ocean, all because of the very same problem: we have few reservoirs to store this superabundance of water for the next drought.

Even before the drought, massive water diversions required by a growing tangle of laws and regulations had created devastating economic hardship in California's fertile Central Valley. Those same policies forced us to release what precious little water we had remaining behind our dams to adjust river temperatures for fish.

For three Congresses now, the House has acted to fix this folly. Today, H.R. 23, the GROW Act, by Congressman David Valadao, addresses the policy, regulatory, and administrative failures that have mismanaged our water supplies across the West.

The GROW Act includes both short-term and long-term provisions aimed at restoring water reliability and certainty to cities and farms. It includes seven titles that expand water storage, improve infrastructure, protect water rights, and create more abundant and reliable water resources to benefit both communities and the environment.

The GROW Act gives Federal agencies the tools they need to help safeguard communities from the hardship of future droughts. It codifies the historic Bay-Delta accord that provided an equitable balance between human and environmental needs and guaranteed the reliability and predictability of our water supplies.

It strengthens northern California area-of-origin water rights and prevents the Federal Government from demanding that people give up their water rights in order to operate on Federal land.

It streamlines the endlessly time-consuming and cost-prohibitive environmental permitting that is blocking new reservoir construction by coordinating Federal agencies and requiring transparency of the science behind its decisions.

It requires completion of studies for five new reservoirs that have dragged on for decades.

In the past, we have heard three objections from opponents. The first is it will decimate salmon fisheries. On the contrary, it saves those fisheries where the environmental policies of the past 40 years have utterly failed to protect them.

The GROW Act targets the nonnative predators that are responsible for 90 percent of salmon losses as the smolts try to make their way to the ocean. It encourages the use of fish hatcheries to assure that salmon populations will increase dramatically in future years.

The second objection is that it will preempt State water rights laws. Read section 302 of the bill. ``The Secretary of the Interior is directed, in operation of the Central Valley Project, to adhere to California's water rights laws governing water rights priorities . . .''

It goes on to say that diversions ``shall not be undertaken in a manner that alters the water rights priorities established by California law.''

It does have provisions necessary to codify the Bay-Delta agreement and combat invasive predators, but this doesn't set a precedent for other States. California is unique among the States in the fact that it operates with a coordinated operating agreement that combines the Federal Central Valley Project and the California State water projects and runs them as a unified system. This was at the request of California and with its consent.

The third objection is that it rewards powerful agricultural interests at the expense of consumers. This is nonsense. An average consumer uses roughly 100 gallons a day to wash the dishes, water the lawn, everything else we do in our daily lives. But when you purchase a cheeseburger, you have just consumed 750 gallons of water because that is what it takes to grow the ingredients in that cheeseburger. Buy a pair of jeans, you have just used 1,800 gallons of water.

The fact is that all of this water benefits consumers and the tens of thousands of farm workers and others who provide for their families from this water.

Droughts are nature's fault. Water shortages are our fault. They are a choice we made a generation ago when we chose to neglect our infrastructure and mismanage our water resources. It has led to increasingly severe water shortages, spiraling utility and grocery bills, and economic stagnation. The GROW Act chooses a brighter future of abundance and prosperity that can begin today with our vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), who has been a leader on this issue for more than two decades.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the author of this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the dean of the Republican delegation to the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the chairman of the bipartisan Western Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Bakersfield, California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight).

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

Mr. Chairman, I think it is time to fact check the fact checker.

The last major reservoir of over a million acre feet was in 1979. It was in New Melones, 2.3 million acre feet. The two reservoirs that the gentleman referenced combined are less than a million acre feet. They would fill New Melones to less than half of that amount.

With respect to water salinity, the Bay-Delta Accord, that is codified by this bill, guarantees the water necessary to combat salt water intrusion.

And finally, I would point out that, no, dams don't create water. Nature creates water. Dams store that water from wet years so that we have plenty of it in dry years. That is where we have fallen a generation behind in our needs precisely because of the laws that the gentleman from California doggedly defends.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Abundance or shortage, that is the question. And I want to thank and salute Mr. Valadao for his work on this issue and for putting that choice so clearly before the House today.

It is true, we can choose to continue down this sad road that we have been on. That means increasingly severe government-induced shortages. It means higher and higher water and grocery prices and a permanently declining quality of life for our children who will be required to stretch and ration every drop of water in their bleak and parched homes.

With this bill, we choose a different future. We choose abundance. We choose a future in which water flows again to the fertile fields of the Central Valley, providing full employment for families and affordable groceries from America's agricultural cornucopia. It is a future in which families need not watch their gardens shrivel and die, and towns and cities need not fear mandatory water rationing and uncertain and unpredictable supplies.

It is a future in which long-established water rights are safe and secure from the whims of politicians and bureaucrats. We choose a future in which thriving populations of young salmon can swim to the sea unmolested by the non-native predators that now kill 90 percent of them before they reach the ocean; a future in which new fish hatcheries assure the release of millions of additional salmon to supply a revived and rapidly expanding commercial fishing industry.

We choose a future in which great new reservoirs can store vast amounts of water in wet years to assure abundance in dry ones; a future in which families can enjoy the prosperity that abundant water and hydroelectricity and affordable groceries provide, and the quality of life that comes from that prosperity. Abundance or shortage? That is the question. We choose abundance.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to say that this is a very good amendment. The committee supports it, and it is essential to providing the flexibility that is necessary.

I might point out to my colleague from California, when we originally developed this bill more than 5 years ago, we consulted more than 60 water agencies throughout northern and central California, including many in Democratic congressional districts. Senior water rights are essential to northern California. This bill strengthens them, and Mr. LaMalfa's amendment adds the management flexibility that is long overdue.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Fresno, California, for his constructive contribution to this process.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a superfluous provision that requires a study on a subject that we have already studied to death.

We find the left constantly proposing these technologies to manage our existing water shortage often as an excuse not to expand our ability to store new water supplies.

The problem is not complicated. These recycling projects are typically four times as expensive as traditional water storage, according to a 2016 study by the California Public Utilities Commission.

If we had exhausted our existing resources, then these technologies might make sense if the alternative is no water at all. But that is not the alternative. The alternative is to develop our resources at about one-fourth the cost of these technologies the gentleman is trying to sell us--four times the cost.

No consumer in his right mind would pay four times more for the same product. Only politicians would do that, and the problem is when politicians make this choice, consumers end up paying.

Which brings me to my second objection to the gentleman's amendment. Our traditional water projects are paid for by the users of the water in proportion to their use, as is the beneficiary pays principle that has guided our water projects for generations.

These policies protect taxpayers from footing the bill for somebody else's water.

The title 16 recycling projects the gentleman is promoting are not paid for by the water users but rather by general taxpayers, meaning these projects literally rob St. Petersburg to pay St. Paul.

If the gentleman would like to confine the provisions of the bill to require his constituents to pay four times more for their water or that his constituents pay to subsidize the water for my constituents, I would be happy to support him. But I sincerely doubt that is what he has in mind.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would simply cite to my friend the California Public Utilities Commission report in 2016, and what would be the cost of future sources of water for California. They say very clearly that recycling water is nearly four times as costly as traditional sources of water, and that is being generous.

I support any water project that pencils out. This one does not. This one would require water bills to quadruple. For California, it is exactly policies like these that are driving water bills up. The people of California need to take note of that and to realize the choices they make at the ballot box have real world implications to the bills they are paying for simple things like water and power.

Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I object.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, my friends' concerns are well placed; his amendment is completely misplaced.

The fact is that, for 45 years, our environmental laws have made the management of our forests virtually impossible. After 45 years of experience with these laws, imposed with the explicit promise they would improve our forest environment, I think we are entitled to ask: How is our forest environment doing? And the answer is damning; our forests are dying.

Timber harvests of surplus timber have fallen 80 percent in those years. The result is severe overcrowding in our forests. An acre normally supports between 20 to 100 trees, depending upon the topography; but because of these laws, average density in the Sierra has now ballooned to 266 trees per acre.

In this crowded condition, these trees fight for their lives against other trees trying to occupy the same ground. And in this crowded and stressed condition, they fall victim to disease, pestilence, drought, and, ultimately, catastrophic wildfire.

The answer is not this amendment that seeks to derail this needed water storage; it is to restore scientific management to our forests to restore them to a healthy condition.

When I visited the command center of the Rim Fire several years ago that threatened Yosemite Valley, I asked the firefighters: What answer can I take, in your name, back to Congress? And the answer was: Treatment matters. We need proper forest management.

The good news for my friend from Santa Barbara is he will soon have the opportunity to vote on just such a bill, the Resilient Federal Forest Act, by Mr. Westerman of Arkansas. It treats this problem comprehensively. It passed the House Natural Resources Committee. We hope to bring it soon to the floor of the House. It will address the problems that plague our forests by restoring proper scientific management to our public lands.

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