Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4200, Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4200, FOREST EMERGENCY RECOVERY AND RESEARCH ACT -- (House of Representatives - May 17, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, our forests are a valuable natural resource. They offer beauty and recreation for many across the Nation. My own hometown of Sacramento is but a couple of hours from Tahoe National Forest. Throughout the year, Sacramentans can be found taking advantage of this proximity, using the park for hiking, skiing and camping.
With 18 national forests and 20 million acres of national forestland in my home State of California, we face the challenge of a wildfire on almost an annual basis. Many western States deal with forest fires every summer.
In addition, Americas's forests also endure damage from hurricanes, floods, mudslides and our natural disasters. All of these events require swift action from our Nation's brave network of first responders as well as tailored government policies to help forests regenerate over the long term.
The rule before us would authorize debate on H.R. 4200, a bill which its supporters see as a way to speed forest recovery by loosening or eliminating some Federal regulations protecting our public lands. Such a proposal demands scrutiny and debate.
To warrant congressional action, there must be a demonstrable need for such a proposal and reliable proof that the proposed solution meets that need. Unfortunately, the evidence on the need for this bill points in both directions. While some sources claim that this bill would improve the state of forests, other scientific accounts indicate that H.R. 4200 would actually hurt the forest recovery process.
We do know that it would create a loophole to allow some industries to skirt compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Supporters contend that the logging industry is saddled with unfair government regulations which impede their postfire operations and ultimately hurt the forests themselves. At the same time, 35 percent of all logging in national forests in the past 6 years came from timber salvage in ways similar to this bill, accounting for $35 million to $40 million annually. The only difference is that now these activities have to comply fully with NEPA and the Endangered Species Act before moving forward.
While a CBO estimate projects that this bill would increase timber profits from salvaging by 40 percent, the first question which must be answered is not one of business, but one of science. Does the policy recommended under this bill make sense?
As I stated at the beginning, the evidence is too murky to tell, and we need to spend more time learning about and debating this issue before we act. I am encouraged that the Rules Committee recognized this and made four amendments in order which will add to the public discourse on this bill.
However, it is difficult to ignore the arguments of those opposed to H.R. 4200. One such voice comes from a January 2006 issue of Science Magazine. In that issue, a group of researchers published a study of logging in the aftermath of the 2002 Biscuit fire in Oregon. This peer-reviewed study concluded that the impact of logging in these areas reduced regeneration of new trees by some 70 percent.
This single scientific article is not the final word on such a complicated matter for sure, but its findings are consistent with a good portion of the larger body of literature on this subject. And when so many experts express concern with H.R. 4200, Members would be well advised to listen to their reservations and take time to reconsider the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this point in the RECORD a letter to Congress signed by 169 experts in the areas of biology, ecology and forest management. This group of researchers includes UC Davis professors Dr. Robert Coats and Dr. Peter Moyle, as well as 13 other Californians.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an excerpt from this letter because it illustrates the need for us to carefully consider what we are doing if we pass this bill.
``Although logging and replanting may seem like a reasonable way to clean up and restore forests, after disturbances like wildland fires, such activity would actually slow the natural recovery of forests and its streams and creatures within them. For example, no substantive evidence supports the idea that fire-adapted forests might be improved by logging after fire. In fact, many carefully conducted studies have concluded just the opposite.''
Mr. Speaker, if Congress wants to give itself adequate time to investigate the evidence and debate this complex and important issue, it will put this bill aside. To do otherwise would ignore the voices of some forest management experts and scientists who contend that this bill will make our forests more vulnerable to fire.
At the same time, approving this bill would needlessly undermine the Federal laws put in place to balance the interests of industry with those of the environment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I noted at the beginning of the debate, 169 scientists, all experts in the field, oppose this bill because its policies will impede the national forest recovery process. The preponderance of scientific literature supports this assumption in their opinion. The letter concludes with the following: ``Science provides the best insight into the real consequences of our policies and actions.''
I could not agree more. There seems to be a disconnect between the policy recommended in this bill and the consensus among the scientific community. For that reason, I cannot support the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/