Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. 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. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. 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. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. 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.

Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BAIRD. 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. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. 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. BAIRD

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

Mr. BAIRD. 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.

Mr. BAIRD. 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.

Mr. BAIRD. 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.

Mr. BAIRD. 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.

Mr. BAIRD. 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.

Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BAIRD. 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.

Mr. BAIRD. 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. BAIRD. 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. BAIRD. 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. BAIRD. 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. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. 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.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, all the American people really need to know about this lobbying bill is that our friends on the Republican side of the aisle want to clean up Congress the way teenagers want to clean up their bedrooms. Instead of socks and sweatshirts and whatnot strewn about the floor, we have lobbyists' money and special gifts and favors. And instead of really taking it out and putting it out of the body of this Congress, what they want to do is sweep it under of the bed, so when the public's attention is not looking, we can just call it right back out. This is a sham bill. It is not a real reform. Let me point out two things that they did not address. This reform bill does nothing to give Members of Congress more time to read legislation. We offered an amendment that would have allowed 72 hours for Members and the public to read legislation. It was not even allowed to be brought up for debate. This amendment does not do anything to ban insider trading by Members of Congress or lobbyists. It is not illegal currently for Members of Congress to share information with lobbyists who then share it with investors who can make a fortune on this. It is illegal in the private sector, but the leadership on the Republican side refused to make it illegal for Members of this Congress. We are cleaning up Congress the way teenagers clean up their bedroom, and the result will be the same mess we started with.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman. I just briefly want to put something that average Americans can see firsthand in this budget. Like me, most Americans love our national parks, but this budget would cut $102 million from the national parks budget. Parks are not only a cherished national treasure; they are a source of great local economies for communities surrounding and inside the parks, supporting more than 248,000 jobs and providing annual revenues of nearly $12 billion. But the Park Service's annual backlog of operating deficit is $600 million, and the maintenance backlog is now over $6 billion, and the cuts will only make that worse. When Americans travel to their parks and are unable to find rangers to take their kids on nature walks, when trails are unpaved, when roads are in disrepair, it is the budget and appropriation processes like this that make that happen. I urge my colleagues to defeat this budget and fully fund our national parks and to eliminate over time backlogs in maintenance that we have there now.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Georgia as well. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of H. Res. 556, a resolution I have introduced to establish National Methamphetamine Prevention Week. As was mentioned earlier, methamphetamine is a cheap, addictive drug that has penetrated the smallest of communities and has reached epidemic proportions in this country and throughout the world. In fact, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports that more than 30 million people around the world use amphetamine-type stimulants, a number that surpasses the global use of cocaine and heroin combined. Domestically, we have seen the number of meth lab seizures decline in some areas over the last years, yet increase in others as the epidemic has moved from west to east. For example, in 1999, California busted 2,579 meth labs domestically, while Missouri that year busted 439. However, by 2004, California had reduced their labs to 764, while Missouri increased to an astonishing 2,788. The situation with methamphetamine is evolving, and as local police and drug task forces become more efficient in shutting down the local, clandestine labs, the supply shifts to become increasingly filled by finished product imported from Mexico and other countries, often in a more potent form. In my home district in southwest Washington, for example, we have seen the purity of meth increase on the street by over 43 percent in just the last 4 years. This is a disturbing pattern. Its history has taught us that along with increases in purity, so goes admissions to treatment centers, drug-related crimes, arrests and overdoses. Judge Woolard from Clark County in my home district has explained to me that the meth epidemic can be encapsulated in the following statistics: 80 percent of the kids in foster care in my home county have parents who are meth addicts; 80 percent of the criminal cases brought before the courts involve drug use; and 75 percent of the kids in juvenile detention are now involved with meth. This is not a problem that is going away without a comprehensive plan for action. My colleagues and I have recently addressed the issue of domestic supply with the passage of the Combat Meth Act which had overwhelming support in this body. We also continue to move forward on efforts to deal with the international supply of meth precursors, and will soon insist that companies where these products are produced limit and track the shipment of methamphetamine. We have to address the demand side as well, and we can do this by continuing to fund programs such as the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and Safe and Drug Free Schools. Additionally, we can encourage our communities to get involved in the fight against meth at the ground level. That is why National Meth Prevention Week is so important. This bill will allow and encourage local communities in a nationwide effort to address all aspects of the meth problem from prevention to intervention to treatment. It will also provide us an opportunity to dedicate 1 week out of the year that should actually be a nationwide effort to engage students and children in discussions and activities that will underscore the importance of avoiding methamphetamine use. I am pleased that the legislation has 63 bipartisan cosponsors, as well as the support of the National Association of Counties, National Narcotic Officers Coalition, National Criminal Justice Association and the Association for Addiction Professionals. I want to particularly thank the co-chairs of the Meth Caucus, Chairmen Larsen, Boswell, Cannon and Calvert, as well as Chairman Souder who has been a leader on this issue throughout the Congress. They have been tremendous allies in this fight, and I am happy to work with them on a bipartisan basis. I also want to again thank Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Waxman and Ranking Member Cummings for their support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, finally, I want to thank my own staff, Katie Stevens, for her work on this, as well as the law enforcement treatment and prevention professionals in my district who have done such an outstanding job combating this horrific drug. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of H. Res. 556 today. I hope the action will then be followed by the speedy adoption of the companion bill in the other body, S. Res. 313, offered by my colleague and friend Senator Cantwell. Let us unite today to send a joint message to our local communities, as well as our friends overseas, that we acknowledge the devastating impact of this drug and are united in our fight against it. I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Salazar, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. Gingrey for their thoughtful remarks. Just to close my portion of this commentary, people sometimes ask why I am so committed to this. Before I was in Congress, I spent 23 years as a clinical psychologist and I saw cases of families and lives devastated by meth. Since coming to Congress, I visit every high school in my district, I try to do it every 2 years, and last fall, I visited a little tiny rural school and was talking to the kids about the danger of methamphetamines. And this little 16-year-old gal said quietly to her classmates, you really need to listen to what he says. I was taken aback that a young lady would speak out in front of her peers. And I gently said, you know, you must have some experience with this. And she said, I do. My mother died of methamphetamine use 3 months ago. Then I was back this spring, on our spring recess which we all just came back from a couple of weeks ago, and a woman handed me a letter that described how her 2-year-old granddaughter was beaten to death by a meth addict boyfriend who was in the house at the time and was tweaking on methamphetamine. He struck her so hard she died, and then just put her in bed for someone else to find the next day. This was a little 2-year-old girl, the apple of her family's eye. And as if that isn't enough, I was speaking to a rotary club about something entirely different, and a prominent leading businessman came up to me quietly, shook my hand, and said, thank you for what you are doing on the issue of methamphetamine. My 25-year-old son is addicted to this drug and it would not surprise us if he died of his use of this drug. Methamphetamine, as my colleagues have said, is a devastating drug, and we must do everything in our power to keep families' lives from being further destroyed by it. And I thank all my colleagues for supporting this important resolution and hope we can make a difference, and I know we can if we work together.