Chris Cannon

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 708) to require the conveyance of certain National Forest Systems lands in Mendocino National Forest, California, to provide for the use of the proceeds from such conveyance for National Forest purposes, and for other purposes.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 708, sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), would require the conveyance of certain National Forest System lands in the Mendocino National Forest, California, to provide for the use of the proceeds from such conveyance for National Forest purposes, and for other purposes. This legislation would resolve a long-standing problem regarding the property boundary between the Mendocino National Forest and the Faraway Ranch in rural northern California. I urge support of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would also like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, for his long hours and hard work on this issue. We appreciate that very much. Also, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has been very clear and very helpful in setting up the issue of the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, and others who have worked on this bill who I will mention during my speech; but I also want to mention the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, who for years has worked on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 49. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of this committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their constant support of preventing taxation on Internet access. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for championing this issue since he, together with Senator Wyden, first introduced this legislation. I also wish to recognize the efforts of my friend from Virginia, Senator Allen, on companion legislation in the other body. I look forward to working with him and others to guide our product to the President's desk for signature. This body has debated Internet tax moratorium bills several times since 1998. In the past, efforts were made to link these moratoria to consideration of whether Congress should adopt legislation authorizing States to compel the collection of sales taxes from remote vendors. This effort, known as the ``Streamlined Sales Tax Project,'' or SSTP, has made progress without Federal intervention. But as we know, before interstate compacts can become effective, the Constitution requires congressional approval. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his attention to the SSTP and assure him of my cooperation in considering all facets of this effort. My subcommittee has scheduled a hearing on the project for October 1 in order to give Members an opportunity to examine this issue fully. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 49. This bill would broaden access to the Internet, expand consumer choice, promote certainty in growth in the IT sector of our economy, and encourage deployment of broadband services at lower prices. The bill puts to rest the ``grandfather'' clause and makes tax-free Internet access a national policy. As I stated during committee consideration of this bill, the amount of tax revenue that certain States collect as a result of the grandfather clause pales in comparison to the amounts of aid these States receive under President Bush's economic package. We established a consistent national policy of not taxing Internet access through this bill. H.R. 49 was amended in the Committee on the Judiciary to ensure that the moratorium is equally applied to all forms of Internet access. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), my good friend, and I were alerted to the fact that since 1998, the ITFA tax protections were not being fairly applied by the States. In particular, some States have begun to tax DSL Internet access in plain circumvention of the intent of the ITFA. I supported the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) in an amendment at the committee to achieve what we believe is a fair and sound policy; parity of tax treatment for all forms of Internet access. This bipartisan effort, led by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), underscores the importance of the Internet to our economy. The result is a thoughtful and necessary clarification restoring the ITFA to its original intent. It strikes a careful balance between those who tax and those who are taxed. I want to emphasize that telecommunications services not used to provide Internet access remain outside the moratorium and that voice services over traditional telephone lines, therefore, remain taxable. Not taxable are the DSL, cable, dial-up, or other Internet access technologies that may run over those lines. This bill, cosponsored by more than 130 Members of this body, is endorsed by administration and supported by numerous technology companies and organizations. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes sense for an economy that, while improving, needs clarity of tax policy by encouraging investment in broadband. Finally, I want to thank again the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his consistent support as we move toward permanent tax freedom for Internet access. His work has been invaluable. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 49 as amended.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to speak in favor of the United States and Chile Free Trade Agreements. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact the administration has worked closely with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and other members of the Committee on the Judiciary on the legislation to implement the temporary entry provisions that are included in the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements. The bill language relating to the temporary entry of professionals was carefully crafted to track the H-1B program, therefore ensuring that Chilean professionals fall under the H-1B cap and that comparable fees can be charged and that the labor attestations for these visas are modeled after the H-1B program. The temporary entry of professionals, who must have bachelor degrees or more advanced degrees, facilitates trade and services which currently account for 65 percent of the U.S. economy. The international mobility of business professionals has become an increasingly important aspect of competitive markets for suppliers and consumers alike. Facilitating the movement of professionals allows trade partners to more efficiently provide each other with services, such as architecture, engineering, consulting, and construction. It has been customary to include such provisions in trade agreements as a part of the services chapter, and the U.S. service providers are very supportive of these provisions. The current U.S. Trade Representative inherited the Chile agreement from the prior administration, and this USTR has consulted very closely with Congress on negotiations on the agreement last year and on the implementing legislation in recent weeks, including on temporary entry of professionals. I know the USTR appreciates this consultation process on these sensitive issues. The USTR has continued to consult with Congress on trade agreements now being negotiated, including the Moroccan Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, the Australia FTA, and the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and none of these agreements currently includes provisions on the temporary entry of professionals. Over the past few weeks, Congress has sent a clear message asking USTR to discontinue the practice of including such provisions in these agreements. I know the USTR listens closely to Congress, and I am confident that we will continue to have opportunities to work closely with Ambassador Zoellick and his team in ensuring that the best possible free trade agreements are achieved. Congress' goal, however, is not to become the U.S. trade negotiator itself but to be a close partner in the overall process. Recent consultations with the administration on the Chile agreement shows that this partnership is beneficial and can work. Let us not take a step backward at this crucial time. I urge my colleagues to support this agreement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The gentleman is aware that there is an underlying memorandum of understanding between the Department of the Interior and the State of Utah in that it is not possible, given the context of that MOU for the issue of private property, to be relevant.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out by thanking the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), for his work on this issue. It is a very important issue, obviously, an issue that has some intensity. I thought about asking unanimous consent to lower the temperature on the floor here by 8 degrees. I think that would be very helpful, since it seems to be about 78, as opposed to 70. This has been a very important issue to us in Utah in particular, and as a matter of policy we appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina's (Mr. Taylor) involvement in the issue of policy. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who probably has done more reading on this issue than anybody else in this room and has drawn conclusions that he has presented, I think, very eloquently earlier. I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his thoughtful words on this issue. I would also like to thank the proponent of this issue, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), who is someone with whom you can disagree without being disagreeable. We disagree stridently on this issue, dramatically on this issue, but it is in an environment in which we can talk, and I appreciate that. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) talked about this as a back- room agreement. It is not a back-room agreement. The gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) talked about this as an archaic, arcane and arbitrary rule or law. That is what you call a law you do not like. But the fact is we have law in America. I have been interested to follow the debate of several people on the Democratic side here. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) talked about our institutional prerogatives in Congress. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) said it is time for Congress to do its job. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) talked about continuing to work to find the solution to this problem. But, in fact, this is not a congressional problem. It is true we have oversight, we have responsibility for these kind of issues, but we have law in place already. And that law delegates certain authorities to the Department of the Interior. And in the context of that delegated law, the Department of Interior has entered into an agreement. It is an open agreement. It is not a back-room agreement. It is an agreement that was precipitated by the National Association of Counties, of which every single Member of this body has counties that are part of that group. That is not a group that is hiding the ball or doing something in the back room. That is a group that wanted to create a process that we could start and evaluate as we used it to come to the point of understanding whether or not we could solve these problems in the context of law. If that process got out of hand or something radically wrong happened, we could step in and resolve that process. Because, ultimately, that is our prerogative as Congress. It is an emotional issue that is very intense to me. Let me point out this is not a problem with Utah. We have a letter from what is called The Club of 20 which are 22 counties on the western slope in Colorado who have sent a letter to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) supporting his amendments. May I just suggest if you look at what the Taylor amendment does, it takes what I think is an egregious step in taking away the proper authority from the Department of the Interior and brings back into context what we should be doing, as a matter of oversight, what we should be doing to express ourselves to protect the interests that are of such great concern to Americans. And that is it allows the process that has been set up by the Department of the Interior and the State of Utah to go forward. It does that in the context of protection. It protects national refuges, national wildlife refuges. It protects wilderness study areas. It protects wilderness areas. It protects national parks. It protects monuments. We cannot protect private property. May I just suggest that all the discussion about private property misses the point? We should not be creating national policy in the context of nasty neighbors. RS-2477 rights exist in the context of law and have to be resolved at the proper level and not here. So we can do nothing about the private property issue. And, in fact, the memorandum of understanding, the MOU, between the Department of the Interior and Utah does not allow for the disclaimer to be used in the context of any road over private property. It is only to be used in the context of the roads that you saw that my colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop) showed with his picture. Let me point out that Utah is different from some other parts of the country. I was the Associate Solicitor in the Interior Department for some period of time in charge of coal mining reclamation. I probably have been in more coal mines than everybody else in this group put together, and I have seen the devastation in the Northeast of the United States. We built our economy on the devastation of the coal mining lands in Kentucky and West Virginia and Virginia and Tennessee and other areas. But you cannot find a coal mine in Utah without a map, and the reason you cannot find a coal mine in Utah is because we have been careful about how we have used our public lands. I grew up in an area called Wayne County, to some degree. One of my favorite areas in Utah, they call it Wayne Wonderland. I once walked five miles down a ditch that our ancestors had dug to get some water to a lousy 200 acres of land, a beautiful 200 acres of land, and they did it with great sweat and pain and suffering because they loved the land and wanted to produce on it. We have used the land in Utah, I think, well; and I think that our record of the environment stands up to anyone's scrutiny. I suggest to this body that this memorandum of understanding is appropriate, and it should not be interfered with by this amendment. I urge a vote of yes on the Taylor amendment perfecting the Udall amendment and a vote of no on the underlying amendment.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, in fact, this memorandum of understanding was done at the suggestion and under the oversight and direction of the National Association of Counties, with the explicit point of seeing how it works in Utah so we could go to these other States. In other words, no one is getting out ahead of anyone else or going to solve or create problems in Oregon based upon an MOU in Utah.

Mr. CANNON. You realize we have 5 million acres in the BLM excess land fund. We would love to sell those acres and fund the land and water conservation deal.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado has insisted that this is a back-door deal. I think that it is important to understand that this is not a back-door deal; it is a deal that was done at the suggestion of the National Association of Counties under their direction and under their purview as a memorandum of understanding that could be used in other States and as a model for solving these problems. This is about solving problems. In addition, the gentleman continues to suggest that there are areas that are worthy of wilderness designation when, in fact, wilderness is not a protection of land. A wilderness designation is a recreational protection. It is a place where people can go and be away from modernity, and that is a worthy value; but it does not go to the legal right that States and counties have to their roads, the roads that they have had for 100 or 150 years. That is the issue that we need to deal with today.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his work on this matter. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by expressing my great esteem for the proponents of this bill. I believe that they honestly think that this bill will limit or, to some degree, prohibit or slow the growth of the pernicious vice of gambling on the Internet. I am personally not convinced that that will happen; and if I might, I would like to just focus on comments by the last two gentlemen who have spoken. The gentleman from Kentucky talks about 52,000 jobs in his State that depend upon horse racing, which is currently legal in his State and currently legal in many other States in the Union and around the world. The gentleman from Florida has just talked about 700,000 jobs in the country or more that relate to horse racing and 30,000 jobs that relate to dog racing; and, of course, the other two exceptions that are carved out in the underlying bill are jai alai, which is, of course, a big sport in Florida, and State-run lotteries. The problem with this bill and the reason we have so much emotion and so much emotional support for the idea that this amendment is bad is that this amendment might make those activities illegal when in fact what this amendment does is eliminate carve-outs and eliminate gambling that is now illegal. The problem for me is that I represent the State of Utah, one of only two States that actually totally prohibits gambling. The other State is Hawaii. From the perspective of our States, and I say this with all due respect, this is not the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, this is Internet Gambling Enabling Act. It actually allows gaming in Utah and will do so in Utah and Hawaii and other States where there are limitations on gambling unless the carve- outs are removed. The underlying bill provides these major carve-outs, and I think we have broad consensus from those who have actually looked at the bill and understand it. The U.S. Department of Justice and the National Association of Attorneys General have expressed themselves on this issue. In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, John Malcolm of the U.S. Department of Justice testified that the aforementioned section, the carve-out section, was one of the reasons DOJ could not endorse Senate 627, which is nearly identical to H.R. 21 and now H.R. 2143. Testifying on behalf of the National Association of Attorneys General, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut, warned that under that bill the exceptions could swallow the rule. Certainly in those States where gambling is outlawed or some gambling is outlawed, the exceptions could swallow the rule. In testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, when asked if that action would allow lotteries to go online, Malcolm responded, ``Absolutely.'' You cannot do that in Utah today, but you will be able to if this law preempts local State law. Thus, H.R. 21 is not really an Internet gambling prohibition bill. You might actually consider it an Internet gambling industrial policy bill because we are choosing a favored class of state-sponsored Internet gambling under this bill. Last year during consideration of a similar bill, H.R. 3215 in the 107th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary voted overwhelmingly against allowing carve-outs in Internet gaming legislation. Last year when the Committee on the Judiciary was considering the Goodlatte Internet gambling bill, which had similar carve-outs, I offered amendments to strike those carve-outs. The amendments were adopted by wide margins, and the bill as modified was reported overwhelmingly by the committee. The argument that the provisions simply allow States to regulate intrastate wagers does not wash. The provision is an exception from the definition of ``bets or wagers.'' It is not confined to intrastate. It essentially says that state-licensed facilities can do anything their license allows them to do, be it pari-mutuel, casino-style, or any other kind of betting. This bill is ill considered despite the great intentions of its proponents. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 361. This bill is important for all of the reasons that have already been discussed. An athletic agent is in a unique position in that while he stands to gain from his relationship with the student athlete, that student athlete client shoulders much of the risk when rules are not followed. H.R. 361 evens the responsibilities and will help to act as a deterrent for agents who would otherwise not play by the rules of the game. H.R. 361 will prohibit an athlete agent from recruiting or soliciting a student athlete to enter into an agency contract through the use of false or misleading information, or by the provision of anything of value to the athlete or those associated with him. In addition, the bill would require the contract between the agent and the student athlete to have a conspicuous notice in bold typeface stating that the agreement for agent representation may result in the termination of the student athlete's eligibility to compete in collegiate sports. Violations of this act may be addressed by the Federal Trade Commission or the attorney general of the State of occurrence. The FTC may pursue an action as an unfair or deceptive act or practice. States are authorized to commence civil actions against the agent who is in violation of this act and seek remedies, including enjoining the practice, enforcing compliance, obtaining damages, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of the State's residents. In addition, this bill allows for educational institutions to seek damages in the event that a university athletic director is not informed of a new contractual relationship within 72 hours, either of the signing or the first event that the athlete is eligible to participate in. Failure to so instruct may allow the ineligible athlete to compete, thus causing exposure for the institution to be liable or penalized under sanctions, fines, forfeitures, or disqualifications. The bill allows the institution to file suit against the agent for his failure to disclose, and to seek compensation for those damages which the educational institution suffered. At the subcommittee, with the support of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), working with the minority and with the distinguished ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), I offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute which made this bill better. The amendment clarified several portions of the bill to make it clear what behavior will and will not be tolerated. The amendment clarified that the only representation to be prohibited is that of an agent, and should not otherwise prohibit or discourage an athlete from seeking legal representation. Further, the amendment included a specific ban on the giving of loans or acting as guarantor or co-guarantor for anything of value to the athlete or those associated with those athletes. This subterfuge is currently a common way of skirting NCAA rules. Finally, the amendment clarified that nothing in this bill was meant to prohibit an individual from seeking Federal, State, or equity remedies under existing law, thus strengthening the student athlete's right to pursue a claim under existing contractual law. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in urging the House to give its full support to the adoption of H.R. 361.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank those people who have worked so hard on both sides of the aisle on this bill, and I rise in support of the underlying bill and in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Last year's wildfire season was among the most destructive in half a century. With frightening speed and growing intensity, wildfires swept across pristine forest preserves around the country destroying homes by the hundreds and forcing evacuations of thousands of residents, and blighting America's skies with thick, black, choking smoke. Over 190 million acres are now at heightened risk of wildfires. The incidence and severity of these fires can be reduced through the controlled reduction of fire accelerants. For several years, procedural and legal obstacles have precluded land managers from taking timely steps to address these dangers. Currently, it takes several years to propose, analyze, re-analyze, litigate, and appeal preventive management options. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 helps provide Federal land managers with the tools to ensure timely and effective response to wildfire threats. H.R. 1904's judicial review and expedited administrative procedure provisions formed the basis of the Committee on the Judiciary's consideration of this legislation and comprised some of its most critical components. Specifically, section 104 streamlines procedures for implementing threat reduction projects on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands near at-risk communities, on fire-prone lands near municipal water sources, on lands that encompass habitat for endangered species, and on lands particularly vulnerable to disease and insect infestation. The Secretary must permit an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for each of the authorized hazardous fuel reduction project. Section 105 requires robust public participation throughout the process by requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a formal administrative appeals process for persons who wish to challenge the implementation of forest preservation efforts. Harmonizing the Forest Service's administrative appeal mechanism with the highly protective appeals process employed by the Department of the Interior promotes public participation, safeguards procedural due process, and permits the more timely implementation of urgent forest protection measures. Section 106 pertains to the judicial review that requires the Federal courts to reevaluate the factual conditions underlying preliminary injunctions halting threat reduction projects every 45 days. This is critical. Presently, injunctive stays may remain in effect for years before courts reach the merits of a legal challenge, with sometimes catastrophic consequences. Periodic judicial reappraisal of the circumstances predicating injunctive relief will better equip courts to assess and address hazardous forest conditions. Finally, under the current system, Federal courts focus almost exclusively on the consequences of implementing fire reduction projects. Section 107 of this legislation simply requires Federal courts to also assess the consequences of inaction. This section, as amended by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), also instructs Federal courts to weigh the factual and scientific assessments of forest threat conditions provided by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management when reviewing threat reduction initiatives. This guidance is consistent with Congress's plenary authority to determine the level of probative value courts may ascribe to agency determinations. For millions of Americans, particularly in western States such as Utah, which I represent, the threat of forest conflagrations is not a hypothetical possibility, but a daily reality. H.R. 1904 enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in the areas most threatened by forest fires. Passage of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act will help reduce the growing prevalence of forest fires that have destroyed irreplaceable natural resources, including endangered species, and that have threatened hundreds of communities over the last several years. I urge my colleagues to help safeguard America's forests from increasingly intense and common conflagrations. As chairman of the Bicameral Western Caucus, I can personally attest to the urgency of passing this bill, and encourage my colleagues to support this carefully tailored, proenvironmental legislation and to oppose the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. I think that is absolutely true. The West has had a pretty severe drought. I think everyone in the Nation by now knows that we have had a severe drought. In Utah, and maybe the gentleman has had the same experience, we have had recently the worst of all worlds. We have had more rain in the last 2 or 3 weeks than we have had in the last 4 or 5 years. As a result of that, Utah is pretty green now on the surface. The problem is, come July, we have now added a couple of steps in that ladder we are missing, that fire ladder, so that fire will take off like crazy. We went from what we thought would have been a lesser burn season this year, because of the dryness and because of the lack of that ladder, to now what looks like maybe a much worse burn season. Is that what the gentleman is facing in Idaho?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my general leave.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I have some graphics that I would like to use down at the other podium if I might. Mr. Speaker, as members of the Western Caucus, we come to the floor today to discuss H.R. 1904, The Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. This bill will be marked up tomorrow in the Committee on the Judiciary and is expected to be brought to the floor early next week. Let me put this map up. What you see here is a map. If we can focus on the graphic here, what you see here is a map of the United States, and you can understand by looking at this map why we as members of the Western Caucus are concerned with healthy forests. You will recognize that there is a color chart. What it indicates is that everything in yellow or green or red or the other colors other than white represent Federal lands that are managed by the Federal Government that includes also many lands from the Eastern part of the United States. And as you might guess, we have in the Western Caucus also people who are from the Eastern part of the United States. We have at least a couple of people here tonight from the Western Caucus who will address some of the issues that are related to the problems of healthy forests. If we get a fairly tight shot on this, what we can see in this graphic on the left, most of these pictures were taken from an area where there is a forest fire. The picture on the left is a picture of an area that had been thinned and prepared and did not burn. The picture on the right is the terribly scarred and destroyed timber, and by the way one cannot kill the timber by fire without killing a lot of endangered species and destroying watershed and creating huge difficulties for the environment. That is the difference between the policy that we hope to implement through the Healthy Forest Act and what we currently have in much of our forests today. I am going to talk in particular and show some pictures later on about the effects of mud slides in a town very close to where I live in Utah, but I would like to end my piece of this introduction by quoting the President when he said, ``I have sent you a healthy forest initiative to help prevent the catastrophic fires that have devastated communities, killed wildlife and burnt away millions of acres of treasured forests. I urge you to pass these measures for the good of both the environment and the economy.'' I think if we focus on what the President said, we will realize this is a matter of major concern for all America, not just Americans who live in the West, not just for those people who live near federally managed forests in the East. This is a problem for all America, and it relates to our concerns for a healthy environment, for our concerns for endangered species and concerns for our economy. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

Mr. CANNON. When I wrap up, I am going to show some pictures of these devastating mud flows that happen after a forest fire. I could not help while you were talking but think about the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) when he was talking about working out deals with environmentalists. Then an unrelated group comes in and stops the process. It seems to me what the President has asked for in this legislation is a comprehensive response to a large problem in our system as opposed to these fragmented environmental groups who stop us here and there and everywhere.

Mr. CANNON. I am an environmentalist.

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, although Utah is primarily an arid State, it is famous for its beautiful and Sierra landscapes. In fact, I invite anyone who might be listening to come to southern Utah and visit Lake Powell, which is this incredible barren red rock and beautiful blue water juxtaposed together. It is absolutely remarkable. In spite of that view that many people have of the beautiful part of Utah, we have about 16 million acres of forest, about 8 million of those are managed by the National Forest Service; and so we have a huge interest in what happens. I would like to give just a couple of anecdotes to sort of help people understand why it is so important that we create some changes. We had some recent severe weather in the eastern part of the State of Utah, in the Uinta Basin and we had a blowdown of a number of trees. This happened in 2000. The dead trees developed a spruce beetle infestation, which then spread to some of the live trees nearby. The Forest Service acted quickly and decided it was a very small situation, only a few thousand board feet, maybe 12 or so truckloads of wood, a small area of destruction. They moved quickly with an environmental analysis and did a 90-page environmental assessment. Shortly after making the decision, they were given an appeal, a 19-page appeal that stayed the whole process and that is now under review. We are looking now in Utah at another area that is going to be terrifically unhealthy and terrifically subject to the kind of devastating fires that you see in this graphic, if we can focus the camera on that for a moment. You see the haze and the smoke and the billowing carcinogens that are going to be breathed in South Dakota by children and other ill people and people all the way east of us where the prevailing winds blow. Let me give you a second vignette which I think is significant and instructive. We had a huge fire in an area that is one of our most beautiful forested areas. It has the Green River, which is among the most exciting trout fishing in the whole world. I know that many of the people from other States will claim that, but this is really marvelous trout fishing. A fellow was driving along with a camper when the wheel came off and as one would expect, he began dragging the trailer without the wheel and sparks flew. He saw what happened, realized he was dragging the trailer, realized that sparks were flying everywhere and that actually had caused the beginnings of a fire, stopped his truck and started to put out the fire. A Forest Service agent came by almost immediately and ordered him back into his truck to drive away from the fire and to not put the fire out, which was at that point controllable. He got back in his truck, started to pull forward, he emitted sparks from the dragging axle, started a couple of other little fires, a local policeman came by and ordered him to stop. He said, Just be consistent. Do I stop or not? At that point a group of river runners stopped by. They had water in their car. They jumped out to help put out the fire. The Forest Service agent told them not to do that. The fire then raged out of control and burned hundreds of thousands of acres. As the news reports, the cost was $3 million to suppress the fire. The local rural electric cooperatives there tell me that it cost them over $600,000 just to replace the poles with their electric power lines on them. The lost revenue from tourism that did not come has not been evaluated, but the area was hit hard by irrational activity, irrational activity that resulted, that came from the fact that we have unhealthy forests. I would like to just show some pictures, including some of the areas where we have the aftermath of a fire. So if we could focus the camera here, we have the burned area in the Squires Forest. It is devastating. We thought of drawing an owl in here, an endangered owl with a little wisp of smoke coming out of his head to point out that this is bad for endangered species. The following pictures are pictures that were taken in a little town called Santaquin just outside my hometown of Mapleton. If we can focus tightly on that, what we see is a river of mud that has come downhill and affected these homes. Here is a closeup picture. You can see that that mud has come down from this direction and affected these houses. We do not think of mud as having a lot of power because it normally does not come knocking on the door, but you can see as you look down here how high up the mud has come, halfway to the door and windows and filled the whole yard. In this picture, we can see that it has carried rocks and debris that are going to crush things. Here you have a whole area of the house has been torn out by this mud as it comes down. You can see the devastation of this home here. This is just dirt that got saturated with water after a forest fire. We had similar forest fires just north of this area in Provo. The difference is we had three-quarters of an inch in a very short period of time, in a very harsh storm that caused this to flow, whereas we cannot control nature. In Provo we had about the same amount of water, but it was more gradual over a longer period of time. We can see the terrific destruction, cars buried, windows shattered, mud going into basements, cars stranded. When you unleash the forces of nature, it is just almost beyond imagining how much damage can be done to an area because of that. We have a problem today, Mr. Speaker. We have a problem. We have forests that are not healthy. That is the result of years and years and years of neglect. It is the result of years and years and years of people who have been narrow in their interests and who have stopped the sale of timber, who have stopped the thinning of timber, who have stopped our forest men and women who understand how to have healthy forests, stopped them from doing what they know how to do and left us with desperate circumstances, 70 or 75 million acres of forestland that is ready to be destroyed by fire. We have suffered in the West with the worst drought in recent history, probably as bad as anything back to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. These are terrible things. They have displaced people, destroyed farms and lives, and now we are going to add to that the further destruction of the forests through fire. We had thought, and, in fact, we had some charts earlier that showed the anticipated fire damage in the West was going to be less this year than it was last year. Last year, of course, was a record year. We burned much of that which was ready to burn last year. Unfortunately, this year we have had some water over much of the West, and that, unfortunately, has created a fire ladder so that what was not as endangered 2 months ago is now viewed as being subject to devastating fires. If we look at Utah today, it is as green as I have ever seen it. Unfortunately, that green over the next month or 2 or 3 is going to turn to brown grass that will light at any provocation, a lightning strike, a match or a cigarette carelessly thrown out of a window, a campfire burning out of control. Those things could all happen and will happen, we suspect, this summer with devastating effects. We need to pass the forest health bill now. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Janklow).

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Idaho for his comments, and if the gentleman would engage in a colloquy, I have some statistics to go along with what the gentleman is just saying. Apparently, the National Association of Public Administration did an analysis of the forest service and found that it spends 40 percent of its time and 20 percent of its money on planning. This is the analysis paralysis that the gentleman referred to. Is that the gentleman's experience in Idaho?

Mr. CANNON. That is the planning part of what the forest service does because the forest service, 20 percent of their resources go to planning; but around 50 percent, I have heard as much as 58 percent of the resources of the forest service, go for litigation. So we are spending the vast amount of our time and money playing and being paralyzed by analysis and not using that money to actually make our forests more healthy.

Mr. CANNON. In part, that is because if we get an infestation in dead trees, we only have until the next season, the next summer before those pine bark needles or whatever, the infestation is mature and goes into the live and healthy forest.

Mr. CANNON. While we are talking, let me just show a picture here that the gentleman was referring to earlier. If we can get a focus on that, we are talking in terms of statistics, but we can see on the left the terrific fire where we have got this large fuel load on the floor and in the forest, and on the right we have a thinned healthy forest; and we can see there is not really much of a transaction. In fact, the Native Americans used to burn the forests with great regularity. When the Pilgrims first came, they could drive their carriages through the forest, and all the way down to the Revolutionary War they were burning the Hudson in areas around there to maintain health. The problem is if we, through huge litigation costs and complicated processes, interfere with the healthiness of a forest, we get the fuel load and this terrible destruction as opposed to relatively healthy maintenance by occasional fires that the Native Americans used to manage those areas before.