Chris Cannon

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. That is the kind of thing that happens when we get a huge fuel load in the forest and get the destruction like we have, this is the kind of destruction the gentleman is talking about happening where it actually turns the ground into where we burn the nutrients right out of the soil with an intense fire.

Mr. CANNON. We sort of forget how intense a fire can be. Even a grass fire can burn at great intensity, and we have got a ladder that takes us all the way up to the trees. We get a terrific burn, but let me give the gentleman a couple more statistics. The forest service does more environmental statements than any other Federal agency, nearly twice as many as any other agency that does these; and this is the Federal Highway Administration. So they spend a lot of their time doing it more than any other agency, and in addition, they have to go through an 800-step decision-making process to complete the Upper South Platte Restoration Project, which simultaneously took 3 years to complete. Talk about analysis paralysis: An 800-step process and 3 years while there may be some kind of either buildup of fire load, fuel load, or an infestation. That is just absolutely unacceptable and part of the cause for the problems we are seeing last summer and this summer.

Mr. CANNON. And that is why it is so important to look at what the President said when he pointed out, ``I have sent you a healthy forest initiative to prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn away millions of acres of treasured forest. I urge you to pass these measures for the good of both our environment and our economy.'' We need to do this now because our problem is acute right now as we speak.

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman for his participation. We have the pleasure of having with us a man of great experience in this area, and I would yield now to the gentleman from South Dakota. Let me say first, however, that he comes to us with a world of experience as the long-time Governor of the State and having followed these issues and been responsible for them from the State point of view for a very long time.

Mr. CANNON. Would the gentleman consent to a colloquy?

Mr. CANNON. I was struck by a number of the things you pointed out. People with emphysema suffering. By the way, a large forest fire in the West affects people across the whole country.

Mr. CANNON. And places east.

Mr. CANNON. And our children.

Mr. CANNON. There are people who do not care very much about children or people with emphysema.

Mr. CANNON. So they tend to stop the ability we have to clean up our forests, to thin them out, to preserve them.

Mr. CANNON. That is right. To see them and not breathe them. Most of the people who, by the way, have a hard time with what we are doing in our forests, who create litigation to stop us from creating healthy forests, are also people who are adamantly opposed to adding CO2 to the environment, and instead of sequestering CO2 like we do when we have healthy forests, these people are unleashed to get a torrent of CO2.

Mr. CANNON. You get almost infinitely more mercury in the system from a forest fire than you get from all the coal-fired power plants around the world.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Janklow). I appreciate that, and I am reminded of his earlier words about the unanimity of the Committee on Agriculture, and it dawns on me that those people who see the problem and understand it have a tendency to agree. Locals who know it have a tendency to agree. We have lots of people with incoherent or separate, disparate ideas who get to pursue those ideas, through litigation or otherwise, stopping the process. What we have here before us with this bill is a coherent and considerate approach that is good for the air, will help with clean air, will help with clean water, will help people in the economy, will help endangered species, and will also help species that are not endangered now. So I urge passage of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. CANNON of Utah

Mr. CANNON of Utah. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor and recognize Dr. Rod Julander for his devotion and dedication to the students, faculty and staff of Weber State University. For 43 years, he has been an integral part of the Political Science Department. Dr. Julander began his teaching career at Weber State College in 1960 after receiving a Bachelors of Science from the University of Utah in 1958 and a Masters Degree in Philosophy in 1963. He returned to the University of Utah in 1986 for his Ph.D. and has been a highly valued member of the faculty throughout his years of service. His hard work and dedication has been acknowledged at the local and national level. He has received numerous National, Regional, State and Community recognition and honors, including the Dello Dayton Teaching Award in 1992, the Crystal Crest Mater Teacher Award in 1995 and the Coretez Honors Award in 1974, and was Social Work Legislative Advocate of the Year. His exceptional service has also been appreciated by the University and Alumni Association, where he has served as a member of the Executive Committee of the WSU Faculty senate, Past President of the WSU UUAP Chapter, a member of the Search Committee for the WSU Assistant to the President for Diversity, and part of the WSU Continuing Education Lecture Series. Rod Julander has also been active in the community through his involvement in civic and public service. Dr. Julander was a Utah State Senator in 1972, a Member of the Utah Radiation Control Board, a Legislative Consultant for the National Association of Social Workers and has served as the Vice Chair for the Utah State Democratic Party from 1997 to the present. Dr. Julander's research has been published in the Western Political Science Quarterly, the Institute of Public Administration and in unpublished reports for the United States Air Force. In 1993, Dr. Julander became the chair of the Political Science department at Weber State University. Under his direction the department has grown and thrived. Dr. Julander has distinguished himself throughout his career as a devoted educator, teacher, mentor and skillful leader. In 42 years of teaching Dr. Julander has influenced thousands of students. He has through his teaching, inspired, taught and been an example for all those whom he came in contact. We wish to add our thanks to Dr. Julander for his long time service to Weber State University, its students and the state of Utah. His lovely wife Paula served four years in the Utah State House and is currently serving her second term as a Utah State Senator. Between them, Rod and Paula have 5 children and 14 grandchildren. Therefore, we are proud to join with his many colleagues and former students in extending our congratulations and heartfelt thanks to Dr. Julander for his years of dedicated service to Weber State University. We wish him luck in all his future endeavors.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Rahall amendment. Few people realize how significant coal is in the everyday lives of Americans. Only a small portion of the population appreciates that nearly one-third of the United States' primary energy production is from coal. In addition, domestically produced coal is the most affordable and reliable electricity generation source. The reason why this is so significant is that an estimated 60 percent of GDP, gross domestic product, is due to enterprises that use electricity as their front-end energy. Without coal, our economy would be about as robust as the Iraqi regime is today. Credible studies project the United States will need 54 percent more power by 2025, and that power has to come from somewhere. Most experts agree the growth is most likely to come from coal and natural gas that is located on Federal lands. Mr. Chairman, the coal provisions we are discussing here today will help facilitate and expedite this necessary increase in coal production. For example, by adjusting the existing 160-acre life-of-lease modifications, we will be moving away from regulations that waste coal reserves and which confine the use of modern mining technology and toward a more rational coal policy. In addition, the 40- year mine-out requirement causes premature closure and results in bypassing nearby coal reserves. This bill gives the Secretary the needed discretion to allow the consolidation of leased coal reserves. There has been some discussion about fair competition and pricing, and the suggestion has been that somehow we have higher priced coal out of the West. The problem that the people who are mining coal in the East have is that we have abundant supplies that are relatively easy to produce and are being produced at a much lower cost to consumers. So consumers today are the people who are benefiting. The American families are the people who are benefiting from this low-cost coal that this amendment would undermine. This amendment, if passed, would cause significant increases in electricity for most Americans, or many Americans. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Watt amendment strikes language throughout the bill protecting dealers and importers of firearms, as well as trade associations. Under the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), only firearms manufacturers would receive protection from lawsuits based on criminal misuse of their product by a third party. This amendment would gut the bill and the firearms industry. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman answer a question?

Mr. CANNON. As I look at this chart, the green line is not oil production in America. That green line is oil production that has come through the trans-Alaska pipeline. So this is essentially the Alaskan oil that has come into America, and yet even that relatively small portion of the oil we bring into America from Alaska through that pipeline has had a dramatic effect on the price of oil elsewhere, and that is because I think the markets are so tight that small fluctuations in our resources make a huge difference in that price. Is that what that chart is saying?

Mr. CANNON. When people talk about the ANWR producing only a tiny fraction of the energy we need, what we are really saying is that a small fraction of the energy has a huge influence on the price we pay at the pump?

Mr. CANNON. In just a moment we are going to yield again to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) to sort of explore what the meaning of the size of the disturbance is here. Let me just say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) that his discussion about alternative fuel is important. We actually have a chart here that shows at the highest expectation of alternative fuels, it does not get us very far in the foreseeable future, but in addition to that, let me just say that I firmly believe that people who are local have an understanding of what their environment is, and they have a terrific interest in maintaining it. We have had this problem in Utah where we have ranchers who care enormously for the land, and we have had outsiders who said, No more moo in 1992, trying to get rid of all cattle grazing in 1992, for instance. And it turns out we find now that the cattle grazing is remarkably important for the health of the land. So locals have a tendency, since they are responsible for it, since they interact with it, they are more reliable in how they operate and work on their lands. Mr. Speaker, I now wish to yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. CANNON. I could not help thinking, while the gentleman was talking, that the former mayor sounds like a very articulate, thoughtful guy. And if he figures out people in Washington do not listen to him, he is probably pretty smart too. But as I listened to what the gentleman was saying, I call to mind an article that was printed about a year ago in the Atlanta Monthly which challenges the notion that the people in the Americas were savages when Columbus arrived. In fact, frankly it was suggested that the populations of Native Americans were much higher. And one of the points the article makes is that the Amazon jungle, which has very, very limited soil, is actually an artifact of man. In other words, we had millions of people living in that area and they created the jungle as people who were taking charge and being aware of their environment. It seems to me that many of the environmentalists are actually racists. They think that they have got the ideas and that man should not be involved and that we should go back to the way the Native Americans were when we got here, ignoring the possibility that there may have been 100 times as many Native Americans in the Americas when Columbus arrived. The article suggested that the antibody systems of the Indians in America were so similar that diseases came in and decimated them, nearly knocked out 98 percent of the people in the Americas. So, naturally, they did not seem to have the kinds of cultural achievements that were apparent, say for instance from the 2 million acres of terrace lands in Peru. But it occurs to me that people who assume that they, the Native Americans, did it all wrong or did something else other than what we are doing is a pretty narrow and racist view of those folks. And it seems to me that we are doing exactly the same thing when we decide in Washington, we who have never been to that area and have never talked to those people, that we know best for them what should happen in that area and on land that they love and that they feel a kindred spirit for or feel close to because of their ancestors and the spirits of their ancestors who have been there prior to them. That is a pretty important point the gentleman is making.

Mr. CANNON. I would say to the gentlemen we have about 10 minutes left in this hour. It has gone quickly. I think which had some interesting information here. I would like to talk for about 3 minutes about the situation with oil and gas and other energy resources with some charts, and then I would like to let everyone take a couple of minutes to make some final comments. If I can put these back up, if the camera would focus on those charts, we looked at this, and just let me briefly reiterate, we are going to use a lot more oil and gas and other energy. Some of those are limited. There are no more rivers that we are going to go hydropower on. In fact, we are going to get rid of some of the dams I think over time that we are using for hydropower. The non-hydro renewables, even if you quadrupled the amount of growth we are dealing with here, are not going to be significant in the next 20 or so years. Nuclear could do something new and different, it could be very helpful in this process, but we are going to have to come to understand nuclear and the safety of nuclear. Now, if you look at this chart, there are a couple of things that are really interesting about it. In the first place, you note in the seventies and early eighties, we actually had a decline in energy or oil usage. That happened for a lot of reasons. We had a slight recession back then. We also got cars more efficient. But, most importantly of all, we had businesses that had an incentive to be more efficient. So in virtually all areas you had a little bit of improvement in efficiency there. Then we have gone up, if you see the line in the middle that shows the year 2000, essentially the present, we have gone from that nadir back up a little bit. While that energy has increased, let me just point out that our economy has almost doubled, so we have had a huge increase in output in our economy with a relatively small increase in energy. But we have gotten a lot of those efficiencies out, and maybe we'll have more in future, but we now have a pretty good idea where we are going to go as the economy continues to grow and we have more demand for energy. If we can focus on that chart, this is just the energy we use for the generation of power. So you note that the major source of power is from coal. The second major, historically, has been nuclear, which is now level. But you can see that green line of natural gas just spiking up. That is going to spike up because in America we have decided to use natural gas because it is easier to permit new generating facilities with gas than with coal, although we expect more coal generation over time. So we are going to have a big increase in natural gas for electricity generation. But if you look at the chart, this chart now, this chart is about what percentage of homes are heated with various sources of energy. When you have got a little bit of blue in here developed by electricity, you see that is fairly constant over time. That is also generated increasingly by natural gas. But the vast majority of American homes are going to be heated by gas. Owning a home is good. We just had a study that was released this last week that indicated the way kids do better in school is by living in a home with their families, as opposed to an apartment or other circumstances. The American dream is to own a home. We are going to heat our homes with natural gas. We need natural gas to do that. That gets us back to our last chart. The bulk of the gas we are going to be using in America in the future is going to be in the inter- mountain west, and to get that gas we have to drill and we have to change the legal structure that allows us to drill there.

Mr. CANNON. They are either going to be cold, and we know what happens to caribou when they are not warm. If you recall earlier, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) pointed out that the heat from the pipeline has increased the number significantly. Or they are going to be paying an arm and leg for heat in their homes. And that is, I do not think, an acceptable alternative. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).