Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, virtually all of my colleagues have expressed gratitude for this bipartisan-bicameral effort, and I want to add my words to that also. I particularly want to thank two members of the House Natural Resources staff--Tim Charters and Amanda Tharpe--because they worked diligently on this, especially this last week in getting the final language together. It's not often that you get to thank one person who now has served in both bodies, but former Ranking Member Ed Markey was a cosponsor originally of H.R. 527. Senator Markey has now been a big advocate over in the Senate, and I want to thank him and his staff. I particularly want to thank again Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski and their staffs because we recognized earlier on that this had to be done before a date certain. Obviously, as we've said many times on this floor, there are differences between the two bodies in how they approach different issues--and that was certainly true with this one--but we knew we had to get this done, so we have a piece now that, I think, both sides and both Houses can agree on. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder sometimes about the seriousness of these motions to recommit that come from the other side, but I especially have to do so today. Earlier today, we passed a continuing resolution that provides over $600 million for firefighters in order to fund all of these firefighting actions we have had this year, and the author of the MTR voted against the motion to recommit. There is nothing serious here. This motion to recommit offers absolutely no solution. Here are the facts: The fact is that just last year--and we haven't gotten the figures for this year--over 9 million acres of national forestland burned. Can you imagine the carbon imprint of that, by the way? Secondly, we only harvested, or managed, 200,000 acres nationwide. That means that 44 times more national forestlands burned than were properly managed. This bill addresses that by properly managing our forests. The result will get us back to where we used to be when we used to spend $1 on forest management and get $2 back in return because we managed our forests. Now it's reversed. For every $2 we spend today, we get $1 back. That doesn't make any sense at all. There have been no solutions out there, and this is not a solution either. The solution is the underlying bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on the MTR and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1526.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Over the last few months, deadly wildfires, especially in California, Arizona, and Colorado, and wildfires in other western States, have highlighted the growing problem with our current Federal forest management plans. Like all public lands, our national forests should, unless otherwise designated, be open for multiple use, for everything from recreation to job-creating economic activities; but instead, Federal regulations and lawsuits have effectively shut down our national forests. Timber harvests have dropped by 80 percent over the last 30 years in our national forests. While the Forest Service once received $2 for every $1 spent, it now spends $2 for every $1 it produces. Our Federal forests are being badly managed, and there have been devastating consequences to that management. First, rural communities are struggling to survive and no longer have stable funding to pay for vital services. The Federal Government made a promise over a century ago to actively manage our forests for the benefit of rural schools and communities. Under a Federal law passed in 1908, the U.S. Forest Service has historically shared 25 percent of all timber revenues with rural counties containing national forestland. Since the Federal Government doesn't pay local taxes, those counties depended on this revenue to help fund essential needs like schools and local infrastructure. But as timber sales declined, Mr. Chairman, so did the revenue to those counties. Counties struggled to find the resources needed to keep teachers in the classroom and police on the streets. Congress provided a short-term solution in 2000 by passing the Secure Rural Schools Act, which continued to provide funding as timber sales declined. SRS was created to provide ``transition payments'' over a 6-year period while these counties diversified their economies. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, their economies are built on natural resources--in this case, timber. With a national debt measuring in the trillions of dollars, it is becoming increasingly difficult to finance this program that costs several hundred million dollars annually, especially when it fails to address the fundamental problem of declining forest management. A new approach is needed now. The Federal Government's lack of forest management has cost tens of thousands of American jobs. These forests are the backbone of these communities' economy. From the logging to the mill work to the truck drivers, our forests put thousands of people to work. I should say had put thousands of people to work. Additionally, as I have mentioned, the lack of active forest management has caused a significant degradation of forest health and made them increasingly susceptible to bug infestations and catastrophic wildfires. Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting statistic. Last year--just last year--9.3 million acres of national forests burned in wildfires. By comparison, only 200,000 acres were harvested by the U.S. Forest Service. That means that 44 times more acres burned compared to those acres that were responsibly harvested. We cannot continue to sit idly by while wildfires rage, homes are destroyed, and lives are lost. H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, is a long-term solution to put Americans back to work to restore our forest health and help prevent catastrophic wildfires by renewing our Federal Government's commitment to actively manage our national forests. The bill requires responsible timber production on at least half of our Federal Forest Service's commercial timberlands. These lands, by the way, Mr. Chairman, were specifically identified by the Forest Service for timber harvest. By helping to restore active forest management, this bill is estimated to create over 200,000 direct jobs and would provide nearly $400 million in savings over 10 years. As required by law in 1908, H.R. 1526 would again share 25 percent of the revenue from the timber sales with the counties containing this national forestland. The bill will also allow us a short-term extension of the Secure Rural School payments to provide funding to counties as the Forest Service transitions back into active management. H.R. 1526 would also help prevent deadly and catastrophic wildfires by focusing on hazardous fuels reduction and empowering States to take a more active role in reducing those wildlife risks. Finally, this bill recognizes that States and counties are often better at managing forestlands than the Federal Government. States have shown that they are able to produce more revenue from timberlands than the Federal Government. Let me give you an example in my home State of Washington. Washington State is able to harvest seven times more timber and generate 200 times more revenue on one-fourth of the land compared to what the Forest Service has. They do that by better management. This bill would allow counties to actively manage portions of national forestland through the creation of Community Forest Demonstration Areas. H.R. 1526 has broad support. Over 140 local and national organizations, including 68 counties in 17 different States, have endorsed this vital, commonsense legislation to restore active forest management that will protect American jobs and livelihoods. These communities, their families, and their businesses deserve better than the status quo and the current failure of our forest management plans today. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who, as noted, has worked with his two colleagues from Oregon on the uniqueness of the Oregon forests.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. More than the gentleman, apparently. I do have several speakers remaining.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), another member of the Natural Resources Committee

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a valued former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will advise my friend that I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Lucas of the Agriculture Committee for his cooperation in expediting this bill to the floor. We have immortalized our agreement in an exchange of letters. And I want to thank the ranking member because I think in his closing remarks, he made exactly the right statement, and that is that we in the House will have our position. The Senate is obligated to do the same, and it may be entirely different, and that's fine. But we work out the differences. And I also want to thank the ranking member and his two colleagues from Oregon because I understand the uniqueness of what they are looking for and, frankly, their approach to their unique--this was very similar to what I and others were thinking should be applied elsewhere. So that's what is embodied in this bill. But I want to just make one point here because sometimes we lose sight of this fact. What is multiple use in timber, when we talk about timber? Multiple use means, from a commercial standpoint, of thinning and harvesting the timber. Where we get caught up in the differences, we look at timber entirely different from any other crop. I represent a very diversified agricultural area in central Washington, and the crops are on a yearly basis. It's as diverse as apples to wheat. But when farmers plant these crops, then they use various chemicals at various times of year in order to manage whatever may happen so that they can harvest a good crop at the end of the year. Well, timber is exactly the same, except depending on the type of timber, the harvest period is from 30 to 40 years. But if you have a problem with pine beetles, as we've had throughout the West, and this is a crop in a multiple-use area, you ought to manage that. You manage that by using the chemicals that are available. So the only difference when we talk about managing timber from a 1- year management of yearly crops is the time span. But it should be managed in a responsible way in that regard, and that's what we provide for in this bill, to set targets and properly manage. So I think this is a good bill. I certainly hope that my colleagues will support this when we have the vote tomorrow so that we can continue the process of negotiating with the Senate when they, hopefully, pass a bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Board of County Commissioner, Washington County Oregon, Hillsboro, OR. Senator Ron Wyden, Senator Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senate. Congressman Peter DeFazio, Congressman Earl Blumenauer, Congressman Greg Walden, Congressman Kurt Schrader, Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici, House of Representatives. Dear Oregon Congressional Delegation: As Chair of Washington County Board of County Commissioners I am writing to offer my support for H.R. 1526. This legislation provides a real solution to timber dependent counties in Oregon that have suffered from a history of lost opportunities. H.R. 1526 creates an important template for restoring a promise made over a century ago to actively manage federal forests. I believe had federal agencies actively managed public lands over the last twenty years we would not be seeing the loss of resources and lives from a horrible summer of wildfires throughout the western U.S. Washington County has been fortunate to see economic growth throughout the recession. That growth however, did not occur by luck, but was instead the result of decisions made by local governments, communities and business over the last fifty years. My colleagues in more rural Oregon counties don't have the same ability to make decisions because of the federal government dominance in landownership. H.R. 1526 provides an important role for local decision making. It is important to maintain a proper balance of resource protection so water quality, critical habitat, and recreational opportunities are addressed in a future forest plan. I believe H.R. 1526 creates a pathway to achieve this balance. H.R 1526 provides a common sense approach for returning to sustainable forest management where the planned harvest is stable, resources are protected and communities start the rebuilding process. For long term social and financial health of rural communities it is important to re-establish a healthy forest products industry and create a healthy forest environment. Sincerely, Andy Duyck, Chair, Washington County Board of Commissioners.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to tell the gentleman I think this amendment adds a great deal to this legislation, and I will support your amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I think it adds a lot to it because, as we transition to targets in the future, I think something like this would be very beneficial. And so I congratulate the gentleman and I support his amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?