Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the majority has acknowledged with this amendment the importance of prevention. Whether the risk be beetle infestation or other disease, we can prevent forest fires if we manage our forests. I hope in the future we can take genuine strides to prevent catastrophic fire. This amendment is just one small piece of a much broader prevention strategy that is needed. If the gentleman is prepared to yield back, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no objection to the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado. I know that most Forest Service employers are very frustrated over the extent to which their time is spent producing the paperwork needed to defend against or head off lawsuits. I am sure many in Congress have heard me say that as a result of these lawsuits, they spend far more time developing forest plans than implementing them. But in the case of keeping the forest fire wildfire strategy current, it makes sense to revise them from time to time. In a few short years, drought, beetle infestation or forest life cycle can transform a forest, and what may have once been a very appropriate fire management strategy may no longer be relevant. I hope that the Forest Service will be able to update the cohesive wildlife management strategy in a timely manner, without delays or other challenges posed by irresponsible environmental lawsuits. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my amendment can best be described as a ``good neighbor amendment.'' This amendment will require advanced notice in writing to land owners adjacent to National Forest system lands whenever the Forest Service sets a prescribed burn. It is important for all of us who are government officials to treat every American with respect. We owe it to neighboring property owners to let them know what we are doing when our actions may affect them. Fires, even prescribed burns, can be dramatic events. It is simply a courtesy to keep our neighbors informed. This commonsense amendment was included in the version of the FLAME Act that passed the House under suspension of the rules by a voice vote last year. Some might say that the burden of notifying neighbors is too great. I suspect these are people who don't live next to national forests and they don't understand what challenges a prescribed burn can have. It is a lot more expensive to face lawsuits from private landowners who weren't given enough warning to prepare for possible problems than it might come from notifying them of a prescribed burn.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. This amendment would direct better coordination of the National Guard with wildfires. I think it is a good amendment, and we will accept it on this side.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado is intended, rightfully so, to clarify the fire suppression authority under this Act as it relates to the severe insect infestation problem in our national forests. Although I support the amendment, I must point out that prevention is far more cost-effective than fire suppression, and until we in Congress act on measures that promote sound scientific forest management and allow the related industries to survive, we are really not comprehensively addressing this problem. Nevertheless, this is a good amendment. I support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, as introduced, this bill contained sense of Congress language that the chairman talked about. Since the severity of wildfires and cost of suppressing them have grown enormously in recent years as a result of the tinderbox conditions we have allowed to develop in this country, I understand why the bill sought to deal with the requirements of the Budget Act this way because, after all, we really have no choice but to try to bring the fires under control and limit their destructiveness. Although, I can understand how this amendment came to be, because apparently the Budget Committee must feel differently with the massive deficits that we face under the President's proposed budget, and I can see why the Budget Committee is concerned about taking the FLAME fund off budget. Nevertheless, I think this is the right amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California, I yield myself 15 seconds to simply say that the NRA does not endorse this bill. The NRA endorsed the gentleman's amendment that he offered 2 weeks ago, but it does not endorse this bill. National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislation Action, Fairfax, VA, March 10, 2009. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, H-232, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, Republican Leader, House of Representatives, H-204, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner, on behalf of the National Rifle Association, I am writing to express our support for the Altmire amendment to S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Altmire amendment would ensure that the provisions of S. 22 will not be used to close lands that are currently open to hunting, fishing, trapping, target shooting and other forms of traditional recreation. In addition, the amendment clarifies that the states retain the authority to manage resident fish and wildlife. Encroaching development and the increasing population demand for open space has resulted the closure of federal lands that were once open to traditional forms of recreation, such as hunting and target shooting. Whether it is the closure of a trail that served as the access point for a generations-old hunting camp or the closure of large areas to target shooting, the sportsman's way of life has been under attack. There are those who would exacerbate this situation by attempting to use land designations to further close federal lands to sportsmen. This is why the Altmire amendment is necessary. The Altmire amendment has already been applied to the National Landscape Conservation System Act within S. 22. It is critical to extend this protection for sportsmen to other areas of the bill, specifically Titles V and VIII pertaining to Rivers and Trails and National Heritage Areas, respectively. This is precisely what the Altmire amendment would do. While the NRA takes no position on S. 22 as a whole, the meaningful protections provided by the Altmire amendment are critical to preserve access for sportsmen and the authority of the states to manage resident wildlife populations. For these reasons, we support its inclusion in S. 22. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (202) 651-2560. Sincerely, Chris W. Cox, Executive Director NRA-ILA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a new Member, and a new member of the Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlelady yield?