Jim Baird: “two things. I have spent a fair bit of time studying that. It is distressing that my friend from New Mexico, who…”

“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.…”