To enact the Firefighters Medical Monitoring Act.

HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1904, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1904) to improve the capacity of the Secretary
of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and
conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest
System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands aimed at
protecting communities, watersheds, and certain other at-risk
lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to
protect watersheds and address threats to forest and
rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the
landscape, and for other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported
from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, with an
amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:

(Strike the part shown in black brackets and insert the
part shown in italic.)

[H.R. 1904

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

[(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003''.
[(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

[Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
[Sec. 2. Purpose.

[TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

[Sec. 101. Definitions.
[Sec. 102. Authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
[Sec. 103. Prioritization for communities and watersheds.
[Sec. 104. Environmental analysis.
[Sec. 105. Special Forest Service administrative review process.
[Sec. 106. Special requirements regarding judicial review of authorized
hazardous fuels reduction projects.
[Sec. 107. Injunctive relief for agency action to restore fire-adapted
forest or rangeland ecosystems.
[Sec. 108. Rules of construction.

[TITLE II--BIOMASS

[Sec. 201. Findings.
[Sec. 202. Definitions.
[Sec. 203. Grants to improve the commercial value of forest biomass for
electric energy, useful heat, transportation fuels, and
petroleum-based product substitutes.
[Sec. 204. Reporting requirement.

[TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

[Sec. 301. Findings and purpose.
[Sec. 302. Establishment of watershed forestry assistance program.

[TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS

[Sec. 401. Definitions, findings, and purpose.
[Sec. 402. Accelerated information gathering regarding bark beetles,
including Southern pine beetles, hemlock woolly adelgid,
emerald ash borers, red oak borers, and white oak borers.
[Sec. 403. Applied silvicultural assessments.
[Sec. 404. Relation to other laws.
[Sec. 405. Authorization of appropriations.

[TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

[Sec. 501. Establishment of healthy forests reserve program.
[Sec. 502. Eligibility and enrollment of lands in program.
[Sec. 503. Conservation plans.
[Sec. 504. Financial assistance.
[Sec. 505. Technical assistance.
[Sec. 506. Safe harbor.
[Sec. 507. Authorization of appropriations.

[TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

[Sec. 601. Forest stands inventory and monitoring program to improve
detection of and response to environmental threats.

[SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

[The purpose of this Act is--
[(1) to reduce the risks of damage to communities,
municipal water supplies, and some at-risk Federal lands from
catastrophic wildfires;
[(2) to authorize grant programs to improve the commercial
value of forest biomass for electric energy, useful heat,
transportation fuels, petroleum-based product substitutes and
other commercial purposes;

[[Page S13436]]

[(3) to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address
threats to forest and rangeland health, including
catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape;
[(4) to promote systematic information gathering to address
the impact of insect infestations on forest and rangeland
health;
[(5) to improve the capacity to detect insect and disease
infestations at an early stage, particularly with respect to
hardwood forests; and
[(6) to protect, restore, and enhance degraded forest
ecosystem types in order to promote the recovery of
threatened and endangered species as well as improve
biological diversity and enhance carbon sequestration.

[TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

[SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

[In this title:
[(1) Authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.--The
term ``authorized hazardous fuels reduction project'' means a
hazardous fuels reduction project described in subsection (a)
of section 102, subject to the remainder of such section,
that is planned and conducted using the process authorized by
section 104.
[(2) Condition class 2.--The term ``condition class 2'',
with respect to an area of Federal lands, refers to the
condition class description developed by the Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Research Station in the general technical
report entitled ``Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data
for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management'' (RMRS-87), dated
April 2000, under which--
[(A) fire regimes on the lands have been moderately altered
from their historical range;
[(B) there exists a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem
components from fire;
[(C) fire frequencies have departed (either increased or
decreased) from historical frequencies by one or more return
interval, which results in moderate changes to fire size,
frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape patterns; and
[(D) vegetation attributes have been moderately altered
from their historical range.
[(3) Condition class 3.--The term ``condition class 3'',
with respect to an area of Federal lands, refers to the
condition class description developed by the Rocky Mountain
Research Station in the general technical report referred to
in paragraph (2), under which--
[(A) fire regimes on the lands have been significantly
altered from their historical range;
[(B) there exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem
components from fire;
[(C) fire frequencies have departed from historical
frequencies by multiple return intervals, which results in
dramatic changes to fire size, frequency, intensity,
severity, or landscape patterns; and
[(D) vegetation attributes have been significantly altered
from their historical range.
[(4) Day.--The term ``day'' means a calendar day, except
that, if a deadline imposed by this title would expire on a
nonbusiness day, the deadline will be extended to the end of
the next business day.
[(5) Decision document.--The term ``decision document''
means a decision notice or a record of decision, as those
terms are used in applicable regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality and the Forest Service Handbook.
[(6) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means--
[(A) National Forest System lands; and
[(B) public lands administered by the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management.
[(7) Hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term
``hazardous fuels reduction project'' refers to the measures
and methods described in the definition of ``appropriate
tools'' contained in the glossary of the Implementation Plan.
[(8) Implementation plan.--The term ``Implementation Plan''
means the Implementation Plan for the 10-year Comprehensive
Strategy for a Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland
Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment, dated May
2002, which was developed pursuant to the conference report
for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001 (House Report 106-646).
[(9) Interface community and intermix community.--The terms
``interface community'' and ``intermix community'' have the
meanings given those terms on page 753 of volume 66 of the
Federal Register, as published on January 4, 2001.
[(10) Municipal water supply system.--The term ``municipal
water supply system'' means the reservoirs, canals, ditches,
flumes, laterals, pipes, pipelines, or other surface
facilities and systems constructed or installed for the
impoundment, storage, transportation, or distribution of
drinking water for a community.
[(11) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary
concerned'' means the Secretary of Agriculture with respect
to National Forest System lands and the Secretary of the
Interior with respect to public lands administered by the
Bureau of Land Management. Any reference in this title to the
``Secretary concerned'', the ``Secretary of Agriculture'', or
the ``Secretary of the Interior'' includes the designee of
the Secretary concerned.
[(12) Threatened and endangered species habitat.--The term
``threatened and endangered species habitat'' means Federal
lands identified in the listing decision or critical habitat
designation as habitat for a threatened species or an
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

[SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

[(a) Authorized Projects.--Subject to the remainder of this
section, the Secretary concerned may utilize the process
authorized by section 104 to plan and conduct hazardous fuels
reduction projects on any of the following Federal lands:
[(1) Federal lands located in an interface community or
intermix community.
[(2) Federal lands located in such proximity to an
interface community or intermix community that there is a
significant risk that the spread of a fire disturbance event
from those lands would threaten human life and property in
the interface community or intermix community.
[(3) Condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal lands
located in such proximity to a municipal water supply system,
or to a perennial stream feeding a municipal water supply
system, that a significant risk exists that a fire
disturbance event would have substantial adverse effects on
the water quality of the municipal water supply, including
the risk to water quality posed by erosion following such a
fire disturbance event.
[(4) Condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal lands
identified by the Secretary concerned as an area where
windthrow or blowdown, or the existence or threat of disease
or insect infestation, pose a significant threat to forest or
rangeland health or adjacent private lands.
[(5) Federal lands not covered by paragraph (1), (2), (3),
or (4) that contain threatened and endangered species
habitat, but only if--
[(A) natural fire regimes on such lands are identified as
being important for, or wildfire is identified as a threat
to, an endangered species, a threatened species, or its
habitat in a species recovery plan prepared under section 4
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) or in
a decision document under such section determining a species
to be an endangered species or a threatened species or
designating critical habitat;
[(B) the project will provide enhanced protection from
catastrophic wildfire for the species or its habitat; and
[(C) the Secretary complies with any applicable guidelines
specified in the species recovery plan prepared under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
[(b) Relation to Agency Plans.--An authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project shall be planned and conducted in a
manner consistent with the land and resource management plan
or land use plan applicable to the Federal lands covered by
the project.
[(c) Acreage Limitation.--Not more than a total of
20,000,000 acres of Federal lands may be included in
authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
[(d) Exclusion of Certain Federal Lands.--The Secretary
concerned may not plan or conduct an authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project that would occur on any of the
following Federal lands:
[(1) A component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System.
[(2) Federal lands where, by Act of Congress or
Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is
prohibited or restricted.
[(3) Wilderness Study Areas.

[SEC. 103. PRIORITIZATION FOR COMMUNITIES AND WATERSHEDS.

[As provided for in the Implementation Plan, the Secretary
concerned shall give priority to authorized hazardous fuel
reduction projects that provide for the protection of
communities and watersheds.

[SEC. 104. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

[(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this
title, the Secretary concerned shall plan and conduct
authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4331 et seq.) and any other applicable laws. The Secretary
concerned shall prepare an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement for each authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project.
[(b) Discretionary Authority To Eliminate Alternatives.--In
the case of an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project,
the Secretary concerned is not required to study, develop, or
describe any alternative to the proposed agency action in the
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement
prepared for the proposed agency action pursuant to section
102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)).
[(c) Public Notice and Meeting.--
[(1) Public notice.--The Secretary concerned shall provide
notice of each authorized hazardous fuels reduction project
in accordance with applicable regulations and administrative
guidelines.
[(2) Public meeting.--During the planning stage of each
authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, the Secretary
concerned shall conduct a public meeting at an appropriate
location proximate to the administrative unit of the Federal
lands in which the authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project will be conducted. The Secretary concerned shall
provide advance notice of the date and time of the meeting.

[[Page S13437]]

[(d) Public Collaboration.--In order to encourage
meaningful public participation in the identification and
development of authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects,
the Secretary concerned shall facilitate collaboration among
governments and interested persons during the formulation of
each authorized fuels reduction project in a manner
consistent with the Implementation Plan.
[(e) Environmental Analysis and Public Comment.--In
accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) and the applicable
regulations and administrative guidelines in effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned
shall provide an opportunity for public input during the
preparation of any environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement for proposed agency action for an authorized
hazardous fuels reduction project.
[(f) Decision Document.--The Secretary concerned shall sign
a decision document for each authorized hazardous fuels
reduction project and provide notice of the decision
document.
[(g) Project Monitoring.--As provided for in the
Implementation Plan, the Secretary concerned shall monitor
the implementation of authorized hazardous fuels reduction
projects.

[SEC. 105. SPECIAL FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
PROCESS.

[(a) Development of Administrative Process.--Not later than
90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall issue final regulations to
establish an administrative process that will serve as the
sole means by which a person described in subsection (b) can
seek administrative redress regarding an authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project.
[(b) Eligible Persons.--To be eligible to participate in
the administrative process developed pursuant to subsection
(a) regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project, a person must have submitted specific and
substantive written comments during the preparation stage of
that authorized hazardous fuels reduction project. The
Secretary of Agriculture shall ensure that, during the
preparation stage of each authorized hazardous fuels
reduction project, notice and comment is provided in a manner
sufficient to permit interested persons a reasonable
opportunity to satisfy the requirements of this subsection.
[(c) Relation to Appeals Reform Act.--Section 322 of the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612
note), does not apply to an authorized hazardous fuels
reduction project.

[SEC. 106. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

[(a) Filing Deadline.--
[(1) Time limit established for filing.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, to be timely, an action in a
court of the United States challenging an authorized
hazardous fuels reduction project shall be filed in the court
before the end of the 15-day period beginning on the date on
which the Secretary concerned publishes, in the local paper
of record, notice of the final agency action regarding the
authorized hazardous fuels reduction project. This time
limitation supersedes any notice of intent to file suit
requirement or filing deadline otherwise applicable to a
challenge under any provision of law.
[(2) Waiver prohibited.--The Secretary concerned may not
agree to, and a district court may not grant, a waiver of the
requirements of this subsection.
[(b) Duration of Preliminary Injunction.--
[(1) Duration; extension.--Any preliminary injunction
granted regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project shall be limited to 45 days. A court may renew the
preliminary injunction, taking into consideration the goal
expressed in subsection (c) for the expeditious resolution of
cases regarding authorized hazardous fuels reduction
projects.
[(2) Submission of information.--As part of a request to
renew a preliminary injunction granted regarding an
authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, the parties
shall present the court with an update on any changes that
may have occurred during the period of the injunction to the
forest or rangeland conditions that the authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project is intended to address.
[(3) Congressional notification.--In the event of the
renewal of a preliminary injunction regarding an authorized
hazardous fuels reduction project, the Secretary concerned
shall submit notice of the renewal to the Committee on
Resources and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry of the Senate.
[(c) Expeditious Completion of Judicial Review.--Congress
intends and encourages any court in which is filed a lawsuit
or appeal of a lawsuit concerning an authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project to expedite, to the maximum extent
practicable, the proceedings in such lawsuit or appeal with
the goal of rendering a final determination on jurisdiction,
and if jurisdiction exists, a final determination on the
merits, within 100 days from the date the complaint or appeal
is filed.

[SEC. 107. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR AGENCY ACTION TO RESTORE
FIRE-ADAPTED FOREST OR RANGELAND ECOSYSTEMS.

(a) Covered Projects.--This section applies with respect to
a motion for an injunction in an action brought against the
Secretary concerned under section 703 of title 5, United
States Code, that involves an agency action on Federal lands,
including an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project,
that is necessary to restore a fire-adapted forest or
rangeland system.
[(b) Injunctive Relief.--When considering a motion
described in subsection (a), in determining whether there
would be harm to the defendant from the injunction and
whether the injunction would be in the public interest, the
court reviewing the agency action shall--
[(1) balance the impact to the ecosystem of the short-term
and long-term effects of undertaking the agency action
against the short-term and long-term effects of not
undertaking the agency action; and
[(2) give weight to a finding by the Secretary concerned in
the administrative record of the agency action concerning the
short-term and long-term effects of undertaking the agency
action and of not undertaking the agency action, unless the
court finds that the finding was arbitrary and capricious.

[SEC. 108. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

[(a) Relation to Other Authority.--Nothing in this title
shall be construed to affect, or otherwise bias, the use by
the Secretary concerned of other statutory or administrative
authorities to plan or conduct a hazardous fuels reduction
project on Federal lands, including Federal lands identified
in section 102(e), that is not planned or conducted using the
process authorized by section 104.
[(b) Relation to Legal Action.--Nothing in this title shall
be construed to prejudice or otherwise affect the
consideration or disposition of any legal action concerning
the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, part 294 of title 36,
Code of Federal Regulations, as amended in the final rule and
record of decision published in the Federal Register on
January 12, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244).

[TITLE II--BIOMASS

[SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

[Congress finds the following:
[(1) Thousands of communities in the United States, many
located near Federal lands, are at risk to wildfire.
Approximately 190,000,000 acres of land managed by the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior
are at risk of catastrophic fire in the near future. The
accumulation of heavy forest and rangeland fuel loads
continues to increase as a result of disease, insect
infestations, and drought, further raising the risk of fire
each year.
[(2) In addition, more than 70,000,000 acres across all
land ownerships are at risk to higher than normal mortality
over the next 15 years from insect infestation and disease.
High levels of tree mortality from insects and disease result
in increased fire risk, loss of old growth, degraded
watershed conditions, and changes in species diversity and
productivity, as well as diminished fish and wildlife habitat
and decreased timber values.
[(3) Preventive treatments such as removing fuel loading,
ladder fuels, and hazard trees, planting proper species mix
and restoring and protecting early successional habitat, and
other specific restoration treatments designed to reduce the
susceptibility of forest and rangeland to insect outbreaks,
disease, and catastrophic fire present the greatest
opportunity for long-term forest and rangeland health by
creating a mosaic of species-mix and age distribution. Such
prevention treatments are widely acknowledged to be more
successful and cost effective than suppression treatments in
the case of insects, disease, and fire.
[(4) The by-products of preventive treatment (wood, brush,
thinnings, chips, slash, and other hazardous fuels) removed
from forest and rangelands represent an abundant supply of
biomass for biomass-to-energy facilities and raw material for
business. There are currently few markets for the
extraordinary volumes of by-products being generated as a
result of the necessary large-scale preventive treatment
activities.
[(5) The United States should--
[(A) promote economic and entrepreneurial opportunities in
using by-products removed through preventive treatment
activities related to hazardous fuels reduction, disease, and
insect infestation; and
[(B) develop and expand markets for traditionally underused
wood and biomass as an outlet for by-products of preventive
treatment activities.

[SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

[In this title:
[(1) Biomass.--The term ``biomass'' means trees and woody
plants, including limbs, tops, needles, and other woody
parts, and by-products of preventive treatment, such as wood,
brush, thinnings, chips, and slash, that are removed--
[(A) to reduce hazardous fuels; or
[(B) to reduce the risk of or to contain disease or insect
infestation.
[(2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)).
[(3) Person.--The term ``person'' includes--
[(A) an individual;

[[Page S13438]]

[(B) a community (as determined by the Secretary
concerned);
[(C) an Indian tribe;
[(D) a small business, micro-business, or a corporation
that is incorporated in the United States; and
[(E) a nonprofit organization.
[(4) Preferred community.--The term ``preferred community''
means--
[(A) any town, township, municipality, or other similar
unit of local government (as determined by the Secretary
concerned) that--
[(i) has a population of not more than 50,000 individuals;
and
[(ii) the Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of
the Secretary concerned, determines contains or is located
near land, the condition of which is at significant risk of
catastrophic wildfire, disease, or insect infestation or
which suffers from disease or insect infestation; or
[(B) any county that--
[(i) is not contained within a metropolitan statistical
area; and
[(ii) the Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of
the Secretary concerned, determines contains or is located
near land, the condition of which is at significant risk of
catastrophic wildfire, disease, or insect infestation or
which suffers from disease or insect infestation.
[(5) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means--
[(A) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to National
Forest System lands; and
[(B) the Secretary of the Interior with respect to Federal
lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior
and Indian lands.

[SEC. 203. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF FOREST
BIOMASS FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY, USEFUL HEAT,
TRANSPORTATION FUELS, AND PETROLEUM-BASED
PRODUCT SUBSTITUTES.

[(a) Biomass Commercial Use Grant Program.--
[(1) In general.--The Secretary concerned may make grants
to any person that owns or operates a facility that uses
biomass as a raw material to produce electric energy,
sensible heat, transportation fuels, or substitutes for
petroleum-based products to offset the costs incurred to
purchase biomass for use by such facility.
[(2) Grant amounts.--A grant under this subsection may not
exceed $20 per green ton of biomass delivered.
[(3) Monitoring of grant recipient activities.--As a
condition of a grant under this subsection, the grant
recipient shall keep such records as the Secretary concerned
may require to fully and correctly disclose the use of the
grant funds and all transactions involved in the purchase of
biomass. Upon notice by a representative of the Secretary
concerned, the grant recipient shall afford the
representative reasonable access to the facility that
purchases or uses biomass and an opportunity to examine the
inventory and records of the facility.
[(b) Value Added Grant Program.--
[(1) In general.--The Secretary concerned may make grants
to persons to offset the cost of projects to add value to
biomass. In making such grants, the Secretary concerned shall
give preference to persons in preferred communities.
[(2) Selection.--The Secretary concerned shall select a
grant recipient under paragraph (1) after giving
consideration to the anticipated public benefits of the
project, opportunities for the creation or expansion of small
businesses and micro-businesses, and the potential for new
job creation.
[(3) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection may not
exceed $100,000.
[(c) Relation to Other Endangered Species and Riparian
Protections.--The Secretary concerned shall comply with
applicable endangered species and riparian protections in
making grants under this section. Projects funded using grant
proceeds shall be required to comply with such protections.
[(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2004 through 2008 to carry out this section.

[SEC. 204. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

[(a) Report Required.--Not later than October 1, 2010, the
Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary
of the Interior, shall submit to the Committee on Resources
and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry of the Senate a report describing the results of the
grant programs authorized by section 203.
[(b) Contents of Report.--The report shall include the
following:
[(1) An identification of the size, type, and the use of
biomass by persons that receive grants under section 203.
[(2) The distance between the land from which the biomass
was removed and the facility that used the biomass.
[(3) The economic impacts, particularly new job creation,
resulting from the grants to and operation of the eligible
operations.

[TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

[SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

[(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
[(1) There has been a dramatic shift in public attitudes
and perceptions about forest management, particularly in the
understanding and practice of sustainable forest management.
[(2) It is commonly recognized that the proper stewardship
of forest lands is essential to sustaining and restoring the
health of watersheds.
[(3) Forests can provide essential ecological services in
filtering pollutants, buffering important rivers and
estuaries, and minimizing flooding, which makes its
restoration worthy of special focus.
[(4) Strengthened education, technical assistance, and
financial assistance to nonindustrial private forest
landowners and communities, relating to the protection of
watershed health, is needed to realize the expectations of
the general public.
[(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to--
[(1) improve landowner and public understanding of the
connection between forest management and watershed health;
[(2) encourage landowners to maintain tree cover on their
property and to utilize tree plantings and vegetative
treatments as creative solutions to watershed problems
associated with varying land uses;
[(3) enhance and complement forest management and buffer
utilization for watersheds, with an emphasis on urban
watersheds;
[(4) establish new partnerships and collaborative watershed
approaches to forest management, stewardship, and
conservation;
[(5) provide technical and financial assistance to States
to deliver a coordinated program that enhances State forestry
best-management practices programs, as well as conserves and
improves forested lands and potentially forested lands
through technical, financial, and educational assistance to
qualifying individuals and entities; and
[(6) maximize the proper management and conservation of
wetland forests and to assist in their restoration as
necessary.

[SEC. 302. ESTABLISHMENT OF WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.

[The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 is amended
by inserting after section 5 the following new section:

[``SEC. 6. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE.

[``(a) General Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary,
acting through the Forest Service, may provide technical,
financial, and related assistance to State foresters and
equivalent State officials for the purpose of expanding State
forest stewardship capacities and activities through State
forestry best-management practices and other means at the
State level to address watershed issues on non-Federal
forested lands and potentially forested lands.
[``(b) Technical Assistance To Protect Water Quality.--
[``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
State foresters or equivalent State officials, shall engage
interested members of the public, including nonprofit
organizations and local watershed councils, to develop a
program of technical assistance to protect water quality, as
described in paragraph (2).
[``(2) Purpose of program.--The program under this
subsection shall be designed--
[``(A) to build and strengthen watershed partnerships that
focus on forested landscapes at the local, State, and
regional levels;
[``(B) to provide State forestry best-management practices
and water quality technical assistance directly to
nonindustrial private forest landowners;
[``(C) to provide technical guidance to land managers and
policy makers for water quality protection through forest
management;
[``(D) to complement State and local efforts to protect
water quality and provide enhanced opportunities for
consultation and cooperation among Federal and State agencies
charged with responsibility for water and watershed
management; and
[``(E) to provide enhanced forest resource data and support
for improved implementation and monitoring of State forestry
best-management practices.
[``(3) Implementation.--The program of technical assistance
shall be implemented by State foresters or equivalent State
officials.
[``(c) Watershed Forestry Cost-Share Program.--
[``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a
watershed forestry cost-share program to be administered by
the Forest Service and implemented by State foresters or
equivalent State officials. Funds or other support provided
under such program shall be made available for State forestry
best-management practices programs and watershed forestry
projects.
[``(2) Watershed forestry projects.--The State forester or
equivalent State official of a State, in coordination with
the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee
established under section 19(b) for that State, shall
annually make awards to communities, nonprofit groups, and
nonindustrial private forest landowners under the program for
watershed forestry projects described in paragraph (3).
[``(3) Project elements and objectives.--A watershed
forestry project shall accomplish critical forest
stewardship, watershed protection, and restoration needs
within a State by demonstrating the value of trees and
forests to watershed health and condition through--
[``(A) the use of trees as solutions to water quality
problems in urban and rural areas;
[``(B) community-based planning, involvement, and action
through State, local and nonprofit partnerships;
[``(C) application of and dissemination of monitoring
information on forestry best-

[[Page S13439]]

management practices relating to watershed forestry;
[``(D) watershed-scale forest management activities and
conservation planning; and
[``(E) the restoration of wetland (as defined by the
States) and stream-side forests and the establishment of
riparian vegetative buffers.
[``(4) Cost-sharing.--Funds provided under this subsection
for a watershed forestry project may not exceed 75 percent of
the cost of the project. Other Federal funding sources may be
used to cover a portion of the remaining project costs, but
the total Federal share of the costs may not exceed 90
percent. The non-Federal share of the costs of a project may
be in the form of cash, services, or other in-kind
contributions.
[``(5) Prioritization.--The State Forest Stewardship
Coordinating Committee for a State shall prioritize
watersheds in that State to target watershed forestry
projects funded under this subsection.
[``(6) Watershed forester.--Financial and technical
assistance shall be made available to the State Forester or
equivalent State official to create a State best-management
practice forester to lead statewide programs and coordinate
small watershed-level projects.
[``(d) Distribution.--
[``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall devote at least 75
percent of the funds appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant
to the authorization of appropriations in subsection (e) to
the cost-share program under subsection (c) and the remainder
to the task of delivering technical assistance, education,
and planning on the ground through the State Forester or
equivalent State official.
[``(2) Special considerations.--Distribution of these funds
by the Secretary among the States shall be made only after
giving appropriate consideration to--
[``(A) the acres of nonindustrial private forestland and
highly erodible land in each State;
[``(B) each State's efforts to conserve forests;
[``(C) the acres of forests in each State that have been
lost or degraded or where forests can play a role in
restoring watersheds; and
[``(D) the number of nonindustrial private forest
landowners in each State.
[``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$15,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through
2008.''.

[TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS

[SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE.

[(a) Definitions.--In this title:
[(1) Applied silvicultural assessment.--The term ``applied
silvicultural assessment'' means any vegetative or other
treatment, for the purposes described in section 402,
including timber harvest, thinning, prescribed burning, and
pruning, as single treatment or any combination of these
treatments.
[(2) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means--
[(A) National Forest System lands; and
[(B) public lands administered by the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management.
[(3) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means--
[(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the
Forest Service, with respect to National Forest System lands;
and
[(B) the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
appropriate offices of the United States Geological Survey,
with respect to federally owned land administered by the
Secretary of the Interior.
[(4) 1890 institutions.--The term ``1890 Institution''
means a college or university eligible to receive funds under
the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), including
Tuskegee University.
[(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
[(1) High levels of tree mortality due to insect
infestation result in--
[(A) increased fire risk;
[(B) loss of old growth;
[(C) loss of threatened and endangered species;
[(D) loss of species diversity;
[(E) degraded watershed conditions;
[(F) increased potential for damage from other agents of
disturbance, including exotic, invasive species; and
[(G) decreased timber values.
[(2) Bark beetles destroy hundreds of thousands of acres of
trees each year. In the West, over 21,000,000 acres are at
high risk of bark beetle infestation and in the South over
57,000,000 acres are at risk across all land ownerships.
Severe drought conditions in many areas of the South and West
will increase risk of bark beetle infestations.
[(3) The hemlock woolly adelgid is destroying streamside
forests throughout the mid-Atlantic and Appalachian region,
threatening water quality and sensitive aquatic species, and
posing a potential threat to valuable commercial timber lands
in Northern New England.
[(4) The emerald ash borer is a nonnative, invasive pest
that has quickly become a major threat to hardwood forests as
a emerald ash borer infestation is almost always fatal to the
affected trees. This pest threatens to destroy over
692,000,000 ash trees in forests in Michigan and Ohio alone,
and between five and ten percent of urban street trees in the
Upper Midwest.
[(5) Epidemic populations of Southern pine beetle are
ravaging forests in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Virginia. In 2001, Florida and Kentucky
experienced 146 percent and 111 percent increases,
respectively, in beetle populations.
[(6) These epidemic outbreaks of Southern pine beetle have
forced private landowners to harvest dead and dying trees, in
both rural areas and increasingly urbanized settings.
[(7) According to the Forest Service, recent outbreaks of
the red oak borer in Arkansas have been unprecedented, with
almost 800,000 acres infested at population levels never seen
before.
[(8) Much of the damage from the red oak borer has taken
place in National forests, and the Federal response has been
inadequate to protect forest ecosystems and other ecological
and economic resources.
[(9) Previous silvicultural assessments, while useful and
informative, have been limited in scale and scope of
application, and there has not been sufficient resources
available to adequately test a full array of individual and
combined applied silvicultural assessments.
[(10) Only through the rigorous funding, development, and
assessment of potential applied silvicultural assessments
over specific time frames across an array of environmental
and climatic conditions can the most innovative and cost
effective management applications be determined that will
help reduce the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to attack
by forest pests.
[(11) Funding and implementation of an initiative to combat
forest pest infestations should not come at the expense of
supporting other programs and initiatives of the Secretary
concerned.
[(c) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title--
[(1) to require the Secretary concerned to develop an
accelerated basic and applied assessment program to combat
infestations by bark beetles, including Southern pine
beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak
borers, and white oak borers;
[(2) to enlist the assistance of universities and forestry
schools, including Land Grant Colleges and Universities and
1890 Institutions, to carry out the program; and
[(3) to carry out applied silvicultural assessments.

[SEC. 402. ACCELERATED INFORMATION GATHERING REGARDING BARK
BEETLES, INCLUDING SOUTHERN PINE BEETLES,
HEMLOCK WOOLLY ADELGIDS, EMERALD ASH BORERS,
RED OAK BORERS, AND WHITE OAK BORERS.

[(a) Information Gathering.--The Secretary concerned shall
establish, acting through the Forest Service and United
States Geological Survey, as appropriate, an accelerated
program--
[(1) to plan, conduct, and promote comprehensive and
systematic information gathering on bark beetles, including
Southern pine beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash
borers, red oak borers, and white oak borers, including an
evaluation of--
[(A) infestation prevention and control methods;
[(B) effects of infestations on forest ecosystems;
[(C) restoration of the forest ecosystem efforts;
[(D) utilization options regarding infested trees; and
[(E) models to predict the occurrence, distribution, and
impact of outbreaks of bark beetles, including Southern pine
beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak
borers, and white oak borers;
[(2) to assist land managers in the development of
treatments and strategies to improve forest health and reduce
the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to severe
infestations of bark beetles, including Southern pine
beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak
borers, and white oak borers on Federal lands and State and
private lands; and
[(3) to disseminate the results of such information
gathering, treatments, and strategies.
[(b) Cooperation and Assistance.--The Secretary concerned
shall establish and carry out the program in cooperation with
scientists from universities and forestry schools, State
agencies, and private and industrial land owners. The
Secretary concerned shall designate universities and forestry
schools, including Land Grant Colleges and Universities and
1890 Institutions, to assist in carrying out the program.

[SEC. 403. APPLIED SILVICULTURAL ASSESSMENTS.

[(a) Assessment Efforts.--For information gathering
purposes, the Secretary concerned may conduct applied
silvicultural assessments on Federal lands that the Secretary
concerned determines, in the discretion of the Secretary
concerned, is at risk of infestation by, or is infested with,
bark beetles, including Southern pine beetles, hemlock woolly
adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak borers, and white oak
borers. Any applied silvicultural assessments carried out
under this section shall be conducted on not more than 1,000
acres per assessment.
[(b) Limitations.--
[(1) Exclusion of certain areas.--Subsection (a) does not
apply to--
[(A) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System;
[(B) Federal lands where, by Act of Congress or
Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is
restricted or prohibited; or

[[Page S13440]]

[(C) congressionally designated wilderness study areas.
[(2) Certain treatment prohibited.--Subsection (a) does not
authorize the application of insecticides in municipal
watersheds and associated riparian areas.
[(3) Acreage limitation.--Applied silvicultural assessments
may be implemented on not more than 250,000 acres using the
authorities provided by this title.
[(4) Peer review.--Each applied silvicultural assessment
under this title, prior to being carried out, shall be peer
reviewed by scientific experts selected by the Secretary
concerned, which shall include non-Federal experts. The
Secretary concerned may use existing peer review processes to
the extent they comply with the preceding sentence.
[(c) Public Notice and Comment.--
[(1) Public notice.--The Secretary concerned shall provide
notice of each applied silvicultural assessment proposed to
be carried out under this section in accordance with
applicable regulations and administrative guidelines.
[(2) Public comment.--During the planning stage of each
applied silvicultural assessment proposed to be carried out
under this section, the Secretary concerned shall provide an
opportunity for public input.
[(d) Categorical Exclusion.--Applied silvicultural
assessments carried out under this section are deemed to be
categorically excluded from further analysis under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.). The Secretary concerned need not make any findings as
to whether the project, either individually or cumulatively,
has a significant effect on the environment.

[SEC. 404. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

[The authorities provided to the Secretary concerned by
this title are supplemental to their respective authorities
provided in any other law.

[SEC. 405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

[There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years
2004 through 2008 such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this title.

[TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

[SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM.

[(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish the healthy forests reserve program as a program
within the Forest Service for the purpose of protecting,
restoring, and enhancing degraded forest ecosystems to
promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species as
well as improve biodiversity and enhance carbon
sequestration.
[(b) Cooperation.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall carry
out the healthy forests reserve program in cooperation with
the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

[SEC. 502. ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT OF LANDS IN PROGRAM.

[(a) Eligible Lands.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall
designate rare forest ecosystems to be eligible for the
healthy forests reserve program. The following lands are
eligible for enrollment in the healthy forests reserve
program:
[(1) Private lands whose enrollment will protect, restore,
enhance, or otherwise measurably increase the likelihood of
recovery of an endangered species or threatened species in
the wild.
[(2) Private lands whose enrollment will protect, restore,
enhance, or otherwise measurably increase the likelihood of
the recovery of an animal or plant species before the species
reaches threatened or endangered status, such as candidate,
State-listed species, rare, peripheral, and special concern
species.
[(b) Other Considerations.--In enrolling lands that satisfy
the criteria in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the
Secretary of Agriculture shall give additional consideration
to those lands whose enrollment will also improve biological
diversity and increase carbon sequestration.
[(c) Enrollment by Willing Owners.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall enroll lands in the healthy forests reserve
program only with the consent of the owner of the lands.
[(d) Maximum Enrollment.--The total number of acres
enrolled in the healthy forests reserve program shall not
exceed 1,000,000 acres.
[(e) Methods of Enrollment.--Lands may be enrolled in the
healthy forests reserve program pursuant to a 10-year cost-
share agreement, a 30-year easement, or a permanent easement
with buyback option. The extent to which each enrollment
method is used shall be based on the approximate proportion
of owner interest expressed in that method in comparison to
the other methods.
[(f) Enrollment Priority.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall give priority to the enrollment of lands that, in the
sole discretion of the Secretary, will provide the best
opportunity to resolve conflicts between the presence of an
animal or plant species referred to in paragraph (1) or (2)
of subsection (a) and otherwise lawful land use activities.

[SEC. 503. CONSERVATION PLANS.

[(a) Plan Required.--Lands enrolled in the healthy forests
reserve program shall be subject to a conservation plan, to
be developed jointly by the land owner and the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service. The conservation plan shall
include a description of the land-use activities that are
permissible on the enrolled lands.
[(b) Involvement by Other Agencies and Organizations.--A
State fish and wildlife agency, State forestry agency, State
environmental quality agency, and other State conservation
agencies and nonprofit conservation organizations may assist
in providing technical or financial assistance, or both, for
the development and implementation of conservation plans.
[(c) Cost Effectiveness.--The conservation plan shall
maximize the environmental benefits per dollar expended.

[SEC. 504. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

[(a) Permanent Easement With Buyback Option.--
[(1) Payment amount.--In the case of land enrolled in the
healthy forests reserve program using a permanent easement
with a buyback option, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay
the owner of the land an amount equal to--
[(A) the fair market value of the enrolled land less the
fair market value of the land encumbered by the easement;
plus
[(B) the actual costs of the approved conservation
practices or the average cost of approved practices, as
established by the Secretary.
[(2) Buyback option.--Beginning on the 50th anniversary of
the enrollment of the land, and every 10th-year thereafter,
the owner shall be able to purchase the easement back from
the United States at a rate equal to the fair market value of
the easement plus the costs, adjusted for inflation, of the
approved conservation practices.
[(b) 30-Year Easement.--In the case of land enrolled in the
healthy forests reserve program using a 30-year easement, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the owner of the land an
amount equal to--
[(1) 75 percent of the fair market value of the land less
the fair market value of the land encumbered by the easement;
plus
[(2) 75 percent of the actual costs of the approved
conservation practices or 75 percent of the average cost of
approved practices, as established by the Secretary.
[(c) 10-Year Agreement.--In the case of land enrolled in
the healthy forests reserve program using a 10-year cost-
share agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the
owner of the land an amount equal to--
[(1) 75 percent of the actual costs of the approved
conservation practices; or
[(2) 75 percent of the average cost of approved practices,
as established by the Secretary.
[(d) Acceptance of Contributions.--The Secretary of
Agriculture may accept and use contributions of non-Federal
funds to make payments under this section.

[SEC. 505. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

[The Forest Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service shall provide landowners with technical assistance to
comply with the terms of agreements and easements under the
healthy forests reserve program and conservation plans.

[SEC. 506. SAFE HARBOR.

[In implementing the healthy forests reserve program, the
Secretary of the Interior shall provide safe harbor or
similar assurances, through section 7 or other authorities
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), consistent with the implementing regulations of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to landowners who
enroll land in the healthy forests reserve program when such
enrollment will result in a net conservation benefit for
listed species.

[SEC. 507. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

[There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to carry out this
title.

[TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

[SEC. 601. FOREST STANDS INVENTORY AND MONITORING PROGRAM TO
IMPROVE DETECTION OF AND RESPONSE TO
ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS.

[(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall carry
out a comprehensive program to inventory, monitor,
characterize, assess, and identify forest stands (with
emphasis on hardwood forest stands) and potential forest
stands--
[(1) in units of the National Forest System (other than
those units created from the public domain); and
[(2) on private forest land, with the consent of the owner
of the land.
[(b) Issues To Be Addressed.--In carrying out the program,
the Secretary shall address issues including--
[(1) early detection, identification, and assessment of
environmental threats (including insect, disease, invasive
species, fire, and weather-related risks and other episodic
events);
[(2) loss or degradation of forests;
[(3) degradation of the quality forest stands caused by
inadequate forest regeneration practices;
[(4) quantification of carbon uptake rates; and
[(5) management practices that focus on preventing further
forest degradation.
[(c) Early Warning System.--In carrying out the program,
the Secretary shall develop a comprehensive early warning
system for potential catastrophic environmental threats to
forests to increase the likelihood that forest managers will
be able to--
[(1) isolate and treat a threat before the threat gets out
of control; and
[(2) prevent epidemics, such as the American chestnut
blight in the first half of the twentieth century, that could
be environmentally and economically devastating to forests.

[[Page S13441]]

[(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008.]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LAND

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
Sec. 103. Prioritization for communities and watersheds.
Sec. 104. Environmental analysis.
Sec. 105. Special Forest Service administrative review process.
Sec. 106. Special requirements regarding judicial review of authorized
hazardous fuels reduction projects.
Sec. 107. Standard for injunctive relief for agency action to restore
fire-adapted forest or rangeland ecosystems.
Sec. 108. Effect of title.

TITLE II--BIOMASS

Sec. 201. Findings.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Grants to improve commercial value of forest biomass for
electric energy, useful heat, transportation fuels,
compost, value-added products, and petroleum-based
product substitutes.
Sec. 204. Reporting requirement.
Sec. 205. Improved biomass use research program.
Sec. 206. Rural revitalization through forestry.

TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

Sec. 301. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 302. Watershed forestry assistance program.
Sec. 303. Tribal watershed forestry assistance.

TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS AND RELATED DISEASES

Sec. 401. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 402. Definitions.
Sec. 403. Accelerated information gathering regarding forest-damaging
insects.
Sec. 404. Applied silvicultural assessments.
Sec. 405. Relation to other laws.
Sec. 406. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

Sec. 501. Establishment of healthy forests reserve program.
Sec. 502. Eligibility and enrollment of lands in program.
Sec. 503. Restoration plans.
Sec. 504. Financial assistance.
Sec. 505. Technical assistance.
Sec. 506. Protections and measures
Sec. 507. Involvement by other agencies and organizations.
Sec. 508. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE VI--PUBLIC LAND CORPS

Sec. 601. Purposes.
Sec. 602. Definitions.
Sec. 603. Public Land Corps.
Sec. 604. Nondisplacement.
Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE VII--RURAL COMMUNITY FORESTRY ENTERPRISE PROGRAM

Sec. 701. Purpose
Sec. 702. Definitions.
Sec. 703. Rural community forestry enterprise program.

TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. Forest inventory and management.
Sec. 802. Program for emergency treatment and reduction of nonnative
invasive plants.
Sec. 803. USDA National Agroforestry Center.
Sec. 804. Upland Hardwoods Research Center.
Sec. 805. Sense of Congress regarding enhanced community fire
protection.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to reduce the risks of damage to communities, municipal
water supplies, and certain at-risk Federal land from
catastrophic wildfires;
(2) to authorize grant programs to improve the commercial
value of forest biomass (that otherwise contributes to the
risk of catastrophic fire or insect or disease infestation)
for producing electric energy, useful heat, transportation
fuels, and petroleum-based product substitutes, and for other
commercial purposes;
(3) to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address
threats to forest and rangeland health, including
catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape;
(4) to promote systematic gathering of information to
address the impact of insect and disease infestations and
other damaging agents on forest and rangeland health;
(5) to improve the capacity to detect insect and disease
infestations at an early stage, particularly with respect to
hardwood forests; and
(6) to protect, restore, and enhance forest ecosystem
components--
(A) to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered
species;
(B) to improve biological diversity; and
(C) to enhance productivity and carbon sequestration.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
(A) land of the National Forest System (as defined in
section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C 1609(a))) administered by the
Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the
Forest Service; and
(B) public lands (as defined in section 103 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C 1702)), the
surface of which is administered by the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management.
(2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).

TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LAND

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term
``authorized hazardous fuels reduction project'' means a
hazardous fuels reduction project on Federal land described
in section 102(a) conducted in accordance with sections 103
and 104.
(2) Condition class 2.--The term ``condition class 2'',
with respect to an area of Federal land, means the condition
class description developed by the Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Research Station in the general technical report
entitled ``Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for
Wildland Fire and Fuel Management'' (RMRS-87), dated April
2000 (including any subsequent revision to the report), under
which--
(A) fire regimes on the land have been moderately altered
from historical ranges;
(B) there exists a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem
components from fire;
(C) fire frequencies have increased or decreased from
historical frequencies by 1 or more return intervals,
resulting in moderate changes to--
(i) the size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires;
or
(ii) landscape patterns; and
(D) vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from
the historical range of the attributes.
(3) Condition class 3.--The term ``condition class 3'',
with respect to an area of Federal land, means the condition
class description developed by the Rocky Mountain Research
Station in the general technical report referred to in
paragraph (2) (including any subsequent revision to the
report), under which--
(A) fire regimes on land have been significantly altered
from historical ranges;
(B) there exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem
components from fire;
(C) fire frequencies have departed from historical
frequencies by multiple return intervals, resulting in
dramatic changes to--
(i) the size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires;
or
(ii) landscape patterns; and
(D) vegetation attributes have been significantly altered
from the historical range of the attributes.
(4) Day.--The term ``day'' means--
(A) a calendar day; or
(B) if a deadline imposed by this title would expire on a
nonbusiness day, the end of the next business day.
(5) Decision document.--The term ``decision document''
means a decision notice or record of decision, as those terms
are used in applicable regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality and the Forest Service Handbook.
(6) Hazardous fuels.--The term ``hazardous fuels'' means
vegetation (dead or alive) in the forest or rangeland
ecosystem that--
(A) is in excess of historic conditions or management
goals; and
(B) can cause wildfires.
(7) Hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term
``hazardous fuels reduction project'' means the measures and
methods described in the definition of ``appropriate tools''
contained in the glossary of the Implementation Plan.
(8) Implementation plan.--The term ``Implementation Plan''
means the Implementation Plan for the 10-year Comprehensive
Strategy for a Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland
Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment, dated May
2002, which was developed pursuant to the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001
(Public Law 106-291) (including any subsequent revision to
the Plan).
(9) Interface community.--The term ``interface community''
has the meaning given the term in the notice published at 66
Fed. Reg. 751 (January 4, 2001) (including any subsequent
revision to the notice).
(10) Intermix community.--The term ``intermix community''
has the meaning given the term in the notice published at 66
Fed. Reg. 751 (January 4, 2001) (including any subsequent
revision to the notice).
(11) Municipal water supply system.--The term ``municipal
water supply system'' means the source watersheds,
reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes, laterals, pipes,
pipelines, and other surface facilities and systems
constructed or installed for the collection, impoundment,
storage, transportation, or distribution of drinking water
for a community.
(12) Resource management plan.--The term ``resource
management plan'' means--
(A) a land and resource management plan prepared for 1 or
more units of land of the National Forest System described in
section 3(1)(A) under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604); or
(B) a land use plan prepared for 1 or more units of the
public land described in section 3(1)(B) under section 202 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1712).
(13) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means--

[[Page S13442]]

(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to land of
the National Forest System described in section 3(1)(A); and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to public
lands described in section 3(1)(B).
(14) Threatened and endangered species habitat.--The term
``threatened and endangered species habitat'' means Federal
land identified in--
(A) a determination that a species is an endangered species
or a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
(B) a designation of critical habitat of the species under
that Act; or
(C) a recovery plan prepared for the species under that
Act.

SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

(a) Authorized Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may conduct hazardous fuels
reduction projects on--
(A) Federal land located in an interface community or
intermix community;
(B) Federal land located in such proximity to an interface
community or intermix community that there is a significant
risk that the spread of a fire disturbance event from that
land would threaten human life or property in proximity to or
within the interface community or intermix community;
(C) condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal land
located in such proximity to a municipal watershed, water
supply system or a stream feeding a municipal water supply
system that a significant risk exists that a fire disturbance
event would have adverse effects on the water quality of the
municipal water supply or the maintenance of the system,
including the risk to water quality posed by erosion
following such a fire disturbance event;
(D) condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal land on
which windthrow or blowdown, ice storm damage, or the
existence or threat of disease or insect infestation, poses a
significant threat to an ecosystem component, or forest or
rangeland resource, on the Federal land or adjacent private
land;
(E) Federal land not covered by subparagraph (A), (B), (C),
or (D) that contains threatened and endangered species
habitat, if--
(i) natural fire regimes on that land are identified as
being important for, or wildfire is identified as a threat
to, an endangered species, a threatened species, or habitat
of an endangered species or threatened species in a species
recovery plan prepared under section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533), or a notice published
in the Federal Register determining a species to be an
endangered species or a threatened species or designating
critical habitat;
(ii) the project will provide enhanced protection from
catastrophic wildfire for the endangered species, threatened
species, or habitat of the endangered species or threatened
species; and
(iii) the Secretary complies with any applicable guidelines
specified in any recovery plan described in clause (i).
(2) Classification.--The Secretary shall classify
appropriate land described in paragraph (1)(D) impacted by
windthrow or blowdown, ice storm damage, or the existence or
threat of disease or insect infestation as condition class 3
or condition class 2 Federal land.
(b) Relation to Agency Plans.--An authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project shall be conducted in a manner
consistent with the resource management plan applicable to
the Federal land covered by the project.
(c) Acreage Limitation.--Not more than a total of
20,000,000 acres of Federal land may be included in
authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
(d) Exclusion of Certain Federal Land.--The Secretary may
not conduct an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project
that would occur on--
(1) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System;
(2) Federal land on which, by Act of Congress or
Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is
prohibited or restricted; or
(3) a Wilderness Study Area.

SEC. 103. PRIORITIZATION FOR COMMUNITIES AND WATERSHEDS.

As provided for in the Implementation Plan, the Secretary
shall give priority to authorized hazardous fuel reduction
projects that provide for the protection of communities and
watersheds.

SEC. 104. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

(a) Hazardous Fuels Reduction Projects.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
title, the Secretary shall conduct authorized hazardous fuels
reduction projects in accordance with--
(A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4331 et seq.); and
(B) other applicable laws.
(2) Environmental assessment or impact statement.--The
Secretary shall prepare an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement (pursuant to section 102(2) of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2))) for each authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project.
(b) Alternatives.--The Secretary is not required to study,
develop, or describe any alternative to the proposed agency
action in the environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement prepared in accordance with subsection
(a)(2).
(c) Public Notice and Meeting.--
(1) Public notice.--The Secretary shall provide notice of
each authorized hazardous fuels reduction project in
accordance with applicable regulations and administrative
guidelines.
(2) Public meeting.--During the preparation stage of each
authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, the Secretary
shall--
(A) conduct a public meeting at an appropriate location
proximate to the administrative unit of the Federal land on
which the authorized hazardous fuels reduction project will
be conducted; and
(B) provide advance notice of the location, date, and time
of the meeting.
(d) Public Collaboration.--In order to encourage meaningful
public participation during preparation of authorized
hazardous fuels reduction projects, the Secretary shall
facilitate collaboration among State and local governments
and Indian tribes, and participation of interested persons,
during the preparation of each authorized fuels reduction
project in a manner consistent with the Implementation Plan.
(e) Environmental Analysis and Public Comment.--In
accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) and the applicable
regulations and administrative guidelines, the Secretary
shall provide an opportunity for public input during the
preparation of any environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement for an authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project.
(f) Decision Document.--The Secretary shall sign a decision
document for authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects
and provide notice of the final agency actions.
(g) Project Monitoring.--In accordance with the
Implementation Plan, the Secretary shall monitor the
implementation of authorized hazardous fuels reduction
projects.

SEC. 105. SPECIAL FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
PROCESS.

(a) Development of Administrative Review Process.--Not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate final
regulations to establish an administrative review process
that will serve as the sole means by which a person described
in subsection (b) can seek administrative review regarding a
proposed hazardous fuels reduction project.
(b) Eligible Persons.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to participate in the
administrative review process established under subsection
(a), a person shall submit specific and substantive written
comments during the notice and comment stage of the
authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.
(2) Notice and comment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
ensure that, during the preparation stage of each authorized
hazardous fuels reduction project, notice and comment is
provided in a manner sufficient to permit interested persons
a reasonable opportunity to comply with this subsection.
(c) Relation to Appeals Reform Act.--Section 322 of the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612
note), does not apply to an authorized hazardous fuels
reduction project.

SEC. 106. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

(a) Filing Deadline.--
(1) Time limit established for filing.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, to be timely, an action in a court of the United States
challenging an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project
shall be filed in the court before the end of the 15-day
period beginning on the date on which the Secretary provides
notice of the final agency action regarding the authorized
hazardous fuels reduction project.
(B) Applicability.--The time limitation under subparagraph
(A) supersedes any requirement regarding notice of intent to
file a lawsuit, or filing deadline, otherwise applicable to
an action challenging an authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project under any provision of law.
(2) Waiver prohibited.--The Secretary may not agree to, and
a court of the United States may not grant, a waiver of the
requirements of this subsection.
(b) Duration of Preliminary Injunction.--
(1) Duration; extension.--
(A) Duration.--Any preliminary injunction, or injunction
pending appeal, granted by a court of the United States
regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project
shall be limited to 45 days.
(B) Extension.--A court may renew the preliminary
injunction or injunction pending appeal, taking into
consideration the goal expressed in subsection (c) for the
expeditious resolution of cases regarding authorized
hazardous fuels reduction projects.
(2) Submission of information.--As part of a request to
renew a preliminary injunction, or injunction pending appeal,
granted regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project, the parties involved shall present to the court a
description of any changes that may have occurred during the
period of the injunction to the forest or rangeland
conditions that the authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project is intended to address.
(3) Congressional notification.--In the event of the
renewal of a preliminary injunction, or injunction pending
appeal, regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project, the Secretary shall submit notice of the renewal
to--
(A) the Committee on Resources and the Committee on
Agriculture of the House of Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate.
(c) Expeditious Completion of Judicial Review.--Congress
intends and encourages any court in which is filed an action
challenging an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project
to expedite, to the maximum extent practicable, the

[[Page S13443]]

proceedings in the lawsuit or appeal with the goal of
rendering, not later than 100 days after the date on which
the complaint or appeal is filed--
(1) a final determination on jurisdiction; and
(2) if jurisdiction exists, a final determination on the
merits.

SEC. 107. STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR AGENCY ACTION TO
RESTORE FIRE-ADAPTED FOREST OR RANGELAND
ECOSYSTEMS.

If a civil action brought against the Secretary under
section 703 of title 5, United States Code, involves an
agency action on Federal land on which the Secretary found
that the agency action is necessary to restore a fire-adapted
forest or rangeland ecosystem (including an authorized
hazardous fuels reduction project), the court reviewing the
agency action, in considering a request for a prohibitory or
mandatory injunction against the agency action, shall--
(1) balance the impact to the ecosystem likely affected by
the project of the short- and long-term effects of
undertaking the agency action against the short- and long-
term effects of not undertaking the agency action; and
(2) give weight to a finding by the Secretary in the
administrative record of the agency action concerning the
short- and long-term effects of undertaking the agency action
and of not undertaking the agency action, unless the court
finds that the finding was arbitrary and capricious.

SEC. 108. EFFECT OF TITLE.

(a) Relation to Other Authority.--Nothing in this title
affects, or otherwise biases, the use by the Secretary of
other statutory or administrative authority to conduct a
hazardous fuels reduction project on Federal land (including
Federal land identified in section 102(d)) that is not
conducted using the process authorized by section 104.
(b) Relation to Legal Action.--Nothing in this title
prejudices or otherwise affects the consideration or
disposition of any legal action concerning the Roadless Area
Conservation Rule contained in part 294 of title 36, Code of
Federal Regulations, and amended in the final rule and record
of decision published in the Federal Register on January 12,
2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244).

TITLE II--BIOMASS

SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1)(A) thousands of communities in the United States, many
located near Federal land, are at risk of wildfire;
(B) more than 100,000,000 acres of land managed by the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior
are at risk of catastrophic fire in the near future; and
(C) the accumulation of heavy forest and rangeland fuel
loads continues to increase as a result of fire exclusion,
disease, insect infestations, and drought, further raising
the risk of fire each year;
(2)(A) more than 70,000,000 acres across all land
ownerships are at risk of higher than normal mortality during
the 15-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act because of insect infestation and disease; and
(B) high levels of tree mortality from insects and disease
result in--
(i) increased fire risk;
(ii) loss of older trees and old growth;
(iii) degraded watershed conditions;
(iv) changes in species diversity and productivity;
(v) diminished fish and wildlife habitat;
(vi) decreased timber values; and
(vii) increased threats to homes, businesses, and community
watersheds;
(3)(A) preventive treatments (such as reducing fuel loads,
crown density, ladder fuels, and hazard trees), planting
proper species mix, restoring and protecting early
successional habitat, and completing other specific
restoration treatments designed to reduce the susceptibility
of forest and rangeland to insect outbreaks, disease, and
catastrophic fire present the greatest opportunity for long-
term forest and rangeland health, maintenance, and
enhancement by creating a mosaic of species-mix and age
distribution; and
(B) those vegetation management treatments are widely
acknowledged to be more successful and cost-effective than
suppression treatments in the case of insects, disease, and
fire;
(4)(A) the byproducts of vegetative management treatment
(such as trees, brush, thinnings, chips, slash, and other
hazardous fuels) removed from forest and rangeland represent
an abundant supply of--
(i) biomass for biomass-to-energy facilities; and
(ii) raw material for business; and
(B) there are currently few markets for the extraordinary
volumes of by-products being generated as a result of the
necessary large-scale preventive treatment activities; and
(5) the United States should--
(A) promote economic and entrepreneurial opportunities in
using by-products removed through vegetation treatment
activities relating to hazardous fuels reduction, disease,
and insect infestation;
(B) develop and expand markets for traditionally underused
wood and biomass as an outlet for by-products of preventive
treatment activities; and
(C) promote research and development to provide, for the
by-products, economically and environmentally sound--
(i) management systems;
(ii) harvest and transport systems; and
(iii) utilization options.

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Biomass.--The term ``biomass'' means trees and woody
plants (including limbs, tops, needles, other woody parts,
and wood waste) and byproducts of preventive treatment (such
as wood, brush, thinnings, chips, and slash) that are
removed--
(A) to reduce hazardous fuels;
(B) to reduce the risk of or to contain disease or insect
infestation; or
(C) to improve forest health and wildlife habitat
conditions.
(2) Person.--The term ``person'' includes--
(A) an individual;
(B) a community (as determined by the Secretary);
(C) an Indian tribe;
(D) a small business, microbusiness, or a corporation that
is incorporated in the United States; and
(E) a nonprofit organization.
(3) Preferred community.--The term ``preferred community''
means--
(A) any town, township, municipality, Indian tribe, or
other similar unit of local government (as determined by the
Secretary) that--
(i) has a population of not more than 50,000 individuals;
and
(ii) the Secretary, in the sole discretion of the
Secretary, determines contains or is located near, or with a
water supply system that contains or is located near, land
that--

(I) is at significant risk of catastrophic wildfire,
disease, or insect infestation; or
(II) suffers from disease or insect infestation; or

(B) any area or unincorporated area represented by a
nonprofit organization approved by the Secretary, that--
(i) is not wholly contained within a metropolitan
statistical area; and
(ii) the Secretary, in the sole discretion of the
Secretary, determines contains or is located near, or with a
water supply system that contains or is located near, land--

(I) the condition of which is at significant risk of
catastrophic wildfire, disease, or insect infestation; or
(II) that suffers from disease or insect infestation.

(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National
Forest System land; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to Federal
land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior
(including land held in trust for the benefit of an Indian
tribe).

SEC. 203. GRANTS TO IMPROVE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF FOREST
BIOMASS FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY, USEFUL HEAT,
TRANSPORTATION FUELS, COMPOST, VALUE-ADDED
PRODUCTS, AND PETROLEUM-BASED PRODUCT
SUBSTITUTES.

(a) Biomass Commercial Utilization Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants to any
person that owns or operates a facility that uses biomass as
a raw material to produce electric energy, sensible heat,
transportation fuels, substitutes for petroleum-based
products, wood-based products, pulp, or other commercial
products to offset the costs incurred to purchase biomass for
use by the facility.
(2) Grant amounts.--A grant under this subsection may not
exceed $20 per green ton of biomass delivered.
(3) Monitoring of grant recipient activities.--
(A) In general.--As a condition of a grant under this
subsection, the grant recipient shall keep such records as
the Secretary may require to fully and correctly disclose the
use of the grant funds and all transactions involved in the
purchase of biomass.
(B) Access.--On notice by a representative of the
Secretary, the grant recipient shall afford the
representative--
(i) reasonable access to the facility that purchases or
uses biomass; and
(ii) an opportunity to examine the inventory and records of
the facility.
(b) Value-Added Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary--
(A) may make grants to persons to offset the cost of
projects to add value to biomass; and
(B) in making a grant under subparagraph (A), shall give
preference to persons in preferred communities.
(2) Selection.--The Secretary shall select a grant
recipient under paragraph (1)(A) after giving consideration
to--
(A) the anticipated public benefits of the project;
(B) opportunities for the creation or expansion of small
businesses and microbusinesses resulting from the project;
and
(C) the potential for new job creation as a result of the
project.
(3) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not
exceed $100,000.
(c) Relation to Other Endangered Species and Riparian
Protections.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall comply with applicable
endangered species and riparian protections in making grants
under this section.
(2) Projects.--Projects funded using grant proceeds shall
be required to comply with the protections.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

SEC. 204. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than October 1, 2008, the
Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary
of the Interior, shall submit to the Committee on Resources
and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry of the Senate a report describing the results of the
grant programs authorized by section 203.
(b) Contents of Report.--The report shall include--

[[Page S13444]]

(1) an identification of the source, size, type, and the
end-use of biomass by persons that receive grants under
section 203;
(2) the haul costs incurred and the distance between the
land from which the biomass was removed and the facilities
that used the biomass;
(3) the economic impacts, particularly new job creation,
resulting from the grants to and operation of the eligible
operations; and
(4) the environmental effects of the activities described
in this section.

SEC. 205. IMPROVED BIOMASS USE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

(a) Uses of Grants, Contracts, and Assistance.--Section
307(d) of the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 (7
U.S.C. 7624 note; Public Law 106-224) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) research to integrate silviculture, harvesting,
product development, processing information, and economic
evaluation to provide the science, technology, and tools to
forest managers and community developers for use in
evaluating forest treatment and production alternatives,
including--
``(A) to develop tools that would enable land managers,
locally or in a several-State region, to estimate--
``(i) the cost to deliver varying quantities of wood to a
particular location; and
``(ii) the amount that could be paid for stumpage if
delivered wood was used for a specific mix of products;
``(B) to conduct research focused on developing appropriate
thinning systems and equipment designs that are--
``(i) capable of being used on land without significant
adverse effects on the land;
``(ii) capable of handling large and varied landscapes;
``(iii) adaptable to handling a wide variety of tree sizes;
``(iv) inexpensive; and
``(v) adaptable to various terrains; and
``(C) to develop, test, and employ in the training of
forestry managers and community developers curricula
materials and training programs on matters described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B).''.
(b) Funding.--Section 310(b) of the Biomass Research and
Development Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7624 note; Public Law 106-
224) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$49,000,000'' and inserting
``$54,000,000''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, of which not less than $5,000,000 shall be
used for each fiscal year to carry out section 307(d)(5)''.

SEC. 206. RURAL REVITALIZATION THROUGH FORESTRY.

Section 2371 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6601) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(d) Rural Revitalization Technologies.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting
through the Chief of the Forest Service, in consultation with
the State and Private Forestry Technology Marketing Unit at
the Forest Products Laboratory, and in collaboration with
eligible institutions, may carry out a program--
``(A) to accelerate adoption of technologies using biomass
and small-diameter materials;
``(B) to create community-based enterprises through
marketing activities and demonstration projects; and
``(C) to establish small-scale business enterprises to make
use of biomass and small-diameter materials.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.''.

TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) there has been a dramatic shift in public attitudes and
perceptions about forest management, particularly in the
understanding and practice of sustainable forest management;
(2) it is commonly recognized that the proper stewardship
of forest land is essential to sustaining and restoring the
health of watersheds;
(3) forests can provide essential ecological services in
filtering pollutants, buffering important rivers and
estuaries, and minimizing flooding, which makes forest
restoration worthy of special focus; and
(4) strengthened education, technical assistance, and
financial assistance for nonindustrial private forest
landowners and communities, relating to the protection of
watershed health, is needed to realize the expectations of
the general public.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to improve landowner and public understanding of the
connection between forest management and watershed health;
(2) to encourage landowners to maintain tree cover on
property and to use tree plantings and vegetative treatments
as creative solutions to watershed problems associated with
varying land uses;
(3) to enhance and complement forest management and buffer
use for watersheds, with an emphasis on community watersheds;
(4) to establish new partnerships and collaborative
watershed approaches to forest management, stewardship, and
conservation;
(5) to provide technical and financial assistance to States
to deliver a coordinated program that enhances State forestry
best-management practices programs, and conserves and
improves forested land and potentially forested land, through
technical, financial, and educational assistance to
qualifying individuals and entities; and
(6) to maximize the proper management and conservation of
wetland forests and to assist in the restoration of those
forests.

SEC. 302. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 is amended
by inserting after section 5 (16 U.S.C. 2103a) the following:

``SEC. 6. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

``(a) Definition of Nonindustrial Private Forest Land.--In
this section, the term `nonindustrial private forest land'
means rural land, as determined by the Secretary, that--
``(1) has existing tree cover or that is suitable for
growing trees; and
``(2) is owned by any nonindustrial private individual,
group, association, corporation, or other private legal
entity, that has definitive decisionmaking authority over the
land.
``(b) General Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary, acting
through the Chief of the Forest Service, may provide
technical, financial, and related assistance to State
foresters, equivalent State officials, and officials of the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
for the purpose of expanding State forest stewardship
capacities and activities through State forestry best-
management practices and other means at the State level to
address watershed issues on non-Federal forested land and
potentially forested land.
``(c) Technical Assistance To Protect Water Quality.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with State
foresters, officials of the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service, or equivalent State
officials, shall engage interested members of the public,
including nonprofit organizations and local watershed
councils, to develop a program of technical assistance to
protect water quality described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Purpose of program.--The program under this
subsection shall be designed--
``(A) to build and strengthen watershed partnerships that
focus on forested landscapes at the State, regional, and
local levels;
``(B) to provide State forestry best-management practices
and water quality technical assistance directly to owners of
nonindustrial private forest land;
``(C) to provide technical guidance to land managers and
policymakers for water quality protection through forest
management;
``(D) to complement State and local efforts to protect
water quality and provide enhanced opportunities for
consultation and cooperation among Federal and State agencies
charged with responsibility for water and watershed
management; and
``(E) to provide enhanced forest resource data and support
for improved implementation and monitoring of State forestry
best-management practices.
``(3) Implementation.--The program of technical assistance
shall be implemented by State foresters or equivalent State
officials.
``(d) Watershed Forestry Cost-Share Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a
watershed forestry cost-share program--
``(A) which shall be--
``(i) administered by the Forest Service; and
``(ii) implemented by State foresters or equivalent State
officials; and
``(B) under which funds or other support provided shall be
made available for State forestry best-management practices
programs and watershed forestry projects.
``(2) Watershed forestry projects.--The State forester,
State Research, Education and Extension official, or
equivalent State official of a State, in coordination with
the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee
established under section 19(b) (or an equivalent committee)
for that State, shall make awards to communities, nonprofit
groups, and owners of nonindustrial private forest land under
the program for watershed forestry projects described in
paragraph (3).
``(3) Project elements and objectives.--A watershed
forestry project shall accomplish critical forest
stewardship, watershed protection, and restoration needs
within a State by demonstrating the value of trees and
forests to watershed health and condition through--
``(A) the use of trees as solutions to water quality
problems in urban and rural areas;
``(B) community-based planning, involvement, and action
through State, local and nonprofit partnerships;
``(C) application of and dissemination of monitoring
information on forestry best-management practices relating to
watershed forestry;
``(D) watershed-scale forest management activities and
conservation planning; and
``(E)(i) the restoration of wetland (as defined by the
States) and stream-side forests; and
``(ii) the establishment of riparian vegetative buffers.
``(4) Cost-sharing.--
``(A) Federal share.--
``(i) Funds under this subsection.--Funds provided under
this subsection for a watershed forestry project may not
exceed 75 percent of the cost of the project.
``(ii) Other federal funds.--The percentage of the cost of
a project described in clause (i) that is not covered by
funds made available under this subsection may be paid using
other Federal funding sources, except that the total Federal
share of the costs of the project may not exceed 90 percent.
``(B) Form.--The non-Federal share of the costs of a
project may be provided in the form of cash, services, or
other in-kind contributions.
``(5) Prioritization.--The State Forest Stewardship
Coordinating Committee for a State, or

[[Page S13445]]

equivalent State committee, shall prioritize watersheds in
that State to target watershed forestry projects funded under
this subsection.
``(6) Watershed forester.--Financial and technical
assistance shall be made available to the State Forester or
equivalent State official to create a State watershed or
best-management practice forester position to--
``(A) lead statewide programs; and
``(B) coordinate watershed-level projects.
``(e) Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--Of the funds made available for a fiscal
year under subsection (g), the Secretary shall use--
``(A) at least 75 percent of the funds to carry out the
cost-share program under subsection (d); and
``(B) the remainder of the funds to deliver technical
assistance, education, and planning, at the local level,
through the State Forester or equivalent State official.
``(2) Special considerations.--Distribution of funds by the
Secretary among States under paragraph (1) shall be made only
after giving appropriate consideration to--
``(A) the acres of agricultural land, nonindustrial private
forest land, and highly erodible land in each State;
``(B) the miles of riparian buffer needed;
``(C) the miles of impaired stream segments and other
impaired water bodies where forestry practices can be used to
restore or protect water resources;
``(D) the number of owners of nonindustrial private forest
land in each State; and
``(E) water quality cost savings that can be achieved
through forest watershed management.
``(f) Willing Owners.--
``(1) In general.--Participation of an owner of
nonindustrial private forest land in the watershed forestry
assistance program under this section is voluntary.
``(2) Written consent.--The watershed forestry assistance
program shall not be carried out on nonindustrial private
forest land without the written consent of the owner of, or
entity having definitive decisionmaking over, the
nonindustrial private forest land.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.''.

SEC. 303. TRIBAL WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to
in this section as the ``Secretary''), acting through the
Chief of the Forest Service, shall provide technical,
financial, and related assistance to Indian tribes for the
purpose of expanding tribal stewardship capacities and
activities through tribal forestry best-management practices
and other means at the tribal level to address watershed
issues on land under the jurisdiction of or administered by
the Indian tribes.
(b) Technical Assistance To Protect Water Quality.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with Indian
tribes, shall develop a program to provide technical
assistance to protect water quality, as described in
paragraph (2).
(2) Purpose of program.--The program under this subsection
shall be designed--
(A) to build and strengthen watershed partnerships that
focus on forested landscapes at the State, regional, tribal,
and local levels;
(B) to provide tribal forestry best-management practices
and water quality technical assistance directly to Indian
tribes;
(C) to provide technical guidance to tribal land managers
and policy makers for water quality protection through forest
management;
(D) to complement tribal efforts to protect water quality
and provide enhanced opportunities for consultation and
cooperation among Federal agencies and tribal entities
charged with responsibility for water and watershed
management; and
(E) to provide enhanced forest resource data and support
for improved implementation and monitoring of tribal forestry
best-management practices.
(c) Watershed Forestry Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a watershed
forestry program to be administered by Indian tribes.
(2) Programs and projects.--Funds or other support provided
under the program shall be made available for tribal forestry
best-management practices programs and watershed forestry
projects.
(3) Annual awards.--The Secretary shall annually make
awards to Indian tribes to carry out this subsection.
(4) Project elements and objectives.--A watershed forestry
project shall accomplish critical forest stewardship,
watershed protection, and restoration needs within land under
the jurisdiction of or administered by an Indian tribe by
demonstrating the value of trees and forests to watershed
health and condition through--
(A) the use of trees as solutions to water quality
problems;
(B) application of and dissemination of monitoring
information on forestry best-management practices relating to
watershed forestry;
(C) watershed-scale forest management activities and
conservation planning;
(D) the restoration of wetland and stream-side forests and
the establishment of riparian vegetative buffers; and
(E) tribal-based planning, involvement, and action through
State, tribal, local, and nonprofit partnerships.
(5) Prioritization.--An Indian tribe that participates in
the program under this subsection shall prioritize watersheds
in land under the jurisdiction of or administered by the
Indian tribe to target watershed forestry projects funded
under this subsection.
(6) Watershed forester.--The Secretary may provide to
Indian tribes under this section financial and technical
assistance to establish a position of tribal forester to lead
tribal programs and coordinate small watershed-level
projects.
(d) Distribution.--The Secretary shall devote--
(1) at least 75 percent of the funds made available for a
fiscal year under subsection (e) to the program under
subsection (c); and
(2) the remainder of the funds to deliver technical
assistance, education, and planning on the ground to Indian
tribes.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000 for
each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS AND RELATED DISEASES

SEC. 401. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) high levels of tree mortality resulting from insect
infestation (including the interaction between insects and
diseases) may result in--
(A) increased fire risk;
(B) loss of old trees and old growth;
(C) loss of threatened and endangered species;
(D) loss of species diversity;
(E) degraded watershed conditions;
(F) increased potential for damage from other agents of
disturbance, including exotic, invasive species; and
(G) decreased timber values;
(2)(A) forest-damaging insects destroy hundreds of
thousands of acres of trees each year;
(B) in the West, more than 21,000,000 acres are at high
risk of forest-damaging insect infestation, and in the South,
more than 57,000,000 acres are at risk across all land
ownerships; and
(C) severe drought conditions in many areas of the South
and West will increase the risk of forest-damaging insect
infestations;
(3) the hemlock woolly adelgid is--
(A) destroying streamside forests throughout the mid-
Atlantic and Appalachian regions;
(B) threatening water quality and sensitive aquatic
species; and
(C) posing a potential threat to valuable commercial timber
land in northern New England;
(4)(A) the emerald ash borer is a nonnative, invasive pest
that has quickly become a major threat to hardwood forests
because an emerald ash borer infestation is almost always
fatal to affected trees; and
(B) the emerald ash borer pest threatens to destroy more
than 692,000,000 ash trees in forests in Michigan and Ohio
alone, and between 5 and 10 percent of urban street trees in
the Upper Midwest;
(5)(A) epidemic populations of Southern pine beetles are
ravaging forests in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Virginia; and
(B) in 2001, Florida and Kentucky experienced 146 percent
and 111 percent increases, respectively, in Southern pine
beetle populations;
(6) those epidemic outbreaks of Southern pine beetles have
forced private landowners to harvest dead and dying trees, in
rural areas and increasingly urbanized settings;
(7) according to the Forest Service, recent outbreaks of
the red oak borer in Arkansas and Missouri have been
unprecedented, with more than 1,000,000 acres infested at
population levels never seen before;
(8) much of the damage from the red oak borer has taken
place in national forests, and the Federal response has been
inadequate to protect forest ecosystems and other ecological
and economic resources;
(9)(A) previous silvicultural assessments, while useful and
informative, have been limited in scale and scope of
application; and
(B) there have not been sufficient resources available to
adequately test a full array of individual and combined
applied silvicultural assessments;
(10) only through the full funding, development, and
assessment of potential applied silvicultural assessments
over specific time frames across an array of environmental
and climatic conditions can the most innovative and cost
effective management applications be determined that will
help reduce the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to attack
by forest pests;
(11)(A) often, there are significant interactions between
insects and diseases;
(B) many diseases (such as white pine blister rust, beech
bark disease, and many other diseases) can weaken trees and
forest stands and predispose trees and forest stands to
insect attack; and
(C) certain diseases are spread using insects as vectors
(including Dutch elm disease and pine pitch canker); and
(12) funding and implementation of an initiative to combat
forest pest infestations and associated diseases should not
come at the expense of supporting other programs and
initiatives of the Secretary.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to require the Secretary to develop an accelerated
basic and applied assessment program to combat infestations
by forest-damaging insects and associated diseases;
(2) to enlist the assistance of colleges and universities
(including forestry schools, land grant colleges and
universities, and 1890 Institutions), State agencies, and
private landowners to carry out the program; and
(3) to carry out applied silvicultural assessments.

SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Applied silvicultural assessment.--
(A) In general.--The term ``applied silvicultural
assessment'' means any vegetative or other treatment carried
out for a purpose described in section 403.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``applied silvicultural
assessment'' includes (but is not limited to)

[[Page S13446]]

timber harvesting, thinning, prescribed burning, pruning, and
any combination of those activities.
(2) 1890 institution.--
(A) In general.--The term ``1890 Institution'' means a
college or university that is eligible to receive funds under
the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.).
(B) Inclusion.--The term ``1890 Institution'' includes
Tuskegee University.
(3) Forest-damaging insect.--The term ``forest-damaging
insect'' means--
(A) a Southern pine beetle;
(B) a mountain pine beetle;
(C) a spruce bark beetle;
(D) a gypsy moth;
(E) a hemlock woolly adelgid;
(F) an emerald ash borer;
(G) a red oak borer;
(H) a white oak borer; and
(I) such other insects as may be identified by the
Secretary.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest
Service, with respect to National Forest System land; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
appropriate offices of the United States Geological Survey,
with respect to federally owned land administered by the
Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 403. ACCELERATED INFORMATION GATHERING REGARDING FOREST-
DAMAGING INSECTS.

(a) Information Gathering.--The Secretary, acting through
the Forest Service and United States Geological Survey, as
appropriate, shall establish an accelerated program--
(1) to plan, conduct, and promote comprehensive and
systematic information gathering on forest-damaging insects
and associated diseases, including an evaluation of--
(A) infestation, prevention, and suppression methods;
(B) effects of infestations and associated disease
interactions on forest ecosystems;
(C) restoration of forest ecosystem efforts;
(D) utilization options regarding infested trees; and
(E) models to predict the occurrence, distribution, and
impact of outbreaks of forest-damaging insects and associated
diseases;
(2) to assist land managers in the development of
treatments and strategies to improve forest health and reduce
the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to severe
infestations of forest-damaging insects and associated
diseases on Federal land and State and private land; and
(3) to disseminate the results of the information
gathering, treatments, and strategies.
(b) Cooperation and Assistance.--The Secretary shall--
(1) establish and carry out the program in cooperation
with--
(A) scientists from colleges and universities (including
forestry schools, land grant colleges and universities, and
1890 Institutions);
(B) Federal, State, and local agencies; and
(C) private and industrial landowners; and
(2) designate such colleges and universities to assist in
carrying out the program.

SEC. 404. APPLIED SILVICULTURAL ASSESSMENTS.

(a) Assessment Efforts.--For information gathering and
research purposes, the Secretary may conduct applied
silvicultural assessments on Federal land that the Secretary
determines is at risk of infestation by, or is infested with,
forest-damaging insects.
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Exclusion of certain areas.--Subsection (a) does not
apply to--
(A) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System;
(B) any Federal land on which, by Act of Congress or
Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is
restricted or prohibited;
(C) a congressionally-designated wilderness study area; or
(D) an area in which activities under subsection (a) would
be inconsistent with the applicable land and resource
management plan.
(2) Certain treatment prohibited.--Nothing in subsection
(a) authorizes the application of insecticides in municipal
watersheds or associated riparian areas.
(3) Peer review.--
(A) In general.--Before being carried out, each applied
silvicultural assessment under this title shall be peer
reviewed by scientific experts selected by the Secretary,
which shall include non-Federal experts.
(B) Existing peer review processes.--The Secretary may use
existing peer review processes to the extent the processes
comply with subparagraph (A).
(c) Public Notice and Comment.--
(1) Public notice.--The Secretary shall provide notice of
each applied silvicultural assessment proposed to be carried
out under this section.
(2) Public comment.--The Secretary shall provide an
opportunity for public comment before carrying out an applied
silviculture assessment under this section.
(d) Categorical Exclusion.--
(1) In general.--Applied silvicultural assessment and
research treatments carried out under this section on not
more than 1,000 acres for an assessment or treatment may be
categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental
impact statement and environmental assessment under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
(2) Administration.--Applied silvicultural assessments and
research treatments categorically excluded under paragraph
(1)--
(A) shall not be carried out in an area that is adjacent to
another area that is categorically excluded under paragraph
(1) that is being treated with similar methods; and
(B) shall be subject to the extraordinary circumstances
procedures established by the Secretary pursuant to section
1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) Maximum categorical exclusion.--The total number of
acres categorically excluded under paragraph (1) shall not
exceed 250,000 acres.
(4) No additional findings required.--In accordance with
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not be required to make
any findings as to whether an applied silvicultural
assessment project, either individually or cumulatively, has
a significant effect on the environment.

SEC. 405. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

The authority provided to each Secretary under this title
is supplemental to, and not in lieu of, any authority
provided to the Secretaries under any other law.

SEC. 406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title for each of fiscal years
2004 through 2008.

TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish the healthy forests reserve program for the purpose
of restoring and enhancing forest ecosystems--
(1) to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered
species;
(2) to improve biodiversity; and
(3) to enhance carbon sequestration.
(b) Coordination.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall carry
out the healthy forests reserve program in coordination with
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce.

SEC. 502. ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT OF LANDS IN PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Commerce, shall describe and define forest
ecosystems that are eligible for enrollment in the healthy
forests reserve program.
(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible for enrollment in the
healthy forests reserve program, land shall be--
(1) private land the enrollment of which will restore,
enhance, or otherwise measurably increase the likelihood of
recovery of a species listed as endangered or threatened
under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1533); and
(2) private land the enrollment of which will restore,
enhance, or otherwise measurably improve the well-being of
species that--
(A) are not listed as endangered or threatened under
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1533); but
(B) are candidates for such listing, State-listed species,
or special concern species.
(c) Other Considerations.--In enrolling land that satisfies
the criteria under subsection (b), the Secretary of
Agriculture shall give additional consideration to land the
enrollment of which will--
(1) improve biological diversity; and
(2) increase carbon sequestration.
(d) Enrollment by Willing Owners.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall enroll land in the healthy forests reserve
program only with the consent of the owner of the land.
(e) Maximum Enrollment.--The total number of acres enrolled
in the healthy forests reserve program shall not exceed
2,000,000 acres.
(f) Methods of Enrollment.--
(1) In general.--Land may be enrolled in the healthy
forests reserve program in accordance with--
(A) a 10-year cost-share agreement;
(B) a 30-year agreement; or
(C) a long-term easement with a buyback option.
(2) Proportion.--The extent to which each enrollment method
is used shall be based on the approximate proportion of owner
interest expressed in that method in comparison to the other
methods.
(g) Enrollment Priority.--
(1) Species.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall give
priority to the enrollment of land that provides the greatest
conservation benefit to--
(A) primarily, species listed as endangered or threatened
under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1533); and
(B) secondarily, species that--
(i) are not listed as endangered or threatened under
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1533); but
(ii) are candidates for such listing, State-listed species,
or special concern species.
(2) Cost-effectiveness.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
also consider the cost-effectiveness of each agreement and
easement, and their associated restoration plans, so as to
maximize the environmental benefits per dollar expended.

SEC. 503. RESTORATION PLANS.

(a) In General.--Land enrolled in the healthy forests
reserve program shall be subject to a restoration plan, to be
developed jointly by the landowner and the Secretary of
Agriculture.
(b) Practices.--The restoration plan shall require such
restoration practices as are necessary to restore and enhance
habitat for--
(1) species listed as endangered or threatened under
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1533); and
(2) animal or plant species before the species reach
threatened or endangered status, such as candidate, State-
listed species, and special concern species.

SEC. 504. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) Long-Term Easement With Buyback Option.--
(1) Payment amount.--In the case of land enrolled in the
healthy forests reserve program

[[Page S13447]]

using a long-term easement (with a minimum length of 99
years) with a buyback option, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall pay the owner of the land an amount equal to not less
than 75 percent, nor more than 100 percent, of (as determined
by the Secretary)--
(A) the fair market value of the enrolled land during the
period the land is subject to the easement, less the fair
market value of the land encumbered by the easement; and
(B) the actual costs of the approved conservation practices
or the average cost of approved practices carried out on the
land during the period the land is subject to the easement.
(2) Buy-back option.--In the case of land enrolled in the
healthy forests reserve program using a long-term easement
with a buyback option, beginning on the date that is 50 years
after the date of enrollment of the land, and every 10 years
thereafter, the owner of the land shall be permitted to
purchase the easement back from the United States for an
amount equal to not more than (as determined by the
Secretary)--
(A) the percentage of the fair market value the owner
received for the easement under paragraph (1); and
(B) the costs, adjusted by the Secretary to reflect changes
in the Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers, as
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the approved
conservation practices necessary for establishment of the
easement.
(3) Funds.--All funds returned to the United States under
this subsection shall be used to carry out the healthy
forests reserve program.
(b) 30-Year Agreement.-- In the case of land enrolled in
the healthy forests reserve program using a 30-year
agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the owner
of the land an amount equal to not more than (as determined
by the Secretary)--
(1) 75 percent of the fair market value of the land, less
the fair market value of the land encumbered by the
agreement; and
(2) 75 percent of the actual costs of the approved
conservation practices or 75 percent of the average cost of
approved practices.
(c) 10-Year Agreement.--In the case of land enrolled in the
healthy forests reserve program using a 10-year cost-share
agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the owner
of the land an amount equal to not more than (as determined
by the Secretary)--
(1) 50 percent of the actual costs of the approved
conservation practices; or
(2) 50 percent of the average cost of approved practices.
(d) Acceptance of Contributions.--The Secretary of
Agriculture may accept and use contributions of non-Federal
funds to make payments under this section.

SEC. 505. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide
landowners with technical assistance to assist the owners in
complying with the terms of plans (as included in agreements
and easements) under the healthy forests reserve program.
(b) Technical Service Providers.--The Secretary of
Agriculture may request the services of, and enter into
cooperative agreements with, individuals or entities
certified as technical service providers under section 1242
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3842), to assist
the Secretary in providing technical assistance necessary to
develop and implement the healthy forests reserve program.

SEC. 506. PROTECTIONS AND MEASURES

(a) Protections.--In the case of a landowner that enrolls
land in the program and whose conservation activities result
in a net conservation benefit for listed, candidate, or other
species, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make available to
the landowner safe harbor or similar assurances and
protection under--
(1) section 7(b)(4) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4)); or
(2) section 10(a)(1) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)).
(b) Measures.--If protection under subsection (a) requires
the taking of measures that are in addition to the measures
covered by the applicable restoration plan agreed to under
section 503, the cost of the additional measures, as well as
the cost of any permit, shall be considered part of the
restoration plan for purposes of financial assistance under
section 504.

SEC. 507. INVOLVEMENT BY OTHER AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS.

In carrying out this title, the Secretary of Agriculture
may consult with--
(1) nonindustrial private forest landowners;
(2) other Federal agencies;
(3) State fish and wildlife agencies;
(4) State forestry agencies;
(5) State environmental quality agencies;
(6) other State conservation agencies; and
(7) nonprofit conservation organizations.

SEC. 508. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title--
(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2005 through 2008.

TITLE VI--PUBLIC LAND CORPS

SEC. 601. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this title are--
(1) to carry out, in a cost-effective and efficient manner,
rehabilitation, enhancement, and beautification projects;
(2) to offer young people, ages 16 through 25, particularly
those who are at-risk or economically disadvantaged, the
opportunity to gain productive employment and exposure to the
world of work;
(3) to give those young people the opportunity to serve
their communities and their country; and
(4) to expand educational opportunities by rewarding
individuals who participate in the Public Land Corps with an
increased ability to pursue higher education or job training.

SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Alaska native corporation.--The term ``Alaska Native
Corporation'' means a Regional Corporation or Village
Corporation, as defined in section 101(11) of the National
and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12511(11)).
(2) Corps.--The term ``Corps'' means the Public Land Corps
established under section 603(a).
(3) Hawaiian home lands.--The term ``Hawaiian home lands''
means that term, within the meaning of the National and
Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.).
(4) Indian lands.--The term ``Indian lands'' has the
meaning given the term in section 101 of the National and
Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12511).
(5) Secretaries.--The term ``Secretaries'' means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior.
(6) Service and conservation corps.--The term ``service and
conservation corps'' means any organization established by a
State or local government, nonprofit organization, or Indian
tribe that--
(A) has a demonstrable capability to provide productive
work to individuals;
(B) gives participants a combination of work experience,
basic and life skills, education, training, and support
services; and
(C) provides participants with the opportunity to develop
citizenship values through service to their communities and
the United States.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) a State;
(B) the District of Columbia;
(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
(D) Guam;
(E) American Samoa;
(F) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
(G) the Federated States of Micronesia;
(H) the Republic of the Marshall Islands;
(I) the Republic of Palau; and
(J) the United States Virgin Islands.

SEC. 603. PUBLIC LAND CORPS.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a Public Land
Corps.
(b) Participants.--The Corps shall consist of individuals
who are enrolled as members of a service or conservation
corps.
(c) Contracts or Agreements.--The Secretaries may enter
into contracts or cooperative agreements--
(1) directly with any service and conservation corps to
perform appropriate rehabilitation, enhancement, or
beautification projects; or
(2) with a department of natural resources, agriculture, or
forestry (or an equivalent department) of any State that has
entered into a contract or cooperative agreement with a
service and conservation corps to perform appropriate
rehabilitation, enhancement, or beautification projects.
(d) Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretaries may use the members of a
service and conservation corps to perform rehabilitation,
enhancement, or beautification projects authorized by law.
(2) Included land.--In addition to Federal and State lands,
the projects may be carried out on--
(A) Indian lands, with the approval of the applicable
Indian tribe;
(B) Hawaiian home lands, with the approval of the relevant
State agency in the State of Hawaii; and
(C) Alaska native lands, with the approval of the
applicable Alaska Native Corporation.
(e) Preference.--In carrying out this title, the
Secretaries shall give preference to projects that will--
(1) provide long-term benefits by reducing hazardous fuels
on Federal land;
(2) instill in members of the service and conservation
corps--
(A) a work ethic;
(B) a sense of personal responsibility; and
(C) a sense of public service;
(3) be labor intensive; and
(4) be planned and initiated promptly.
(f) Supportive Services.--The Secretaries may provide such
services as the Secretaries consider necessary to carry out
this title.
(g) Technical Assistance.--To carry out this title, the
Secretaries shall provide technical assistance, oversight,
monitoring, and evaluation to--
(1) State Departments of Natural Resources and Agriculture
(or equivalent agencies); and
(2) members of service and conservation corps.

SEC. 604. NONDISPLACEMENT.

The nondisplacement requirements of section 177(b) of the
National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12637(b)) shall apply to activities carried out by the Corps
under this title.

SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

TITLE VII--RURAL COMMUNITY FORESTRY ENTERPRISE PROGRAM

SEC. 701. PURPOSE

The purpose of this title is to assist in the economic
revitalization of rural forest resource-dependent communities
through incentives to promote investment in private
enterprise and community development by--
(1) the Department of Agriculture;
(2) the Department of the Interior;
(3) the Department of Commerce;
(4) the Small Business Administration;
(5) land grant colleges and universities; and
(6) 1890 Institutions.

SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

[[Page S13448]]

(1) 1890 institution.--The term ``1890 Institution'' has
the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7
U.S.C. 7601).
(2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
(A) a unit of State or local government;
(B) an Indian tribe;
(C) a nonprofit organization;
(D) a small forest products business;
(E) a rural forest resource-dependent community;
(F) a land grant college or university; or
(G) an 1890 institution.
(3) Eligible project.--The term ``eligible project'' means
a project described in section 703 that will promote the
economic development in rural forest resource-dependent
communities based on--
(A) responsible forest stewardship;
(B) the production of sustainable forest products; or
(C) the development of forest related tourism and
recreation activities.
(4) Forest products.--The term ``forest products'' means--
(A) logs;
(B) lumber;
(C) chips;
(D) small-diameter finished wood products;
(E) energy biomass;
(F) mulch; and
(G) any other material derived from forest vegetation or
individual trees or shrubs.
(5) Nonprofit organization.--The term ``nonprofit
organization'' means an organization that is--
(A) described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986; and
(B) exempt from taxation under 501(a) of that Code.
(6) Program.--The term ``program'' means the rural
community forestry enterprise program established under
section 703.
(7) Small forest products business.--The term ``small
forest products business'' means a small business concern (as
defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632)) that is classified under subsector 113 or code number
115310 of the North American Industrial Classification
System.
(8) Rural forest resource-dependent community.--
(A) In general.--The term ``rural forest resource-dependent
community'' means a community located in a rural area of the
United States that is traditionally dependent on forestry
products as a primary source of community infrastructure.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``rural forest resource-dependent
community'' includes a community described in subparagraph
(A) located in--
(i) the northern forest land of Maine;
(ii) New Hampshire;
(iii) New York;
(iv) Vermont;
(v) the Upper Peninsula of Michigan;
(vi) northern California;
(vii) eastern Oregon;
(viii) the Bitterrroot Valley of Montana;
(ix) the northern panhandle of Idaho; and
(x) other areas, as determined by the Secretary.
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest
Service.

SEC. 703. RURAL COMMUNITY FORESTRY ENTERPRISE PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish within
the Forest Service a program to be known as the ``Rural
Community Forestry Enterprise Program''.
(2) Coordination.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary shall coordinate with--
(A) the Small Business Administration;
(B) the Economic Development Administration;
(C) land grant colleges and universities;
(D) 1890 institutions; and
(E) other agencies of the Department of Agriculture that
administer rural development programs.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program are--
(1) to enhance technical and business management skills
training;
(2) to organize cooperatives and marketing programs;
(3) to establish and maintain timber worker skill pools;
(4) to establish and maintain forest product distribution
networks and collection centers;
(5) to facilitate technology transfer for processing small
diameter trees and brush into useful products;
(6) to develop, where support exists, a program to promote
science-based technology implementation and technology
transfer that expands the capacity for small forest product
businesses to work within market areas;
(7) to promote forest-related tourism and recreational
activities;
(8) to enhance the rural forest business infrastructure
needed to reduce hazardous fuels on public and private land;
and
(9) to carry out related programs and activities, as
determined by the Secretary.
(c) Forest Enterprise Centers.--The Secretary shall
establish at least 1 Forest Enterprise Center at each
Research Station of the Forest Service, to be located at a
forest science laboratory--
(1) to carry out eligible projects; and
(2) to coordinate assistance provided to small forest
products businesses with--
(A) the Small Business Administration, including the timber
set-aside program carried out by the Small Business
Administration;
(B) the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing Service,
and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service of the Department
of Agriculture; and
(C) the Economic Development Administration, including the
local technical assistance program of the Economic
Development Administration.
(d) Forest Enterprise Technical Assistance and Grant
Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Forest
Enterprise Centers established under subsection (c), shall
establish a program to provide technical assistance and
grants to eligible entities to carry out eligible projects.
(2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall work with each Forest
Enterprise Center to develop appropriate program review and
prioritization criteria for each Research Station.
(3) Matching funds.--Grants under this section shall--
(A) not exceed 50 percent of the cost of an eligible
project; and
(B) be made on the condition that non-Federal sources pay
for the remainder of the cost of an eligible project
(including payment through in-kind contributions of services
or materials).
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $15,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 801. FOREST INVENTORY AND MANAGEMENT.

Section 17 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101 note; Public Law 95313) is amended to
read as follows:

``SEC. 17. FOREST INVENTORY AND MANAGEMENT.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program
using geospatial and information management technologies
(including remote sensing imaging and decision support
systems) to inventory, monitor, characterize, assess, and
identify forest stands and potential forest stands (with
emphasis on hardwood forest stands) on--
``(1) in units of the National Forest System; and
``(2) on private forest land, with the consent of the owner
of the land.
``(b) Means.--The Secretary shall carry out the program
through the use of--
``(1) remote sensing technology of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration and the United States Geological
Survey;
``(2) emerging geospatial capabilities in research
activities;
``(3) validating techniques using application
demonstrations; and
``(4) integration of results into pilot operational
systems.
``(c) Issues To Be Addressed.--In carrying out the program,
the Secretary shall address issues including--
``(1) early detection, identification, and assessment of
environmental threats (including insect, disease, invasive
species, fire, acid deposition, and weather-related risks and
other episodic events);
``(2) loss or degradation of forests;
``(3) degradation of the quality forest stands caused by
inadequate forest regeneration practices;
``(4) quantification of carbon uptake rates; and
``(5) management practices that focus on preventing further
forest degradation.
``(d) Early Warning System.--In carrying out the program,
the Secretary shall develop a comprehensive early warning
system for potential catastrophic environmental threats to
forests to increase the likelihood that forest managers will
be able to--
``(1) isolate and treat a threat before the threat gets out
of control; and
``(2) prevent epidemics, such as the American chestnut
blight in the first half of the twentieth century, that could
be environmentally and economically devastating to forests.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.''.

SEC. 802. PROGRAM FOR EMERGENCY TREATMENT AND REDUCTION OF
NONNATIVE INVASIVE PLANTS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Interface community.--The term ``interface community''
has the meaning given the term in the notice published at 66
Fed. Reg. 751 (January 4, 2001) (including any subsequent
revision to the notice).
(2) Intermix community.--The term ``intermix community''
has the meaning given the term in the notice published at 66
Fed. Reg. 751 (January 4, 2001) (including any subsequent
revision to the notice).
(3) Plant.--The term ``plant'' includes--
(A) a tree;
(B) a shrub; and
(C) a vine.
(4) Program.--The term ``program'' means the program for
emergency treatment and reduction of nonnative invasive
plants established under subsection (b)(1).
(5) Secretaries.--The term ``Secretaries'' means the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior,
acting jointly.
(b) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretaries shall establish a program
for emergency treatment and reduction of nonnative invasive
plants to provide to State and local governments and
agencies, conservation districts, tribal governments, and
willing private landowners grants for use in carrying out
hazardous fuel reduction projects to address threats of
catastrophic fires that have been determined by the
Secretaries to pose a serious threat to--
(A) property;
(B) human life; or
(C) the ecological stability of an area.

[[Page S13449]]

(2) Coordination.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretaries shall coordinate with such Federal agencies,
State and local governments and agencies, and conservation
districts as are affected by projects under the program.
(c) Eligible Land.--A project under the program shall--
(1) be carried out only on land that is located--
(A) in an interface community or intermix community; or
(B) in such proximity to an interface community or intermix
community as would pose a significant risk in the event of
the spread of a fire disturbance event from the land
(including a risk that would threaten human life or property
in proximity to or within the interface community or intermix
community), as determined by the Secretaries;
(2) remove fuel loads determined by the Secretaries, a
State or local government, a tribal government, or a private
landowner to pose a serious threat to--
(A) property;
(B) human life; or
(C) the ecological stability of an area; and
(3) involve the removal of nonnative invasive plants.
(d) Use of Funds.--Funds made available for a project under
the program shall be used only for--
(1) the removal of plants or other potential fuels that
are--
(A) adjacent to or within the wildland urban interface; or
(B) adjacent to a municipal watershed, river, or water
course;
(2) the removal of erosion structures that impede the
removal of nonnative plants; or
(3) the replanting of native vegetation to reduce the
reestablishment of nonnative invasive plants in a treatment
area.
(e) Revolving Fund.--
(1) In general.--In the case of a grant provided to a
willing owner to carry out a project on non-Federal land
under this section, the owner shall deposit into a revolving
fund established by the Secretaries any proceeds derived from
the sale of timber or biomass removed from the non-Federal
land under the project.
(2) Use.--The Secretaries shall use amounts in the
revolving fund to make additional grants under this section.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section, to remain available until expended.

SEC. 803. USDA NATIONAL AGROFORESTRY CENTER.

(a) In General.--Section 1243 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1642 note;
Public Law 101-624) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 1243. USDA NATIONAL AGROFORESTRY CENTER.'';

and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``Semiarid'' and inserting ``USDA
National''; and
(B) by striking ``Semiarid'' and inserting ``USDA
National''.
(b) Program.--Section 1243(b) of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1642 note;
Public Law 101-624) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``local governments, community
organizations, the Institute of Tropical Forestry and the
Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry of the Forest
Service,'' after ``entities,'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``on semiarid lands'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``from semiarid land'';
(4) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) collect information on the design, installation, and
function of forested riparian and upland buffers to--
``(A) protect water quality; and
``(B) manage water flow;'';
(5) in paragraphs (6) and (7), by striking ``on semiarid
lands'' each place it appears;
(6) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
``(8) provide international leadership in the worldwide
development and exchange of agroforestry practices;'';
(7) in paragraph (9), by striking ``on semiarid lands'';
(8) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(9) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(10) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) quantify the carbon storage potential of
agroforestry practices such as--
``(A) windbreaks;
``(B) forested riparian buffers;
``(C) silvopasture timber and grazing systems; and
``(D) alley cropping; and
``(13) modify and adapt riparian forest buffer technology
used on agricultural land for use by communities to manage
stormwater runoff.''.

SEC. 804. UPLAND HARDWOODS RESEARCH CENTER.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish an Upland Hardwood Research Center.
(b) Location.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall locate
the Research Center in an area that, as determined by the
Secretary of Agriculture, would best use and study the upland
hardwood resources of the Ozark Mountains and the South.
(c) Duties.--The Upland Hardwood Research Center shall, in
conjunction with the Southern Forest Research Station of the
Department of Agriculture--
(1) provide the scientific basis for sustainable management
of southern upland hardwood forests, particularly in the
Ozark Mountains and associated mountain and upland forests;
and
(2) conduct research in all areas to emphasize practical
application toward the use and preservation of upland
hardwood forests, particularly--
(A) the effects of pests and pathogens on upland hardwoods;
(B) hardwood stand regeneration and reproductive biology;
(C) upland hardwood stand management and forest health;
(D) threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic and
terrestrial fauna;
(E) ecological processes and hardwood ecosystem
restoration; and
(F) education and outreach to nonindustrial private forest
landowners and associations.
(d) Research.--In carrying out the duties under subsection
(c), the Upland Hardwood Research Center shall--
(1) cooperate with the Center for Bottomland Hardwood
Research of the Southern Forest Research Station of the
Department of Agriculture, located in Stoneville,
Mississippi; and
(2) provide comprehensive research in the Mid-South region
of the United States, the Upland Forests Ecosystems Unit of
the Southern Forest Research Station of the Department of
Agriculture, located in Monticello, Arkansas.
(e) Participation of Private Landowners.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall encourage and facilitate the participation
of private landowners in the program under this section.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000 for
each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

SEC. 805. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ENHANCED COMMUNITY FIRE
PROTECTION.

It is the sense of Congress to reaffirm the importance of
enhanced community fire protection program, as described in
section 10A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
1978 (16 U.S.C. 2106c) (as added by section 8003(b) of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-171; 116 Stat. 473)).
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to improve the
capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of
the Interior to conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on
National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management
lands aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, and
certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to
enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to
forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire,
across the landscape, and for other purposes.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on July 24, the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry reported to the Senate H.R. 1904, the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act. This bill, which is now before the Senate,
reflects a comprehensive effort to improve forest health on both public
and private lands. The bill provides Federal land managers the tools to
implement scientifically supported management practices on Federal
forests, in consultation with local communities, while establishing new
conservation programs to improve water quality and regenerate declining
forest ecosystem types on private lands.
The legislation will reduce the amount of time and expense required
to conduct hazardous fuels projects, but it also will require rigorous
environmental analysis of those projects.
Over the past few years, we have seen many communities destroyed and
many firefighters' lives lost due to forest fires that could have been
prevented. We are all deeply saddened by the tragic events occurring
now in California. At least 17 people, we are told, have lost their
lives; 1,600 homes have been destroyed, and 520,000 acres have burned.
The fires continue to wreak havoc in that State. Thousands of
Californians have had to leave their homes, and more communities are
being evacuated at this very moment.
On Monday, President Bush declared the region a disaster area. The
cost resulting from these fires is estimated in the billions of
dollars. The tools and resources this legislation provides land
managers will assist in preventing the devastation resulting from
forest fires.
In the past, the U.S. Forest Service has been forced to spend great
amounts of time and resources battling lawsuits instead of managing the
forests. The result has been months and even years of delays in fuel
reduction projects. Our forests have continued to suffer, and they have
continued to burn.
I have filed, along with 13 cosponsors, an amendment to title I of
the bill which contains several modifications to the bill the committee
reported.
I offer that amendment to the bill.

Amendment No. 1828

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S13450]]

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself,
Mr. Crapo, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Craig, Mr. Wyden,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. McCain, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Murkowski, Mr.
Thomas, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Johnson, proposes an
amendment numbered 1828.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment embodies recommendations
made by a bipartisan group of Senators who are committed getting this
legislation passed and signed by the President. The amendment
establishes a predecisional administrative review process. It allows an
additional analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. It
directs the Secretary of Agriculture to give priority to communities
and watersheds and hazardous fuel reduction projects. It contains new
language protecting old-growth stands, and it encourages the courts to
expedite the judicial review process.
The underlying legislation also contains a biomass title authorizing
grant programs to encourage utilization of forest waste material.
Another title provides financial and technical assistance to private
forest land owners to encourage better management techniques to protect
water quality. The pest and remote sensing titles would authorize
funding for the U.S. Forest Service, land grant institutions, and 1890
institutions to plan, conduct, and promote the gathering of information
about insects that have caused severe damage to forest ecosystems.
Title V, the Healthy Forest Reserve Program, is a private forest land
conservation initiative that would support the restoration of declining
forest ecosystem types that are critical to the recovery of threatened,
endangered, and other sensitive species.
Two additional titles were added to the House-passed bill by our
committee. One would establish a public land corps to provide
opportunities to young people for employment and, at the same time,
provide a cost-effective and efficient means to implement
rehabilitation and enhancement projects in local communities. The other
new title will promote investment in forest resource-dependent
communities.
This legislation provides new legal authority to help us manage the
Nation's forests in a safe and effective manner. The bill will help us
do a better job of safeguarding these priceless national resources.
I urge the Senate to support the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Daschle.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues
in supporting the bipartisan forest health legislation. Catastrophic
wildfires raging in California today underscore the urgent need for
action. We must reduce the risk that other communities and other States
will face with regard to the devastation that Californians are
experiencing today.
In South Dakota we also know from experience how destructive forest
fires can be. In the Black Hills, we have experienced five major fires
in the last 3 years. We are committed to finding a solution that will
enable the Forest Service to reduce the threat of wildfire effectively
and efficiently and that can become law. We must do more to expedite
hazardous fuels reduction activities, and I believe this compromise
will help the Forest Service to do so.
This past August I toured the Black Hills with Dale Bosworth, chief
of the U.S. Forest Service. It is clear that the Forest Service needs
additional tools to address the increasing fire risk to South Dakota
and other State communities. Today more than 460,000 acres of the Black
Hills National Forest are in moderate to high fire risk. If we do
nothing, the Forest Service warns the number of acres at risk in the
Black Hills will grow dramatically to more than 550,000 acres. That is
unacceptable.
During our visit, Chief Bosworth asked that any reforms we undertake
allow Forest Service personnel to spend less time in the office
planning and more time in the forest actually clearing high fuel load.
This bipartisan compromise meets that standard, and it helps in other
ways as well.
First, this legislation clarifies how much detail is needed for
environmental analysis of fuel reduction projects.
Instead of analyzing anywhere from 5 to 10 alternatives--as is
current practice--this bill specifies that the Forest Service must
consider only three alternatives: The preferred alternative, a ``no-
action'' alternative, and an ``additional-action alternative.''
The Forest Service currently spends over 50 percent of its time and
money planning a given project. This will help reduce the costs of the
environmental analysis and allow the Forest Service to treat more acres
each year.
Second, this legislation streamlines the appeals process within the
Forest Service by mirroring what is already done at the Bureau of Land
Management.
In talking with Forest Service personnel in the Black Hills, one of
the figures that struck me most is that 100 percent of proposed
projects are appealed.
This legislation will help streamline the appeals process while still
protecting the public's right to be heard before final decisions are
made.
A third strength of this legislation--the pending amendment--is that
it encourages speedy disposition of any projects that are challenged in
court, without giving undue deference to any party.
The bottom line is that this bipartisan compromise will enable the
Forest Service to spend more time conducting on-the-ground fuels-
reduction projects, which is the key to reducing the risk of fire risk
in America's forests and the communities that surround them.
While this compromise is not exactly the plan I would have crafted, I
believe we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this
situation.
I am committed to working with all of my colleagues to pass a forest
health bill this year. I believe this bipartisan compromise can be
enacted into law and I am hopeful that the administration will be
helpful in convincing the House to join us in making that happen.
As we see today in California, the risks of delay are simply too
high.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. I commend
the managers and the bipartisan group who worked on this bill. It is
vitally needed, and I rise in strong support of it.
Mr. President, this long overdue piece of legislation will finally
bring some common sense to forest management in our Nation.
Currently, conditions in our Nation's forests are terrible. The poor
state of our forests is due in large part to a lack of active forest
management efforts to reduce undergrowth and remove dead and dying
trees to restore forest health. According to the Society of American
Foresters, ``As a result of 80 years of fuels accumulation and several
years of drought, the potential for catastrophic wildfire is at an all
time high in many regions of the United States.''
An estimated 190 million acres of Federal forests and rangelands in
the United States, an area twice the size of California, face a high
risk of catastrophic wildfire. Decades of an accumulation of dense
undergrowth and brush, along with drought, insect infestation and
disease, and the presence of invasive exotic species have made our
forests vulnerable to these environmentally destructive wildfires.
According to Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Venman, last year was the
second worst fire season in modern history with over 7.2 million acres
burned--an area larger than Maryland and Rhode Island combined. The
States of Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon registered their largest and
most destructive wildfires ever. It was also the most expensive fire
season ever costing Federal taxpayers $1.6 billion. When the season
ended, 23 firefighters were dead, tens of thousands of people fled
their homes and more than 2,000 buildings were destroyed. This
devastation was only eclipsed by the 2000 fire season where more than 8
million acres of forests burned at a Federal cost of $1.4 billion.
This year, as of the first week in October, we have had a total of
67,500 fires

[[Page S13451]]

that have burned over 3.2 million acres at a cost of over $550 million.
Worse than that, over 20 wildland firefighters have lost their lives
this year.
The time for addressing the problem of our unhealthy forests is long
overdue. Current efforts to reduce excessive fuel loads, underbrush,
and dead and dying trees are taking for too long due to senseless
bureaucratic delay. According to the U.S. Forest Service, it can take
up to 8 years to plan and execute relatively routine fuels reduction
projects--8 years. Does anyone here believe that this is responsible
forest management?
In May of this year, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) released
the results of a survey that confirms that the large numbers of appeals
filed by environmental interest groups are delaying efforts to restore
the health of our Nation's forests through the thinning of overgrown
and diseased areas. These delays increase the threat of severe forest
fires which threaten human life, old growth trees, habitat for
endangered species and private property. These endless and meritless
appeals result in nothing but inaction and increased bureaucratic
costs.

If we do not address this problem now, we risk losing many of
America's most pristine forests to wildfire devastation. Congress needs
to pass legislation to streamline and expedite these forest thinning
and fuels reduction efforts.
I believe the H.R. 1904 will accomplish this goal. The Senate
compromise to H.R. 1904 is designed to cut through unnecessary red tape
and speed up the review and approval process for forest health
restoration projects, while at the same time preserving the appropriate
environmental review process.
Specifically this bill establishes procedures to expedite forest and
rangeland restoration projects focusing on lands near communities in
the wildland urban interface; that are in condition class 3 (high fire
risk) areas located in proximity to a municipal watershed or water
supply system; that provide important habitat for endangered species
where the risk of catastrophic wildfire threatens these species; and
where insect infestation, disease and old age are destroying forests
and increasing the chance of wildfire.
The Senate compromise also contains language for the protection of
old growth or large trees in the implementation of hazardous fuels
reduction projects. This legislation requires authorized hazardous
fuels reduction projects to be consistent with the applicable forest
and resource management plans, along with other administrative policies
or decisions applicable to Federal land. The amount of acreage eligible
for authorized fuels reduction projects under this legislation is
limited to 20 million acres.
In addition to allowing for an environmental assessment and expedited
administrative appeals, this legislation does allow for judicial
review. As a part of this review, this bill requires lawsuits to be
filed in the district court where the project is located. It limits
temporary injunctions to 60-days, subject to renewal. Finally, this
legislation directs the courts to balance the short- and long-term
environmental effects of undertaking a project versus those of not
undertaking a project.
The problem of excessive forest fuels build is not just a Western
problem. It is a National problem. The expedited reduction of forest
fuels and the thinning of underbrush would greatly improve the health
of Missouri's forests. There has been a significant increase in the
buildup of these fuels in National and State Forest land in the State
of Missouri as a result of recent tornadoes, several years of drought,
oak decline and oak mortality.
Oak mortality is the most pressing problem in Missouri's forests. As
of January 2003, oak mortality due to drought, insects, and fungi have
affected 41 percent of the Mark Twain National Forest's 1.5 million
acres, and caused an estimated loss of more than 30 million dollars'
worth of red oak timber. Dead limbs and debris in this area also reduce
food for wildlife, and contribute to fuels buildups, which increases
the dangers of wildfires. In turn, these wildfires endanger wildlife
habitat areas, healthy watersheds and neighboring private lands.

Missouri also has huge volume of dying forest land throughout
southern Missouri as a result of infestation by an insect known as the
red oak stem bore.
According to Dr. Gene Garrett of the University of Missouri School of
Natural Resources, who has studied and taught forestry for over 33
years, ``Roughly 33 percent of the 23 million acres of the interior
highlands in the scenic Missouri Ozarks are infested by this red oak
stem bore. Dr. Garrett goes on to say that ``this insect and
associative disease complex is by far the greatest threat to the oak
component of the interior highlands.'' This has resulted in over $1.1
billion worth of timber at risk and an increased threat of wildfire in
this area.
H.R. 1904 will address most of the forest health issues in Missouri
and prioritize them for expedited cleanup. Section 102(a)(4) of this
health forest legislation will specifically address this problem of red
oak stem bore and oak decline.
The first of Missouri's two fire seasons is now underway. The most
recent high wildfire season in Missouri occurred in 2000 when over
8,700 acres of wooded lands burned--more than 3,000 acres over the 10-
year average. By expediting the cleanup or thinning of our forests,
Missouri and the rest of the Nation can expect to see the risk of these
catastrophic wildfires reduced.
In closing, I believe that H.R. 1904 represents a commonsense
approach to forest management based on sound science. I have talked
with forest scientists all over the country, including several from my
own State, and they believe that this legislation takes the right
approach to restoring the health of our Nation's forests. These are
actual forest scientists who know what they are talking about--not big
city newspaper editorial writers.
If we do not act on this problem right now, vast acres of old growth
trees and wildlife habitat will remain at a high risk of catastrophic
wildfire. Once these areas are destroyed by fire, there will be very
little, if anything, that we can do to restore them to health.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1904, the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003. It is time to put some common sense
back into forest management.
It is long past time that we get this done. I really thank the
bipartisan group that came together for this extremely important and
most needed forest health measure. Again, I urge my colleagues to
support it and move it expeditiously.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, forestry can often make Middle East
politics seem noncontroversial. I think it is fair to say that today it
would be hard to find a topic that is more emotionally flammable than
the one that has come to the Senate today.
I begin by saying that right now, my home State--and I see my good
friend, Senator Smith, on the Senate floor as well--is sending
resources to California to help deal with the horrendous fires. But I
think it ought to be noted, as we begin this discussion, that just over
a year ago the State of California was sending resources to my home
State--the State that Senator Smith and I are proud to represent. Just
over a year ago, we were on the Senate floor speaking about the huge
forest fires that raged in our State. At that time, over 500,000 acres
were burning. We had a dozen fires raging at any given time. Seventeen
thousand people in one of our valleys alone were on a 24-hour
evacuation notice, and 2,500 structures were threatened.
So I think we ought to note, as we begin this discussion, that the
legislation before us today is critical, not because of last year's
tragedies, or even the tragedies that we are seeing in California
today; this legislation is critical to address the tragedies and
destruction that, as sure as the night follows the day, will be in the
news tomorrow if the Senate doesn't start taking reasonable steps to
address forest health policy. It seems to me that is the approach
before the Senate today.
Mr. President, this is the bill that is going to go to the President
of the United States. For many months now, a group of us--and Chairman
Cochran has referenced this--have been involved in the negotiations.
They are difficult negotiations because passions do run so strong on
this issue. But I want to make it clear, for myself and the others who
have signed the letter,

[[Page S13452]]

that we cannot accept an unraveling of this compromise; that this is
the bill that is going to go to the President's desk, and we are very
hopeful the President will sign that legislation into law.
It is absolutely critical that the Senate come together on a
reasonable plan that is going to help our forests become healthy again
and secure the well-being of the families who call these beautiful
areas their home.
I believe this bill provides an opportunity to remove fire-prone
materials from the forests, boost rural economies, and create family-
wage jobs, while at the same time protecting the extraordinary
treasures--the land and the environment of the West and our Nation--for
future generations.
Let me outline for a few minutes why I think this is the approach
that needs to be signed into law. First, this is the only bill--unlike
the one in the other body--that authorizes a significant increase in
funding for the hazardous fuels reduction projects that need to be
undertaken. The other body doesn't authorize a single dollar--not one--
for the projects that need to be pursued. As a result, there is
tremendous concern across the country that if you were to go the route
of the other body, the only people that would really be able to afford
to get into the thinning work would be commercial logging
companies. That would be a huge mistake. Under the bipartisan
compromise that has been crafted, that is not going to happen.

Second, the other body doesn't make an effort to target the dollars
in a flexible way so that the work gets done in the communities that
most need it in our Nation. The Senate compromise goes to bat for our
rural communities by directing that 50 percent of the funding be spent
inside the wildland/urban interface where populations are great, but at
the same time we can deal with these infernos, these enormous fires
that so often start way out in the country and then come into the more
urbanized areas.
The other body is silent on this issue. The Senate, after many hours
of negotiation--my friend from Idaho and I have literally been talking
about this issue for almost 5 years now--strikes a reasonable balance
with respect to targeting money for the wildland/urban interface while
recognizing that so many of these huge fires start in sparsely
populated areas out in the country.
Third, this bill is the only one that makes a historic step forward
to protect our old growth, our treasures of the West about which our
citizens feel so strongly. The other body has no language at all to
protect old growth or the large trees and doesn't limit how projects
can be executed.
What the Senate has said is, yes, there are more than 100 definitions
of what constitutes ``old growth.'' We recognize that, but throughout
the bill we reference the priority to focus on the trees that are not
old growth--the smaller trees, the brush--that contribute to this
problem. And then, to ensure that there is actually an incentive to
protect our old growth, we offer what I think is a creative approach,
the kind of approach Senator Craig and I offered when we broke the
gridlock on the county payments bill years ago so our communities could
get revenue for schools and roads. Here, to make sure that the old
growth work is a top priority, that protecting old growth is not an
afterthought, we say that with respect to the old forest plans, the
Forest Service would have to go back and revise the old forest plans to
make sure there is actual old growth protection that is going to go
forward before the thinning gets put in place.
We have an actual incentive, beyond the statutory language, which is
a historic first and would protect old growth. We have a policy that
would actually create incentives to prioritize old growth protection
because it has to be done first under the old forest plans for thinning
work to go forward.
Next, the bipartisan compromise effort keeps the current standard for
judicial review of projects and ensures that what we have as a result
of the changes in the judicial area, in the appeals area, sends a
message across this country that citizens have a right of access with
respect to their concerns about timber sales, but they don't have a
constitutional right to a 5-year delay on every single timber sale.
The bipartisan group spent a great deal of time on this effort. In my
view, the legislation that comes out of the other body would actually
change the outcomes of these lawsuits that would rob the judiciary of
the independent ability to weigh the evidence put before them. In the
bipartisan compromise that was crafted, we strike a reasonable balance.
Citizens are going to have a right that is undiluted with respect to
access to the judicial system, but we will not set up a litigation
derby that goes on for years and years and keeps the essential work
from going forward.

Next, the Senate legislation ensures that the public will always be
in the debate, will always be in the process and at the table. The
Senate compromise allows the public to actually propose alternatives
under the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill in the other body
basically drives the public out of the process by predetermining these
National Environmental Policy Act alternatives.
The Senate compromise preserves all current opportunities for public
input and appeal while streamlining the process and eliminating some of
the most frustrating and exasperating aspects of bureaucracy. But it is
clear, and I want to make this point early in the debate, that not one
current opportunity--not one--for public comment would be lost under
this compromise.
The compromise requires the Forest Service to rewrite their appeals
process using a process that has been used by the Bureau of Land
Management since 1984, and the sponsors of this compromise believe this
will change a process that is now confrontational to one that is vastly
more collaborative.
Finally, much of the argument made against this compromise is very
similar to the arguments that were made in 1999 when I and Senator
Craig and others got together and put before the Senate the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. They said that was
going to restrict the opportunities for citizens to be heard. There
were some, when I offered that legislation, who said I was proposing a
clear cut for kids program, and we had pickets before our office for
over a year. We have some of that same sort of activity going on right
now.
That did not happen in 1999 when the Senate moved forward with its
first substantive forestry bill in more than a decade, and it is not
going to happen again under this legislation if this bill actually
becomes law.
I say to my colleagues that this legislation is needed. Some have
asked, Why can't the issue of healthy forests simply be addressed by
investing in the fire plan? They have said the national Governors made
some recommendations, so why don't we just go ahead with those
recommendations?
Their suggestions were very useful, but the Governors even
acknowledge that simply spending more money, the heart of their
proposal, was not the entire answer. How that money is spent is as
important as simply offering more dollars.
I have made it clear that I think additional funds are critically
important. That is why the Senate bill authorizes an 80-percent
increase in funding for these thinning projects, but we also need to
make some changes in terms of the endless paperwork and redtape to
actually get the real work on the ground that is so important in
communities across the West.
A number of Senators have said this is as far as they can go in terms
of forestry policy. I know colleagues in the Senate and certainly in
the other body feel strongly about it. But I reemphasize, as the
Senator who organized that letter, that if there is an effort to
unravel the compromise that will be voted on in the Senate, that will,
in my view, kill the effort to pass this critically important
legislation. It was an urgent priority before the tragic events in
California. I think it is urgent not just because the Senate needs to
respond in a heartfelt way to the tragedies in California, but if this
legislation is not passed, I think we will see what happened in Oregon
a little over a year ago and what has happened in California in the
last week repeated again and again. I am not willing to see these
communities and the people who live in them turned into residents of
sacrifice zones. It is urgent this legislation be passed.
I close by expressing my thanks to those who have been part of this
5-year

[[Page S13453]]

odyssey and, first, to Senator Craig. I served as chairman of the
subcommittee when he was a ranking minority member. It is vice versa
now. Suffice it to say there are a lot of people in the country who
would say: What in the world can Larry Craig and Ron Wyden find common
ground on? And we have said again and again in this area that if people
are willing to look at what is practical, what is a priority in terms
of the thinning work that needs to be done and in protecting our old
growth treasures, we can do it. That was accomplished in the county
payments bill.
It can be accomplished now. Before I wrap up my remarks, I will read
into the Record part of a statement today that the administration has
issued. It states that the administration strongly supports Senate
passage of H.R. 1904, the bipartisan managers' amendment; it opposes
any further amendment to assure quick resolution with the House.
I ask unanimous consent that statement be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Statement of Administration Policy

The Administration commends the Senate Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry Committee for reporting H.R. 1904,
which would provide authorities and authorizations for
appropriations that in large part are consistent with the
President's Healthy Forests Initiative. The Administration
strongly supports Senate passage of H.R. 1904 and the
bipartisan manager's amendment (SA 1828), but opposes any
further amendment, to assure quick resolution with the House.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act will provide the
Administration with the needed flexibility to manage public
lands wisely, and implement the kind of active forest
management that is good for both the environment and our
economy. This bill would further equip Federal land managers
with the additional tools they need to restore forest health,
safeguard habitat and watersheds, combat disease and insects,
and protect lives and communities. The Administration is
concerned that the authorization level in the Senate bill is
well above recently enacted funding levels and above the
increased funding levels the Administration requested and
continues to support for FY 2004.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes procedures
to expeditiously implement hazardous fuels reduction projects
on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands: (1)
near communities in the wildland urban interface; (2) on high
risk lands in the proximity of municipal water sources; (3)
on high risk lands that encompass habitat for threatened and
endangered species where federal wildlife officials have
identified catastrophic wildfire as a threat to the viability
of the species; and (4) on high risk landscapes particularly
susceptible to disease or insect infestation. Additionally,
the bill would: (1) facilitate the utilization of wood,
brush, residue, and other biomass removed in conjunction with
forest health projects in the production of biomass energy;
(2) authorize federal programs to support community-based
watershed forestry partnerships that address critical forest
stewardship, watershed protection, and restoration needs at
the state and local level (3) direct additional research
focused on the early detection and containment of insect and
disease infestations; and (4) establish a voluntary private
forestland easement program focused on recovering forest
ecosystem types in decline.

Mr. WYDEN. I am pleased to see what is the first formal statement of
the administration saying that the Senate bill is the way to go. It is
an acknowledgment of the fact that a number of us said we cannot have
this compromise unravel, and it is a constructive statement from the
administration today. I commend them for it.
In addition to Senator Craig, who has worked with me on this for
literally 5 years, Senator Smith and I cannot go anywhere in our home
State without people asking, when is the Senate going to respond to
this? I thank him for his efforts, as well as those of Senator Crapo,
who is in the Chamber. I see Senator Bingaman, who has been so helpful
to me as I have had to wrestle with these issues that come up in my
home State day after day.
We have not agreed on every single bit of this debate for 5 years,
but Senator Bingaman has performed an extraordinarily important
service. He has some ideas on a matter that has been documented in our
hearings with respect to how these funds get moved around, almost
manipulated, from one account to another when there is underfunding of
the thinning work that needs to be done. I thank him for all of his
help over the last 5 years. We have spent many hours on this.
With the statement that I have just put into the Record that the
administration wants this legislation and is opposed to efforts to
alter it, I think we are in a position to show the country the Senate
can find common ground on an issue that is about as contentious as any
imaginable. I look forward to seeing the amendments of our colleagues
and getting this critically important legislation passed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, it is an honor for me to participate in
this debate, not only because of the importance of this legislation,
which I will talk about in a minute, but because of the process which
has brought us here and what the public is now observing.
As for the last little while, they have observed leaders on both
sides of the aisle talk in support of a highly contentious issue that
we have been trying to bring to resolution in this country for years.
Today, we have before the Senate a bipartisan solution, one that is the
result of literally years of effort by a number of Senators who I will
mention, and the result of a collaborative effort to bring together the
Senators from various perspectives and negotiate an outcome that would
have the common ground to build positive solutions for the future and
much more benefit to all sides than the conflict which has been so much
a part of this issue over the last few years.
I hope as this debate proceeds that the public will notice what is
happening in the Senate today, as we see strong leadership from both
sides of the aisle stepping forward, reaching a compromise that
probably none of us would have crafted ourselves but which moves the
issue much more further forward than anything we have seen in the past.
I will speak for a minute about how this came about. We have already
heard several comments today about those who have worked on this from
the past. It just so happens that Idaho--Senator Craig was on the floor
and will be back in a moment--has two Senators who happen, just by
circumstance, to be the chairmen of the two forestry committees in the
Senate. Senator Craig chairs the forestry subcommittee of the Energy
Committee. Senator Wyden from Oregon, who just spoke, is his ranking
member. I chair the forestry subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee.
My ranking member is Blanche Lambert Lincoln, who is a cosponsor of the
base legislation, which was initially put forward in the Agriculture
Committee and which became the vehicle around which these negotiations
centered.
Senator Craig, Senator Wyden, Senator Smith from Oregon, myself,
Blanche Lambert Lincoln, Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Energy
Committee, Senator Cochran, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee,
both of the Senators from Arizona, Mr. Kyl and Mr. McCain, along with
Senator Feinstein from California, Senator Baucus from Montana, and
other Senators came together and said: We must find a way to get past
the intense battles that always bring this legislation down and find a
way to build a path forward, one that protects the environment,
protects the natural resource-based economy, protects our urban and
rural communities, and protects the world from the environmental
impacts of the devastation of these forest fires. It is that which we
have before us today.
I thank my chairman, Senator Cochran in particular, for the strong
leadership he has provided; and Senator Domenici and Senator Craig from
the Energy Committee who have provided such strong and consistent
leadership on this issue.
Why is it that I say this is such an important and critical issue to
America? Everybody in America who is looking at the news right now is
watching what is happening in California. In California, fires are
raging. The death toll is mounting. The devastation to the environment
is obvious. What is happening there now is an example of what has been
happening across America for years, as we have fallen into an inability
to implement forest management decisions in America on our public
lands. I do not have the exact statistic in front of me, but I believe
the 10-year average is that we have seen something in the neighborhood
of 4

[[Page S13454]]

million acres of forest ground burn a year. For the last 4 years the
numbers were approximately 3.3 million acres this year, 7 million acres
last year, 3.3 or 3.7 million acres the year before, and then another
7-plus million acres the year before that.

These acres burn in devastating ways, destroying wildlife and
habitat, destroying our forests, and causing other significant damage
to rural and urban communities, to natural resource-based economies in
States such as Idaho, where we rely on a timber economy.
Another aspect that is not often noticed is it is delivering to the
atmosphere immense amounts of carbon dioxide. In fact, I am looking for
some of the statistics on this, but the amount of gas that is put into
the atmosphere, in terms of the kinds of debates we are having over
greenhouse gases and global warming, is phenomenal. To give one
example, the Hayman fire in Colorado recently was analyzed and it was
determined that in 1 day of that fire's burning, it put enough
CO<inf>2</inf> in the atmosphere to equal the amount of CO2 that all of
the cars in the United States put into the atmosphere on that day.
If we multiply that times the number of fires we have been having
over the years, the load of CO<inf>2</inf> or greenhouse gases into the
environment that is caused by the forest fires becomes a monumentally
large issue in relationship to our efforts to control global warming.
Forest fires go from the broad issues of global warming to the narrow
issues of a small community such as the community in Idaho that I
recently visited, Elk City, which I at that time said was ground zero
for this debate, a little community that is literally at the end of the
road, in the middle of a tremendously beautiful forest in which the
fuel load has been building year after year and now has a higher fuel
load by several factors than the fuel load in Yellowstone when the
Yellowstone fire started a few years ago.
This community has only one road in and one road out. They have been
crying for support from the Federal system, to have some kind of
protection of their community in terms of just what the threat is to
loss of life, let alone the threat of the loss to their economy that
would be caused by a forest fire. This little city, Elk City, ID, is as
much involved and interested in this issue as are those who are
battling over global warming issues. It is for that reason this
legislation is so critical to our Nation.
I want to go over a little bit about the compromise, because the
compromise we have reached today is a very broad-based critical
compromise. It brings together a number of important pieces of the
debate that have been counterpoints in conflict in the past and have
now come together as part of a commonsense solution.
First, resources are provided in this bill for forest management at a
significant level and in a significant way. One of the things we know
is that prevention is critical. Madam President, $760 million in annual
funding for fuels reduction on Federal lands has been provided in this
legislation and that can be used also in related grants for State and
private forestry programs. Fifty percent of these resources are
required to be used in the wildland/urban interface, one of the
critical areas we are now watching as the fires burn in California.
This critical wildland/urban interface is defined by local
communities. We implement and follow the recommendations of the Western
Governors Association as they talk about the collaborative process that
needs to be put into place so citizen involvement can be enhanced in
defining and implementing the protection plans for protecting our
forests and the related communities, both rural and urban.
Second, this legislation for the first time in legislation proposes
specific protection for old growth in the forests. Where there are old-
growth stands in the forest, this legislation provides those who are
implementing fuel reduction programs must protect those old-growth
stands to the maximum extent they can. Conversely, it also provides
that hazardous fuel reduction projects are intended to focus on small-
diameter trees, thinning, and strategic fuel breaks, and should retain
the large trees as appropriate for resilient stands. The point is the
focus on small-diameter timber in these fuel reduction programs is
going to provide opportunities for some of the communities that have
been hit so hard by the reduction of logging and timber activities to
find alternative sources for their economy to grow.
In Cascade, ID, we have a company that is trying to get started now,
which is providing unique new ways of utilizing small-diameter timber
to help in restoring and protecting our environment after fires have
gone through, using the very small-diameter timber we are talking about
in these forest fire prevention plans.
I should make clear, the focus on small-diameter timber is not to
turn our back on the need to reform and solve the problems with regard
to timber activity and logging activity. We can and should have a
strong, healthy, natural-resource-based environment as well as strong,
healthy forests. We can achieve those objectives. This bill is going to
help us implement a number of the important provisions that will
achieve those objectives.
Next, as the Senator from Oregon has already indicated, it protects
public involvement. One of the things it does is it limits the number
of alternatives the Forest Service must consider. Our minority leader,
Senator Daschle, already indicated the expense and the time delay that
is caused by the drive, under our current system, to force endless
analysis but delaying getting to the implementation part of forest
management decisions. This bill requires that in addition to the
proposed fuel reduction program that is adopted by the Forest Service,
the Forest Service must also consider the ``no action'' alternative,
and at least one other alternative, if it becomes appropriate under the
collaborative process that is moving forward, allowing for citizens to
propose alternatives and have the Forest Service consider those
alternatives as the process moves forward, but providing some relief so
the Forest Service can get on with the decisionmaking.

In addition, what I have called litigation paralysis is addressed.
One of the problems we face in forest management decisions today,
possibly the biggest one, is that under our current system, no matter
how much evaluation and study is put in, no matter how many
alternatives are considered, at the end of the day the proposal that is
adopted is litigated and we end up in paralysis through continuous
litigation that simply stops the process from moving forward.
Let me give an example. A couple of years ago I went to a forest in
Idaho. I was taken there by the Forest Service employees who had
proposed a thinning project to address an insect infestation problem.
They explained to me why this forest, both in terms of forest fire and
in terms of its health and safety against insect infestation, needed to
have this thinning project proceed.
I was impressed with what they taught me. I went away thinking this
forest is going to have some improvement. I went back to the same
forest several years later. No thinning activity had taken place. I was
there with the same people. I asked them what had happened. They
advised me they had their decision challenged in court and, although
they had ultimately prevailed in the litigation, it was now 2 years
later and it was too late. The insect infestation had gone too far;
there was no point in doing the thinning project. The forest for that
purpose had been lost. It is now a fire hazard, not to mention the fact
the health of the forest itself has been sacrificed.
The Forest Service won the litigation, but the delay of the
litigation stopped the ability to implement the management decision.
That is just one example of the kind of thing we are talking about.
By the way, in that case I said, What was the issue? They explained
to me the issue that was litigated.
I said, Why didn't you just concede that. It was not that big of an
issue.
They said, The way we won the litigation is to basically concede that
point and then ask permission from the court to go on because it really
wasn't central to our efforts.
The response they gave me was: This issue was never raised as we were
putting together the alternatives, going through the NEPA project. We
didn't know we were going to get challenged on this or we could have
accommodated it as we were moving along.

[[Page S13455]]

My point is that an entity, a group that wanted to stop this thinning
project, sat back and let the entire process proceed without ever
raising their concerns in the citizen involvement process. They waited
until that entire process had come to a conclusion and then filed a
lawsuit. The first time the Forest Service found out about this issue
was then.

These kinds of issues are addressed in this bill. For example, we are
requiring the Forest Service to develop a new appeals process that is
similar to the predecisional appeals process the Department of Interior
now uses. This is important, because it gives those who are concerned
about good decisionmaking at the Forest Service, and who are already
involved in the public process, the ability to challenge that through
an appeal before the final decision is made, a predecisional appeal
process. Then if they still do not like the outcome, nothing stops them
from filing a lawsuit at the end of the process. We are expanding and
enhancing the ability of involvement here by the public.
However, we are saying to individuals and groups who want to
challenge these decisions you must get involved at the beginning. Those
who want to challenge these decisions must show they have been involved
in the process and participated in the public involvement process from
the beginning. They also must show they have exhausted their
administrative efforts, their administrative remedies. If they have a
remedy with the Forest Service, they should go to the Forest Service
through its appeals process, and exhaust that process first before
simply filing a lawsuit and moving the whole process into litigation
paralysis. With the enhanced citizen involvement we have provided, once
a decision gets made, if there are those who are still unhappy, they
have a right to file a lawsuit under this legislation.
What the courts must do at that point is expeditiously move the
litigation. In the legislation the courts are encouraged to expedite
these cases.
Second, this legislation limits the injunction that the court can
issue to 60 days and allows continuous unlimited 60-day renewals but
requires those who would come into court to simply stop anything from
happening to show the court at 60-day intervals updated information
that the grounds for stopping the action still exist and they haven't
been resolved in some way.
Finally, it requires the court to balance the harms of what would
happen if we don't do the thinning project or the proposed fuel
reduction project, future harms that could come as a result of that
against the current harm of what the injunction is proposed to stop. It
simply requires a court to balance those harms as they evaluate whether
to issue an injunction.
There are those who say the injunction should be issued no matter
what because once a tree is thinned or cut it can never be put back.
The response to that is, as true as that is, if you look to the future
and to the future harms, once the insects take the forest, you can't
bring it back easily, and those trees are dead, too. Once the forest
burns, you can't then rebuild a healthy forest that you would have been
able to do had you implemented these decisions.
All we are saying in this legislation is that the court must balance
the harms from inaction against the harms of the proposed action in
terms of issuing the injunction.
These are important factors that will help us break the litigation
paralysis but still provide significant public input and significant
public support and the rights of the public to challenge the decisions
made by the Forest Service.
There are a number of other important parts of this legislation.
There are critics of this legislation, and I assume that at some point
throughout the debate today and tomorrow--as long as it goes--there
will be an opportunity and a need to respond to some of the charges
about this legislation. I will not go into all of that now.
I will simply conclude by saying again what we have before us today
is a bill that is probably different than any one of the Senators who
came together from both sides of the aisle would have drafted if they
had drafted it on their own. But it represents a bill that goes to
every issue that has been the cause for stalling which has stopped us
from being able to get the legislation through, and it has resulted in
compromising to move us forward in every one of those areas. We provide
the resources. We provide protection for old growth. We provide
protection for public and citizen involvement. We assure that the
process for litigation is streamlined but is still meaningful. And,
most importantly, we make it so that once our forest managers--those
who have studied, the scientists who know what our forests need--have
come up with a plan and have made it through the public process and
through litigation they will actually have a real meaningful
opportunity to implement forest management decisions.
This legislation is critical for Americans. It is unfortunate that we
have to be debating it while we are watching California burn. But
nevertheless the pressure from the forest fires over the last few years
has shown us across America that it is time for us to come together as
we have on this legislation and take this important step to protect our
forests, to protect our natural resource base economy, to protect our
communities, and to protect the world.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the
H.R. 1904 title I compromise reached by many of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle. I commend them for their work. The issue we take up
today is vital. It is important to our ecology and it is important to
our economy.
When I first entered public life as an Oregon State Senator in 1992,
the Pacific Northwest was embroiled in the spotted-owl wars. There was
a great debate--and there has been ever since--about what to do with
our public resources and how they ought best be managed.
In the course of this debate, I have through my public office tried
to weigh in on the side of those who elected me to public trust. I come
from a part of my State that is rural. I have as my neighbors farmers
and foresters. I have seen in their eyes the desperation that comes
from watching the slow undoing of their industry and in recent times
the destruction of even their homes. I watch with great sadness as we
view many of our fellow citizens from California view the ashes of
their lives as a result of catastrophic fires that surround their
communities and burn up their homes. Their cries are heart wrenching. I
expect because they are heard so clearly in this body that we are now
taking up this legislation that has long been overdue for our country's
sake. But long before I heard the cries of Californians, I heard the
cries of Oregonians.
In the State of Oregon, from the spotted-owl wars we have laid off
tens of thousands of workers. We have watched their lives be undone in
rural communities. We have closed our mills, and we have since watched
our forests burn. Now my State leads this country in both hunger and in
unemployment, and it has much to do with the forest policy of this
country.
Timber is a renewable resource. It is the one natural resource that
grows back constantly. It is safe to say--indeed even provable to say--
that in the State of Oregon today there is more timber growing than
when Lewis and Clark went there 200 years ago. That is because for a
century while we have harvested trees, we have replanted what has been
harvested. But if you listen to the great newspapers of this country,
the New York Times and the Washington Post, and you actually believe
what they purport to represent about my State, you would come away with
the impression that we are about to cut down the last pine tree in the
Pacific Northwest. But, again, the truth is much different.
What we see in California--and so often in the Pacific Northwest,
Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington--is that these fires, which are
a normal occurrence in forests, are now on a scale that is truly
haunting. We are leaving millions of acres no longer as old-growth
forest but as literally moonscapes.
What I want my colleagues to understand as we go into this debate is
that many of the forests which environmental groups have pled that we
protect are in large part gone or in serious jeopardy. They are not
gone because of logging. They are not gone because of

[[Page S13456]]

road building. They are not gone because of development. They are gone
because of bureaucracy, bugs, and burning. Now we find that so many of
our forests have carbon dioxide in the air and charcoal match sticks on
the ground.
Here is a visual which shows a fire this summer around the Bend, OR,
area. This is a fire the previous summer, the Biscuit Fire in the
Siskiyou National Forest.
What we are finding in places such as this fire is trees aren't
growing back; rather, brush is growing back so that, particularly, new
trees can't grow. Yet we are not allowed to go in there and manage the
soil. It is growing so thick that it may be a long time before trees
ever begin to manifest themselves. The Biscuit fire was the largest in
Oregon recorded history. It is also a monument to the mistaken notion
that wrapping redtape around our forests will save them from wildfires.
Wildfires do not stop at lines drawn on a map. This we see clearly in
California today.

Another area is the Rogue, Siskiyou National Forest. So the public
understands the extent of this devastation, this fire was larger than
the State of Rhode Island. It was four times the size of the District
of Columbia. In this forest, 85 percent of the roadless area that was
designated is gone; 77 percent of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness in the same
fire is gone; 68 percent of the wild and scenic river corridor is gone;
over 70 percent of the spotted owl habitat in this enormous area is
gone. Those birds have been burned up.
The message from the ground could not be clearer: Catastrophic
wildfire, not logging, not roadbuilding, not development, is killing
forests in Oregon. I like the words of Oregon's former Governor, John
Kitzhaber, who, after seeing the fires, said: If we burn down the
forests, we are not going to have a resource to argue over.
He was right. And we are right to pursue this legislation today.
I say to my colleagues that there may be some doing the bidding of
environmental organizations that will come to the Senate and will offer
amendments designed to kill this legislation, so that the health of our
forests cannot be ensured.
Many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have shown enormous
courage. Chief among them is my colleague, Ron Wyden, in coming up with
a compromise.
I plead with all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, that they
hold to this agreement that the Democratic leader has now endorsed.
This has to happen for our country's sake. It is literally a life-and-
death issue. I plead with those who have amendments to think again
about it. This legislation truly needs to pass.
I was struck by a comment on the Web site of the Sierra Club. I
understand one of the amendments may be a roadless initiative. That may
be fine to debate in isolation or as part of a separate piece of
legislation, but if presented to frustrate this agreement, it is truly
unfortunate. The Sierra Club Web site tells us that roadless forests
``provide sources of clean water to millions of Americans, essential
habitat for wildlife, and special places to hike, hunt, camp and
fish.'' That is true, unless what can be seen in this picture happens
to the roadless area.
We have every reason to pass this moderate legislation. Many on the
Republican side would have crafted something that goes even further
than this legislation. We would have done something like the House of
Representatives, which I endorsed. We are now holding to this
agreement. We will be voting against amendments, even ones we may like,
that are designed to kill this legislation. I hope everyone will hold
to the deal. If we hold to the deal here, we will hold to the deal in
conference, and that will leave America's forests and America's
foresters the better.
For the sake of our ecology and the sake of our economy, I urge the
passage of this bill and thank all of my colleagues, Republican and
Democrat, who have had a hand in crafting this Senate compromise. They
have done their work and will leave our Nation better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I will talk about the bill pending and
share some thoughts and concerns I have about the bill.
This is not a matter of light substance that is before the Senate.
This is not a bill that we can take a wink and a nod and let it go
because everyone agrees this is a unanimous consent bill. It is true
that it did come out of our committee, the Agriculture Committee, on a
voice vote. We reached agreements to go ahead and get it to the floor.
There are a lot of things in the bill I can agree with, that I think
are good and necessary; there are some other things about which I have
concerns and a lot of Senators have concerns. This is a bill that is
open for amendment. There will be a number of amendments offered to
this bill to try to strengthen it and to answer some concerns people
have.
I am somewhat amazed when we come out with legislation and it deals
with sensitive environmental issues and we are told certain
environmental groups have concerns and we will hear about the
environmental issues so that somehow, if you are a member of an
environmental organization, you are opposed to progress, you are
opposed to jobs, you are opposed to doing things that might make life
better for some people in certain areas. It is almost as if
``environmentalist'' is a bad word. I don't think it is. I think being
pro-environment and being an environmentalist is a positive attribute.
I compliment those in our country, many of whom work for nonprofit
organizations. I have a number of letters from them that I will have
printed in the Record. They toil endlessly, tirelessly, sometimes for
no pay, sometimes for little pay, to ensure that future generations of
Americans have a good, healthy environment, that those who like to hunt
have areas in which we can hunt, where we have healthy wildlife areas.
I am proud of the fact that in our last farm bill we had the biggest
increase ever in conservation, an 80 percent increase. To me, this is
not only pro-environment; it is pro-economy; it is pro-jobs; it is pro-
growth but growth in a way that is sustainable, not just for our time
and our place but for future generations.
That is why the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 is not
something that can be lightly passed through. We have to look at it and
talk about it. I compliment those who have worked hard to reach
agreements and tried to reach compromises on this legislation. That is
all well and good. I compliment Members on both sides of the aisle.
They have worked very hard to get to a point where we have a bill that
has broad support. I don't deny the bill has broad support. That does
not mean those who have some concerns about certain aspects of the bill
could be stopped from talking about it and offering amendments. That is
what the legislative process is all about.
We will proceed in that regard deliberately, not in a way to stop
anything. This is not a method of slowing down the bill or taking an
undue amount of time, but it is ensuring that we do look at the bill
carefully; that the public is generally aware of what is in the bill;
that those who perhaps do not spend a lot of time looking at these
things--and I am the first to admit this is not an area of my
expertise, but as the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee,
charged with the responsibility of legislation that impinges upon our
national forests that comes under our jurisdiction, I make sure I have
good staff who understand the impact of forest legislation. And I have
taken the time to study it myself to the extent I have had the time to
do so.

I do not pretend to know all the ins and outs of forest legislation
as much as my friend from Oregon, for example, who has spent his adult
life working on this, or the Senator from Idaho and others who I know
have put a great deal of time in this. But that does not lessen my
concern about certain aspects of the bill and its impact on our
environment. So we will have a discussion and we will have amendments.
Preventing damage and injury to communities is of paramount concern
to all of us, especially now with the tragic wildfires in California
that show clearly the dangers these communities face. Of course, our
hearts and our thoughts go out to all those families in those
communities that are affected by these wildfires.
Now, again I point out that this bill passed by a voice vote to allow
us more

[[Page S13457]]

time in order to reach a consensus on this agreement, and that is the
substitute amendment offered by Chairman Cochran. The vote out of the
committee was not--and I wish to state this very clearly--any kind of
unanimous endorsement of the bill as a whole. It was merely our
agreement to move the process forward.
The legislation before us purports to focus the Federal Government's
efforts to reduce the dangers of wildfire and improve forest health.
Now, of course, all of us want to achieve this goal so that our
communities out west can be better protected from catastrophic
wildfires, so that forest areas around the country can better cope with
the onset of disease and insect infestation, and so that we can improve
the overall health of our national forests and public lands.
I am heartened that several Senators from both sides of the aisle
have endorsed a legislative compromise to title I of the bill. This, of
course, is the title that has drawn the most focus because it covers
hazardous fuel reductions on Federal lands, and, as such, it is also
the most controversial portion of the legislation. I believe it is a
step in the right direction. I believe it comes up a little short, and
that is why we will have some amendments in that area.
Again, I will say that much of the bill is worthy of support. In
addition to title I, there are seven other titles, ranging from
watershed forestry assistance to rural community forest enterprise
programs, with others, and again the bulk of these provisions are non--
I will not say not debatable, but they raise no really contentious
issues. But I would like to take this time to talk a little more about
title I.
Simply put, I still continue to have some serious concerns about this
section. For one, the bill lacks sufficient targeting to conduct
hazardous fuel work in the areas that need it the most, which likely
might waste limited Government dollars. The Forest Service's own
research has concluded that the areas immediately surrounding homes and
structures are where the fuel cleanup should be done, as it is the most
effective and cost-efficient method for reducing fire risk.
The language in the bill requires that only 50 percent of the
hazardous fuel dollars be spent in what is known as the wildland/urban
interface. Again, because of the bill's loose definition of the
interface or of the community protection zone, land miles away from
homes and other structures could qualify. Ensuring that a higher
percentage of this work would be done in the areas at risk to human
life and property would vastly enhance our community protection
efforts.

Again, there is no definition of the size of a community. So one has
to ask: Just what kind of communities are we talking about? Well, I
happen to come from a town of 150 people. I live there. To me, that is
a community. Two or three houses out someplace, to me, is not.
As I was saying to my friend from Oregon earlier, if someone wants to
build a house out in an area that is on the ocean, that is subject to
hurricanes and tidal waves and weather such as that, they take their
own risk. If they want to do that, they are at risk. If they want to go
where the floods happen and a hurricane comes up and wipes a house
away, well, it is not primarily the Federal Government's
responsibility, it is not primarily the taxpayers' responsibility to go
out and build seawalls to protect that house. If someone wants to build
a house in an area where there are mud slides all the time, it is not
our responsibility to come in and build up structures to protect that
house from a mud slide. If they want to build it on the side of a
cliff, God love them. If they can get the insurance for it, fine, but
it should not be the taxpayers' responsibility.
So if someone wants to build a house out in a wilderness area, fine,
I have no problem with that. They can do that. But I do not know that
we then have the responsibility as taxpayers to come in and say we are
going to spend millions of dollars to protect your house from a
wildfire. Now, where that cutoff is, I do not know. I am not here to
say the cutoff is 150 people or 200, but there has to be some better
definition of structure for communities.
The way the bill is right now, we could spend a lot of money going
out and cleaning out the brush. And, by the way, I will have something
to say about that. We are not talking about brush. We are talking about
trees. It could be miles, tens of hundreds of miles, away from any
community. So again I question whether that is where we want to put our
resources.
I understand there may be an amendment, or there will be an amendment
offered to raise that 50 percent threshold to something more akin to 70
or 75 percent, which I think is maybe more where we ought to focus our
resources, with the very few dollars that we have.
Secondly, the bill could also be interpreted to allow logging on
virtually all Federal lands other than wilderness or wilderness study
areas. This means national monuments and other areas could be logged in
the name of wildfire prevention. The old growth language contains
numerous exceptions so large that even ancient trees, trees that were
around before our country was a country, could be logged.
The President traveled around the West this summer arguing that we
need to remove small trees and brush from damaged forests. The
scientific community agrees with him. But these same scientists tell us
that cutting bigger and older trees can actually make fire risks worse.
Logging, after all, is a part of what created the fire conditions that
this bill is supposed to address.
Now, you might say: Well, how can that be? If you cut down trees, how
can you have forest fires? Well, by logging, by taking out certain
trees, you leave a lot of brush, you leave a lot of stuff on the
ground; plus, you take out some of the overhang of the ancient trees
that tend to keep the risk of brushfires down; plus the fact, when you
do logging, of course, you put in roads. Whenever you have a road, then
you have people coming in. When you have people coming in, they are
building campfires and doing things such as that, and that also
increases the risk of fire.

Another problem I have with this legislation is the lack of
protection for roadless areas, those areas of our national forests that
have wisely been left free from most logging and roadbuilding to ensure
their protection. In fact, this bill does not restrict roadbuilding at
all--at all. So you could have permanent roads built anywhere under
this bill.
If we did restrict some of this roadbuilding, we would have less fire
risk, and greater ecosystem benefits. This is because the forests in
these undeveloped areas have experienced less damage by past management
practices. They are much less in need of remedial work themselves. And
they tend to be the furthest away from homes and communities. Moreover,
scientists tell us that fires are more common and larger in developed
forests. As I said earlier, roads bring people. People bring accidents
that start fires.
While I am a strong believer in access to public lands, it depends on
what kind of access we are talking about. We have to realize building
roads to reduce fire risks can be very self-defeating. So I am
concerned about a lack of protection from the building of roads in
currently roadless areas.
Some people say this is a contentious issue. It is an important
issue. It is one that concerns a number of environmentalists and other
people around the country, especially those who have tried to protect
our natural forests that have been left free from logging.
The bill also limits the reach of what may have been called the heart
of NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. I know there are some
who would like to get rid of NEPA completely, just get it off the
books. There are some who would like to see that happen. But NEPA is
the heart of our environmental policy. Simply put, it requires the
Federal Government to look at a reasonable range of alternatives to any
proposed course of action. Yet the language in this bill arbitrarily
restricts a full and robust environmental analysis to only the agency's
preferred alternative, a no-action alternative--which is really not an
alternative because a no-action alternative means you don't do
anything--and possibly one additional alternative.
It boils down to the fact that NEPA would be required to look at two
alternatives, not a reasonable range of alternatives but two. The one
alternative doesn't even have to be environmentally preferable. It
could be a proposal for more and heavier logging of

[[Page S13458]]

big trees. Again, this effectively undermines what has been called the
heart of NEPA; that is, to look at a reasonable range of alternatives
to a proposed agency course of action.
What this bill basically could leave us with is one alternative. That
is not what NEPA was intended to do. It calls for a reasonable range of
alternatives. This effectively undermines a landmark law of immense
value--a landmark law that has been in existence for about 30 years.
We will hear from some who say that the NEPA analysis takes time; it
costs money. What we won't hear is how important this time and money is
for realizing better outcomes.
NEPA analysis is designed to ensure that more effective or more
efficient approaches are considered before an agency reaches a final
decision on how to proceed with a project. Too little attention has
been paid to date to the fact that thinning may or may not be effective
in reducing fire risk. The scientists tell us that it needs to be
designed carefully and in light of many site-specific factors, if it is
likely to succeed.
There is the general perception that if we just go out and clear out
all that underbrush and take out trees, certain trees, it is going to
protect us from forest fires. That may or may not be true, depending
upon the site and the specificity of what they are doing. That is
exactly why we need good, solid NEPA--National Environmental Policy
Act--analysis for this work, particularly the larger the projects and
trees involved and the more sensitive the places. Otherwise, if we
don't consider alternatives, we will be wasting time and taxpayers'
money that we can't spare on projects that don't help and may even hurt
in terms of protecting against wildfire.
We ought to look more closely at the Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management inefficiencies in carrying out their NEPA obligations
rather than attacking what has been referred to as the Magna Carta of
environmental law. Routine forest health projects can confidently
proceed without lengthy environmental review, as long as they stick to
small trees and brush, developed forests, and no new roads. Once you
get into that, that is when we need the environmental review.

I also want to make clear from the beginning that you will hear a lot
of talk about small trees and brush. It is my understanding that these
small trees can go up to 12 inches or greater in diameter and that
these are the trees that loggers want now. These seem to be what is in
demand. I am not a contractor. I don't build houses and stuff like
that. But I am to understand that these are the ones most in demand
right now, trees up to 12 inches and greater in diameter. That is a
pretty good size tree. That is not brush. But that is what we are
talking about here, going out and clearing those trees. That is why we
need a good, healthy NEPA analysis of what we are talking about, what
the alternatives could be.
The bill before us also exempts hazardous fuel projects from the
normal administrative appeals process for what we are told will be
something similar to the BLM's appeals process. This predecisional
process, it is argued, will help expedite projects toward their
completion by making projects more collaborative and less
confrontational.
But this new, undefined process threatens to cut out or unfairly
limit citizen participation in agency decisions. The bill currently
does not have meaningful standards for the new process to ensure that
all the talk we hear about preserving public participation is
fulfilled.
Let me repeat that. The bill before us does not have meaningful
standards to ensure that we preserve public participation to the
fullest. This is not good public policy. These national forests belong
to us all. They belong to you and they belong to me. They belong to you
and they belong to our kids and our grandkids and future generations.
The public ought to be participating and should be heard and should
have meaningful participation in agency decisions regarding forest
policy. The bill should spell out the Forest Service appeals process.
It does not do that. So we don't really know how the public is going to
be involved. The language may provide too much discretion and too
little accountability to the public. This needs to be cleared up.
Let me say a few words about the judicial review provisions of the
legislation. I do not believe they represent a major response to the
situation. Among other things, the bill limits preliminary injunctions
to 60 days. You do have the right to renew, but it limits it to 60 days
and stipulates that courts balance the short- and long-term effects of
undertaking and not undertaking a hazardous fuels reduction project.
The limit on injunctions will make additional work for judges that
could actually slow them down in reaching a final decision. The
balance-of-harms language in the bill is unnecessary and intrusive, as
courts have always done this. Moreover, the presence in this bill of
that language could be read as implying direction to change the current
process in some way. This could tilt the scales to one side or another
regardless of the facts in a particular case.
Again, let me point out something else we hear about: the flood of
lawsuits. There is no flood of lawsuits clogging up the courts and
preventing us from moving ahead in hazardous rules reduction projects.
The GAO study of hazardous fuel reduction projects found that only 3
percent of all fuels cases were litigated in 2000 and 2001, covering
only 100,000 acres.
I will repeat that. Our GAO--our investigator--found only 3 percent
of the hazardous fuels cases were litigated in 2000 and 2001, and
plaintiffs were often not environmental groups but local communities,
outdoor enthusiasts, and timber interests. Of the 762 cases, only 4
were delayed by court order during the litigation. Again, out of 762
cases, only 4 were delayed by court order during the litigation, and
that is about five-tenths of a percent of all the cases.
Yet we are told we have to do something here to clean up the plugging
up of our courts by all these environmentalists, that litigate and come
to court to stop the agency from proceeding. Nonsense.
With regard to appeals of agency decisions, the argument that there
is some sort of crisis holding up these projects simply doesn't hold
water. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management's own
database lists about 3,500 fuels reduction projects they conducted
between 1998 and 2002. About 250 were appealed. Out of 3,500 projects,
250 were appealed. This is about 7 percent. There is a 7-percent
appeals rate for all of their fuels reduction projects nationwide. In
other words, by the agencies' own count, 93 percent of their projects
went through with no appeal whatsoever. Yet we are told there is some
sort of ``appeal crisis.'' Well, the facts just don't support that.
The GAO and similar studies have found the main reasons that projects
could not proceed were weather related and the diversion of funds to
fight wildfires. Now we are getting to the crux of it. Roughly a third
of the delays were due to a shift in money from preventative projects
to firefighting, which last year cost more than $1 billion. That is why
we need more resources out there--not to shift the resources we have
now but to have more resources out there for preventative projects.
Again, the main reason the projects could not proceed, according to
the GAO, is weather related and the diversion of funds for wildfires.
Other reasons include public resistance, regulatory demands,
unpredictable funding, and inadequate staffing within the agencies.
Yet the administration and some of my colleagues would have us
believe the agencies cannot get the work done due to appeals and
litigation by environmentalists and environmental organizations. This
simply is not true.
Well, are there some problems getting the work done? Yes, there are.
Does this bill have provisions, including new programs, that are
worthwhile? Yes, I have already stated that to be the case. There are a
lot of good aspects to this bill. Is this bill the best way to protect
our at-risk communities and the environment from wildfire, disease, and
pest infestation? Well, I don't think so. I think there could be some
changes made to this bill that would make it even better.
What is even more troubling about the legislation is that it comes on
the heels of some very harmful actions recently taken by the
administration and

[[Page S13459]]

the Forest Service to weaken environmental protections, weaken public
participation or public scrutiny of agency action--the cumulative
effect of which could be to seriously degrade the health of our
national forests and public lands that the bill's proponents seek to
protect.
The Administration, through regulation, has ``categorically excluded
timber'' sales up to 1,000 acres from NEPA analysis as long as trees
are cut in the name of fire prevention. So you can go in--a
thousand acres would be pretty substantial in some areas. You can go in
and cut down 12-inch or greater diameter trees in the name of fire
prevention. No NEPA analysis is needed. They are shelving
administrative appeals for these projects under NEPA; they are
curtailing environmental analysis for entire forest management plans
and ending public appeals of the plans. Proponents of this bill are
even cutting out endangered or threatened species consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service,
and preparing to jettison protections for roadless areas.

In other words, the administration has taken a largely one-sided view
of Federal forest management. That is, thin or cut first and minimize
environmental protections and public input through the regulatory and
legislative process.
The upshot is that, combined with this bill as it now stands, we
could see widespread, heavy logging of mature trees, even in pristine
roadless areas, without the benefit of public environmental review,
pursuant to overarching plans that also lack NEPA compliance, bereft of
interagency consultation or meaningful public appeals, and subject only
to modified judicial review. In this scenario, there could be a major
increase in Federal timber sales with little public understanding or
input and even less agency accountability. I believe this is bad
governing, bad policy, pure and simple.
Now, while I recognize the legislation probably has the votes to
pass, I believe we can and should do better. There will be amendments
to attempt to do this. We have seen several alternative bills offered
in the past several months. We should better target funds to have work
done in this wildland/urban interface, as it is called, or the
community protection zones. We should vastly increase funding for
hazardous fuels work on Federal and non-Federal lands. That is the crux
of it. We should have more comprehensive protection of old-growth and
large fire-resistance trees. We should avoid unnecessary and largely
unprecedented attacks to our independent judiciary. And we must
maintain full and vigorous public participation in the care of our
national forests and public lands, while expediting projects to reduce
wildfire risks to at-risk communities.
As I have said before, these public lands and these national forests
belong to us all, not to a timber company, not to someone who builds a
beautiful home out in the middle of a wilderness area and wants us to
spend taxpayer dollars to protect them from a wildfire. These national
forests belong to all of us, and public participation and agency
decisions dealing with public lands and public forests ought to be in
the forefront, not in the background.
Otherwise, if we move ahead in this manner, we are inviting the waste
of limited time and resources that it is our responsibility to ensure
are directed at stated priorities of community protection and removal
of small trees and brush. As drafted, I am concerned that this bill
will not accomplish that urgent goal, will not ensure adequate public
participation, and will not help to end the controversy and gridlock
that has plagued this issue for some years.
I hope we will have a reasonable debate on this bill. Certainly,
there will be amendments to it; I don't know how many and who will
offer them. Some have come to me saying they had amendments to offer. I
think they will take some time to dispense with, which is appropriate
given the significance of the policy changes proposed in H.R. 1904. We
must carefully scrutinize what is in the bill and see if there are ways
to improve it.
I ask my colleagues on both sides to wait and see how these
amendments proceed before judging the ultimate merit of this
legislation.
Madam President, in closing, I wish to have printed in the Record
some material. First is an editorial that appeared this morning in the
Washington Post called ``Fire Damage.'' I ask unanimous consent that
the editorial be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Fire Damage

With terrifying intensity, fires are burning across
Southern California and Mexico this week, proving once again
that natural disasters can be no less devastating than the
man-made kind. They have already killed more than a dozen
people, destroyed more than 1,500 homes and burned half a
million acres. A staggering 50,000 more homes are thought to
be under threat, as the fires, fanned by desert winds, move
into the Los Angeles and San Diego suburbs. It's a genuine
national tragedy--and one that shouldn't be misused for
political purposes.
Unfortunately, that is a distinct possibility. The fires
happen to have arrived just as the Senate is wrestling with a
bill, already passed by the House, which is supposedly
designed to help prevent catastrophic fires. In theory, the
bill would address the environmental imbalance that has
developed over the past several decades from the Forest
Service's misguided policy of preventing all forest fires,
even the low-level fires that once cleared away brush and
young trees from old forests. Without these periodic fires,
forests have become much denser, and big fires are far more
damaging than they used to be.
But although foresters and scientists now recognize this
problem, brush is still not being cleared away fast enough.
Why? The House Republican authors of the forest bill blame
overly bureaucratic environmental regulations. Accordingly,
their bill attempts to loosen the procedures that the Forest
Service must go through before it can carry out ``fuel
reduction activity''--a change that would also help the
timber industry dodge objections to the cutting down of older
forests. This explanation does not stand up to close
scrutiny. Last week, the General Accounting Office released
the final results of its study on fuel reduction activity and
discovered that of the Forest Service's 818 applications to
cut brush, only one-quarter were appealed. Of these, 79
percent were processed within 90 days. What is hampering the
process is not environmental litigators but finances. To
carry out more brush-clearing operations, the Forest Service
needs more resources.
But the Forest Service is unlikely to get significantly
more resources anytime soon. It would therefore make sense
for Congress, instead of passing laws that appear to be
largely of benefit to the timber industry, to encourage the
Forest Service to spend whatever money it does have on brush-
clearing projects closer to human communities. Sen. Dianne
Feinstein (D-Calif.) has helped write a compromise bill that
would instruct the Forest Service to spend at least 50
percent of its fuel reduction resources on precisely that.
Although this is the right approach, Ms. Feinstein has
received no guarantee that her bill won't be completely
rewritten by a Republican conference committee, as has lately
become common practice.
In the absence of such a guarantee--which would have to
come from the White House--it's probably better to pass no
bill at all. We retain just the slimmest hope that the
California blazes might cause members of Congress to redirect
their energy toward saving people and homes, and away from
helping loggers cut down mature trees.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the editorial basically states that what
is happening in California is a genuine national tragedy and one that
shouldn't be misused for political purposes. But, unfortunately, that
is a distinct possibility, the editorial says. It says the fires
happened to arrive just as the Senate is wrestling with a bill
supposedly designed to help prevent catastrophic fires.
The editorial goes on to question whether or not the bill before us
really does accomplish that goal.
Also, I have a series of letters from different environmental groups.
When I say ``environmental groups,'' I do not use it in a pejorative
sense. I use it in a very supportive sense. First is a letter from
about 200 different environmental groups alphabetically from the Alaska
Wilderness League to the Yosemite Area Audubon, California--from A to
Z--that basically are opposed to this version of the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Dear Senator: The Senate is poised to take up H.R. 1904,
the Bush Administration's Healthy Forests Initiative. You may
have heard that a bipartisan compromise has been struck,
reputedly brokered by the Bush Administration. Even with the
new language, the bill still seeks to interfere with our
independent judiciary, cuts the heart out of the

[[Page S13460]]

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and undermines the
public's legal rights to meaningfully participate in
decisions affecting our public lands. Not only will this bill
set dangerous precedents by weakening environmental laws and
judicial independence, it also fails to require agencies to
prioritize protection of homes and communities. Furthermore,
the Bush Administration and its allies in the House are
likely to insist on a much worse, anti-environmental bill in
conference committee.
Impact on our independent judiciary: H.R. 1904, as passed
by the House, undermines a fundamental, century-old legal
principle--the rights of Americans to seek fair and equitable
redress in the courts for grievances involving the federal
government. The Senate substitute also interferes with how
judges manage their courtrooms by ordering courts to lift
preliminary injunctions and stays after 60 days, unless they
are affirmatively renewed by the court. Moreover, the bill
could provide agencies a new tool to slam the courthouse door
on citizens by requiring all legal issues to be raised during
the administrative review process.
Public input: The Senate substitute seeks to replace the
current statutorily-established appeals process with a new
process that does not allow appeals of final agency
decisions, making it more difficult for Americans to
challenge damaging projects and have a meaningful say in
public land management.
Environmental protection: The Senate substitute seeks to
weaken the most important part of NEPA--the requirement that
agencies consider a full range of alternatives to agency
proposals with environmental impacts such as logging and road
building. The amendment invites gamesmanship by agencies that
would effectively nullify the alternatives requirement, which
the courts have called the very ``heart of NEPA.'' In
addition, Title IV eliminates environmental review for a
category of logging projects up to 1,000 acres in size--an
area approximately the size of 1,000 football fields--which
would exclude all public review, comment and participation.
Community protection: The Senate bill does not ensure any
increased protections for homes at risk of wildfire and does
not ensure any funding for work on local, state or tribal
lands for methods proven by the Forest Service Fire Research
Lab to protect homes. Furthermore, it is not consistent with
the Western Governors Association's Ten-Year Strategy for
reducing wildland fire risks. Communities need and deserve
real protection, which requires fuel reduction focused close
to homes and communities.
Old growth and roadless forests: The Senate bill attempts
to safeguard our old growth forests, but the language offers
an open invitation to abuse. Furthermore, the amendment fails
to protect roadless areas.
The Bush Administration's ``Healthy Forests Initiative''
fails to deliver on community protection. Please oppose the
Senate version of H.R. 1904: uphold our independent judiciary
and our environmental protections.

National Organizations

20/20 Vision.
Alaska Wilderness League.
Alaska Coalition.
Alaska Rainforest Campaign.
Americans for Democratic Action.
American Lands Alliance.
Conservation Leaders Network.
Center for Biological Diversity.
Co-op America.
Defenders of Wildlife.
EARTHJUSTICE.
Friends of the Earth.
Greenpeace USA.
Herpetologists' League.
John Muir Project.
National Environmental Trust.
National Forest Protection Alliance.
Natural Resources Defense Council.
National Wildlife Federation.
Pacific Rivers Council.
Sierra Club.
Sierra Student Coalition.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
The Rewilding Institute.
The Wilderness Society.
Wildlands Project.
World Wildlife Fund.

County Commissioners

Supervisor David Colfax, Mendocino County, CA.
Supervisor M. Byng Hunt, Mono County, CA.
Board Member Carol Calabresa, Lake County, IL.
Commissioner Peter Sorenson, Lane County, OR.
Commissioner Farley Toothman, Greene County, PA.
Commissioner Ed Tinsley, Lewis and Clark County, MT.
Supervisor Paul Newman, Cochise County, AZ.
Council Chairman Guy Guzzone, Howard County, MD.
Commissioner Katy Sorenson, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Council Member Bob Jacobson, Hawaii County, HI.
Chairman Don Bennetts, Gogebic County, MI.
Commissioner Larry Sufredin, Cook County, IL.
Commissioner Donna Massey, Pulaski County, AR.
Commissioner Doug Coward, St. Lucie County, FL.
Supervisor John Woolley, Humboldt County, CA.
Commissioner Ron Stewart, Boulder County, CO.
Commissioner Bill Carey, Missoula County, MT.
Supervisor Barbara Green, Nevada County, CA.
Council Member Dan McShane, Whatcom County, WA.
Supervisor Janet K. Beautz, Santa Cruz County, CA.

Religious Organizations

Religious Campaign for Forest Conservation.
United Church of Christ, Network for Environmental &
Economic Responsibility.
World Stewardship Institute.

Regional and Local Conservation Organizations

Advocates for the West, ID.
American Wildlands, MT.
Alaska Center for the Environment, AK.
Alliance for the Wild Rockies, MT.
Aspen Wilderness Workshop, CO.
Audubon Society of Corvallis, OR.
Audubon Minnesota, MN.
BARK, OR.
Brown Environmental Action Network, RI.
Buckeye Forest Council, OH.
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, CA.
Californians for Western Wilderness, CA.
California Wilderness Coalition, CA.
Cascadia Fire Ecology Education Project, OR.
Center For Native Ecosystems, CO.
Central New Mexico Audubon Society, NM.
Central New Mexico Audubon Society, NM.
Citizens of Lee Environmental Action Network, VA.
Citizens For Better Forestry, CA.
Citizens for Public Resources, Inc., OR.
Clearwater Biodiversity Project, ID.
Coalition for Jobs and the Environment, VA.
Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers, MT.
Coast Range Association, OR.
Colorado Environmental Coalition.
Concerned Friends of Ferry County, WA
Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice, TN.
Devil's Fork Trail Club, VA.
Dogwood Alliance, NC.
Drew Environmental Action League, NJ.
Duckdaotsu Media Service, CO.
EarthCare, IA.
EcoTours of Oregon Day Tours, OR.
EcoWatch.
Environment Council, RI.
Environmental Protection Information Center, CA.
Environmental Law Society, NM.
Family Farm Defenders, WI.
Fargo-Moorhead Audubon Society, ND.
Friends of Blackwater Canyon, WV.
Friends of Hope Valley, CA.
Friends of Living Oregon Waters (FLOW), OR.
Friends of the Bitterroot, MT.
Friends of Del Norte, CA.
Forests.org, Inc., WI.
Forest Guardians, NM.
Forest Issues Group, CA.
Forest Forever, CA.
Forestry Monitoring Project, CA.
Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, MN.
Friends of the Clearwater, ID.
Gifford Pinchot Task Force, WA.
Greater Wyoming Valley Audubon Society, PA.
Greater Yellowstone Coalition, MT.
Headwaters, OR.
Heartwood, IL.

Regional and Local Conservation Organizations

Hells Canyon Preservation Council, OR.
Helping Expressions, CO.
High Country Citizens' Alliance, CO.
Hoosier Environmental Council, IN.
International Society for Preservation of Tropical
Rainforests, CA.
Idaho Conservation League, ID.
Illinois Student Environmental Network, IL.
Indiana Forest Alliance, IN.
International Primate Protection League.
Izaak Walton League, Breckenridge Chapter, MN.
John Wesley Powell Audubon Society, IL.
Keep Sespe Wild, OR.
Kentucky Heartwood, KY.
Kettle Range Conservation Group. WA.
Klamath Forest Alliance, CA.
Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, OR.
Kootenai Environmental Alliance, ID.
Lake Superior Alliance, WI.
Lake Superior Greens, WI.
Last Refuge Campaign, MT.
Leavenworth Audubon Adopt-a-Forest, WA.
Living Earth: Gatherings for Deep Change, OR.
Lone Tree, MI.
Main Natural Resources Council, ME.
Magic, CA.
Mattole Salmon Group, CA.
McKenzie Guardians, OR.
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, MN.
Minnesota River Valley Audubon Chapter, MN.
Missouri Forest Alliance, MO.
Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, CA.
Mountain Defense League, CA.
Native Forest Network, MT.
New Mexico Audubon Council, NM.
New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, NM.

[[Page S13461]]

Northcoast Environmental Center, CA.
Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, MN.
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, WA.
Northwoods Wilderness Recovery, MI.
Obed Watershed Association, TN.
Okanogan Highlands Alliance, WA.
Oregon Natural Resources Council, OR.
Oregon Wildlife Federation, OR.
Quachita Watch League, AR.
Pacific Environment, CA.
Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, CA.
Prescott National Forest Friends, AZ.
PA Wildlands Recovery Project, PA.
Patrick Environmental Awareness Group, VA.
Rainier Audubon Society, WA.
Regional Assn. of Concerned Environmentalists, IL.
REP America, IL.
RESTORE: The North Woods, MA.

Regional and Local Conservation Organizations.

SAFE: Save Our Ancient Forest Ecology, CA.
Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment, CA.
Save our Forest Environment (SAFE), CA.
Salem Audubon Society, OR.
San Bruno Mountain Watch, CA.
San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, CO.
Selkirk Conservation Alliance, ID.
Serpentine Art and Nature Commons, Inc., NY.
Sinapu, CO.
Sitka Conservation Society, AK.
Siskiyou Regional Education Project, OR.
Sisters Forest Planning Committee, OR.
Sequoia ForestKeeper, CA.
Sky Island Alliance, AZ.
Soda Mountain Wilderness Council, OR.
South Fork Mountain Defense, CA.
Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, NC.
Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition.
Southern Environmental Law Center.
Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, CO.
Southwest Forest Alliance.
Southwestern New Mexico Audubon Society, NM.
St. Louis Audubon Society, MO.
State Forest Organizing Initiative, OR.
Student Environmental Action Coalition-ISU, IL.
Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, NC.
Students for Environmental Awareness, NJ.
Sun Mountain, CA.
Superior Wilderness Action Network, MN.
Sustainable Forestry Project, OR.
Taking Responsibility for the Earth and Environment, VA.
T & E, Inc., AZ.
The Clinch Coalition, VA.
The Forest Trust, NM.
The Lands Council, WA.
The Olympic Forest Coalition, WA.
Town Hall Coalition, CA.
Umpqua Watersheds, Inc., OR.
Virginia Forest Watch, VA.
Voices for the Forest, OH.
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, WV.
Western Colorado Congress, CO.
Western Montana Mycological Assn., MT.
Western North Carolina Alliance, NC.
Wild Alabama, AL.
Wild Virginia, VA.
WildLaw, AL.
Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, MT.
Wild Wilderness, OR.
Wilderness Study Group, CO.
Wisconsin Society for Ornithology, WI.
Whidbey Environmental Action Network, WA.
Yosemite Area Audubon, CA.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the Forest Stewards
Guild urging a vote against the Senate version of the bill, H.R. 1904.
I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Forest Stewards Guild,

Santa Fe, NM, October 20, 2003.
Hon. Senator,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The Forest Stewards Guild, a national
organization of over 500 foresters, urges you to vote against
the Senate version of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of
2003 (H.R. 1904). This is a momentous time for public
forestry and we, as professionals, cannot stand by in
silence. Despite the negotiation of a bipartisan compromise
on H.R. 1904, the end result will set back the course of
excellent forestry for years to come.
There is no doubt that the frequency and severity of
wildfire has increased in the last 10 years. The catastrophic
fires result, in part, from a century of narrowly prescribed
forest practices applied to a wide variety of forest
ecosystems. The composition, function and structure of most
forests were simplified by past management, and today's
forests are more susceptible to insect epidemics and
vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire. The situation calls for
action that addresses the root causes, not the symptoms, and
that prevents further simplification of forest ecosystems.
Members of the Forest Stewards Guild are experienced
managers of over 6 million acres of public and private
forests in places as diverse as the Pacific Coast, Southeast,
Lake States and East. Public forest management in the United
States has always benefited from the experience of foresters
who work on private lands, starting with Gifford Pinchot as
the first Forest Service Chief. By constricting opportunities
for forest decisions to be appealed and narrowing the
consideration of alternatives, H.R. 1904 will cut experienced
private-sector foresters out of decision-making. the
exclusion of these experienced voices will make it more
difficult to achieve the high standards of forestry that
should exemplify public forest management.
After deep consideration we find that the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act does not address the key problems causing
destructive wildfire. H.R. 1904 focuses on removing perceived
barriers in administrative and judicial processes, yet offers
no vision of public stewardship to restore fire-adapted
forests. For example, H.R. 1904 paves the way for harvesting
in old growth forests to avert the impacts of natural
processes, such as ice storms and insect infestations,
despite the important role of these processes in creating old
growth structure. H.R. 1904 also falls short in establishing
meaningful monitoring requirements to help managers assess
the effectiveness of fuel reduction projects at moderating
fire behavior. The policies in H.R. 1904 favor intensive
harvesting in the short-term without addressing the long-term
maintenance of healthy forests that will ensure control of
new fuel accumulation.
The current structure of forest legislation, including the
National Forest Management Act, was specifically designed to
address the gridlock that crystallized in the 1960s over
clearcutting and type conversion of public forests. Senator
Hubert Humphrey championed a program of civic discourse and
debate over forest management--policies that will be reversed
by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Legislation
that suppresses public debate will only make the gridlock
stronger. We urge you to vote against the Senate compormise
of H.R. 1904.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the League of
Conservation Voters urging opposition to H.R. 1904. I ask unanimous
consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

League of Conservation Voters,

October 15, 2003,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is
the political voice of the national environmental community.
Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental
Scorecard, which details the voting records of Members of
Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is
distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide, and
the press.
LCV urges you to oppose H.R. 1904, the Bush
Administration's Healthy Forests initiative, when it comes to
the Senate floor. Although the Senate bill differs in some
respects from the bill that passed the House earlier this
year, it still fails to require agencies to prioritize
protection of homes and communities. The bill would also
interfere with our independent judiciary, weaken the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and undermine the public's
legal rights to meaningfully participate in decisions
affecting our public lands.
The Senate bill fails to ensure any increased protections
for homes at risk of wildfire or funding for work on local,
state or tribal lands to use home protection methods proven
by the Forest Service Fire Research Lab. Furthermore, the
bill is not consistent with the Western Governors
Association's Ten-Year Strategy for reducing wildland fire
risks. Communities need and deserve real protection, which
requires fuel reduction focused close to homes and
communities.
The Senate bill would weaken the NEPA requirement that
agencies consider a full range of alternatives to agency
proposals with environmental impacts, such as logging and
road building, and would effectively nullify the alternatives
requirement, which the courts have called the very ``heart of
NEPA.'' In addition, the bill would eliminate environmental
review for a category of logging projects up to 1,000 acres
in size, excluding all public review, comment and
participation for these projects.
The Senate bill would interfere with how judges manage
their courtrooms by ordering courts to lift preliminary
injunctions and stays after 60 days, unless the court
affirmatively renews them. Moreover, the bill could provide
agencies a new tool to restrict citizen access to the courts
by requiring all legal issues to be raised during the
administrative review process. Moreover, it would replace the
current appeals process with a new process that does not
allow appeals of final agency decisions, making it more
difficult for Americans to challenge damaging projects and
have a meaningful say in public land management.
Finally, although the Senate bill attempts to safeguard our
old growth forests, the language offers an open invitation to
abuse, and the bill fails to protect roadless areas.
For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1904. LCV's
Political Advisory Committee will consider including votes on
these issues in compiling LCV's 2003 Scorecard. If you need
more information, please call Betsy

[[Page S13462]]

Loyless or Mary Minette in my office at (202) 785-8683.
Sincerely,
Deb Callahan,
President.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have another letter from the American
Sportfishing Association, the American Fisheries Society, the Izaak
Walton League of America, Orion: The Hunter's Institute, Trout
Unlimited, Wildlife Forever, and the Wildlife Society. The letter is
dated July 16, 2003. I will be clear to point out they did not say they
were opposed to the bill, but they have serious concerns about some
areas of the bill. I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The American Sportfishing Association, The American
Fisheries Society, The Izaak Walton League of America,
Orion: The Hunter's Institute, Trout Unlimited,
Wildlife Forever, The Wildlife Society,
July 16, 2003.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Ranking Member, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
Dear Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Cochran, and Harkin: We
write to express our concerns regarding restoring healthy
forests on public land (Healthy Forest Restoration Act of
2003, HR 1904). While we support the expeditious treatment of
hazardous fuels on public land, the rush to implement an
aggressive hazardous fuel management program may preclude
considerations for other resources, particularly fish and
wildlife habitat conservation. We believe that hazardous fuel
management decisions should be based on deliberative and
science-based protocols. By setting forth an open and
collaborative process for such decisions, broader
participation will be achieved and better decisions made.
Treatment of hazardous fuels where significant threats
exist to human health or safety should be of paramount
importance to the Forest Service. These treatments may
include thinning, brush removal, or use of prescribed fire.
It is important to note, however, that the Forest Service has
only recently begun using timber harvest as a tool to reduce
hazardous fuel. The paucity of research and evaluation as to
treatment efficacy is a cause for concern. Congressional
direction to focus on the wildland urban interface will
enable us to keep our communities safer, while we learn
through experience what types of hazardous fuels reduction
projects work best, those that do not, and why.
Careful planning, analysis, and field-testing of various
hazardous fuels treatments would allow the agencies to build
support for hazardous fuels reduction, make communities safer
and forests healthier, and provide a more stable and
predictable supply of wood fiber from the National Forests.
Given that an estimated 75 percent of Forest Service timber
sales currently are classified as hazardous fuels reduction
projects, we would hope that Congress keep the public and
environmental analyses processes for these sales as open as
possible to ensure that interested citizens, scientists,
sportsmen, and state agencies have significant involvement in
their planning and implementation.
We endorse the prohibition of constructing new permanent
roads in conducting fuel management projects. It is equally
important that Congress recognize the possible deleterious
effects of temporary roads on fish, wildlife, and water
resources, especially if they become permanent travel-ways
for unauthorized or unregulated off-road vehicle travel.
We are concerned that under congressionally proposed and
agency-offered fuel treatment authorities, private citizens,
sportsmen, and biologists will no longer be provided a
reasonable opportunity to comment on or appeal decisions
concerning fuel management activities. The 10-Year
Conservation Strategy for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to
Communities and the Environment, for example, prescribes
vague public involvement procedures and requirements on the
agencies at the state, regional and national levels.
Legislation should make clear the purpose of emergency
hazardous fuels treatments is to enhance forest health
through activities that reduce the risk of catastrophic fire,
insect infestations and disease, invasive plants, enhance
fish and wildlife habitat, and protect watersheds. We
recommend that project proposals be developed through an
interdisciplinary planning process. The sale of marketable
forest and rangeland products should be allowed only when
such sale is incidental to emergency treatments. Wood fiber
derived from fuels treatments should be sold separately as a
byproduct of the restoration activity.
Finally, we note that a recently released General
Accounting Office (GAO) analysis found that three-fourths of
the 762 Forest Service projects to diminish wildfire risk in
the past two years proceeded without appeals, litigation, or
other challenge. Hazardous fuels treatments, such as
mechanical thinning or prescribed fire, proceeded on 3.8
million acres of National Forests. Projects that were
appealed or challenged moved forward generally within the 90-
day period prescribed by agency regulations.
The GAO analysis demonstrates what is most needed by
federal fire legislation is funding and a clear assignation
of agency priorities to protect human communities. We hope
this is where you will focus your efforts as a first
priority. Thank you for considering our views. If you have
any questions, please contact Chris Wood of Trout Unlimited
at (703) 284-9403. We are available to discuss our concerns
and recommendations at your convenience.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have another letter from a number of
individuals who basically represent firefighters, smokejumpers--12
individuals who have written urging opposition to H.R. 1904 which they
say is misnamed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and instead support
S. 1453, the Forestry and Community Assistance Act. I ask unanimous
consent this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Dear Member of Congress: As current and former wildland
firefighters, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1904, the misnamed
``Healthy Forests Restoration Act,'' and instead, support S.
1453, the ``Forestry and Community Assistance Act'' as the
best available legislative plan for the interconnected goals
of improving the health, safety and working conditions of
wildland firefighters, protecting communities, and restoring
forests.
Protecting homes and structures is one of the most
dangerous assignments for wildland firefighters. We are
basically forced to make a stand between the often
unstoppable force of wildfire burning under extreme
conditions, and the immovable objects of homes and
structures. Added to the dangers is the fact that the area
adjacent to homes and communities often have the highest fire
risks and fuel hazards. And yet we must still protect these
homes.
In wildland areas, firefighters face a number of
unacceptable safety risks and health hazards due to the
legacy of past management, such as: 1) high hazardous fuel
loads in logged and roaded areas from untreated or
ineffectively treated logging slash; 2) flammable brush,
moisture deprived vegetation, and invasive weeds that rapidly
grow in the wake of logging and grazing; 3) densely-stocked
young timber plantations that can cause wildfires to blow-up
and burn severely even from low-intensity fires; 4) a maze of
abandoned or neglected logging roads that pose hazardous
driving conditions for firefighters, or provide access for
human-caused wildfires.
These degraded forests health conditions resulting from
past management activities on public lands are part and
parcel of the degraded working conditions and elevated safety
risks and health hazards affecting wildland firefighters. The
interests of wildland firefighters in a safer, healthier
working environment, the interests of homeowners and
communities in protection from wildfires, and the interests
of the public in the protection and restoration of forest
ecosystems, can be one and the same. Unfortunately, H.R.
1904, is heading down the wrong path.
First, H.R. 1904 fails to target fuels treatments to the
areas that need it most: the community protection zone and
low-elevation dry forest types. The wildlands/urban interface
zone has some of the highest fire risks and fuel hazards, yet
is neglected by H.R. 1904 because the majority of rural
communities are surrounded by private, State, or Tribal owned
lands, not federal lands. Hazardous fuels treatments need to
be prioritized and targeted in the front country community
protection zone in dry forest ecosystems. Instead, H.R. 1904
would authorize logging projects in remote backcountry areas
including roadless areas, high-elevation moist forests, and
other areas where fires may be natural or beneficial for the
ecosystem.
Second, H.R. 1904 fails to target treatments to the kinds
of fuels that pose the highest hazards. Hazardous fuels
treatments need to target the surface layers of dead needles
and limbs, small-diameter understory trees and brush,
densely-stocked young timber plantations, old untreated
logging slash. These surface and ladder fuels pose the
highest risk of ignition and rapid fire spread. Instead H.R.
1904 would authorize logging of commercially-valuable mature
and old-growth overstory trees, which are naturally resistant
to fires and help moderate fire behavior by shading the
ground surface from the sun and wind. Some of the most
hazardous sites for wildland firefighters are hot, dry, windy
logged units full of slash.
Third, H.R. 1904 fails to allocate necessary funds to pay
for hazardous fuels treatments. In general, hazardous fuel
loads have little or no commercial value. It will require
appropriated money from Congress to pay for treatment of
these kinds of fuels. H.R. 1904

[[Page S13463]]

fails to allocate any funds for hazardous fuels
treatments, essentially forcing forest managers to sell
large-diameter trees in order to pay for reducing fuels.
Fourth, H.R. 1904 fails to foster agency-community
collaboration and social consensus around fire and fuels
management projects. The enormous task of protecting fire-
prone communities and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems will
require an unprecedented level of collaboration among land
managers and the public they serve. It is a matter of common
sense to begin this task where we have common ground:
prioritize fuels treatments around communities. This way we
can increase public and firefighter safety in suppressing
unwanted wildfires, and increase the opportunities for safely
implementing prescribed fires. Instead, H.R. 1904 is
guaranteed to generate increased public controversy and
conflict, as the voices of citizens in public land management
decisions are diminished, and legal accountability is eroded
or eliminated.
We don't want to have our ability to comment on or
challenge projects taken away--firefighters are citizens,
too! In fact, citizens who work as wildland firefighters have
the most at stake when fuels projects are planned and
implemented. We want to be a complete part of the projects
that will reduce the fuel hazard around at-risk communities,
from planning through implementation, monitoring, and
protection.
We want our working conditions, health and safety improved,
but not at the expense of degrading the forests that we are
dedicated to protecting. We believe that it is only through
genuine restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems that
firefighter and public safety will be improved, but H.R. 1904
is about forest restoration in name only, and is a recipe for
further ecosystem degradation and public conflict and
controversy.
In contrast, S. 1453, expedites projects to be done around
communities most at risk of wildfire, regardless of whether
or not they are bordered by Federal lands, appropriates
funding for hazardous fuels treatments and watershed
restoration projects, protects old-growth and roadless areas
and currently healthy forests from inappropriate logging, and
protects existing environmental laws and full citizens rights
to engage in decisions affecting our own public lands.
As wildland fire fighters, we believe the protection of
forests, communities and our health and safety are
interconnected. We support efforts to make the working
environment for wildland firefighters safer. But this does
not have to imperil the very forests we seek to protect. Nor
should it imperil the democratic rights of citizens to
participate in land management decisions. Most of all,
Congress should not use the issue of firefighter safety as an
excuse to sanction inappropriate or illegal logging projects
to proceed under the guise of fuels reduction or forest
restoration.
Sincerely,
Joseph Fox, 25 years wildland firefighting experience;
positions: smokejumper, Interagency Hotshot (crewboss
certified).
Patrick Withen, 24 years wildland firefighting experience;
positions: smokejumper, Interagency Hotshot, helitack.
David Calahan, 23 years municipal firefighting experience;
positions: engineer on wildland/urban interface zone fires.
Michael Beasley, 16 years wildland firefighting
experience; positions: Interagency Hotshot, Fire
Management Officer, Prescribed Fire Specialist.
Rich Fairbanks, 14 years wildland firefighting experience;
positions: Interagency Hotshot (foreman and squad leader),
Division Supervisor.
Erin Ely, 10 years wildland firefighting experience;
positions: Interagency Hotshot (crewboss certified), 20-
person Type II fire crew, fire salvage timber sale planner.
Timothy Ingalsbee, 8 years wildland firefighting
experience; positions: helitack, engine, 20 person Type II
fire crew (squad boss), Interagency Hotshot resource advisor.
Mei Lin Lantz, 5 years wildland firefighting experience;
positions: Interagency Hotshot (squad boss), helirappeller,
engine crew, fire/fuels management planner.
Ric Bailey, 3 years wildland firefighting experience;
positions: helitack, engine crew (foreman).
Shawnti Johnson, 3 years wildland firefighting experience;
positions: Interagency Hotshot.
Nalita Kendall Baumback, 2 years wildland firefighting
experience; positions: initial attack engine crew.
Colby Whitenack, 2 years wildland firefighting experience;
positions: Interagency Hotshot.

Mr. HARKIN. Lastly, the Forest Roads Working Group, which includes
Wildlife Forever, Trout Unlimited, Wildlife Management Institute, Izaak
Walton League of America, Outdoor Industry Association, the Wildlife
Society, and International Paper, also wrote a letter dated October 28,
2003. It is not in total opposition, but it expresses their concerns
about certain parts of the bill saying the ``fire legislation should
endorse the prohibition of new roads into inventoried roadless areas.''
I ask unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Forest Roads Working Group,

October 28, 2003.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Ranking Member, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Cochran, and Harkin: We
write to express our concerns regarding restoring healthy
forests on public land (Healthy Forest Restoration Act of
2003, H.R. 1904). The Forest Roads Working Group was
established to bring together a wide range of organizations
with a strong interest in ensuring that roadless area
protections are crafted and implemented in a workable and
effective manner.
The FRWG supports the expeditious treatment of hazardous
fuels on public lands. The need to implement an aggressive
hazardous fuel management program should not, however,
preclude considerations for other resources, particularly
fish and wildlife habitat conservation, outdoor recreation
opportunities, and the protection of inventoried roadless
areas.
In light of scarce resources, treatment of hazardous fuels
should be of paramount importance to the Forest Service where
significant threats exist to human health or safety and
adjacent private lands. Given that an estimated 75 percent of
Forest Service timber sales currently are classified as
hazardous fuels reduction projects, we hope that Congress
will keep the public and environmental analyses processes for
these sales as open as possible to ensure that interested
citizens, scientists, sportsmen, recreationists and state
agencies have significant involvement in their planning and
implementation.
Fire legislation should endorse the prohibition of new
roads into inventoried roadless areas. Given the now $10
billion maintenance and reconstruction backlog of existing
Forest Service roads, it is important that Congress recognize
the potentially deleterious effects of roads on fish,
wildlife, and water resources, especially if they become
travelways for unauthorized or unregulated off-road vehicle
travel.
Thank you for considering our views. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 202/508-
3400. We are available to discuss our concerns and
recommendations at your convenience.
Sincerely,
J.T. Banks
(For James D. Range).

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, these are the concerns that I and many
others have with the legislation before us, and I hope those who have
amendments will come to the floor and offer them. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HAGEL). The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before the ranking member of the
Agriculture Committee sits down, I would be more than happy to include
the protection of all the old growth in the Federal forests of Iowa in
this bill, if it existed. Or maybe we could put a prohibition against
wildfires in Iowa on public lands in this bill. And that is something
we could accomplish because those two issues--the old growth, which I
am sure the State of Iowa wished it had, and wildfires, which I know
they would not want--do not exist in Iowa because no Federal forest
lands exist there.
In my State of Idaho, in the great State of Oregon, and in the Great
Basin, West, as much as 60 and 70 percent of our lands within our State
borders are public lands and are subject to this legislation. That is
why I am on the Senate floor. That is why my colleague from Missouri is
on the Senate floor. That is why my colleague from California is on the
Senate floor because it is the heart and soul of our States. Be it our
water quality or our wildlife habitat or our environment in general,
our forested lands make up that dynamic symphony of lands of which our
States are proud, and we want to protect them.
To suggest this bill does not is not a fact. Let me give a point the
Senator from Iowa just made. He said you could log in 1,000-acre
increments across the landscape. Not true. Nowhere in the bill does it
exist. Let's go back to California today where fires are burning.
Let's go to Lake Arrowhead in the San Bernardino forest where there
is a complex of dead and dying trees of about 400,000 acres. You could
log 1,000 acres there, and then if you chose to do another 1,000 acres
near it, you get into the cumulative effect beyond the categorical
exclusion and you have to do a NEPA process. That is what this
legislation says. That is what the Senator

[[Page S13464]]

from Iowa did not suggest. He cannot suggest something that does not
exist. Yes, it is true you do 1,000-acre logging increments, but when
you get to a cumulative effect beyond the categorical exclusion, NEPA
takes over. Therefore, you do the full public process that he admires
and I admire because we believe the public ought to have a right to
participate, but not ad nauseam through lawsuit after lawsuit for the
purpose of delaying activity on the ground when there is bug kill and
fuel loading and the public is at risk and the resources are at risk.
That is what this debate must be about.
He implied that you could road on forever because this bill does not
prohibit roading. You can't road today unless you go through a full
NEPA process. It is not to suggest if you prohibit roading here or you
do not prohibit it, therefore, roading will exist. That is not true. It
does not exist today in current law. So do not imply that it does. That
is a false accusation, in my opinion.
There are a good many other areas we will debate at length, I am
sure, as the amendments come up. I am going to step out of my State of
Idaho, which I know best, and step into California for a moment because
California is at issue and it is in play.
My colleague from Oregon, who his other colleague from Oregon said
was brave in taking the stand he is taking, is a brave soul, but he is
also a person who recognizes the balance of good management on our
public lands that protects water quality and wildlife habitat. He is
the one who argued staunchly that we protect old growth. I didn't think
it was necessary, but I agreed with him.
He and I have worked together very closely on what we believe to be
balanced public forest policies for a good number of years, but what is
not in balance is a policy that allows forests to burn at will simply
because we deny the right of limited management to reduce fuel loading,
to stop bug kill, and to slow the dead and dying trees.
So let us go to San Bernardino National Forest in southern California
where fires are raging as we speak. We know that forest, because of
environmental interests and because of the increase of the public
living in that forest, in the 1970s stopped any form of logging. In the
mid 1970s, it stopped. That became an inactively managed forest.
About 2 years ago, it was recognized as a forest that was in critical
condition. The fuel loading was so great, the bug kill was so great,
that the intermittent State lands within the San Bernardino forests
were declared a state of emergency by the Governor of California, but
it is almost impossible to save them if they are surrounded by lands
where nothing is going on, where the bug kill is great, and where a
fire is clearly a situation that creates a high risk.
We have known, and I have said on this floor for over 2 years, that
the San Bernardino National Forest was the perfect firestorm waiting to
happen, and yet we talked on and on in a formally inactive way not to
do anything about it. It is now burning. That is a phenomenal tragedy
that we could have done at least something about, but we chose inactive
management on the San Bernardino nearly three decades ago.
Let me speak for a few moments about why and what is different in
California today than 50 years ago. If one listens today to news
commentators covering the fires in California, they will say that that
area burned about 50 years ago, and it probably did. It is a
Mediterranean-type climate. It is largely a scrub oak climate except
when one gets up in the San Bernardinos where one begins to get
conifers and it did probably burn. Maybe it has burned every 50 or 60
years for the last thousands of years, but what was different today
than 50 years ago is that there are now people living in the canyons,
in the valleys, and in the suburbs that did not exist 50 years ago in
that area. So the landscape is dramatically different and the risk is
substantially higher, but we have done little about it.
We have not insisted that there be firebreaks, that there be
thinning, that there be a way to protect the urban/wildland interface.
H.R. 1904 begins to address that, at least on the Federal forested
lands. If those firebreaks had been present, if that scrub oak had been
pulled back 100 or 200 yards from those homes, grass had been planted,
foliage had been kept down, it would not have been 1,500 homes burned
now; it would have been considerably fewer. We all know that. That is a
fact.
The world of the forest has changed dramatically in the last 50
years. The Senator from Iowa is right. Wherever there was a piece of
private property within a Federal forested area, a home was built. Why?
Because it is a very desirable place to live. We all love to live
within the forested landscapes of our country, but if we do not treat
them properly, it is like living inside a kindling box. It is like
living near a fire that is ready to burn. All one has to do is drop a
match, because the fuel loading that has gone on in these forested
landscapes over the last 30 years is dramatic. Why? Because we put fire
out. We got awfully good at eliminating fire and we did not replace the
natural ecosystem's activities of fire with manmade activity. It is
quite simple.
Along came the environmental movement in the 1960s. Along came the
National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Act in the
mid-1970s, and we began progressively to slow our activities on the
public lands that were offsetting nature's activities in some instances
and the fuel load began to build.

In the mid 1980s, a group of forest scientists from all over the
United States met in Sun Valley, ID, to explore the health of our
national forests. They concluded that our forests in the Great Basin
West were sick, dead, and dying, and that if we did not develop some
form of activity to emulate fire, to thin and clean, we would someday
in the near future begin to experience dramatic wildfires that would
change the character of the landscape of the West. They were right. We
did not listen. We could not listen. Why? Because there was a louder
voice out there saying: Do nothing, do nothing, stay away; the only way
to treat the public lands is to withdraw man from the lands, unless he
or she tramples lightly upon them.
We did just that, and all of our policies have driven us in that
direction. During the Clinton years, we reduced logging on public lands
by nearly 80 percent. We did not change any laws, just reused the
regulations, headed in another direction with a different philosophy.
Aside from that, there is another interesting statistic. Instead of
the average of 1\1/2\ million to 2 million acres a year in wildfires on
our forested public land, we began to see 3, then 3\1/2\, then 4, then
5, then 6, and last year 7 million acres, and that graph is going
straight up as more of these lands burn because the fuel load that
builds on them is so great that all of our forested public lands have
become like a kindling box, ready to burn with the touch of a match.
It started in California last Saturday. It could have been manmade in
this instance--it probably was--and, of course, we know the end result.
It is not over yet. It has destroyed millions of acres of property and
human life.
Now, this is dramatic. Guess what is about to start in California.
The Senator from California is in the Chamber and she can tell us
better than anybody else. But when the Santa Ana winds quit, when those
great air patterns that sweep down out of the West shift and change the
cycling of the wind and it reverses the sweep down off the mountains,
it starts coming in off the ocean, and rains begin. This 500,000 acres
of now denuded land, with no vegetation on it, will be subject to the
winter rains.
What we are going to be hearing, almost as dramatic as the fires
were, will be the mud slides and the erosion and the land movements
that are going to occur in California simply within the next month or
two or three. Can we not understand that? Cannot environmental
organizations understand that there has to be a little bit of a
balance, that somehow there is a way to ebb and flow, for us to exist,
to protect our environment and at the same time balance it in a way
that does not in the end destroy it?
In the year 2000, in Idaho, we lost 1 million acres to wildfire. That
winter and the next spring, great slides of mud, rock, and debris
flowed down out of the canyons and some of them into the beautiful
pristine Salmon River that is a great fish habitat, a great

[[Page S13465]]

salmon habitat. In some instances, it probably damaged it. In one
instance, there was a great alluvial flow of debris out into the river
that was not swept away, and this last year when the waters hit it, the
water diverted across the river and knocked out a highway and knocked
out a road and put more silt into the river, all a product of the fire
of the year 2000.
So fires have lots of consequences. We ought to try to manage our
forests in a way that somehow diminishes the overall ability of those
forests to burn, to protect our wildlife habitat, our water quality,
our scenic beauty, and our recreational opportunities. That, in part,
is what this bill is about. This is no major dramatic step forward.
This is no assault on the environment. This is a positive but
relatively small step in the areas we have so designated to suggest we
adjust the appeals process ever so slightly, that we adjust the NEPA
process ever so slightly, that we establish funding priorities in the
wildland/urban interface, that we recognize and protect old-growth, and
that we create a judicial review process that is streamlined so those
who would chose no action cannot lock up reasonable, responsible action
in the courts of our country.

That is what H.R. 1904 is all about. My colleague from Oregon is
still on the floor. He, I, and a good many others, my colleague from
Idaho, Mike Crapo, who chairs the forestry subcommittee in
Agriculture--I chair the subcommittee in Energy and Natural Resources,
the Senator from Oregon is the ranking member of that forestry
subcommittee--have spent years and years on this issue, try to find a
balance, working with environmental groups--outreach.
Let me thank the Senator from California, who is on the floor, who
has demonstrated phenomenal leadership in this area. She has taken the
time to understand the ecosystems and the health of the Sierras and she
knows some form of limited action has to occur to save this beautiful
landscape. That is what this legislation is all about. Yet some would
paint it as dramatic and sweeping and destructive. It is simply not
that at all. It is a small step forward in our effort to bring
reasonable balance and management only in those areas designated as
fire prone, as loaded with fuel, and the urban/wildland interface
dominantly, and in sick and dying areas where the bugs have ravaged it
and it is simply standing there dead, waiting for Mother Nature to take
her course.
That is what H.R. 1904 is all about. Don't let anyone paint this in
any other dramatic fashion or form, for if they were to do so, it would
simply be untrue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his
comments and for his support. I have worked with him on this issue now
for a long, long time.
As you know, California has great and challenging forests. As I
delved into the issue and became more and more involved and traveled
over forests on helicopters and walked through forests, I realized how
much they had changed from the time I was a child in California.
I also thank the bipartisan group of Senators who have tirelessly
negotiated this legislation, particularly the Senator from Oregon, Ron
Wyden. He and I, on our side, have worked with a group of Republicans,
knowing that both of us face States that are deeply challenged by
forest fire. The need to develop a piece of legislation was crystal
clear to both of us.
This is very difficult, I think, for both of us because the
prevailing environmental view has always been not to touch our forests,
and that is what fire suppression was all about. Senator Wyden has been
stalwart. It has been a great pleasure for me to work with him and his
staff. I know my staff has also very much appreciated the collegiality
and also the exchange of ideas. I thank him very much.
Also, Senators Baucus, Craig, Crapo, Cochran, Domenici, Kyl, Lincoln,
and McCain--we were all partners in forging this compromise consensus
bill.
With what is happening in California, I don't think I need to tell
anybody that there has been an alarming increase in catastrophic
wildfires that have raged through our forests and neighboring
communities all across this great land, because nearly 27 million acres
have burned nationally in the past 5 years alone, and 2.1 million of
those acres are in California. There are 57 million acres of Federal
land at the highest risk of catastrophic fire, including 8.5 million in
my State alone.
People in California don't realize that much of our forest is in what
is called the highest risk of catastrophic fire--for many, many
different reasons. But that is where they are today. This is far from
the natural condition of our forests. It is because this century-old
policy of suppressing ground fires has allowed so much flammable brush
to accumulate so dangerously in many of our forests, especially in dry
areas at low to moderate elevations.
This legislation is not a logging bill, as some would typify it--I
think falsely. This legislation would allow the brush to be cleaned out
and it would also provide the first statutory protection for old-growth
stands and large trees ever in the history of this Nation. I have heard
people fault it, saying it is not this and it is not that--but it is,
and no one has submitted legislation prior to our doing so in this
particular area.
I want to be very clear. This is pro-environment legislation and it
seeks to reverse some of the damage we have done to our forests and
restore their healthy condition.
Pictures show the story, I think more powerfully than words. Like the
old adage, a photo is worth a thousand words. That is really true. Let
me show you this first picture. This picture goes back to 1909, and it
reminds me a little bit of the conditions of the Sierras when I used to
ride through them as a child. You didn't have to go on trails; you used
to ride through the forest.

This is a picture of Grandview Point at Grand Canyon National Park in
Arizona in 1909. You see the buggy and horses, and you see the open
nature of the forest. You don't see much ground fuel. You don't see
brush.
Let me show you the next photo. It shows the forest closing in, due
to fire suppression. From 1909, in the top picture, you will see it
open. This is all the same identical forest. You will see the openness
all throughout this forest as far back as you can see. Then you will
see the next one, 1942. Look at these little juniors, look at them
popping up all over the forest. Then you will see in the last picture
in 1992, following a fire.
This is the problem increasingly with these forests. This picture is
from the Pearson Natural Area in the Coconino National Forest in
Arizona.
Now, look at another picture. This is the crowded, unthinned area,
Ponderosa Pine in California. You will see one of these problems. This
picture is not following a forest fire. This is the natural condition
of this forest. It is just awaiting a catastrophic fire.
Now, let me show you where fire suppression doesn't just exist in
pines. I would like to show you a photo of some of California's most
magnificent trees. This is the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoias in the
southern Sierra Mountains. It is interesting to look at it. This is a
man right here. This will show you how big those giant sequoias are.
This was taken in 1890. Look at the clear space around those sequoias.
Now go to 1970. This is the same tree and look at what has happened.
This is a catastrophic fire waiting to happen.
What will happen if there were fire back here, let's say, involving
these two trees? It would not necessarily be catastrophic, because it
would not burn hot enough on the fuel to take out the canopy. The
sequoias are basically fire resistant and it would resist it. Fires
today run the risk--because of the underbrush, because of the nonnative
species, and because of the fuel ladder--of really taking out the
canopy of old majestic and great trees.

We had a fire in the Sequoias, and we were just lucky that where the
fire took place, it didn't reach these trees.
I would like to show you a picture of a fire in a Ponderosa pine
forest that has been altered by decades of fire suppression. Look how
this fire is burning. It is not confined to the ground. It is rising up
into the trees and doing substantial damage.
Look at this photo of fire in a stand where the brush and smaller
trees have been cleared out. Note that the fire,

[[Page S13466]]

unlike this fire, is confined to the ground.
That is what we are trying to achieve in this bill so that when a
fire does occur it is confined to the ground and does not do damage to
old-growth trees, to other trees in the area, and to property and life.
Finally, this is a picture showing how thinning can protect the
forests. This is the 2000 Clear Creek Fire in the State of Idaho. The
upper area in the photo was unmanaged, and it burned severely. You can
see that right through here where the fire burned. Now you can see
where the fire stopped. The lower area survived the fire and remained
green and healthy because of one reason: It had been thinned.
This is elegant testimony to what happens when it isn't managed.
Where fuel is not removed, it burns fiercely. It stops where it is
managed and there are fuel breaks, and the forest is cleared of fuel.
I want to emphasize that not all of our forests have been affected by
fire suppression. Many of our forests--particularly those in the wetter
areas and higher mountain elevations--have changed little, if at all,
from fire suppression. Fires in these forests occur only rarely. In
some cases, hundreds of years can pass between fires. But fire
suppression has changed these forests little.
We can largely leave them alone under the legislation. The only
exception is forest areas near communities where we want to reduce the
hazardous fuel to ensure public safety.
This is how our amendment would work. The bipartisan amendment
directly addresses these threats to our forest health and our
communities.
We established an expedited hazardous fuels reduction program for 20
million acres at the highest risk of catastrophic fire.
Some opponents of this bill are saying everything is up for this
project--wrong.
This project is confined to 20 million acres of the highest risk of
catastrophic fire among the 54 million acres which the Forest Service
has identified at highest risk of catastrophic fire.
It would authorize $760 million annually for the removal of fuel.
That is a $340 million increase over current funding.
The House bill has no money for title I to do this in that bill. It
leaves 50 percent of the funds to be used for fuel reduction near
communities.
This is a compromise that Senator Wyden and I made to be able to
provide incentives for others who may not have as many populated areas
as some of us do to also have an opportunity to have fires thinned near
urban watersheds, municipal watersheds, areas of infestation, and other
critical areas that are in need of thinning to prevent catastrophic
fire. And the remainder of funding is for municipal watersheds or
endangered species habitat or areas that have suffered just as I have
said.
The legislation also requires that large fire-resistant old-growth
trees be protected from logging immediately. Most people do not know
that. But there is immediate protection for large fire-resistant old-
growth trees. It mandates that forest plans that are more than 10 years
old and most in need of updating must be updated with old growth
protection consistent with the national standard within 2 to 3 years.
Within that 20 million acres there is a real effort to say that old
forest plans must be brought to the fore and dealt with quickly within
2 or 3 years.
While forest-specific old growth is being developed, large and fire-
resilient trees would be immediately protected in the new project
authorized by this legislation.
The bill prevents logging of the largest most fire-resistant trees in
the guise of fuel reduction. Where old-growth forests have not been
altered by fire suppression, existing old-growth conditions must be
maintained. And in other old-growth stands where brush and other highly
flammable fuels have accumulated through this century-old policy of
suppressing ground fires, brush will be cleared out to protect the
stands from catastrophic fire.
And local forest managers will write specific prescriptions for their
forests. All of these prescriptions will be consistent with the more
general national old-growth protection standards in the bill.
Additionally, the agreement improves and shortens the administrative
review process.
I want to talk about this. There has been a lot of things said. A lot
of things were just plain wrong. We have been trying to correct them
wherever we can. Where we tried to shorten the process, we tried to
make it more collaborative and less confrontational.
It is critical that the Forest Service be able to spend scarce
dollars as it is doing vital work on the ground rather than being mired
in endless paperwork.
The legislation we have submitted fully preserves multiple
opportunities for meaningful public involvement. People can attend a
public meeting on every single project. They can submit comments during
both the preparation of the environmental impact statement and during
the administrative review process. I guarantee that the public will
have a meaningful say in these projects.
The legislation changes the environmental review process in this way.
It does this so that the Forest Service still considers the effect of
the proposed project. But it does it in a way so that the Forest
Service can focus its analysis on the project proposal.
One reasonable alternative is required--I want to explain this--that
meets the project goals and the alternative of not doing the project,
instead of the five to nine alternatives now required.
We are not talking about a freeway or a highway being located where
you might want to look at five to nine different alternatives. We are
talking about one specific project that has been designated for
hazardous fuels reduction and how you carry out that hazardous fuel
reduction.
There might be debate on whether it should be mechanical thinning, or
burning, or a combination of the two. There might be a debate on
exactly which trees people want to remain inviolate. All of that is
possible. But the requirement, in addition to the alternative of doing
nothing, is reduce one alternative--one sound alternative--that can be
considered.
This legislation replaces the current Forest Service administrative
appeal with an administration review process that will occur after the
Forest Service finishes its environmental review of the project but
before it reaches its decision.
This new approach is similar to the process adopted by the Clinton
administration in 2000 for review of forest lands and amendments to
those plans. The process will be speedier and less confrontational than
the current administrative appeal process and have more information
available to those who want to know more about the project.
Perhaps the most controversial area is the area of judicial review. I
will turn to that. I emphasize that cases will be heard more quickly
under the legislation, abuses of the process will be checked, but
nothing alters the citizen's opportunity for a fair and thorough court
review. Parties can sue in Federal court only on issues raised in the
environmental review process. We believe this is a commonsense
provision that allows agencies the opportunity to correct their own
mistakes before everything gets litigated. Lawsuits must be filed in
the same jurisdiction as the proposed project. This was in-house
language. This has been supported. It is a good idea. We go to the
Federal court in the area where the hazardous fuels project is
proposed, not to a Federal court in New York City or somewhere else.
Courts are encouraged to resolve the case as soon as possible. This
is not mandatory language, it is suggested language. It means that any
judge reading the bill will understand how seriously we take this. We
urge them to conclude their deliberations expeditiously.
A preliminary injunction would be limited to 60 days, not going on
and on and on. An individual who gets a preliminary injunction can come
back before the court and make an argument as to why the injunction
should be continued, and the judge has the ability and the prerogative
to continue that injunction if he or she sees fit.
This provision, we believe, sends a signal to the courts not to delay
important brush-clearing projects indefinitely unless there is a good
reason to do so.

[[Page S13467]]

Then there is what is called balance-of-harm language in the bill
that says the court must weigh the environmental benefit of doing a
given project against its environmental risk as it reviews the case.
I deeply believe this amendment is balanced, that it is a significant
improvement from the House-passed bill. I cannot support the House-
passed bill. Senator Wyden cannot support the House-passed bill. The
Democrats who are on this bill cannot support and will not support the
House-passed bill. Ergo, in this Chamber, the House-passed bill will
not have the 60 votes required to move it along.
There are many ways in which this amendment improves on the House-
passed bill. I know Senator Wyden went into that in great detail. I
will mention three of them.
First, this bill is focused on the highest priority language where we
need to undertake brush-clearing projects to restore forest health. As
I said, it is limited to 20 million of the 54 million acres at highest
risk of catastrophic fire. These lands include the wildland/urban
interface as defined by the communities needing protection, lands where
fires would significantly threaten municipal water supply, lands
significantly harmed by insect, disease, or wind throw and endangered
species habitat.
Second, we have protected both old-growth stands and large trees
across the landscape. The projects expedited by this act, I believe,
will truly restore forest health.

Finally, the Senate agreement removed a provision of the House-passed
bill that could have threatened the fair and impartial judicial review
of Forest Service actions. This provision would have tilted the playing
field in forestry litigation by requiring a court to defer to the
Federal agency's views in deciding whether to issue an injunction.
So for these three reasons alone, I believe our bipartisan amendment
to title I significantly improves the bill which I otherwise could not
support.
Now, many people have said this bill would not do anything in
California. That is just not right. I will speak to that for a minute
because we have terrible fires burning, 10 huge fires, 3 huge major
fires: Every day, burning homes; every day, the victim of excess
vegetation and hazardous fuel that has built up over many years and has
not been removed.
The fires in southern California are burning in two basic vegetation
types: chaparral and the pine forests in the San Bernardino Mountains.
The exclusion to that is the fire burning up north, east of Redding. In
both of these vegetation types, treatments of fuels will reduce the
risk.
The first area where the southern California fires are burning is the
pine forests of the San Bernardino Mountains. I want you to take a look
at these forests and look at the homes in the middle of this forest:
House, house, house, house, house, house, house, house, house, house,
house, house, house.
Do you notice the yellow forest? That is all dead and dying and
infested bark beetle forest. There are 44,000 homes located in the Big
Bear/Arrowhead area where this fire is now on two sides, moving. Look
at these homes. Look at the dead and dying trees. Does anyone believe
they have a chance of surviving if this forest is not cleaned?
We have tried in appropriations bills to get more money--and we have
been able to get some money in this year and last year for more removal
of bark beetle-infected forests--but clearly this is an exact area of
urban interface that is in catastrophic, highest risk of fire. No one
could tell me that if a hazardous fuels mitigation project had been
carried out around this area, these homes and tens of thousands like
them would not have been saved in this fire.
Everyone, look at this. That is what this bill means. If you are
going to vote against this bill, just know that. This is correct and
elegant testimony. About 474,000 acres in this forest. The San
Bernardino/San Jacinto, often both private and public lands, were
experiencing severe tree loss ranging from 10 percent of all the trees
in a given area to 100 percent. That has been known for quite some
time. It has had years of drought. It has bark beetles. It has root
disease. It has dwarf mistletoe. They have all reached epidemic
proportions. The cost assessment by the County Assessor's Office of
these homes and those surrounding them is $8 billion.
A century ago, this forest was fairly open, with mostly larger trees.
Experts estimate there were likely 40 to 50 trees per acre back then.
The difference today is staggering. The Forest Service estimates there
are now 500 trees per acre in much of the San Bernardino Mountains--40
trees before fire suppression; 500 trees today.

That is also eloquent testimony to what happens with the fuel ladders
that are generated by the overcrowded forests. This is more than 10
times the density of trees that existed a century ago. It is startling,
it is dramatic, and it is a huge difference. So this is what we have
created with a century of ``do not cut a tree'' fire suppression:
extremely dense, unhealthy forests.
The Senate agreement would get projects moving quickly to thin these
forests and restore them to health. The San Bernardino Forest would be
among the highest priority areas to receive hazardous fuel treatments
under the legislation. All the insect-infested areas would fall within
the priority areas for treatment.
With the expedited administrative review process, we could treat
these acres more quickly. Environmental analysis would focus on the
work that needs to be done, not multiple theoretical alternatives. We
know we need to thin these forests. We do not need to study 6 or 12
different ways to do it.
The expedited administrative review process would also help us past
the confrontational delays caused in the current appeals process, and
the additional funding the bill authorizes would also help.
Finally, we have spoken to Republican colleagues who have agreed to
add a $50 million authorization for emergency grants to States and
localities for dealing with situations exactly like those in the San
Bernardino Mountains today. So there is money to help communities do
their wildfire plans to help them move to develop areas they believe
need this thinning, and these grants help additionally.
Communities could clear evacuation routes from mountain areas, like
the Lake Arrowhead region, to ensure that people have a chance to
escape in the event of a catastrophic fire. One family trying to escape
with two children in their car was burned to death because the car
could not move faster than the fire.
Brush would be cleared around shelter-in-place locations like schools
in case people do not have the opportunity to escape in time.
Communities would obtain funding for evacuation drills and other
advanced planning. I am very grateful the other side agreed to add this
$50 million segment.
The Senate bill will also help prevent chaparral fires. Some have
said: Oh, no, it won't. Here is Scripps Ranch. This is a large
subdivision outside San Diego. You see the fire--miles of fire line
approaching the ranch.
The legislation authorizes significantly more money for hazardous
fuel reduction efforts. We authorize a total of $760 million. That is
$340 million above current funding. Again, the House bill has no
dollars for this kind of public land mitigation. Our bill does.
Moreover, there is an understanding that the bill's sponsors will
work to continue to increase funding substantially. Let there be no
misunderstanding on this point, these funds are available to be used in
brush areas like chaparral as well as in forested areas.
Second, the legislation requires at least 50 percent of the funding
goes to community protection. This is a significant improvement over
current law which does not require any set amount of hazardous fuel
reduction go for community protection.

Perhaps most importantly, the legislation calls for communities to
plan their own defense through community wildlife protection plans.
That is a problem. People who live in dry Southern California areas
want the trees, want the bushes, want the fuels on the ground.
Historically they have resisted putting together community fire
protection plans. That is folly. They have to do it. In chaparral, it
is important to get community support behind prescribed fires to clear
out the brush. So far, as I said, many communities have been reluctant
to support prescribed fires because of the perceived risks of these
fires. But community wildfire

[[Page S13468]]

plans will give the community the ability to choose whether it wants
the risks of prescribed fire--or some cutting or thinning--or the much
greater risks of wildfire.
Community wildfire plans will play an important role in gaining
popular support for a workable way to defend these dry communities.
Another key issue--I am just about through--in chaparral is reducing
the risk of homes burning on private land. The community wildfire plans
provided for in this bill will help in this area, too, because they are
required to include recommendations to reduce homes igniting throughout
the community.
We owe it to our communities to do the best we can to protect them
from catastrophic fire. I wish--I truly do, from the bottom of my
heart--the California wildfires would be quickly extinguished and
controlled. We need to do everything we possibly can.
I might report the regional forester called this morning. We have
been pushing the White House and the Defense Department to lend every
piece of available equipment--C-130s, Sea Stallion helicopters with
buckets, tankers--everything they have. For the first time, I got the
report that they have everything they need now to fight these big
fires. I am very grateful for that and express my gratitude.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief.
I have one question for the Senator from California, but first I want
to thank her for the exceptional work she and her staff have done on
this issue for over 4 years.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WYDEN. I have chaired the subcommittee. I have been the ranking
minority member. I do not think my knowledge on this subject compares
to that of the knowledge of the Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator is very kind.
Mr. WYDEN. She has thrown herself into this, and we thank her for all
her efforts. We all empathize with what your constituents are going
through. The people of California, a year ago, helped my constituents.
We are trying to help yours. We thank you for it.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I just say, thank you for the help that has come
from Oregon. It is a long way away. But we are very grateful. New
Mexico is sending help. Nevada--the Senator from Nevada is on the
floor--sent help. Arizona has sent help. We are very grateful for that.

Thank you.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague.
One very brief question. I have sensed from the beginning of the
debate that probably the most contentious issue coming up is this
question of making sure the public is still involved in the process,
the whole question of what is called NEPA, the National Environmental
Policy Act.
The Senator is so correct in saying we have made it clear that the
Senate bill is not something we are going to allow to be unraveled. But
I think one of the reasons for it is because the Senate bill differs
very dramatically with what the other body is talking about with
respect to keeping the public in the process.
The other body, in effect, takes the public out of the process by
predetermining these NEPA alternatives. What we have said in our
compromise would be to say the public can actually offer an
alternative. The public has a right to go into this process, known as
scoping, and actually come to the table and offer an alternative.
The Senator has made the point that not one current opportunity for
public comment would be lost under this compromise.
I would be interested in the Senator's analysis of how the public
stays involved, because I think this is probably the most contentious
question we may be faced with as we try to wrap up this bill, hopefully
today.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator is correct, through the Chair, if I may.
We have discussed this and both of us wanted to protect the
collaborative process. We wanted to protect the ability of individuals
to go to meetings, to state their issues, to have those issues
considered.
The only change I see in this is twofold. The first is that they will
have the environmental review to look at, which is important in
understanding what you differ with in the environmental review and then
being able to make the case.
Secondly, the number of alternatives is reduced from five to nine to
one. There is a good reason for that. As I pointed out earlier, if we
were talking about a network of highways or something like that, you
may want five to nine alternatives to be considered. We are talking
about an area which has been designated in the highest risk of
catastrophic fire. Therefore, the alternative would be one. For
example, do you believe there is too much thinning? Do you believe
there is too much burning? Would you do mechanical in what proportion
to burning to thin this area out? There would be the ability to come in
with one precise alternative.
Of course, the other alternative that some might argue for is to do
nothing. They would have that ability as well.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague and again tell her how much I have
appreciated a chance to be her partner.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. You have been a great ranking member and I have
enjoyed every minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to Senator Reid.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have listened to the statements here
today. They are all very good. People have worked hard on their
statements. But I want to simply say this: We have a bill to complete,
and we want everyone who has any interest in it to come and give their
statements. When that time has come, we will start the amendment
process.
We have worked on this bill now 3 hours, and the only amendment
offered is the one by the chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran.
What I wanted to do is ask unanimous consent--he already has the floor,
the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--that
following the statement of Senator Domenici, the ranking member of the
committee, Senator Bingaman, would be recognized to give a statement.
It is my understanding the Senator from Alaska wishes to give a
statement. Following Senator Bingaman, the Senator from Alaska be
recognized to give a statement on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator seeking consent for that
sequence?
Mr. REID. I am.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank the Senate for allowing a
lengthy debate this morning about a very serious issue. I am looking
across the Senate to the distinguished junior Senator from Alaska, a
new Member of the Senate. She has behind her a very big picture. She
will explain it in more detail. But might I ask, that is a picture of a
totally infested forest in your State; correct?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Would you mind answering a couple of questions? We have
been hearing about fires in California moving in the direction now, if
they have not already, of an area that is highly infested.
Last night on television we heard various announcers talk about it.
They described it from the field, for those who were there. They said:
This forest is like Christmas trees many months after Christmas, just
standing there like dried pieces of wood. And they said that we know
what happens to those after Christmas when you put a match to them.
That is what we are talking about in this forest you have there.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. That is correct. It is not just a small patch we are
talking about. We have over 5 million acres of infested and dead timber
standing there just waiting, as the Senator indicated, to crumble and
act as fuel for any fire. It is as the Senator described. It is like
that Christmas tree. There is absolutely no life to it with the needles
just crumbling in your hands. It is that dry.
Mr. DOMENICI. Before Senator Feinstein leaves on her way out, I will
not ask you anything; I am just going to speak about you.

[[Page S13469]]

First, I thank you for your leadership in this regard. Some people
think that it is only New Mexico and Utah and Wyoming that have forest
fire problems and that have forests that are clogged to the gills
because we have not maintained and cleaned them. Some think the only
infested forests are in Alaska.
As I understand it, you have all of those and probably in larger
quantities than most of us combined. I say, for those of us who have
been trying desperately to get a bill that treated these situations in
a way that could be solved, it was truly a Godsend that we got some
powerful and thinking Democrats who decided to join us. You are one of
them.
Senator Wyden, I thank you. There are more than the two of you. But
every time we needed a voice, you were there. I don't know what they
said about you at home. I don't know what those people who don't want
to do anything said about you. But I assumed they didn't say all nice
things because every time you try to modify the law, there is somebody
back home who runs an ad that you are trying to log all the forests in
the State or that you don't care about preserving the beauty of your
State, that you have just turned yours over to the logging industry.
I see the Senator nodding. You must have had some of that already.
And Senator Wyden, you must have, although you have already felt the
wrath of not being able to log anything in your State, and you have
seen what happened to thousands of workers.
I just wanted to, as part of my opening remarks, thank you.
We will also have to take up, as part of the Iraq bill, the Domenici-
Feinstein bill on proper notice and opening up all the decisions that
are going to be made over there to the public and in a regular order
manner. We will do that later in the day and maybe have another
victory.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair, if I may, I would like to thank
you, Senator. I appreciate the chairmanship of this committee, your
working with Senator Wyden and I. I am delighted to hear what you have
said about the emergency supplemental and getting the report language
back in. Thank you very much.
Mr. DOMENICI. We have an array of Senators, not just Republicans--not
the few who have been fighting for years about this issue of the
failure to maintain our forests--we have a lot of Senators who have
come around to our way of thinking, Democrat and Republican. It almost
is unbelievable to see that forest in Alaska, which is no longer a
forest other than by name, to see what is happening in California as
brush fires move quickly toward an entire forest that is dried, dead
trees, and then to ask the question: Why is that so? Wouldn't it be
rational that we cut them down? Wouldn't it be rational that rather
than leave them there as natural incendiaries, ready to literally blow
up, just poof, and they go right up in the sky as these kind of trees
burn, wouldn't it be logical to do something about it?
Well, the truth is, we have not been able to do anything about it for
one of the most ridiculous reasons anybody could have in mind, but it
has worked until today. That is, anything you try to do is logging
forests. Anything you try to do is turning the forests over to the
loggers. Would you believe year after year after year that has
prevailed? I don't know what we could have done when we passed
legislation, when we begged these same groups, let's write in something
about logging, let's talk about the size of the trees, let's do
anything reasonable, as we talked about what has happened to American
forests.
I don't know if the distinguished occupant of the chair knows what
forests looked like 20 years ago in our public forests, and what they
look like today; but I can tell you they don't look like the same
forests. They used to be cleaned: there used to be spacing; it used to
be that the trees--I nicknamed what we were trying to do one time on
the Senate floor--what we are trying to do is make the forests
``happy'' again. I meant that they could see the sun, and they would
probably smile, instead of being clogged up together where they grow
straight up. But nobody dare touch that forest and clean it up and make
it a forest like it used to be because they will be sued and things
will be delayed, a judge will take over, and the judge will say: Every
``t'' has not been crossed, every ``i'' has not been dotted. You cannot
do it.
One day in 1998, after we had our share of fires, after a huge fire
in my State--I think it was the second most serious fire to the
California fires in terms of burning down homes--450 houses at Los
Alamos. Incidentally, if you are looking at what things might cost,
that was done by the Federal Government that messed up and burned it by
mistake and we had to pay. That one cost over a half billion dollars to
the town and the people for what they lost, including houses and
streets that were broken and torn up. I would not even want to guess
what the California fire will cost. I hope that the houses are insured.
Nonetheless, if you add it all up, it is costs. I don't see how it is
going to be less than $5 billion or $6 billion, based on the little bit
I know that I am sharing with you. The truth is that there is no reason
under the Sun to delay moving ahead with that forest in Alaska, and
moving ahead quickly, get it cut down; and whatever utility there is in
the trees, use it. If there is none, have planned burns so you can give
way to some growth that will be healthy again. That is why we have
called this now the Healthy Forests Act.
Might I quickly say that while we weren't able to expedite everything
the way some of us wanted, although everything is expedited in this
bill, at least cleaning up forests such as the one in Alaska, huge
acres of infested trees, in this bill that will move quickly in the
future. It can be delayed and go to court once. But the overall thrust
of the bill is that it won't be delayed for years as in the past. So
the distinguished Senator from Alaska hopes to see some of that removed
soon, during her first elected term in the Senate.
Now, I began by thanking Senator Cochran and his staff for moving
ahead with this legislation. It was determined that it was their
jurisdiction because of the way it was written, not the jurisdiction of
my committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. They did a
great job. I am not going to bother the Senate with a lot of statistics
about the health of our national forests, but there are some facts of
importance.
Our Federal agencies tell us that 190 million acres are at risk to
catastrophic fires or attack from insects and disease--190 million
acres. This is an area equal to the size of Maine, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and most of Maryland. It means that much land
covered by forests is no longer real forest, it is insect-riddled
forest like that in the photo of Alaska, most of which should be
removed so good trees can grow, and so we can eliminate catastrophic
fires that can occur quickly, simply, and easily and go through and
scourge the area--worse than Attila the Hun--leaving nothing.

In the last 5 years, we have burned--including what we have burned
this year--24 million acres; 24 million acres have been scorched. That
is an area as large as Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. I am
not here saying we will never have forest fires and we should never
have them. What I am saying is they should not be occurring where
improvements exist, homes exist, National Laboratories exist, where
businesses exist because we already know we ought to clean around them
so they will not burn.
As a matter of fact, the principal reason for the bill I introduced,
which I said we called ``happy forests,'' was to get at this issue we
called urban interface. We still have not done a great deal. In fact, I
am just learning that of the $250 million that we put in that bill back
then, there is still over $100 million in both the BLM and Forest
Service that has not been spent on happy forests. So maybe when we get
this bill finished, we can finally get an organized plan for funding
that will see us making some headway. We have seen insects destroy the
forests in a dozen Western States, severely impacting forests in
Eastern States.
One such outbreak in southeastern California has destroyed 450,000
acres, half the national forest that it is located on, in an area
almost as large as the State of Rhode Island.
Let me put the forest health disaster in context. During that same
period,

[[Page S13470]]

the Forest Service has only thinned or harvested 1.4 million acres,
which is slightly larger than Delaware. We have burned 17 times more
rangeland in the last 5 years than we have attempted to manage--land
that we know should be managed, cleaned up, unclogged, and we should
get rid of the waste on the ground that is a fire trap. We have burned
17 times more than we have attempted to clean up and manage.
So this bill is going to improve forest health, if we can ever get it
passed. I hope those who have delayed it in the Senate will let us get
on with it. I have been amazed to hear the reason some have said--that
they are holding this bill up because they could not understand it.
Well, I don't know how all these Senators, from the ones I mentioned on
the other side of the aisle to the ones on this side, could all say it
is a meaningful bill, and then we can have one or two Senators, or
their staffs, saying they are against it because they don't know what
it means. Maybe they should ask or let us bring it up, and if they
think it is not clear, offer an amendment.
I think it is clear, and I think it is a good bill. I don't think in
some areas it goes far enough, but you have to do what you can. Now we
have a great bipartisan coalition and we will have to work with the
House, which wants to go more in the direction of expediting matters.
But this is going to result in improving the health of our forests over
time. It will result in a more public expedited process for moving
hazardous fuels projects through the NEPA process. I didn't say
``without'' the NEPA process, as we are being accused of out in the
hinterland. It is going to provide that that would be expedited. There
is nothing in the NEPA law that says you cannot do that. It prioritizes
the treatment of 20 million acres in the wildland/urban interface. I
described that.
Twenty million acres are supposed to receive high-priority treatment
to clean this stuff that is around urbaness, and make it less volatile
from the standpoint of burning. When we had our Los Alamos fire, which
I alluded to, it came perilously close to burning some very important
laboratory buildings. Suffice it to say that most of them were saved
because the laboratory had cleaned up 200 or 300 feet around each one
and left no trees, so they had to jump all the way over that to get
some buildings.
On the other hand, the fire got a few buildings that were not so
important and where there had been no cleaning and burned them. We
spent a lot of money replacing a few of the buildings.
This bill says 20 million of this wildland/urban interface, as well
as outside the wildland/urban interface is at highest risk, and they
are called that: high-risk areas.
This bill calls for court cases on hazardous fuels projects to be
heard within the district in which they are located, encouraging the
courts to deal with these cases in a timely manner, and directs that
all preliminary injunctions be reviewed every 60 days, with an
opportunity for the parties to update the judges on the conditions
about which courts should know.
Finally, the bill reminds the courts that when weighing the equities,
they should balance the impacts to the ecosystem of the short- and
long-term effects of undertaking a project against the short- and long-
term effects of not undertaking a project. That is very important. It
cannot be one-sided. There is always somebody who can say there is a
bad side to it, but the judges now will have to look at and balance the
short- and long-term effects of not doing the project with undertaking
the project. They are going to find that a lot more than in the past,
it will not be subject to the court holding them up.
What is the difference in the House bill and this bill?
First, we have restricted the use of this authority under this act to
only the highest risk areas.
We have emphasized the importance of working within the wildland
urban interface by requiring 50 percent of the funds nationally be
spent within the wildland urban interface.
We have emphasized the importance of quickly dealing with insect and
disease epidemics and the salvage of wind-thrown or ice-damaged timber
due to their suseptability to insects and disease.
We have increased the amount of up-front public input to project
development and NEPA by adding a process for communities to develop a
community fire protection plan to help inform the Federal land managers
of a community's priorities and by requiring all projects to be
developed through the collaborative process developed by the western
Governors group.
We have added the authority for the agencies, in cooperation with
State and local government, to treat community escape routes as part of
the wildland urban interface. This is a major improvement over the
House-passed bill.
Until the community fire protection plans are completed, we have laid
out criteria for how far from the wildland urban interface the
community protection projects may be undertaken. These criteria are
flexible enough to take advantage of geographic features, such as
ridge-tops, rivers, or roads, but restrictive enough to ensure projects
undertaken in the wildland urban interface will really protect the
community.
We clarified what Congress wants in terms of a new pre-decisional
protest process by requiring the Secretary to establish such a process
while ensuring the public will play a part in the development of the
new appeals process.
Unlike the House version, we have limited the use of this new appeals
process to just projects authorized by this act, rather than having it
apply to all Forest Service activities.
We have, for the first time, included language designed to protect
old growth and fire resistant large trees. This protection is based on
forest plans.
Where those forest plans are old, or outdated, we require the
Secretary to complete a plan revision or amendment to address old
growth and large fire resilient trees, while at the same time including
enough flexibility to ensure work need to improve fire resiliency can
be carried out.
We have narrowed the scope of changes under judicial review to just
those projects undertaken under the authority of this act.
We have also included all of the judicial review provisions from the
Wyden-Feinstein proposal, S. 1352.
Finally, we have authorized $760 million annually for hazardous fuel
reduction work, including the projects authorized under this act, which
is more than double what is currently being requested.
I thank the Senate for listening. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Under the previous order, the
Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, is to be recognized at this
time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, even if we were not having the catastrophic fires we
are seeing every day in southern California right now, the forest
health issue is of vital importance to us in the West, and many of the
speeches that have been given here underscore that.
I am glad the Senate is considering a forest health bill with the
opportunity for us to offer amendments. I will not go through all of my
statement because I know we want to get to those amendments. There has
been a lot of time used already in discussing the bill in general
terms. We need to get down to some of the specific amendments.
Let me make a few general statements about the bill because I do
think it is good to at least give our perspective on the situation.
Some have tried to portray the issue as one of support for the
concept of active management of our national forests on the one hand as
opposed to simply allowing nature to take its course. Let me be clear
that I do not agree with that portrayal of the debate taking place in
the Congress. I have always viewed active forest management as not only
a desirable policy but one that is absolutely necessary. In my opinion,
support for active and responsible forest management does not equate
with support necessarily for all the provisions in this substitute
amendment that will be coming before us.
I want to be sure that whatever legislative language we pass provides
meaningful new authority to Federal land managers, that it is focused
on the communities that are most threatened by wildfire, and that it
does not unduly restrict the public's ability to participate in the
oversight of public lands management.
In addition, I believe commercial timber operations are an important

[[Page S13471]]

part of our national forest policy. It is important that legislation
dealing with forest health not be a pretext for accomplishing that
purpose as well.
I wish to discuss some of the concerns with the forest health issue
based on the initial reading I have done of the amendment we are going
to be debating and amending.
Let me begin by stating the obvious. That is, the health of our
Nation's forests is absolutely critical at this point due to
generations of misguided forest management policies. Many forests are
overcrowded with unhealthy buildup of underbrush and tree overcrowding.
I think all the experts in this field recognize that. We see evidence
of that not only with the California fires, but we see evidence of it
throughout the country.
The effect of these large wildfires can be catastrophic, as we all
can see. We have, as Senator Domenici indicated, seen some of this
catastrophe in my home State of New Mexico. He made reference to the
Cerro Grande fire at Los Alamos where a substantial number of homes
were destroyed and a great amount of the forest was also destroyed.
Clearly, we need to take proactive steps to improve forest health. In
my view, the proposed forest health amendment does some things right
but, in some respects, I think it misses that opportunity. It does not
provide any meaningful new authority for funding to help Federal land
managers, but it does add new restrictions on the public's ability to
participate and restrictions on the Federal courts' ability to review
what is done.
There is a basic disagreement among some of us in Congress and among
those who are most ardently supporting this amendment, and that is a
disagreement about what is the most significant public policy issue we
are faced with in trying to come to grips with these catastrophic
fires.

The amendment we are going to be debating seems to be based on the
premise that the underlying and essential problem that needs fixing is
that we have too much public participation in the decisionmaking
process, in management decisions, administrative appeals, and lawsuits.
One of the speakers earlier today talked about a litigation
paralysis, saying that is the problem, that is why these forests are
burning up. That is what we need to change most quickly. I say this
because the major new authorities provided in the amendment are ones
that limit appeals of agency decisions, limit judicial review, and
require courts to follow new standards. I don't really think the facts
support this assumption that litigation is the major and most
significant problem we face.
I recently asked the General Accounting Office to study whether the
National Environmental Policy Act compliance requirements, the agency
appeals, and the litigation that has occurred were causing significant
delays in hazardous fuel reduction projects.
The GAO issued a preliminary report in May. They just completed a
final report last Friday. The GAO in that report reviewed 818 Forest
Service management decisions over a 2-year period, fiscal years 2001
and 2002, and these 818 forest management decisions involving fuel
reduction activities on 4.8 million acres of land. These were the first
2 years of the so-called national fire plan which we have all been
trying to see implemented.
It is worthwhile to take just a minute to summarize what the GAO
found. The GAO found that the vast majority of acres treated were
categorically excluded by the Forest Service from NEPA review. That is
a term of art, ``categorically excluded.'' That means this is authority
in the law for the Forest Service to say: We are going to exclude
certain areas from NEPA review, and we have the authority to do that.
The GAO found the vast majority of acres that were treated were, in
fact, categorically excluded. None of these projects were appealed,
none were litigated, none were subject to appeal, and none were subject
to litigation.
Only 25 of the 818 were litigated. That represents about 3 percent of
all projects. That involved about 100,000 acres. Again, this is out of
the 4.8 million acres that was studied by the GAO for those 2 years.

Significantly, the GAO found of those 25 cases that were litigated,
23 involved commercial timber sales. Of the 25 cases that were
litigated, the courts found the Forest Service lost on all but one of
those cases. So to the extent litigation was involved, the vast
majority of the time the Forest Service was found to have been in
violation of the law.
In my opinion, litigation is not the major problem. I am not saying
we cannot do some things to streamline the appeals process and to be
sure any frivolous litigation is eliminated, but I do think we need to
recognize the GAO made a study that shed some light on what we are
doing.
The majority of forest-thinning projects were categorically excluded
from NEPA. In my State, in region 3 of the Forest Service, which
included Arizona and New Mexico, the GAO found 78 percent of the
projects were excluded, and that covered 91 percent of the affected
acreage. So 91 percent of the affected acreage was never subject to
appeal, never subject to litigation.
This is a useful report. There is a one-page summary of it. I ask
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record after my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. The only other report we have analyzing empirical data
of the Forest Service appeals involved a 2003 study by a political
science professor at Northern Arizona University. Contrary to the
assertions of the Bush administration, the Northern Arizona University
study found the number of appeals had been decreasing since 1998.
I will speak a little bit about what I do see as a major issue as
part of this legislation. Based on our experience with forest health
issues in my State, the real issue has not been judicial appeals,
judicial review, but instead has been providing adequate funding for
forest health projects and stopping the Forest Service's harmful
practice of borrowing funds from fire prevention accounts in order to
pay for the cost of fighting forest fires. I will offer an amendment on
that in a few minutes. I wanted to flag that as an essential problem I
think needs to be dealt with. It is not dealt with in the amendment
coming to the floor now, but I will give the Senate the opportunity to
deal with it. I hope the Senate will agree with me this is something we
need to fix.
I commend Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan, the chairman and ranking
member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for their efforts
to secure $400 million last month to repay the accounts the agencies
borrowed in order to fight fires. I also appreciate Senator Burns's
comment that the $400 million is not the final word, especially since
the estimates those agencies have given is they actually had to borrow
over $600 million from other programs so far this year.
However, the year-to-year approach we have followed of borrowing
funds from other accounts in order to deal with forest fires is just
not adequate. Even when our Senate Appropriations colleagues were able
to obtain supplemental funding to repay these other Forest Service
accounts, every year on-the-ground restoration work is substantially
delayed while the Forest Service waits for a supplemental
appropriations bill to be enacted into law.

In New Mexico, there are some very critical Forest Service fire
prevention projects that were postponed for up to a year as a result of
borrowing from these accounts. These include wildland/urban interface
fuels projects in the Carson National Forest, the Gila National Forest,
the Lincoln National Forest, and the Santa Fe National Forest.
In addition, a contract for construction of a fuel break around a
community at risk in the Cibola National Forest was postponed for 6
months because of the agency borrowing to cover firefighting costs.
This is not criticism of the agency. The agency has no alternative
but to do this borrowing, the way we have set it up. What happens is
very simple. The President asks for too little money for firefighting.
He does that every year--at least he has for the last several years. I
have some charts I will show in a few minutes on that.
The President asks for too little money. We in the Congress agree
with

[[Page S13472]]

the President and appropriate too little money. Then when the fires
start happening, of course, the Forest Service has to find ways to
fight those fires. The only option they have is to shut down their
activities in other areas and use that money instead to fight fires.
One of the other areas they shut down activity in is in this forest-
thinning work, so that we put it off, say, OK, we cannot get it done
this year; we are too busy fighting fires; we will try to get it done
next year. Then next year comes and once again they may have to use the
money they had hoped to use for the forest-thinning activities and the
forest health activities to, in fact, fight fires. That has happened
year in and year out. It is a classic case of being so busy killing
alligators that there is not time to drain the swamp. That is exactly
the position we have put the Forest Service in and we need to try to
correct that. I will offer an amendment with the hope the Senate will
agree with me and make that correction.
The lack of funding for forest health projects continues to constrain
our efforts to actively manage our forests to deal with these disease
and drought conditions which have been discussed at length. Three years
ago, Congress found funding was the main obstacle to improving forest
health and reducing a threat of unnaturally intense catastrophic
wildfire. Specifically, we have created the National Fire Plan, with
$1.6 billion in new funding for existing programs, to improve forest
health conditions. At that time, we all agreed on the need to sustain a
commitment to the National Fire Plan over a long enough period so we
could make a difference. We were talking about 15 years. That meant at
a minimum sustaining the fiscal year 2001 funding levels for all
components of the National Fire Plan.
Unfortunately, as I stated just a few minutes ago, the administration
has systematically and continually proposed major cuts and, in some
cases, zeroing out critical programs within that National Fire Plan,
including the burned area restoration program, rehabilitation projects,
economic action programs, community and private land fire assistance.
So the proposed cuts we have received in the budgets each year have
eliminated funding for these programs, notwithstanding the clearly
identified demand for these programs. For example, New Mexico and other
States have suffered unnaturally intense, catastrophic fires, and there
is a desperate need for funds to restore and rehabilitate the burned
areas.
Finally, the 2002 report and conclusion by the National Academy of
Public Administration confirmed the main obstacle constraining the
Forest Service from substantially increasing its proactive efforts to
reduce fire risk is the lack of adequate funding. The proposed
amendment to H.R. 1904 authorizes $760 million. I appreciate the fact
that funding level is in there, but it does not ensure the real funding
will be provided. The problem is, when we get into the actual
appropriating of funds, we do not get the job done.
In earlier debates, I have repeatedly stated the Forest Service needs
to focus its hazardous fuels reduction effort more directly on the
threats communities face. We will have an amendment to that effect. I
know Senator Boxer from California has an amendment to try to do a
better job in that regard. I think that will be an important issue for
us to try to deal with as well.
In sum, Congress required a sufficient proportion of all hazardous
fuels reduction funds be spent on projects near
communities. Nevertheless, the General Accounting Office recently found
that more than two-thirds of the Forest Service decisions involving
fuel reduction activities were targeted exclusively at lands outside
this wildland/urban interface area. The amendment that has been brought
to the floor here goes on to state that this requirement is based on a
national average, this 50 percent requirement. They are saying we
should have 50 percent going for projects near communities, in this
wildland/urban interface. If you have a requirement such as that based
on national average, obviously individual forests or even entire
regions can significantly ignore this direction we were giving them.

In addition, the provisions of the amendment only apply to funds
allocated for projects pursuant to title I of H.R. 1904 rather than to
the entire hazardous fuels reduction program.
There are many questions about the specific language of the amendment
at which we need to look. Let me talk for just a minute about the new
administrative appeals process.
Apart from what the amendment does not do, I am very concerned with
some of the things the new authority does try to do. The provision that
seems the least developed in the amendment, the one that causes me
significant concern, is section 105. This section directs the Secretary
of Agriculture to establish a predecisional administrative review
process that will serve as the:

sole means by which a person can seek administrative review
of a hazardous fuel reduction project. . . .

This predecisional process is described as covering the period
following the completion of the appropriate NEPA document up to the
date a final agency decision is issued.
I understand the desire to ensure that interested members of the
public are involved during the development of the proposed agency
project, and to avoid lawsuits by those who have not been involved in
the process, and I certainly agree with that.
However, I think the language is somewhat troubling. As I understand
it, the language would limit the right to administratively appeal an
agency decision, as well as the ability to challenge it in Federal
court, to those who have exhausted the predecisional review process. So
we are going to significantly limit the right to appeal or challenge a
decision based on a process that has not been established yet and that
we are not really clear on what it will permit.
There are other questions about that. As I understand it, there will
likely be an amendment offered on that issue as well.
Let me say a word about the Federal courts because many of the others
who have spoken have done that. The amendment that has been offered
here limits the court's ability to issue a preliminary injunction to no
more than 60 days, although a court can renew an injunction
indefinitely.
In order to issue a preliminary injunction, a court needs to find
several things: No. 1, that the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the
merits. That is the first thing the court needs to find. No. 2, that
there will be irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued. No. 3,
the harm to the plaintiff in not issuing the injunction is not
outweighed by the harm to the defendant of issuing the injunction. And,
No. 4, that issuing the injunction is in the public interest.
So a Federal court has to find quite a few things to issue a
preliminary injunction. Having made this determination, I wonder why we
then are saying to the court, unless you come back and renew that
injunction every 60 days, we in Congress are going to assume the agency
was right and you were wrong. The court has already determined that
most likely the agency is in error. So I have concerns about that.

I understand there is a great desire here to limit the Federal
court's ability to issue injunctions, preliminary injunctions. My
understanding is, also, that this not only limits preliminary
injunctions, it limits the Federal court's rights to issue permanent
injunctions in some questionable ways.
Let me say just briefly, I do think we need to be sure the bill has
adequate protections for national monuments and for roadless areas.
There are provisions to exclude designated wilderness and wilderness
study areas from the bill. I think we should have that same provision
apply to national monuments. I hope we can persuade our colleagues that
that makes good sense. I have been told by some that is certainly their
intent.
Turning to my home State, 3 years ago we created the Valles Caldera
National Preserve in northern New Mexico. I think it would be good to
know how the provisions in this amendment would be used there, in that
type of arrangement. Perhaps we can clarify that. I hope we can.
There are several other questions about how this relates to other
forest initiatives: How does it interact with recent legislative and
administrative actions regarding forest health?
There is a stewardship contracting program that includes exemptions
from

[[Page S13473]]

the National Forest Management Act and provides new authority for the
Forest Service and for the BLM to trade the value of big trees removed
by a contractor for restoration services completed by that same
contractor. We need to see how this new legislation would impact upon
that.
In addition, the administration has taken several regulatory actions
recently under its Healthy Forests initiative. It has promulgated new
rules establishing a categorical exclusion from NEPA, which would apply
to projects, including timber sales, that cover up to 1,000 acres each.
The administration has published new rules overhauling the Forest
Service appeals process. Those new rules exempt all ``categorically
excluded projects from appeal.''
In other words, the administration has taken significant action to
deal with several of these issues. We need to know how this legislation
affects the actions that have already been taken.
Slash treatments is another issue that I think deserves some
attention. We have a serious issue here in that in my home State they
go through, they cut down the diseased small trees, they put them into
piles, and then they have to come back and do a sequential treatment,
come back and remove that slash and be sure it does not become bug
infested and become an even greater problem. The GAO analysis found
that in my State the Forest Service and BLM completed only 19 of the 34
followup slash treatments that they had committed to do in a timely
manner. Again, it is probably a lack of funding that has caused that
shortfall.
I have some additional concerns and questions about the provisions in
the amendment. I will raise those at the appropriate time as we get
into the amendments.
In closing, let me reiterate I am very glad we are proceeding to
consideration of the bill. Since some of us were not involved in the
negotiations, I do think it is appropriate we offer some amendments.
Especially it is important for Senators from States that are directly
affected by this threat to have that opportunity. I commend the people
who did work hard in getting this legislation to this point. I do think
there has been a genuine effort to find some compromise and to make
some improvements. Clearly, this bill as it stands is substantially
better than what the House has sent us. But it can be substantially
improved from where it is. I hope the amendment we offer can be
seriously considered, and hopefully adopted, and we make those
improvements.
With that, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

United States General Accounting Office--Report to Congressional
Requesters

forest service--information on appeals and litigation involving fuels
reduction activities

Why GAO did this study

The federal fire community's decades old policy of
suppressing wildland fires as soon as possible has caused a
dangerous increase in vegetation density in our nation's
forests. This density increase combined with severe drought
over much of the United States has created a significant
threat of catastrophic wildfires. In response to this threat,
the Forest Service performs activities to reduce the buildup
of brush, small trees, and other vegetation on national
forest land. With the increased threat of catastrophic
wildland fires, there have been concerns about delays in
implementing activities to reduce these ``forest fuels.''
Essentially, these concerns focus on the extent to which
public appeals and litigation of Forest Service decisions to
implement forest fuels reduction activities unnecessarily
delay efforts to reduce fuels.
The Forest Service does not keep a national database on the
number of forest fuels reduction activities that are appealed
or litigated. Accordingly, GAO was asked to develop this
information for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Among other
things, GAO was asked to determine (1) the number of
decisions involving fuels reduction activities and the number
of acres affected, (2) the number of decisions that were
appealed and/or litigated and the number of acres affected,
(3) the outcomes of appealed and/or litigated decisions, and
(4) the number of appeals that were processed within
prescribed time frames.

What GAO found

In a GAO survey of all national forests, forest managers
reported the following:
In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 818 decisions involved fuels
reduction activities covering 4.8 million acres.
Of the 818 decisions involving fuels reduction activities,
about 24 percent were appealed--affecting 954,000 acres.
However, of the 818 decisions, more than half, 486 decisions,
could not be appealed because they involved activities with
little or no environmental impact. Of the 332 appealable
decisions, 194 (about 58 percent) were appealed. There can
multiple appeals per decision. In addition, 25 decisions (3
percent) affecting about 111,000 acres were litigated.
For 73 percent of the appealed decisions, the Forest
Service allowed the fuels reduction activities to be
implemented without changes; 8 percent required some changes
before being implemented; and about 19 percent could not be
implemented. Of the 25 litigated decisions, 19 have been
resolved.
About 79 percent of appeals were processed within the
prescribed 90-day time frame. Of the remaining 21 percent,
the processing times ranged from 91 days to 240 days.
The Forest Service, in commenting on a draft of this
report, generally agreed with the report's contents. Their
specific comments and our evaluation of them are provided in
the report.

SUMMARY OF FOREST SERVICE DECISIONS AND APPEALS INFORMATION FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2001 and 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts
Little or     initially    Total for
Decisions/appeals          no impact/  uncertain or      all
not      significant/   decisions
appealable   appealable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of decisions.............          486           332          818
Number of appealed decisions....            3           194          197
Percentage of decisions appealed           <1            58           24
Acreage (in thousands)..........        2,989         1,804        4,793
Acreage appealed (in thousands).            4           950          954
Percentage of acreage appealed..           <1            53           20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO data and analysis.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Alaska is recognized at this time.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we have had a great deal of
discussion about the fires raging throughout California this week. We
talked about fire seasons in the past several years. The years 2000,
2002, and 2003 fire seasons have been some of the worst on record
nationally. In 2002, in my State of Alaska alone, we experienced fires
that burned over a million acres. Over a million acres in Alaska were
burned in 2002. In this year, in 2003--this is from a report that is
current as of yesterday, taking into account what is happening in
California as we speak--to date, approximately 3.6 million acres have
burned nationwide--3.6 million acres, and burning.
Forest fires are a huge problem, predominantly in the West, for those
of us in the Western States. It is interesting to look around the
Chamber this afternoon and see how many of the Western State Senators
are paying very close attention to the debate on this legislation.
We know, we can see the damage to our forested lands from these
catastrophic wildfires, many of which have resulted from forests that
have been devastated by insects and by disease.
Deteriorating forest and rangeland health now affects more than 190
million acres of public lands throughout the country.
Again, as we have seen from the pictures which the Senators from
California displayed and from the newspapers, the areas where the fires
are ravaging the hillsides and destroying communities are areas that
were affected by insects and disease.
I want to take us to a picture of Alaska, as the good Senator from
New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, mentioned not too long ago. In my State, our
forests have been infected and literally torn apart by a beetle known
as the spruce bark beetle. The spruce bark beetle, other insects, and
other diseases have devastated hundreds of thousands of acres along the
Kenai Peninsula and in the Chugach Mountains, and outside of my
hometown in Anchorage along the hillsides. You are talking about the
wildland/urban interface communities and how it all plays out. I see
that very carefully and very closely every time I am home.
The picture that I have behind me is a picture from the Kenai
Peninsula in the southern part of the State. This is a picture of
forests that have been totally wiped out by the spruce bark beetle.
There is not a tree that you look at in the forefront or in the
background that is alive. Every one of these trees are dead. They were
killed by the spruce bark beetle.
As the Senator from New Mexico mentioned, it is like a Christmas tree
that you have put out on the back porch and it no longer has any water.
The leaves are crumbly to the touch and fall when you touch them.
These trees that you are looking at are probably 30 to 40 feet high.
It is tough to estimate the girth of the trunk. But these are very
mature old-growth trees that are standing waiting

[[Page S13474]]

for an accident to happen--waiting for a fire. This is not tinder
sitting on the forest floor. This is standing tinder that is just
waiting to be devastated and to devastate potentially property and
human life.
As we look at this picture and understand the stands we are talking
about here, I mentioned that there were hundreds of thousands of acres
which have been devastated by insect and disease in Alaska. The spruce
bark beetle has literally changed the forests in Alaska. Over 5 million
acres of trees in south-central and the interior of Alaska have been
lost to the spruce bark beetle over just the past 10 years.
This picture shows, I have been told, the result of trees that have
been infested for about a 10-year period. These were perfectly healthy,
strong, and living trees. The entire forest has been wiped out by the
spruce bark beetle.
We are told in Alaska that this is one of the worst recorded
incidents of beetle kill and infestation in our history.
You do not see any homes. You do not see any development. This is out
in the wilds of Alaska, if you will. But adjoining the Chugach National
Forest, off of the Kenai Peninsula, we have many smaller communities--
certainly not a Los Angeles-type of community but we have homes. We
have towns that adjoin these national parklands.
We have a little community called Moose Pass which sits right in the
middle of dead and dying trees.
My home city of Anchorage, the largest population center in the
State--about half of the residents of the State of Alaska live in
Anchorage--is rimmed by the Chugach National Forest. We are dealing
with the infestation of the spruce bark beetle as it is traveling
north. The danger is made even worse when you couple it with the fact
that we have had low snowfalls in recent years. Again, it is an
accident almost waiting to happen. We don't want to happen in Alaska
what we are currently seeing in California.

Our public land laws and regulations should not make it difficult to
cut down the dead or the dying trees that are nothing but potential
fuel for these catastrophic wildfires. Our Nation's policy has to allow
for responsible forest management that includes the ability to remove,
when appropriate, wildfire fuel from our forests.
That is why I am supporting the bipartisan amendment to title I of
H.R. 1904. In particular, there is a subsection which will authorize
treatment under title I on Federal land. This technical change allows
for hazardous fuels reduction on Federal lands on which wind throw or
blown down ice storm damage or the existence of disease or insect
infestation has occurred and poses a significant threat to an ecosystem
component on Federal land or adjacent non-Federal land.
I suggest to you, looking at this picture and understanding the
extent of the insect infestation that we have, that it certainly poses
a significant threat to an ecosystem component.
The Kenai Peninsula National Forest System land contains
approximately 223,000 forested acres of which 119,000 contain spruce
trees with a percentage of old growth. These old-growth stands are
susceptible to the spruce bark beetle or are already dead.
The amendment we are speaking to--the bipartisan amendment under
title I--will allow Federal land managers to manage the dead and dying
tree stands.
The prespruce bark beetle epidemic condition on the Kenai Peninsula
had a significant acreage in unmanaged old-growth spruce which was very
susceptible to massive mortality and the buildup of the spruce bark
beetle population. The key to long-term forest management on the Kenai
Peninsula that will prevent a reoccurrence of the type of spruce bark
beetle mortality is to manage the forested landscape for a variety of
species' compositions, structures, and age classes--not simply
unmanaged old-growth stands.
To maintain the watershed health--which we certainly need--the
Chugach National Forest needs to manage the landscape on the Kenai
Peninsula for a variety of species, structures, and age classes.
With the technical change that we are seeing in this amendment, it
allows for old-growth stands such as those existing on the Kenai
Peninsula to be treated without restriction related to the old-growth
provisions that are being offered in other sections of the amendment.
I believe that with the legislation before us--the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act--we have a comprehensive plan focused on giving the
Federal land managers and their partners the tools they need to respond
to national forest health crises. That is what we have in Alaska. That
is what we are seeing in many parts of the West.

This legislation directs the timely implementation of scientifically
supported management activities to protect the health and vibrancy of
Federal forest ecosystems as well as protecting the communities and the
private lands that surround them.
I support what we are doing with H.R. 1904 and certainly encourage
Members' support.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, after consulting with the leaders and
those interested in talking about this amendment before we vote, I am
now in a position to propound a unanimous consent request.
I ask unanimous consent that at 3:35 today the Senate proceed to a
vote in relation to amendment No. 1828, with no amendments in order to
the amendment prior to the vote; I further ask consent if the amendment
is agreed to, it then be considered as original text for the purpose of
further amendment; I finally ask that the following Senators be
permitted to speak prior to the vote: Senator Ensign for 10 minutes;
Senator Bennett for 5 minutes; Senator Murray for 5 minutes; Senator
Kyl for 5 minutes; and Senator Crapo for 10 minutes.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the manager of this bill, the
chairman of the committee, to modify his request to allow Senator
Lincoln 10 minutes, and that following the disposition of this
chairman's amendment, Senator Boxer be recognized to offer the next
amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask that my request be so modified
and that the vote occur at 3:45 instead of 3:35.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, for purposes of asking the distinguished
chairman of the committee, it is your desire, I gather, we would then
have the vote at 3:45 and that would in effect end the opening
statements on this legislation; we would move to amendments, beginning
with the Boxer amendment, and then throughout the rest of the day pick
up the rest of the amendments and hopefully move as quickly as
possible.
Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Although I would say, if the distinguished Senator would
yield, people still have an opportunity if they want to offer their
comments on the bill itself. There is nothing in the request which
would prohibit that.
Mr. COCHRAN. With that understanding, I renew my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I will make a few comments about the
underlying legislation, the Healthy Forest initiative, and give a
perspective from another western state, the State of Nevada, my home
State, and some personal experiences I have had in the last few years.
I saw a wonderful program on the Discovery channel about the history
of forest fires in the United States. They went back a few hundred
years and talked about the natural burning of the forests and how
forest fires occurred. We had fairly catastrophic fires in the early
1900s that changed our attitude because a lot of people were killed in
those fires. It changed the way we looked at forest fires. We decided
to try to put forest fires out using various methods of fire
suppression.
Over the last 100 or so years, in trying to put out all these forest
fires, we have stopped the natural clearing of the underbrush. As
humans have moved more into the forests with our development, even if
we wanted to go back to allowing natural burns to occur, we could not
do that because of the devastation that can occur such as we are seeing
in California with people living so close to the natural environment.
There are some things we can do to manage our forests so when the
fires do occur they happen in a more natural fashion. What we have been
seeing in the last several years is they are not natural fires. They
are catastrophic fires and they burn the entire forest. They literally
sterilize the ground.

[[Page S13475]]

There is so much fuel that there are incredible temperatures. When the
forest fires used to move through, they would pretty much burn the
undergrowth. They would char the big trees, they would char the bark on
them, but they would leave the crown of the forest alive. As the forest
fires moved through and cleared the underbrush, it gave the forest a
chance to revive, gave a chance for little seedlings to take root. It
was a nice cleansing process for the forests.
Now that we have started putting all the forest fires out, we have a
huge fuel buildup. Now when the forest fires burn through, they burn
the underbrush and they burn the crowns of the forest. They basically
wipe the entire forest out. It is an unnatural event that is happening
today. We are losing endangered species. When you wipe out the whole
forest you lose not only animal life, you lose incredible plant
diversity as well. We end up with erosion because there is nothing to
hold the ground when the rains come.
I have been in the West almost all of my life--mostly in Nevada,
lived in Oregon, lived in California, lived in Colorado some, attending
schools--and I have visited a lot of forests there. We have our family
reunion up in Black Butte every summer. I was there during the huge
forest fire Senator Smith was talking about earlier; that is still
going on. We were there July 4 and that fire is still going on today.
They are waiting for the snows to come to put that forest fire out.
In comparing the forests from the East to West, in the East there is
much denser forest. That may be OK because of the amount of rain and
the amount of moisture in the East. We do not get that kind of moisture
in the West. My State, the State of Nevada, is the most arid State in
the entire country. We have what are called ``desert forests'' that do
not have a lot of undergrowth. That is where those forest fires are
able to move through, clear out a little of the underbrush and leave
the crowns pretty much intact.
What happens in the West versus the East, we get periods of drought.
We are in about a 5-year drought right now in the West. We had 3 good
years before that of rain. Before that was another 6-year drought.
During those periods of drought you get the bark beetle Senator
Murkowski was talking about in Alaska. We have that in our State,
especially around Lake Tahoe. During the 6-year period of drought, the
bark beetle devastated a lot of trees in the Lake Tahoe basin.
I was up there touring some of the Federal lands, some of the State
lands, and saw the difference in our policies, State versus Federal.
Comparing State versus Federal versus private lands, the least healthy
forests are the Federal lands. That is what this underlying bill is
trying to correct, the problems we see on Federal lands.
In the State lands, they are cleaning the underbrush. There is a lot
of emotion generated by the groups participating in these projects. As
a matter of fact, in one area where they were doing the thinning of the
underbrush--it is not just underbrush, but they are clearing out the
fir trees. The big Ponderosa pines are being choked out by the fir
trees. A lot of fuel goes in there. The sunlight cannot get in so these
pine trees can grow in the way they were intended to grow naturally.
When they were going through and cleaning and clearing some of this
out, they got a lot of complaints because it was near this very popular
hiking trail up at Lake Tahoe. There were a lot of complaints and
protests.
A year after the first area was cleared out, they saw the positive
ecological results of that clearing. One result is that the aspen trees
are coming back to that area. They were choked out by the fir trees.
There is more biodiversity. If a fire now goes through, it will burn
naturally instead of the catastrophic fires we have seen so much in the
West. Six hundred thousand acres so far have burned in the State of
California. That is a huge amount of land.

In 1999, in my State, 1.8 million acres burned. We have been lucky
the last few years, but my State is ready to go again, just like most
of the western States. It is not just the forest fires we worry about
from these fires, like the almost 2 million acres we had in Nevada--and
fires in California, Oregon, Idaho, Arizona, and on and on and on in
the West--these forest fires are creating air pollution.
We just got calls, because the winds shifted in California, and the
pollution from the fires is now coming to Nevada because the winds
changed directions.
When the Oregon fires were blowing last year, the pollution from them
came down into the State of Nevada. I was up at Lake Tahoe, and, boy,
you could not even see. It was like we were in a horrible pollution day
down in Southern California. It was so dense, the pollution was so bad,
and the ash came down from these forest fires.
It is not just the forest health we are worried about, it is also our
air's health. If people who care about air pollution want to do
something, the No. 1 thing we could do is to make sure we have healthy
forests into the future. Because if we do not have these devastating
fires, we will not have as many acres burn per year and as much of that
stuff going up into the air to cause pollution. These fires that are
occurring are much worse than anything man is producing on an
industrial basis. To protect our air, we should be doing this.
Protecting the environment, protecting property, and protecting
people are not mutually exclusive. We can do all of them together if we
have reasonable laws. That is really what this bill is about.
Two other areas I want to talk about quickly. One is in Carson City,
and one is in Ely, NV--great initiatives on this urban interface with
the forests that were going on. The one in Ely occurred on Federal
lands. Everybody was together. Environmentalists locally were together
with local governments and the Federal Government. Everybody was
together on this initiative. They had it all worked out. The plan was
in place, ready to go. One person from Idaho filed a protest. They
didn't even live in our State--one person from Idaho. Almost 3 years
later, we are still waiting to implement the plan, and a fire that
comes through there would be devastating. One person from Idaho--that
is what this bill is trying to fix, to make sure that one person cannot
stop land managers from doing the right thing.
The other quick example is Carson City. It is not Federal lands. It
is State lands, local lands. All the people who care about the
environment worked together. They have a beautiful fire protection plan
being implemented that is ecologically balanced. It is protecting the
local communities as well as protecting the forests. That is the type
of balanced thinking we need going forward so we protect people, we
protect property, and we protect the environment all together.
I also want to express my condolences to all of those who have been
impacted by the fires in California, especially those who have lost
friends and family members. While this legislation will not help the
people fighting forest fires today, it will hopefully prevent such
fires from occurring in the future.
The Healthy Forest Initiative authorizes hazardous fuel reduction
projects that are essential for the health and well-being of our
Nation's forests. It focuses on specific at-risk areas that are at the
greatest risk of wildland catastrophic fire, the kind that has
devastated California, my State's neighbor. These kinds of fires are
intense, they are unforgiving and they certainly don't discriminate as
to what will lie in their destroying path. My heart goes out to those
whose lives have been affected by catastrophic fire.
To reiterate, in my home State of Nevada, our worst fire year was
1999 when 1.8 million acres burned. Since then we have been fortunate
compared to other States. But we know that it is only a matter of time
before fires ravage our land again. Currently there are over 10.7
million acres that are at-risk for catastrophic wildfire in the State
of Nevada. That's 10.7 million acres that need to be treated
immediately. With the proper treatment, we can lessen the effects of
the fires that will inevitably come. It is not a question of if fires
occur, but a question of when.
Catastrophic fire occurs every year. This year California and Oregon
have been hit; last year it was Colorado, Oregon and Arizona. In past
years, New Mexico and one of our Nation's most treasured national
parks, Yellowstone faced catastrophic fire. In 1999, when 1.8 million
acres burned in Nevada, unfortunately, that was not a one-time

[[Page S13476]]

event. In the past 5 years, 3.3 million acres have burned in Nevada.
However, that being said, there are excellent tools available to the
land managers of this country. Thinning densely wooded areas and
cleaning out excess brush lessens the ability of fires to spread as
fast, burn as hot, and consume as much as they already do. To carry out
these projects, land managers must go through a rigorous assessment
process. They must ensure that the public is able to participate in the
process. And they must comply with current environmental statutes and
forest plans. This is appropriate and necessary. It is a very lengthy
and thorough process that all too often is railroaded by one dissenter.
One extreme group will fight it through the administrative appeals, the
courts and will do everything to kill a completely collaborative
process.
A recent GAO report noted reported that the vast majority of appeals
to fuels projects result in no change in the Forest Service's decision.
Only 19 of the 180 appealed decisions were reversed, which means that
the remaining 161 projects--89 percent of those appealed--were delayed
unnecessarily. We say it time and again, but frivolous lawsuits which
put these projects on hold are a threat to homes and people. More than
half of the appealable decisions that were designed to protect
communities from wildfire were appealed. During the review process,
these communities remained under the threat of catastrophic wildfire.
We do not have the time to provide extreme groups the luxury of
thwarting sound management decisions. It has happened in my State, as I
mentioned before, and it happens more and more every year.
That is why passing this amendment is so important. It expedites the
approval process. It cuts through the bureaucratic red tape. It still
ensures that administrative appeals and judicial review is available to
the public. However, only individuals who have actively participated in
the administrative appeal process can then challenge the final decision
in the courts so these projects cannot be blindsided by those who
refuse to participate in the full process.
I stood here a little over a year ago and called for this type of
action. I was joined by so many of my colleagues in this body, and yet
again nothing was done. Since that time we have seen millions of acres
burn throughout the country. The Forest Service has estimated that 2.8
million acres have burn in 2003 alone and that does not count the
millions of acres in California and the more than 1500 homes destroyed
over the weekend, not to mention the deaths of those struggling to
escape these deadly fires. I don't want this to happen to Nevada. I
don't want this to happen in any State. I don't want to stand idly by
and allow this kind of destruction to go any further. We need to do
something and we need to do it now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1708

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, in just a couple minutes I am going to
offer a unanimous consent request to move to consideration of a bill to
provide extended unemployment compensation benefits to displaced
workers and to those who have exhausted their benefits.
Today there are 9 million Americans who are unemployed, and the
percentage of long-term unemployed is at a 20-year high. Our first
priority in this Congress should really be to get America back to work.
The current unemployment benefit extension, as I think all my
colleagues know, expires at the end of December.
Our economy is continuing to create only one job opening for every
three unemployed Americans. So it is clear the current Federal program
is inadequate to address the needs of out-of-work Americans in today's
troubled economy.
Another extension with no additional weeks of benefits will leave far
too many of our workers and their families out in the cold. In my home
State of Washington, there are 124,000 people who will exhaust their
benefits by the end of the year. In addition, more than 1 million
Americans have run out of unemployment benefits and remain without
work. These Americans have been stretching their savings, refinancing
their homes, moving in with other family, and depleting their
retirement accounts. Three out of four workers are now running out of
benefits before they find a job.
In past recessions, we have included these workers in additional
extensions. But so far Republicans have insisted on leaving them out.
The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act, which we are introducing,
would help 4.6 million Americans make ends meet while they search for
new jobs.
I know we are dealing with a forest health issue today. It is
extremely important to many Senators. But we have also thousands of
Americans whose extensions are going to run out very shortly. Everyone
is working very quickly here to wrap up all the bills. We all want to
go home. I know when we go home, we want to make sure the people we go
home to are not left out in the cold.
I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from
further consideration of S. 1708, a bill to provide for a 6-month
extension of unemployment compensation, with additional weeks of
benefits, as modified to strike title II and ensure that high
unemployment States are not penalized for having high unemployment
throughout the recession; that the Senate then proceed to its immediate
consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action
or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, we are on a very critical bill right now
and I must object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I heard the objection from my colleague
on the other side, and I would like to have him respond, if he would,
as to when the Senate will consider this important piece of
legislation.
As I said in my remarks, I know we are dealing with an issue that is
important to many States, but we have to provide some financial relief
to millions of Americans as we approach the holiday season.
I know my colleague understands the current extension ends on
December 31. We are all working quickly to go home. I want to know if
we can get a commitment that we will go to this bill so we can provide
for these workers so they can be at home paying for their food and
shelter that is so important to them. Can my colleague tell me when the
Senate will consider this legislation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I would be glad to respond.
As the Senator from Washington knows, all of us have very critical
issues that are very important to us, that we are trying to get time on
this floor to consider. The way we handle that is we work with our
respective leadership in scheduling these matters. I am not in a
position right now to speak for either the leadership on the other side
or my own leadership with regard to what kind of an agenda they intend
to put forward with regard to the floor. What I do know is we have
waited our time for this Healthy Forests legislation to come forward.
We now have been given floor time, and we cannot relinquish it.
Therefore, I will just encourage the Senator from Washington to work
with her leadership and our leadership to see when the scheduling issue
she wants to address can be brought forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank my colleague. I know he is not
in a position to speak for his leadership at this time. I would just
say to all of my colleagues on the floor, it is critical we allow time
as soon as possible. We can take as short as 10 or 15 minutes to get
this passed. We have thousands of constituents across the country whose
benefits are going to expire. If we wrap up this session and go home
without passing this bill, we are going to leave them out in the cold
without the ability to put food on the table, pay their rent, pay their
mortgage, pay their college tuition bills, and really make it through a
very difficult time.
As we all know, the unemployment in this country has risen. We know
more people today are unemployed than there were a year ago. The
numbers are rising. The extension needs to be passed.

[[Page S13477]]

I notify my colleagues I intend to continue to come to this floor on
a daily basis to try to bring up this bill until we get a commitment
from the Republicans to have a vote on this extension.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask permission to utilize the 10
minutes which I have been allocated under the unanimous consent
agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, we are getting close to a vote on this
amendment. I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to a couple of
the issues that have been raised by those in opposition to it.
First, it is notable that very little in opposition to this amendment
has been said. There are a few things I will get into, but the fact is,
as we said at the outset, a broad group of bipartisan Senators have
come together to address the issues from all perspectives and build a
common ground forward. I believe the relative lack of attack and
concern that has been raised with regard to this amendment is
indicative of the success which those Senators have achieved.
There have been a few criticisms made though. I want to respond to
some of them.
First, with regard to the allocation of the resources, it has been
argued that only 50 percent of the resources have been allocated to the
wildland/urban interface. Remember, we have $760 million worth of
resources allocated in this bill. The point, however, needs to be made
that in addition to the fact that our wildland/urban interface needs to
be addressed, much of the problem exists out in the forests away from
that wildland/urban interface. In fact, when the forests get hot and
get burning, when you get winds such as we are seeing in California
right now, it is very important to have protection more than just 100
yards or a couple hundred yards away from the wildland/urban interface.
We are seeing in California right now what high winds and geography
can mean with regard to a forest fire, and we must have the flexibility
in our forest managers to make the decisions about where the best
management should occur.
We also have heard that there is apparently a disagreement between
the proponents and opponents of this legislation with regard to what
the real problem is. Those who oppose this amendment say that the real
problem is that we are not putting enough resources into fuel
management and fuel reduction issues. Those of us who are proposing the
legislation are said to be focused more on trying to reduce litigation.

The fact is, this is an indication of the fact that there are
different points of view as to what we ought to be doing. It is what
this bipartisan group of Senators did to address the issue. There are
some who believe we need to solve the problem by putting more resources
on the ground and getting those resources out there in forest
management. That is why this bill authorizes $760 million of resources
to go into the management of our forests.
We do, however, recognize that there is a large problem in the
litigation arena. It is that litigation problem that the bill also
addresses.
There have been arguments made that as a result of our efforts to
address the litigation paralysis, public involvement has been limited.
That is simply not true. No public involvement under NEPA has been
eliminated. In fact, the predecisional appeals process we are proposing
to create in this legislation will create a new avenue of public
involvement. What we are saying, however, is that the litigation has to
be brought in the State or the district where the fire is, where the
proposed project is. Those who want to get involved have to exhaust
their remedies, a very standard legal procedure that is required in
many areas. Before you are going to file a lawsuit, go through the
administrative procedures that are provided to try to achieve your
objectives. And then, finally, if that doesn't work, there still is the
route of litigation allowed. We simply encourage the courts to act
expeditiously and require the courts to look at it every 60 days to see
if the circumstances have changed.
I believe these are reasonable and fair protections that are built
into place.
There has been discussion that even though we have $760 million
allocated for forest fuel reduction projects and management in this
bill, that the bill doesn't guarantee that that money will go there
because it is not an appropriations bill. That is the same thing that
is true about every authorization bill. The fact is, when we authorize
these moneys, under the way the Congress works, it is still necessary
for the Appropriations Committee to then appropriate the moneys. We
will be working with the Appropriations Committee to take that next
step. But to criticize this amendment because it is not an
appropriations bill is simply to put up a false attack and to create a
false impression that this is not a meaningful authorization of $760
million, subject, as all bills are except for entitlement programs, to
the appropriations process.
One final point: There has been an argument that litigation really
isn't the problem because a recent GAO report showed that the vast
number of forest management decisions were not appealed. That study and
the way people use it shows how you can use numbers to achieve
different results depending on the outcome you want to address. The
fact is, categorical exclusions represented a significant number of the
actions of the agency. These are actions which the current law--not
this law, but current NEPA law--does not require or allow to be
appealed.

The reason is because they are basically the kinds of actions that
have negligible or have no impact on the environment. It is things such
as cutting firewood and mowing lawns and other types of categorical
exclusion activities. There is more than that that is in that category.
But the point is, these are categorical exclusions for things that have
no significant environmental impact.
That is a current part of the existing law. When you look at the
proposed treatments that have been more than a categorical exclusion,
that require further NEPA analysis, then the level of appeals goes up
dramatically. In fact, 59 percent of them are actually appealed. Of
those that were appealed, it is interesting to note that most are found
to be without merit; 19 out of 180 were reversed.
My point is, as I said earlier today, even though these appeals may
be lost, what they do is cost the time, sometimes a full year or more,
for the implementation of the management decision, which in many cases
makes it moot at that point because the insect infestation has gone
beyond the proposal, or because a fire has occurred or something else
has made it so that the Forest Service simply can't proceed.
We are facing litigation paralysis. We do need additional resources
on the forests. This is the first legislation in the history of the
country that has provided statutory protection for old growth. This is
a bipartisan compromise that will help us move significantly forward in
these efforts to address this critical problem in our country.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Miller and I be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1828.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I appreciate the comments made by my
colleague from Idaho and I rise to give a case study example of what he
is talking about. We will give States and specifics here. They are
similar to those that came from the Senator from Alaska.
In 1991, a forest health aerial detection survey was made in Utah
that discovered the bark beetle in certain parts of the Dixie National
Forest. Forest

[[Page S13478]]

health specialists advised that it might be necessary to suppress the
epidemic by removing some of the infested trees and thinning some of
the standings. At the time they made that decision, this photo depicts
what the forest looked like: healthy, green, a place that was of some
pride to the people who lived there. This is called the Sidney Valley
Recovery Project, proposed as part of the strategy to suppress the
spread of the epidemic into that area.
As soon as this was announced, three different environmental groups
filed appeals of the project and, naturally, it was delayed while those
appeals were heard. Finally, after the delay, the Forest Service was
upheld, so the appeals were examined and found to be without merit. The
Forest Service was upheld. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance chose
to file a suit in Federal court. There were the typical delays
connected with litigation, and the Federal court finally threw out the
lawsuit.
So you had the appeals to begin with; they were disavowed; and then
you had a lawsuit. When that was disavowed, OK, now you can go ahead
with your effort to protect the forest. The only trouble was, at that
point, this picture depicts what the forest looked like. These are not
trees with leaves turned because it was fall. These are pine trees. The
reason they are brown is that they are dead. If you drive through the
Dixie Forest, which I have done, it almost makes you sick at how
terribly decimated the forest has become. The only reason is that the
Forest Service's professional managers, trained in dealing with these
kinds of epidemics, were prevented from going in there by special
interest groups until it was too late. I am sure there were mailings
made in these environmental groups saying: Help save the Dixie Forest
from the people who would build roads.
Well, they saved the Dixie Forest from the people who might put in
logging roads, but they killed it in the process. The epidemic has now
spread and there is no stopping it now. There is no going back. There
is no saying, let's reverse this. The trees are dead and the Dixie
Forest is a blight. The people who live there and know how to take care
of these things are sick at heart at what has been done, while those
special interest groups, most of whose members do not live in Utah, can
claim victory. Well, they cannot claim victory in the lawsuit because
they lost the lawsuit. They can only claim victory if their goal was to
destroy the forest.
It is summarized by one of the former managers of the Dixie Forest
who says: ``It leaves us with the strategy of win the lawsuit, lose the
forest.''
I have a terrible time understanding why people who claim to be
``friends'' of the forest, ``friends'' of the environment, end up
producing this kind of result. That is why I have joined as a cosponsor
of this amendment. I applaud the administration for their initiative in
saying let's have healthy forests. Fortunately, the Dixie Forest has
not yet caught fire. But the trees are just as dead either way. The
blight is there just as much either way. We may have been spared the
devastation of fire for the communities around the Dixie, but we have
not been spared the devastation of the epidemic that has destroyed this
portion of the Dixie Forest.
For that reason, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment, and
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I am very proud to be in the Chamber
discussing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act with an eye toward its
quick passage through the Senate.
I first want to applaud both Chairman Cochran for shepherding this
bill through the Agriculture Committee and to the floor.
I'd also like to thank Senator Crapo, who chairs the Forestry
Subcommittee, for his leadership in moving this legislation through the
Committee expeditiously.
Chairman Domenici and Chairman Cochran, and Senators Crapo, Wyden,
Feinstein, Craig, Kyl, McCain, and I have brokered a workable
compromise to Title I of this bill which we believe will prove amenable
to the Senate and move on to a conference with the House.
Want to especially thank our staffs, who have put in many hours of
hard work over two months to bring us to this point.
this bipartisan compromise legislation builds upon the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act, which passed the House of Representatives earlier this
year.
Our legislation will ensure that we can address the many problems
affecting all of our Nation's forests--both on public and private
forestlands, in southern and western forests, and throughout both
hardwood and pine ecosystems.
This legislation is intended to correct the direction of forest
legislation in this country.
I am also proud that the bill contains many provisions that I have
championed and that are beneficial to my home State of Arkansas.
I began my work on this legislation with the intent to accomplish a
few, very specific goals related to the health of Arkansas' forests.
First and foremost, we must provide the Forest Service with the tools
necessary to immediately address the epidemic of oak decline and
mortality in the Ozark highlands of Arkansas and Missouri.
I am proud the bill incorporates language I have championed to
provide the Forest Service with the tools necessary to immediately
address the epidemic of oak decline and mortality in the Ozark
highlands of Arkansas and Missouri.
Just as our Western forests are under constant threat from fire, our
Eastern forests are under constant threat from insects and disease.
We cannot let any more time pass without ensuring the Forest Service
can quickly mitigate the effects of insect and disease damage
throughout our forests before it reaches disaster proportions.
Oak decline is a natural occurrence in older forests or in areas
where trees are stressed by conditions such as old age, over population
of the forest, poor soil conditions, and the effects of several years
of severe drought. And under normal conditions, oak decline is not
necessarily fatal to the tree.
However, these conditions have allowed insects such as the red oak
borer to flourish throughout the forest and have led to an epidemic of
oak mortality throughout our forests.
In fact, many estimates now suggest that potentially up to one
million acres of red oaks have been affected in the Ozark highlands--a
devastation we never anticipated.
It is important to note that this epidemic has not been long in
coming--it was only first discovered in the late 1990s, and quickly was
out of control.
I am concerned that this epidemic will lead to a complete loss of red
oak from the Ozark highlands and cause long-term changes to the health
of the forest ecosystem.
It is also important to remember that the epidemic has not been
limited to public lands. Private forest landowners and homeowners
throughout the Ozarks face the same problem. The past several years of
extremely dry summer conditions have weakened trees throughout the
region.
Secondly, as we have seen, Arkansas was caught almost flatfooted as
the epidemic of oak mortality swept through the Ozarks and severely
endangered the health of our forests.
One of my priorities was to establish a new Upland Hardwood Research
Center to ensure there is adequate research performed on the issues
affecting Arkansas' and this Nation's hardwood forests.
I am pleased that the bill includes language I authored to establish
an Upland Hardwood Research Center within the U.S. Forest Service. This
new center will study the myriad of insects, disease, and problems
affecting our ability to rehabilitate, restore, and utilize our upland
hardwood forests. Establishing this new research center will help
ensure that this does not happen again.
The establishment of this new research center is necessary to ensure
we can quickly identify and respond to the multitude of pests, disease,
and other damaging agents that can dramatically affect our beloved
forests, especially when they are smaller ones as we have in Arkansas.
It is also important to find ways to streamline and improve the
environmental, administrative, and judicial

[[Page S13479]]

review process for hazardous fuel reduction projects under this
legislation.
I join many of my colleagues in believing that the review process for
hazardous fuel reduction projects, while necessary and beneficial,
often consumes more time, effort, and resources than the initial intent
of the project.
As we have seen with the epidemic of oak mortality in Arkansas, the
Forest Service must have the ability to quickly respond to insect
infestation in order to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate the entire
forest.
Streamlining of the environmental, administrative, and judicial
review process for hazardous fuel reduction projects will ensure that
we can quickly address what ails our forests.
This legislation also provides increased funding and direction for
forest land research in this country. It will ensure our Nation's
colleges and universities are able to devote more research into the
insects and diseases affecting our forests.
We also require that any forest land research is conducted at a scale
appropriate to the forest damage and that it be conducted within the
requirements of each individual forest management plan.
Our legislation also includes requirements to ensure this research
has clearly stated forest restoration objectives and is peer reviewed
by scientific experts in forest land health.
I am also pleased the bill incorporates additional language from S.
1449 to provide funding for emergency grants to immediately remove the
invasive plants that have become so pervasive throughout this Nation's
forests. As many know, when we talk about invasive plant species in the
South, you bet we are talking about kudzu.
Kudzu was brought into this country several decades ago to be used as
cover for bare hillsides and has since spread to cover everything,
including shrubs, bushes, entire trees, and oftentimes large sections
of our forest. The grant program will provide the means for landowners
to immediately remove kudzu and the myriad other invasive plants that
are choking out forests.
Finally, this legislation includes widely agreed upon language that
would provide for grants to remove noncommercial biomass from our
public and private forests, provide for protection of our private
forested watersheds, and provide for grants to establish private
healthy forest reserves throughout the Nation.
Many of these important provisions were included in the Senate-passed
farm bill last year, but they were not included in the final
legislation, unfortunately.
Providing grants to remove noncommercial biomass will immediately
reduce the amount of fuel on the forest floor and directly reduce the
fire danger in our forests and around our communities.
Similarly, providing grants to protect our forest watersheds will
ensure that we can address our water quality concerns with a voluntary,
incentive-based approach.
Finally, providing funding to establish new healthy forest reserves
from willing private landowners will encourage the preservation and
rehabilitation of this Nation's forest lands.
I believe this important legislation will focus needed attention on a
number of extremely critical goals for our national forest policy.
One lesson we have learned over the years is that if we value our
forests and if we want to conserve our woodland resources, if we want
to preserve their natural beauty, if we want to ensure that the natural
bounty of our forest land is available to future generations to come to
know and love and enjoy just as we all have in our different parts of
this great country, then it is important that we manage those lands and
resources with a careful eye toward their long-term health.
I look forward to this legislation's quick passage through the Senate
and its quick enactment into law. I am delighted by the leadership
provided by all of the Members working on this issue. I very much
encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting Senator Cochran's
amendment and moving forward with this bill in a timely way.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, if ever there was a bill where one could
say its time has come, this is such a bill. It is critically important
at this time for us to move forward to a vote on the Healthy Forests
initiative. The House has passed a bill. We can pass a bill, get it to
conference and the President for it to become law before the end of
this legislative session. That must be our goal.
I begin by thanking Senator Cochran and members of his committee.
They worked very hard to arrive at a compromise that was bipartisan,
that could pass the Senate and be signed by the President. I am very
appreciative of their hard efforts.
I thank the President for his leadership 2 years ago in putting this
proposal together. What has been passed is not precisely what he
proposed, but that is part of the compromise legislative process. We
have worked to get a bill we can pass and, while not exactly what the
President has proposed, as I said, it is a very good effort.
I want to select one other person who illustrates the effort to make
this bipartisan. Last year, Senator Feinstein was involved in our
negotiations to come up with a bill. We got very close, but we could
never get a bill we thought would have 60 votes to pass the Senate.
What did she get for her very hard efforts at fighting for this
issue? She got vituperative ads run against her in her home State by
radical environmental groups that criticized her for even talking to
Republicans to try to come up with a solution.
The reason I mention Senator Feinstein is because she was working on
this long before the California fires that are now raging out of
control. In fact, this compromise was put together before those fires
ever started. So the people who were working on this before I think
deserve some very special credit.
I also express thanks to those now supporting us because they have
seen what can happen in the form of the California fires. Two years
ago, we had these kinds of fires in Arizona. I thought that would
awaken people to the danger that our overcrowded forests presented. I
guess I didn't do a good enough job and others didn't in showing people
what could happen in other places.
In just two fires, an area larger than the size of the State of Rhode
Island burned. Two-thirds was on one of our very fine Indian
reservation areas and about a third on Forest Service land. The
President came to visit. Whole towns were evacuated. People lost their
lives. But it still wasn't enough.
Earlier this year, the President again came to Arizona after the
Aspen fire. The Aspen fire, on top of the Santa Catalina Mountains
north of Tucson, burned about 350 homes in the space of less than 4
hours. I thought, finally this will awaken people. Still, it did not
occur.
Over time, thanks to the leadership of the members of the Agriculture
Committee and others, this legislation was put together. I express my
appreciation that now that this conflagration is occurring in
California, we are actually able to get this bill done. I think the
Arizona experience illustrates the solution as well as the problem.
Let me give one example. I mentioned the Rodeo-Chediski fire. Most
was on the White Mountain Apache Reservation. They are subject to the
same environmental laws that apply to the Forest Service or the Bureau
of Land Management. They went to work and got the work done. They began
salvage operations--in fact, they completed salvage operations on the
Indian reservation for the timber that had burned.

The reason they can do that is because it is very hard to sue an
Indian tribe. Obviously, nobody did, and they got the work done, and
their land has basically been salvaged from that fire.
The Forest Service put out a very small proposal on what is called a
categorical exclusion area. Boom, they got hit with a lawsuit. Over a
year later, the judge finally said: This process has to go forward. So
he denied the relief of the plaintiffs who were not even from the State
of Arizona.
It was basically too late to do very much work. They got some of it
done, but the wood began to rot. It is called bluing, and it loses its
character which is suitable for timber. You have to use

[[Page S13480]]

it for pallets and other uses that have low economic value. That was on
a small piece of the land. The rest will never be salvaged. Why?
Because it is easy to sue the Forest Service.
One of the things this legislation does, the Senator from Arkansas
noted, is to streamline the process. One of the ways it does that is to
say instead of having an unlimited number of alternative plans for a
particular project in your NEPA analysis, under the National
Environmental Policy Act, you do an environmental impact statement and
show the various options: the no-action option, the option that is
proposed, and one alternative.
Under existing law, you might have to have 20 alternatives. That
might make sense if you are doing timber sales for logging. That is not
what we are doing. We are trying to restore the health of the forest.
The whole concept has been environmental, and there has been a lot of
environmental work done on these projects before they are ever
proposed, so you don't need a lot of alternative plans. That is just
one example.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues
and hope they support this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1828. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 416 Leg.]

YEAS--97

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--1

Reed

NOT VOTING--2

Edwards
Kerry

The amendment (No. 1828) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
California is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken with the distinguished manager
of this bill. He has agreed also with Senator Harkin that Senator Boxer
is going to speak for about 10 minutes on the bill. I will offer an
amendment and speak for a few minutes on that, and then, with the
suggestion and consent of the managers of the bill, she will ask that
amendment be set aside and offer another amendment. The leadership has
agreed we would have two votes at approximately 5:15, something like
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senators Cochran and Reid for
allowing me to do this. I have been waiting for quite a while. We can
get through some of these amendments.
I rise again with a heavy heart to report on the fires raging in my
State and bring the Senate up to date on what is happening as of my
last report at 3:30 p.m: 600,000 acres of land have been burned, more
than 3 times the size of Chicago; 2,000 homes have been destroyed, 18
people are dead. Governor Davis has declared Riverside County a state
of emergency. Riverside has asked the President to declare a national
disaster there. I have written to the President asking him to act.
In San Diego, we have 30,000 people without power. Our public schools
are closed due to bad air. The Cedar Fire in San Diego is raging out of
control. It is threatening to merge with the Paradise Fire. The fires
as of 3:30 were only 5 miles apart.
The head of the California Department of Fire, Chief Chuck Mayner,
said that they have not gotten all of the equipment and the help they
have asked for. Senator Feinstein and I have been getting different
information. It is a little disconcerting. Yesterday, I heard they got
all the equipment. Today I hear they have not. We actually have heard
from CDF Chief Mayner that he has not gotten all the equipment and the
help. That is backed up by Jim Arta, the deputy chief. I have a list of
the things they have asked for. I hope FEMA will act on this.
I have met with Mr. Michael Brown. He is very open to doing all he
can, but I merely want to say on the record that we need help. We need
strike teams. Strike teams are a combination of resources composed of
fire trucks and personnel. We need strike 2 teams composed of fire
trucks designed for fighting brush fires. We need 11 engine strike
teams for the Paradise Fire, 33 hand strike crews, 12 single resource
dozers, two type 1 helicopters, one type 2 helicopter.
We need for the Cedar Fire, in addition to strategic 1 strike teams,
strike 3 teams, five type 3 helicopters, four type 1 helicopters, and
one type 2 helicopter.
As I stand here giving this report from just a few minutes ago, we
are not getting all the help we need to fight these fires. We need it
desperately. We urge everyone to work together to get the equipment
into these areas.
Our brave firefighters are working to save Julian, which is a town in
San Diego County. The winds are making the situation worse. There were
hundreds of firefighters working there. The city of Cuyamaca is 90
percent destroyed and 150 homes are gone. In Ventura, we have the
Scenic Valley Fire threatening the Stevenson Ranch area. They are
already asking us for a FEMA disaster center there.
In San Bernardino, we still have the Old Fire. It is raging out of
control, threatening Big Bear and Lake Arrowhead communities.
Unpredictable winds are making things worse.
I had a good meeting with a FEMA director today, and a good meeting
with Governor-elect Schwarzenegger today. We are all on the same page.
We all want to open disaster centers, disaster assistance centers,
known as DACs, in the State. I had recommended one in each county. We
will have that, plus a couple of mobile units. We are probably going to
need more disaster centers because we are talking about so many miles,
so many acres. Six hundred thousand acres is a lot of land here. We do
not want people to have to go far distances to get what they need.
I want to show a few pictures to my colleagues so you can see what
things look like. This is a picture of a home burning in San
Bernardino. You can see the raging fires there. Somebody's hopes and
dreams are just gone.
I show you a Marine Corps base in San Diego. This is Camp Pendleton.
This is a hillside. You can take a look at these fires, and when I am
done with these brief opening remarks, I am going to lay down an
amendment which deals with helping people in terms of the quality of
the air. I wanted to show that.
I want to also share with my colleagues that nine of us, back in
April,

[[Page S13481]]

sent a letter to the President. I think this is extremely important.
This letter was signed by Republicans and Democrats alike--two Senators
and Congressmen Dreier, Hunter, Baca, Calvert, Cunningham, Issa,
Filner, Davis, Bono, and Lewis--equal numbers, approximately, of
Republicans and Democrats.
This is what we asked the President for in April:

We are writing you today to encourage your swift approval
of California Governor Gray Davis' request of a Presidential
emergency declaration for Riverside, San Bernardino and San
Diego counties relative to the high threat of forest fire in
these regions.
Due to drought conditions and infestation by the bark
beetle, our national forests have been met with an
unprecedented danger as the bark beetle has attacked over
415,000 acres of trees in these three counties. Because of
the unique urbanization in and around forests, this
infestation has created a tinder box of such magnitude that
the loss of life and resources would be incomprehensible
should fire break out.

My friends, we said--nine of us--we could have fires like this. We
said:

Most of the affected trees are on or adjacent to federal
lands, making this crisis well beyond the ability of state
and local authorities to manage. Therefore, it is critical
that the federal government help provide financial assistance
for infested tree removal from public and private lands, as
well as assist with other mitigation measures. Now that the
State of California has requested a federal emergency
disaster declaration, your help at this juncture remains
critical and would make a positive impact in these areas of
Southern California.

We conclude our letter:

Mr. President, we appreciate the various burdens being
placed upon you in these challenging days. However, we urge
you to consider this matter as expeditiously as possible
since these areas are in need of immediate federal
assistance.

In a bipartisan way, nine of us asked the President to declare an
emergency, and he did not do it. We did get some small funding. It
helped a little bit. But we did not get the help we needed. We begged
for it. I guess if we had a crystal ball, maybe things would have been
better.
We all were asking for buffers around our communities. I think the
importance of this legislation before us is it is our opportunity to
direct funding, adequate funding, to make sure these buffers are
created and the fire damage is diminished greatly.
I myself want to make sure this bill is a Healthy Forests bill and is
not something else, a ``cut down the forests'' bill. I will be
supporting many amendments to make sure this bill is the best it can
be. I do not know the fate of those amendments, but we will be going on
the record very strongly.

Amendment No. 2025

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 2025:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

TITLE   . FIREFIGHTERS MEDICAL MONITORING ACT

SEC.   1. SHORT TITLE.

This Title shall be referred to as the ``Firefighters
Medical Monitoring Act of 2003''.

SECTION 2. MONITORING OF FIREFIGHTERS IN DISASTER AREAS.

(a) In General.--The National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health shall monitor the long-term medical health
of those firefighters who fought fires in any area declared a
disaster area by the Federal Government.
(b) Health Monitoring.--The long-term health monitoring
referred to in subsection (a) shall include, but not be
limited to, pulmonary illness, neurological damage, and
cardiovascular damage, and shall utilize the medical
expertise in the local areas affected.
(c) Authorization.--To carry out this Title, there are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank very much the clerk for reading
the amendment. It is a very straightforward amendment. It basically
recognizes the fact that our firefighters are our heroes. We certainly
learned that. Every American learned that after 9/11. We certainly
learned that.
Their health has been affected and impacted. We learned we need to do
more to monitor their health. Right now, we have 12,000 brave
firefighters frantically working with the California Department of
Forestry, the U.S. Forest Service, the California Highway Patrol, the
Red Cross, and FEMA to contain these fires in terrible conditions.
Firefighters are not only from California, but they are from Nevada
and Arizona. Other help is on the way from other States.
I want to show you a photo of some of the conditions these
firefighters are working in at this point.
This is the Simi Valley, where you can see the firefighters, how
strong they are, and yet how they look so small in front of this
unbelievable blaze they are trying to contain.
I will show you another picture, another view.
This is in San Diego. You can see the incredible black, deadly smoke
here. That is filled with toxins and is right over the hill from where
they are standing.
Many of these firefighters are living in fire camps, spending 24
hours a day in proximity to the smoke from the fires. We know smoke
from these fires--because it is coming from homes, and there are cars
and businesses--contains heavy concentrations of carcinogens and other
toxins. The smoke contains fine particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur,
formaldehyde, mercury, and heavy metals and benzene. We also know the
accumulation of carbon dioxide can lead to progressive heart problems,
to brain dysfunction, and may ultimately lead to coma and death.
These are the heroes. These are the heroes. I would hope we would
vote 100 to nothing in favor of this amendment.
I can't imagine an argument against it. Numerous studies have shown
that the higher the particulate matter, the greater the number of
emergency room visits and premature deaths. Why do I put it on this
bill? Because the purpose of this bill is to reduce the likelihood we
will have these kinds of fires. But if we do, we have to recognize it.
By the way, even with the bill, we may well have fires in the future.
We know health monitoring can identify adverse long-term health
consequences caused by prolonged exposure to smoke, leading to early
detection and better treatment. Those who are the most in danger are
those who are exposed the most; that is, these brave firefighters who
are working around the clock to contain the fires.
My amendment, again, is quite simple. It directs the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to work with the medical
expertise in local areas to monitor the long-term health effects on
firefighters who fight fires in disaster areas.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
Mr. WYDEN. I think what the Senator is doing is very constructive. On
the forestry subcommittee, we have heard of a myriad of health concerns
which seem to me, as much as anything you are addressing, a first
responder issue. These are first responders who are working in a very
significant area where there are health concerns--in the forestry area.
It is important from a forestry standpoint and from a first responder
standpoint. I am very hopeful--I see the chairman of the full committee
in the Chamber as well--that we can work this out. Given the crisis
right now in your State, I want to see this adopted.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think this amendment is a constructive
addition to the bill. I am prepared to recommend that the Senate
approve it.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send a second amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the regular order--a vote on the
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is a vote on the amendment,
unless the pending amendment is set aside.
Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will yield, I understood that you--and
maybe I was incorrect--and Senator Reid had agreed we would vote for
both amendments at 5:15. I believe that was the order.
Mr. COCHRAN. If that is the order, that is fine with me. I just
assumed we

[[Page S13482]]

were taking amendments as they were offered and disposing of them. I
was not aware there was another amendment pending besides the Boxer
amendment that had just been offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no request for unanimous consent and
thus no order in place.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, whatever Senator Cochran would like to do
is fine. I need about 3 minutes on my second amendment, and then I will
be done. The hope was, perhaps to help move it along, we would vote on
each of these back to back at a time certain that Senator Cochran
chooses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending
amendment?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2026

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 2026.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

TITLE   . DISASTER AIR QUALITY MONITORING ACT

SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Title shall be referred to as the ``Disaster Air
Quality Monitoring Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. MONITORING OF AIR QUALITY IN DISASTER AREAS.

(1) In General.--No later than six (6) months after the
enactment of this legislation, the Environmental Protection
Agency shall provide each of its regional offices a mobile
air pollution monitoring network to monitor the emissions of
hazardous air pollutants in areas declared a disaster as
referred to in subsection (b), and publish such information
on a daily basis on its web site and in other forums, until
such time as the Environmental Protection Agency has
determined that the danger has subsided.
(b) The areas referred to in subsection (a) are those areas
declared a disaster area by the Federal Government.
(c) The monitoring referred to in subsection (a) shall
include the continuous and spontaneous monitoring of
hazardous air pollutants, as defined in the Public Law 95-95
section 112(b).
(d) Authorization.--To carry out this Title, there are
authorized to be appropriated $8,000,000.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this goes to the quality of the air. We
have learned so much after what happened on 9/11. When we have this
type of a fire, if we could look at this smoke here--I have another
picture to show. Look at this black smoke just headed right toward
these homes. We know there are pollutants we don't really monitor on a
daily basis that are getting into people's lungs. I will mention some
of these: Benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, asbestos, ethylene, glycol.
Those are just a few.
The effects of these could be devastating: Premature death,
cardiovascular illness, neurological disorder, respiratory problems,
and cancer. One atmospheric scientist described it in the L.A. Times
this way:

When they burn, these homes and businesses are mini toxic
waste dumps.

This is the quality of the air we are seeing here. In San Diego,
every single school has been closed because it is too dangerous for the
children to go outside their homes. They are telling the elderly to
stay inside with their windows and doors closed. We know the elderly
and the children are the most vulnerable to the effects of pollution.
I believe we must ensure that the public knows which pollutants they
are being exposed to. Today they would not know. My amendment will
solve that problem. My amendment will require the EPA to provide each
of its regional offices a mobile air pollution monitoring network to go
into these areas in the event of a catastrophe and monitor toxic
emissions on a continuous and spontaneous basis. The amendment will
require this to be done within 6 months. We should begin doing it
immediately. We authorized the funding--it isn't much, $8 million--to
carry this out.
In short, my amendment assures that we will have the ability to
monitor emissions of these hazardous air pollutants in the event of a
disaster and give the public the information it needs because if they
have a child, a sick grandma, someone who has cancer or heart disease,
they need to know to keep them in.
I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be. The yeas and nays are ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
firefighter amendment No. 2025 be voted on first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. What is the regular order?

Vote on Amendment No. 2025

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is voting on the two pending
amendments.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2025. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 417 Leg.]

YEAS--94

Akaka
Alexander
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--3

Allard
Burns
Enzi

NOT VOTING--3

Edwards
Kennedy
Kerry
The amendment (No. 2025) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote On Amendment No. 2026

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment
No. 2026, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns)
and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?

[[Page S13483]]

The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 17, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 418 Leg.]

YEAS--78

Akaka
Alexander
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham (FL)
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--17

Allard
Brownback
Bunning
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Graham (SC)
Gregg
Hagel
Inhofe
Kyl
Nickles
Roberts
Sununu
Thomas

NOT VOTING--5

Burns
Cornyn
Edwards
Kennedy
Kerry
The amendment (No. 2026) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of
a letter addressed to the two leaders from a number of sports
organizations and conservation organizations regarding the adoption of
the compromise amendment to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

American Sportfishing Association; Boone and Crockett
Club; Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; Ducks
Unlimited; Foundation for North American Wild Sheep;
International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies; Mississippi River Trust; National Rifle
Association; National Wild Turkey Federation; New
England Forestry Foundation; Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation; Ruffed Grouse Society; Safari Club
International; Texas Wildlife Association; The Carbon
Fund; U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance; and Wildlife
Management Institute.
October 29, 2003.
Hon. Bill Frist,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle: The organizations
listed above represent hunters, anglers, natural resource
professionals and others that share a strong interest in
traditional conservation values and America's fish and
wildlife resources. We appreciate Senate deliberations to
date on legislation to enhance the health of our nation's
forests and associated fish and wildlife resources. We
support the bipartisan compromise amendment to the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act (H.R. 1904).
A lack of active forest management has contributed
significantly to unhealthy conditions on many of our nation's
public and private forestlands. The unnaturally high risk of
catastrophic wildfires and large-scale insect and disease
outbreaks place rural communities at risk and seriously
threaten watersheds and fish and wildlife habitats.
Again, we urge the Senate to pass the compromise amendment
to H.R. 1904. Another Congress must not be allowed to adjourn
without action on proposals to facilitate forest health
restoration.
Thank you for your time.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this letter, and many others like it,
indicates overwhelming support around the country for the compromise we
adopted today.
We made good progress in dealing with the bill. Tomorrow we will have
another opportunity to consider amendments. I ask all Senators who have
amendments to offer to this bill to please let us know about the
amendments. Give us copies tonight so we can look at them and be
prepared to act expeditiously on the amendments so we can finish this
bill tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, very briefly, I support Chairman Cochran
in his request. We have been working on this legislation, in effect,
for more than 4 years. It is now particularly timely, obviously,
because of the events in California.
Many of the amendments, at least those we have been told about, are
coming from my side of the aisle. I ask colleagues--I know Senators
have strong feelings on this--if they could present them to the staffs
tonight--Senator Cochran's staff, Senator Harkin's staff. Myself and
others are available to work through the evening with Senators who have
amendments because we very much would like to finish it tonight.
I urge my colleagues on both sides to heed what the chairman has
said: If possible, get it to us tonight.
I thank you and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

____________________