A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 400 North Miami Avenue in Miami, Florida, as the "Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse".

Mr. President, I am going to send an amendment to the desk in a moment. Before I do, I wanted to give the Senate an update on what is happening with the fires in California, and pay a very special tribute to a fallen firefighter. As of 3 p.m.

today, the fires in California have consumed more than 722,000 acres, or roughly 1,100 square miles. Many of these acres are on public lands. Many are on private lands. More than 2,600 homes have been destroyed, 20 people have been killed, and there are more than 12,000 firefighters battling the flames. These firefighters are very brave. I will show you one of them right now.

I rise with a very heavy heart to pay tribute to a fallen California firefighter. It is an honor for me to do this, but it is a very sad moment for me to do this.

Steven L. Rucker, a fire apparatus engineer from Novato, CA, was just 38 years old. Novato, CA is nowhere near southern California. Novato, CA is in the northern part of our State, in the San Francisco Bay area. But Steven Rucker and others from his fire department risked their lives and, indeed, Steven gave his life, to help our southern California communities. Steven Rucker comes from my home county, a county where I was a supervisor for 6 years before I went to the House of Representatives, in the early 1980s.

He was killed on Wednesday, October 29, at 12:30 p.m., when his unit was overwhelmed by flames as they battled on foot to protect a home threatened by the Cedar Fire in San Diego County.

I want to show you a picture of some of the firefighters and what they are up against. Have you ever seen a more telling picture of what these firefighters are up against, standing close to these flames in air that is so polluted it is beyond description?

Steve fell. He was nicknamed ``the Ruckster'' by his friends and colleagues. He grew up in Freemont, CA, in the San Francisco Bay Area. He was the youngest of four children. After completing paramedic training in Contra Costa, Mr. Rucker went on to realize his childhood dream of becoming a firefighter in Novato. In his 11 years with the Novato Fire Protection District, Mr. Rucker wore the badge and his honor proudly. His car carried a license plate that read ``Fire Ruck.'' He was known for organizing toy drives and children's events for Christmas and for Easter.

Steve Rucker is a true example of why we call firefighters heroes. He bravely and selflessly risked his life time and time again trying to protect the homes of families he didn't even know in a community far from where he lived. Tragically, he has fallen in one of those battles. It is easy to see why we mourn his loss and why his friends and family are so proud of him.

I send my sincere condolences to his family, to his wife, and their two young children, the communities of Novato which mourns his loss, and all of the firefighters who had the honor of serving with Mr. Rucker over these years. I know they are devastated by this tremendous loss, and I know the loss is reverberating through the fire lines. I know how hard it is for them to cope with this.

In this time of crisis in California, we must carry on, and we will. We always have. People say to me even here in the Senate: Your State always has some kind of crisis, some kind of problem. Why do so many people live there? What draws them there? I always explain that you need to be there to understand the beauty of our State. You need to be there to understand it. You need to be there to understand the incredible diversity of our people. In politics, we reason from one side to the other. Diversity? We have every one. The beauty of our State holds us all together. It has brought us to that State.

We will carry on, but we are not going to forget Steve. We are also not going to forget Doug MacDonald. I send my prayers to Fire Captain Doug MacDonald who is a 17-year veteran of that Novato Fire District. Captain MacDonald suffered severe burns and injuries when he went back into the fire to search for his missing colleague, Steve Rucker. Captain MacDonald is in critical condition at the San Diego Burn Center. We pray and pray that he will come home soon. I know his wife and his two children are with him.

It says something about Captain MacDonald, and it says something about the Novato Fire Department, that Captain MacDonald, a 17-year veteran, went back and risked his own life to save Steve Rucker. It says a lot about Steve Rucker in that he would inspire people to risk their lives to save him. These firefighters are extraordinary heroes.

Yesterday, I was so proud that the Senate overwhelmingly passed my amendment to ensure that those first responders, those firefighters, will receive the best health care available to minimize their injuries when they fight in such natural disasters--fires.

I thank the President at this time. He has now declared Riverside County a Federal disaster area. This is now our fifth county, and we have been asking him to do this. We are very glad he has done this because even though we know in Riverside we have had less loss of homes and property, we have homeowners there who will need the help that such a declaration will bring.

Before I send my amendment to the desk, I wish to make one more point. We still have fires burning out of control in my State. We still need help, particularly in the San Diego area. We now need, according to Deputy Chief Arta, 26 type I strike teams, we need 48 type III strike teams, we need 2 strike teams of dozers, and we need 15 hand crews at the Cedar Fire in San Diego.

For the Paradise Fire--and my understanding is that these fires are about 5 miles apart and the big issue is to stop them from joining. At that Paradise Fire, we need 31 engine strike teams, we need 9 type III strike teams, and we need 33 hand strike crews.

I mention this because we still have work to do to wrap our arms around this. We need this help now. We needed it 2 days ago. We have asked everyone who could help us with this--particularly our FEMA Director who is working hard with us to get this equipment--to get these people to help our 12,000 firefighters.

I want to look at Steve one more time, our firefighter, our 38-year- old firefighter, from Novato, CA, in Marin County, who traveled miles and miles with his colleagues in that department to help people far away from where he lived. In his name, please send the help to 12,000 firefighters. We need to help them. We need to cut through all of the bureaucracy and all of the excuses. We need to get the help there in San Diego.

Look at what is happening. Look at what it looks like. We need help. We are getting a little help from the weather--a little bit of a change, but not enough of a change, in our State. We really do not get the heavy rains in November. In San Diego and Riverside, they do not get that much. We are getting some moist air in from the ocean. That is good. We need more help.

We need to be strong, and we need to get this help. We need to see the end date when we will have these fires 100 percent contained.

This bill that we are working on today does more than current law to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening. It doesn't do as much as I would like. Senator Leahy wrote a bill which I was proud to co-author that did much more than this bill in front of us. But this bill in front of us is more than current law. It certainly does more than the House bill, which does, in essence, in my view after I have looked at it, hardly anything at all to help these communities--hardly anything at all.

We have an opportunity to make this bill even better.

Then Senator Bingaman got a couple of amendments through. I thank Senator Wyden for helping get some of these amendments through, Senator Cochran for supporting some of our amendments, and my colleagues on the other side.

Amendment No. 2043

(Purpose: To increase the minimum percentage of funds allocated for

authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects in the wildland-urban

interface)

I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be read and considered.

This is a very straightforward amendment. In the underlying bill, 50 percent of the funds are allocated to help communities that are close to areas that are high risk for fire. These are high-risk communities. We have these in our State. We have them up and down the west coast. We

have them in the western part of our country. Frankly, we have them in a number of communities. We need to get on top of things before we see this kind of fire. The way to do this is to take as much of the resources as we can and go to these communities--whether they are large or small, it does not matter--and work with them.

In April, Governor Gray Davis, our outgoing Governor, declared several counties that are now burning disaster areas because of the bark beetle. We asked the President to please declare an emergency, a disaster, so we could spend what it would take to get rid of those dying trees that sat out there. We knew they were waiting to burn. We predicted--I hate to say this; there were 12 of us in the bipartisan letter, the two California Senators and a bipartisan team from the House--we predicted in almost an eerie way that we would have uncontrollable fires if we did not have this disaster declared. It did not happen.

Now we have a chance. A lot of my constituents will not have that chance. But now we will have a future chance to protect communities that are at risk by taking funds in this bill, the majority of them, and putting them toward these communities.

I will show a couple of other pictures. The first photo shows what it looks like before the fire engulfs the community. This photo shows what we are dealing with--dreams gone. I have lived in the same house for 38 years in a hillside community. Every time I look at one of these families, I know how I would feel if I lost my home of 38 years with all of my memories--yes, we would move on; we would move ahead, but it is very difficult. Whoever said your home is your castle is right. It does not matter if it is one bedroom or one room or a mansion. It does not matter; your home is your castle. When you are home, this is your domain. This is your place. This is the place for your family.

You lose your home, you lose a sense of order. You lose a sense of security. You lose a sense of peace. This is a very hard time for my State.

What would this amendment do? I hope it is voted on, and I hope we pass it. It would help protect communities from wildfire by directing 70 percent of the funds for wildfire prevention in the wildland/urban interface; in other words, where the wildland and the urban areas interface, where communities face the greatest risk from wildfire.

The amendment happens to be consistent with what the President recommended in his budget for fiscal year 2003. We did not pick this number out of the hat in any way, shape, or form. We actually have precedent for this number.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the USDA Forest Service fiscal year 2003 President's budget.

Now, if we pass this amendment, we are coming up with a stronger bill because it is just common sense that the real purpose behind this bill should be protection of our people. That is the real purpose. It should not be to make it easier for big loggers to go deep into the forest and take out old-growth trees. I know we protect them in here but not as far as I would want to. The real purpose of this should be to protect our communities. As I said, the House-passed bill certainly did not do that.

We will hear a lot of talk from the House side, and I encourage my colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Wyden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Crapo, and the others to stand strong for the Senate bill because the House bill would do nothing--I say this sincerely--to help us. It would not have helped in our circumstance. I will explain why.

The House bill fails to emphasize and prioritize removal of flammable vegetation. This is chaparral. This is not what the House bill deals with. The House bill deals with trees. It also does not allow for projects on non-Federal land where many areas are burning. I don't have the exact stats, but we are looking at maybe 50-50 here on Federal land and non-Federal land. Clearly, if we just have a bill that focuses on Federal land, we are missing a lot of other land and our communities could burn.

The bill Senator Wyden, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Cochran worked on does not have that prohibition. We need to have a bill that deals with the chaparral, that deals with this vegetation that is going up in smoke, and that does not just deal with the large trees.

The Senator from Nevada is here. There is certainly a lot of growth like this in his State, including in Lake Tahoe as well.

I ask unanimous consent Senator Reid of Nevada be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

The House bill fails to focus the limited resources for wildfire prevention projects near at-risk communities where these resources are needed the most. We can see the communities right around here. Many are not that populated, but they are communities that would qualify in the underlying bill. In my amendment, more funds would go here.

By not focusing its resources near at-risk communities, the House- passed bill keeps homes, businesses, and communities in this wildland/ urban interface area in harm's way. In other words, where the beautiful wildlands meet the suburban-urban communities, that is where we have our problems. This is what we have been talking about. This is what Senator Leahy and I have been talking about and why we know we need more funding.

By the way, we have much more funding in that bill. The bill before the Senate is a compromise. It is not enough. It is better, certainly, than

where we are, and it is much better than the House bill which actually, to be honest, again, would do absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing to help us in this type of circumstance.

Now, in the bill before us, that I am amending, we know hazardous fuels reduction projects on non-Federal lands would qualify for the funding. This is important. I thank the authors for that. Additionally, the underlying bill emphasizes the thinning and removal of small- diameter trees for wildfire prevention and seeks to implement standards that protect old-growth trees.

Then it says at least 50 percent of the funds should go to these at- risk communities. This is where I am trying to strengthen it and say it ought to be 70 percent. Again, I think this bill is getting better.

I was so happy to tell my firefighters we are going to take care of their health. I was happy to tell my communities that the EPA, if this bill becomes law, will monitor the toxins in the air, not the usual pollutants that we follow, but the toxins that are in the air from these fires. So I am happy about that.

Again, I hope this amendment will be adopted. I really do not know what the end result will be, but clearly, if you increase the percentage of the funds that you can spend in these communities that are at risk, common sense tells you we will not have the type of fires we are seeing in California today.

We cannot waste our resources. We do not have enough resources. In this bill, therefore, the 70 percent ought to be directed here. So we believe there are strong arguments why we need to focus a greater percentage on these high-risk communities.

We believe there is precedent setting for this, given the President's request.

Mr. President, I am so hopeful we will get agreement on this amendment because, again, it will make this a far better bill.

I yield the floor at this time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I want to respond to my friend with great respect because we do not change a thing about your bill, except change the percentage of 50 to 70. We leave you all the flexibility. If a community says they think it is important to go inside the forest to protect a watershed, to protect the supply of water, or there is bark beetle infestation, that is not a problem. The fact is, we just say that the communities ought to have 70 percent of this rather than 50 percent.

I say to my friend, who is going to show us pictures here--I don't know if he was present--12 of us, in April, wrote the President about the severe danger. We named three of the four counties that are up in smoke. We begged him to declare a disaster, we begged him.

I want you to know who signed that letter: Senator Feinstein and I, Congressman Jerry Lewis, Congresswoman Mary Bono, and the San Diego delegation--Republicans and Democrats.

We saw this coming a mile away. The importance of this bill is because we do not know what future Presidents might do. We may have the same trouble in the future, and they just don't pay too much attention to it. We can't get our needs taken care of.

This bill is very important, but if we don't take that money and spend it where the people are, then, to me, we have not learned a lesson from these California fires.

I thank my colleague very much. I am disappointed we cannot agree. I understand, but I am disappointed. I hope we will have a good vote for expending funds where the people are because that is what we need to do.

Will the Senator yield?

The Senator is talking about my vote.

Well, the Senator is talking about me.

Well, I think that is fairly rude, but I will wait for my time.

Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

That is all right. That is OK.

Mr. President, the 70-percent number was taken out of President Bush's own budget request. This is not an arbitrary figure. It is a figure that was put in his budget. We have put it in the Record.

I don't want to talk about 5 years ago. But I will be happy to discuss the forest plans I have supported, because they always dealt with what the problem is, which is making sure we get rid of the brush, we get rid of the infestation, and we don't use this as a way to say the only way to have a healthy forest is to cut down every tree, particularly old growth. Then you don't have any forest. That is not my idea of healthy forests.

I don't have to go 5 years to prove where I have been. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this letter, dated April 24, 2003.

It reads:

We are writing you today to encourage your swift approval

of California Governor Gray Davis' request of a Presidential

emergency declaration--

Not just for San Bernardino--

for Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties

relative to the high threat of forest fire in these regions.

We knew that. The people knew that. We were trying to get help. We said:

Due to the drought conditions and the infestation by the

bark beetle, our national forests have been met with an

unprecedented danger as the bark beetle has attacked over

451,000 acres of trees in these three counties. Because of

the unique urbanization in and around the 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.

This is uncanny.

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.

So we didn't just limit it to removal of the bark beetle. We called for other mitigation measures. We said:

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 those

areas of Southern California.

We close with this:

Mr. President, we appreciate the various burdens being

placed upon you--

Because this was at the time we were at war with Iraq--

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.

I say to my colleagues, please, let's not stand up here and point fingers at each other. The fact is, this is a bipartisan group of colleagues begging for help, recognizing the fact that near at-risk communities we have work to do. I am happy this bill is before us today. I am thrilled at that. I thank my friends for helping me protect the health of firefighters and the children and the elderly there, as they did yesterday.

All I am saying is: Please, I don't change one word of your brilliant legislation. I don't take a word. I just say, take it up to 70 percent for the communities that live near these at-risk areas.

I will close by reading the people who signed this letter. By the way, it is a beautiful representation of California politics, from the most liberal to the most conservative. Signing this letter: Jerry Lewis, Mary Bono, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, David Dreier, Duncan Hunter, Joe Baca, Ken Calvert, Randy Duke Cunningham, Darrell Issa, Bob Filner, and Susan Davis.

This isn't the time to have a finger-pointing argument, while I just lost a firefighter because no one declared this a disaster. That was the way it went. Please, let's not do that. Why don't we use this opportunity to come together across party lines, as my colleagues did with the underlying bill, and just realize that this fire says something to us. What it says to us is that these at-risk communities need more attention.

I guarantee you, if you support this, and we have a bill that really carries out what President Bush said should be the case--70 percent of the money being used at these communities--we will have made a great leap forward.

I hope we won't have a circumstance where we are going: What did you do 7 years ago and 10 years ago and 5 years ago and 4 years ago.

I will tell you what I did. I have been saying we have to clear brush around these communities. We have to clear trees, dead and dying trees in these forests. We have to thin. We have to go after the chaparral. We have a lot of work to do. Let's meet somewhere in the middle between those people who want to see more aggressive logging of old-growth trees. I respect your view. I don't attack you. I just don't agree with you. I don't think that is the answer to protecting our communities. The answer is helping us near these at-risk communities.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week, as the California wildfires continue to rage, scorching more than 720,000 acres of land, destroying more than 2,600 homes, and taking the lives of at least 20 people, we have learned the costs of not taking the proper steps to protect our vulnerable communities and forests.

Last April, I wrote to the President and asked him to declare three of our southern counties disasters areas due to bark beetle infestation. There were 12 of us from both parties who asked for fuels reduction to ease our dangerous situation. Unfortunately, that disaster designation did not happen.

In July, I introduced a bill with Senator Leahy, the Forestry and Community Assistance Act, that would have helped protect our forest and communities from wildfires. The bill would have authorized funding for wildfire prevention projects including thinning, cutting of dense underbrush, and prescribed burning.

The Leahy-Boxer bill would have authorized $1.25 billion for wildfire prevention projects on National Forest System lands, $1.25 billion for projects on Bureau of Land Management lands, and $2.5 billion for projects on tribal, private and State lands. The bill would have required that 85 percent of the funds be given to wildfire prevention projects within one-half mile of communities that are at risk for wildfire, and projects that are necessary to protect a municipal water supply system.

That is the bill I wish we were passing today. We are passing a bill that is far weaker, but it is better than the House bill.

It explicitly authorizes projects that protect at-risk communities, watersheds, and lands with insect infestation.

The bill also provides that 50 percent of the funds authorized for wildfire prevention projects be used toward at-risk communities. Unfortunately, my amendment to increase this percentage to 70 percent failed.

Of particular significance to California, the bill directs the Department of Agriculture to conduct a program encouraging systematic information gathering on insect pests that have caused large-scale damage to forests, including the bark beetle.

Also, I am pleased that the Senate passed my amendment requiring the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, to monitor the long-term health conditions of firefighters who fought in my area declared a Federal disaster.

I am also pleased the Senate passed my amendment requiring that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, monitor the emission of hazardous pollutants in the air in disaster areas. The provision requires that the EPA accomplish this by providing each of its regional offices with a mobile air pollution monitoring network, and publish its findings on EPA's website daily until the danger has subsided.

This bill could have been made better if we had passed several amendments that I supported. These included: a Bingaman amendment to allow the Forest Service to borrow funds from the General Treasury for firefighting once its funds have been expended. Currently, once the Forest service depletes its funds, it must borrow from other accounts within the Forest Service's budget to pay for firefighting; the Murray amendment to ensure old growth trees on all lands are protected; the Cantwell amendment to require that in undertaking efforts to prevent wildfires, all possible alternatives be considered; and the Harkin amendment to sunset the legislation after 5 years, allowing Congress to review how well the program is doing.

Despite the fact that I wanted a stronger bill, I have decided to support the bill before us, because, while not perfect, it will help make our communities safer.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2038, as modified.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I know the hour is already late for some Members. I believe we have had much time to discuss this legislation, but I do believe there are a couple of important amendments that are still yet to come that raise issue that are important for Members to understand. I am concerned that the underlying bill amends the National Environmental Policy Act, a benchmark statute that has been on the books since 1969. Because this is an important act, I believe I must stand up and offer this amendment.

I take great pride in the fact that I sit at the desk of Senator Henry M. Jackson who served as chairman of the Senate Interior Committee for many years. He was the prime sponsor and mover behind the National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark piece of national legislation that sets the tone for how our environment should be treated as we review the work of Federal agencies' actions.

I know my colleagues from California, Oregon, and Idaho are trying to move forward on hazardous fuel reduction projects. I am asking them to consider the impact of the major changes that bill proposes to make to the National Environmental Policy Act process with respect to hazardous fuels reduction projects. In addition, the bill before us leaves the door open for further changes in the National Environmental Policy Act in other areas besides hazardous fuel reduction, and that concerns me.

First of all, I really do believe that at the heart of this problem associated with hazardous fuels reduction is funding. It was the case in 2000 when we had a lot of fires throughout the West, and the Western Governors Association came together and said: Let's fund a hazardous fuel reduction account. The problem with the current practice is that Congress provides money for hazardous fuels reduction projects, but the funds are taken out of these accounts and used to fight fires, and the projects are not funded. In addition, we are not providing enough funding for hazardous fuels reduction projects.

I estimate that we need approximately $1 billion a year to do adequate hazardous fuel reduction in wildland-urban interface areas. Unfortunately,

the President's budget request for this fiscal year included approximately $300 million for this purpose.

I think all of my colleagues can agree that we have to come together to authorize and appropriate adequate resources to prevent fires ahead of time. We should not short-fund hazardous fuels reduction and take those limited resources to fight fires when they happen.

I applaud my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, particularly the Senator from Oregon, and for putting this legislation forward.

My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are also trying to bring up the fact that they think it is important that hazardous fuel reduction projects proceed smoothly. That is why I would like to point out to my colleagues that the Forest Service does provide categorical exclusions for hazardous fuels projects. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, sixty percent of projects in 2001-2002 received categorical exclusions. These projects did not require the agency to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment.

A second group, about 34 percent, has been approved via environmental assessments, which are much shorter than an EIS.

Only 6 percent of the projects have had to go through the full EIS process.

These figures are outlined in an October 2003 GAO report that clearly shows that the National Environmental Policy Act has not held up progress on hazardous fuel reduction. What has held up progress is the failure to provide adequate funding in this area.

So I ask my colleagues why should we change the National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark piece of Federal legislation that has protected the environment since 1969?

Some of my colleagues have suggested that the law's requirement that the Forest Service consider alternatives has delayed hazardous fuels reduction projects. However, numerous court cases have held that in some circumstances two or three action alternatives are adequate to comply with NEPA. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that in the cases of Friends of Southeast's Future v. U.S. Forest Service and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, that two or three alternatives, in addition to the preferred alternative and the no- action alternative, will satisfy NEPA.

The case law does not say that 30 different alternatives must be considered, or 10 different alternatives, or 7 different alternatives, or 6 different alternatives, or even five different alternatives. It is saying that in certain cases, two or three can be adequate.

I think my colleagues are well intentioned. However, I have real concerns about the proposed change to the National Environmental Policy Act, that has been on the books since 1969. The bill before us would limit the number of alternatives to: one, the proposal for hazardous fuel reduction; two, the alternative of doing nothing or; a third alternative, which is the only real alternative. In the case of a proposed fuel reduction project in the Northwest, someone could propose taking no action because we do not have to do that hazardous fuel reduction, and then someone else says, maybe here is an alternative.

Well, my concern is that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If only 6 percent of these cases really have not had the categorical exemption of not having to go through an EIS and only three percent are ending up in court, then the National Environmental Policy Act is not the cause of the holdup.

Washington State has been the subject of many forest fires and many tragedies, most recently the tragic Thirty-mile fire in 2001. Much of eastern Washington is under condition class 2 and condition class 3, and, therefore, could be subject to this bill. My concern is that if a city wants to propose an alternative, it might be precluded from offering an alternative that would address concerns over the impact of the hazardous fuels reduction project on water quality.

So I would say to my colleagues, let us fund the hazardous fuels reduction account. Let us move forward to promote healthier forests. If we truly see that the National Environmental Policy Act delays project, even though only 3 percent of hazardous fuels projects have ever reached court, then let us come back and change the law.

I am truly concerned with the proposed change to the National Environmental Policy Act. What will stop other legislative proposals from coming to the Senate floor to change the National Environmental Policy Act in other areas? Are Members who are going to support this underlying language ready to stop at hazardous fuel reduction, or do they want to change NEPA all across the board?

For example, say one's community has to consider a proposal to build a new gas pipeline. Pipeline safety has been an issue of great controversy in the State of Washington, which had a pipeline explosion several years ago that killed several people. What if only one alternative was considered for the route of a gas pipeline going through one's State? I want to make sure the current law says reasonable alternatives are considered so that no community, no citizen, no organization with standing is left out in the cold.

That is what Henry M. Jackson was thinking about when he wrote the National Environmental Protection Act. He thought about making sure the public had a chance to participate in the process. He wanted to make sure they had the ability to have the issues that they wanted to be addressed and considered.

The Forest Roads Working Group, an organization that has operated with the blessing of the Bush Administration, along with other organizations, has raised similar concerns. These organizations have expressed their support for the public to have a say and to retain the ability to participate in the decision-making process.

I know my colleagues want to move forward on a plan that will make all communities more secure, that will make our forests more healthy. I applaud them for that, but I also hope Members will stop and think about the statistics that GAO has outlined. This dispute is not fundamentally about the EIS process and the number of alternatives. The Forest Service has the ability to proceed via categorical exemptions. It can develop an EIS when it needs to analyze complex proposals. If we start changing NEPA with respect to hazardous fuels projects, where are we going to stop?

I urge my colleagues not to change legislation that has been one of the landmark pieces of environmental law that this body saw fit to pass in 1969, but rather to keep that legislation intact and fund hazardous fuel reductions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senators Cochran and Harkin, for including in the managers' package an amendment I filed on the issue of wildland firefighter safety. My heart goes out to my colleagues from California and the people they represent. In Washington, we are well acquainted with catastrophic wildfires and the threat they pose to local communities. Our thoughts are with the people of California, as well as with the families of the firefighters on the job--including crews from my State who are on their way south to join in the effort.

The men and women who fight fires on our public lands serve our Nation bravely. Since 1910, more than 900 wildland firefighters have lost their lives in the line of duty. Before the California fires, I believe the toll was 26 individuals this year alone.

And this morning, we were faced with the news of the first firefighter death

from the California blazes--an 11-year veteran named Steven Rucker, who perished while trying to save a home. He leaves behind a wife and two children.

As I have read the press accounts and listened to the stories my colleagues have told about the loss of life in California over these past few days, I cannot help but recall a recent tragedy in my State of Washington. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, in the midst of the second worst drought in the history of our State, the Thirtymile Fire burned out of control. Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names: Tom Craven, 30 years old; Karen FitzPatrick, 18; Jessica Johnson, 19; and Devin Weaver, 21.

Sadly, as subsequent investigations revealed, these young men and women did not have to die. In the words of the Forest Service's own report on the Thirtymile Fire, the tragedy ``could have been prevented.'' We know that firefighting is a dangerous job. But despite its inherent danger, we have a responsibility to ensure that no preventable tragedy like Thirtymile Fire ever happens again.

I would like to thank my colleague Senator Bingaman, the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee, as well as Senator Wyden, who was then chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. In the wake of the Thirtymile Fire, they agreed to convene hearings on precisely what went wrong that tragic day. We heard from the grief-stricken families. In particular, the powerful testimony of Ken Weaver--the father of one of the lost firefighters-- put into focus precisely what's at stake when we send these men and women into harm's way. I can think of no worse tragedy for a parent than confronting the loss of a child, especially when that loss could have been prevented by better practices on the part of Federal agencies.

At the Senate Energy Committee hearing, we also discussed with experts and the Forest Service itself ways in which we could improve the agency's safety performance. And almost a year to the day after those young people lost their lives, we passed a bill--ensuring an independent review of tragic incidents such as Thirtymile that lead to unnecessary fatalities.

Based on subsequent briefings by the Forest Service, revisions to the agency's training and safety protocols, and even based on what I have heard when I have visited with firefighters over the past two years, I do believe the courage of those families to stand up and demand change has had a positive impact on the safety of the young men and women who today are battling blazes as wildland firefighters. Yet, I believe there is more that Congress can do to express our commitment. Today I offer a modest amendment that will take a few more steps in that direction.

My amendment does three simple things.

First, it will require the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds the agencies expend for firefighter safety and training.

Today, these sums are lumped into the agencies' ``wildfire preparedness'' account. But as I have discussed with various officials in hearings before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it is difficult for Congress to play its rightful oversight role-- ensuring that these programs are funded in times of wildfire emergency, and measuring the agencies' commitment to these programs over time-- without a separate break-down of these monies.

Second, it will require the Secretaries to report to Congress annually on the implementation and effectiveness of its safety and training programs. I assure my colleagues who have not spent time dwelling on this issue, that the maze of policy statements, management directives and curricula changes associated with Federal firefighter training is dizzying and complicated.

The agencies have a responsibility to continually revise their policies in the face of new science and lessons learned on the fire line. Meanwhile, this body has the responsibility to ensure needed reforms are implemented. As such, I believe that Congress and the agencies alike would benefit from an annual check-in on these programs. I would also hope that this would serve as a vehicle for an ongoing and healthy dialogue between the Senate and agencies on these issues.

Third, it would stipulate that Federal contracts with private firefighting crews require training consistent with the training of Federal wildland firefighters. It would also direct those agencies to monitor compliance with this requirement. This is important not just for the private contractor employees' themselves but for the Federal, State and tribal employees who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them on the fire line.

This is actually quite a complex issue about which many of us are just beginning to learn. With the severity of fire seasons throughout the country over the past 2 years--and notwithstanding the Clinton administration's efforts to hire a significant number of new firefighters as part of the National Fire Plan--the number of private contract crews hired by the agencies to help with fire suppression has tripled since 1998. According to Oregon Department of Forestry estimates, the number of contract crews at work has grown from 88 to 1998 to 300 this year, with 95 percent based in the Pacific Northwest. In general, these contract crews have grown up in former timber communities and provide important jobs, especially given the fact the agencies themselves do not at this juncture have the resources to fight the fires entirely on their own. And many of these contractors have been in operation for a decade or more and boast stellar safety records.

Nevertheless, as the number of--and need for--contractors has grown, there are more and more tales of unscrupulous employers that take advantage of workers and skirt training and safety requirements. This is a growing concern for U.S. Forest Service employees and state officials. This summer, the Seattle Times wrote a detailed feature on the issue, quoting internal Forest Service memos as well as evidence from the field.

Among the contractor practices cited in the article: Breaking safety rules and failing to warn other crews on the fire line; falsifying or forging firefighting credentials and ignoring training requirements; hiring illegal immigrants that cannot understand fire line commands-- and committing various labor abuses; and rotating a single crew from fire to fire for 50 straight days--while Federal firefighters are not allowed to work more than 14 or 21 days in a row.

The article quoted from a November 2002 memo written by Joseph Ferguson, a deputy incident commander for the Forest Service: ``If we don't improve the quality and accountability of this program, we are going to kill a bunch of firefighters . . . Although there were two or three good to excellent crews on each fire, that was offset by 20 to 30 that were hardly worth having,'' Ferguson added. ``It was apparent that training for most of these crews had been done poorly or not at all.''

Paul Broyles, who heads a safety committee for the National Interagency Fire Center added that private crews he has seen have varied from ``fantastic to a he[ck] of a lot less than good and some were real safety concerns.'' He noted that while state government and feds were trying to crack down on violations associated with documentation, ``the assumption is, where there's one problem, there's probably more.''

This provision is a modest beginning in addressing the challenges posed by integrating private and Federal contract crews--and doing it in a manner that maximizes everyone's safety on the fire line. I understand that the Federal and State agencies are already attempting to push contractors in this direction, and this provision will bolster that momentum.

I had also hoped to include in this amendment a provision that would direct the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of the impacts of the President's outscourcing initiative on wildland firefighter safety. Unfortunately, that provision was opposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Now, let me be clear. I oppose the Bush administration's outsourcing initiative. And if I had my way, I would simply declare that this initiative would not apply to the firefighting agencies. However, at the very least, I hope my colleagues will agree that we should take a close look at how outsourcing will affect the ability of

our Federal agencies to do their job when it comes to fighting wildfires and their ability to do it safely.

According to the Forest Service Council, which represents 20,000 Forest Service employees across the Nation, some 40 percent of these workers serve dual functions.

Likened to the Reserve or National Guard, they call it the ``militia'' approach--where qualified employees that perform other jobs for much of the year are dispatched as ``first responders'' on wildland fires.

From a military perspective in Iraq, we have seen the importance of the National Guard and Reserve in supporting our military efforts. No one here in Congress would contemplate outsourcing the Guard and Reserve.

I hope my colleagues would recognize that it is completely unclear how the outsourcing initiative, with its emphasis on contracting out certain types of jobs, would impact the need for Forest Service employees to perform these collateral duties. I am concerned that the outsourcing initiative will seriously erode the agencies' capacity to fight fires--just as the sponsors of this bill argue these fires are becoming most intense.

Likewise, I have serious concerns that it will disrupt the chain of command on the fire line, especially in instances in which the Forest Service could lose some of its most experienced firefighters as a result of outsourcing. These are my concerns.

While I understand that there were objections on the other side of the aisle to including the GAO study provision--and we have thus removed it from this amendment, to move forward on the other important provisions--I guess we are lucky that such a study does not actually require legislation. I plan to work with a number of my colleagues to request just such a report form the GAO, because I believe it is important we thoroughly understand the way outsourcing would impact Federal agencies' ability to fight fires and fight them safely.

And so I hope my colleagues will support this simple amendment. Ultimately, the safety of our Federal firefighters is a critical component of how well prepared our agencies are to deal with the threat of catastrophic wildfire.

Congress owes it to the families of those brave firefighters we send into harm's way to provide oversight of these safety and training programs.

We owe it to our Federal wildland firefighters, their families and their State partners, and to future wildland firefighters.

My amendment will provide this body with the additional tools it needs to do the job. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment.

administrative review process

Mr. President, we have all heard the expression many times--``A picture is worth a thousand words.'' If that is so, I don't think there is any question that the pictures of the wildfires in California are speaking volumes and they have had a dramatic impact on all of the us in the Congress and around the country .The fires continue to burn out West, and the toll continues to mount. The amount of forest land up in flames, the homes destroyed, the lives lost and the people forever changed by what they have experienced will never be known. One thing that is very clear, however, is the importance of taking every possible step to ensure that we minimize this kind of frightening destruction in the future.

It is bad enough that we have had to witness the devastation in California--and I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to express our appreciation and our gratitude to the brave people who are fighting the fires there without regard for their own safety. They are true American heroes, and we will be keeping them in our prayers.

Take that feeling that comes from seeing all that destruction and despair in California and imagine that you were seeing the reality of a threat that faces you every day of your life. Imagine you wake up every day filled with the fear of knowing that your home, your job, your family, your heritage, and your community could be wiped out in a heartbeat. Imagine the commitment you would have to protecting your family and your cherished possessions, only to be told that you can't do much about it because somebody, far away, whose home is not facing the same kind of threat has decided you aren't worth the effort.

You might think I am exaggerating the problem, but the fact is there are more than 100 million acres of Federal forests lands that now exist under an unnaturally high risk of catastrophic wildfires and large scale insect and disease outbreaks because of unhealthy forest conditions.

For years now, we have been trying everything we can to reduce the risk and make our forests safer and more fire resilient. Every time we have tried, we have had the same response: more environmental reviews, more litigation, and more trees that increase instead of reduce the threat to the land around them.

We now have the images to confirm that our concerns were not fairy tales. We were not just speaking as alarmists, but as people faced with a very real threat.

This situation is particularly acute in western forests where more than 60 years of aggressive fire suppression programs have removed fire as a mitigating factor in maintaining forest health. As a result of these well-meaning efforts, many of our forests suffer from an unnatural accumulation of vegetation on the forest floors. Dense undergrowth, combined with increasingly taller layers of intermediate vegetation have turned western forests into deadly time bombs.

Unlike healthy fires of the past that thinned out the underbrush and left the large trees to grow larger, modern wildfires quickly climb the dense vegetation like a ladder until they top out at the uppermost, or crown, level of the forest and race out of control as catastrophic fires. Because of their high speed and intense heat, these ``crown fires'' leave an almost sterile environment in their wake. After a crown fire, nothing is left behind; no trees, no wildlife, and no habitat to speak of--with few microorganisms left to rebuild the soil.

Vegetation manipulation, including timber harvest, is therefore necessary to restore our forests, particularly in the West, to conditions that are more resistant to catastrophic disturbances and that are within acceptable ranges of variability. Scientific studies, including the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, SNEP, report, state that timber harvest is a tool that can be used to enhance overall forest resilience to disturbance. The SNEP report states, for example, that ``logging can serve as a tool to help reduce fire hazard when slash is treated and treatments are maintained.'' If conducted on a large enough scale and in a controlled manner, timber harvests can restore our national forests to a point where fire can be returned as a healthy part of the environment.

However, any proposal that prohibits all forms of commercial timber harvest, regardless of the objective, indiscriminately removes an efficient and valuable tool from land managers for restoring forest conditions to a more resilient and sustainable state.

I am tired of sawmills and timber harvesting being seen as ogres. I had a brainstorming session with employees of Wyoming Sawmills and talked about healthy forests. I found them all to be concerned people who can increase the amount of expertise that is used in forest management and can do it in a way that helps our forest managers save money. These employees showed me what can be done with scrub trees in making innovative composite construction housing materials. I am talking about using small trees and stems that were once considered junk trees and were stacked in the forests and burned.

Using the innovative approach developed by Wyoming Sawmills employees is good stewardship. It would be wrong to accuse them of wanting to clear cut the forests. They know what healthy thinning is, and they know what a forest should look like. They know that their livelihood relies on good practices.

So far we have been lucky in that some of our most dangerous areas in Wyoming have not yet caught fire. One area I am particularly concerned about is just east of Cody on Wyoming's Shoshone National Forest. It lies just next to Yellowstone National Park. It provides crucial habitat to wolves, grizzlies, whooping cranes, elk, bison, mule deer and other animals that spend part of their lives in Yellowstone National Park. The area is also home to a very severe pine beetle infestation that threatens to ignite and cause extreme damage to the park, the forest and surrounding communities.

Other areas in Wyoming have not been as fortunate. I heard a report just a few weeks ago that a number of significant Native American archeological sites no longer exist in Wyoming's Wind River Mountains. When a fire swept through them earlier this year, it didn't just destroy habitat, but it also took some of the last remaining examples of wikiups and wooden sheep traps that were built by Wyoming's Sheepeater Indians. Their handiwork that reflected their place in our history is now gone and only exists in a few pictures that were fortunately taken before the fires swept it all away.

For me, this is an issue that has its roots back in the days when I was a Boy Scout. At the time, I was working on one of the requirements for the rank of First Class that had to be reached if I were to earn my Eagle Scout Award. To be successful, I had to start a campfire with no more than two matches. I got to be very good at starting campfires and was well known for winning

water boiling contests at scout camporees. There are a number of tricks people develop in starting campfires, and I had my own system that helped me win, but no matter who you are or what your trick might be, there are three basic elements to every fire: oxygen, fuel, and heat.

Oxygen comes from the air and is readily available. Fuel is found in the wood, particularly dry wood that burns easily when enough heat is applied. Heat comes from a spark, a match, or possibly just friction. The best way to apply enough heat to start a successful campfire is to properly organize the wood in a way that allows the flames to climb up from the bottom of the firepit where you put the smaller, quick-burning sticks and tinder--to the larger, longer burning logs in much the same way as someone would climb a ladder, one rung at a time.

To start a successful fire, I began by carefully putting my wood shavings at the bottom of the fire--this would be my light tinder or first rung of the fire ladder. I then built a small tee-pee of sticks over my tinder as my second rung, and then added larger and larger sticks until I had my largest pieces of wood on top where they could draw the heat from the flames of the intermediate sticks below them. If I did everything correctly, I could start my fire and get a can of water to boil before anyone else did.

You might wonder what this little story of mine has to do with the current state of our national forests.

If we were to head out into the forest right now, and we took a good look around at the density of the ground all around us, we would see that they are laid out just like the campfires I was trained to build and start when I was a Boy Scout. At the bottom of every forest lies a collection of small, dried-out bushes, leaves and fallen bark. Over this pile of tinder is the next rung of the forest fuels ladder which is made up of small to intermediate trees. These intermediate trees are then crowded in below the larger and older trees that make up the top rung or crown of the forest fuels ladder.

This problem wasn't always as bad as it is now. There was a time when Mother Nature and the Native Americans took care of thinning our forests by regularly starting wildfires. Because the fuel loads weren't allowed to grow as dense as they are today, the fuel ladder didn't reach all the way up to the big trees. Fires would burn up the tinder and thin out the intermediate and dead and dying trees. This promoted biodiversity, kept the intensity of the forests down and, in times of drought the competition for limited water resources was dramatically less than it is today. We now have forests that historically have had 40 or 50 tree stems per acre that are now over 200 stems per acre. This is a 300-percent increase. We aren't able to use widespread fire anymore because of the danger it presents to homes, as you are seeing right now in California.

When a fire starts in forests this dense, it quickly climbs the fuel ladder and races out of control. These crown fires are all but impossible to stop. The heat generated from all rungs burning at once sterilizes the soil and leaves nothing but desolation in its wake. This is only made worse with the added factor of drought. By adding to the mix stands of dead trees that are as dry and volatile as the tinder on the forest floor you can just imagine the threat this kind of fire could have on the forests and their surrounding communities.

It is a much better conservation practice, therefore, to step in and duplicate the effect historic, healthy fires had on our forests by using what is called mechanical thinning. This is a practice where our land management agencies can hire experienced timber companies to remove the dense underbrush and carry out the smaller and intermediate trees, thereby leaving a forest that is healthier, more biodiverse, more fire resilient and with a better mix of older and younger trees.

The alternative is to allow Mother Nature to step in and conduct one of her catastrophic clear cuts, and when Mother Nature does a clear cut, she doesn't respect riparian zones or raptor nesting sites, or homes.

Clearly that is a scenario we must make every effort to prevent.

As we do, just imagine how you would feel if you were here today while your family was back home, living in a house that stood in the shadow of one of those forests that is ready to explode in a blaze of flames.

Unfortunately, you don't have to imagine what that would be like anymore. We have seen what it would be like in the pictures of the fires that continue to threaten southern California.

What we have to do now is work toward a goal we should all support-- ensuring no one else has to face another wildfire blazing out of control through their homes and neighborhoods because of a policy we could have but did not change.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I object.

As we move forward on the Healthy Forests legislation, it is my understanding we have worked with all those interested here.

I will not object.

Mr. President, we have reviewed this amendment. We don't find it objectionable. We are prepared to accept it.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the proposed amendment from the Senator from California, not because I disagree with her point that we need to make sure we adequately protect the wildland/urban interface, but because the bill, as it is currently drafted, not only adequately provides for that but provides even broader flexibility so we can, in addition, protect the watersheds, the water quality for communities. It will actually allow communities to have a greater input into the management decisions relating to the forests that surround them.

The amendment would require that 70 percent of all of the money that is provided in this bill for fuels reduction be expended in the wildland/urban interface. The bill, as drafted, provides that not less than 50 percent of the funds will be allocated for projects in the wildland/urban interface.

Nothing in the bill, as drafted, would prohibit our forest managers from doing exactly what the Senator from California says she thinks they ought to do, if that is the right decision. On the other hand, our bill follows the recommendations of the Western Governors' Association, which allows communities to make proposals to the Forest Service about how the forests in their communities should be managed.

Frankly, the opportunity for communities to say they would like to see management reach out a little further than just a quarter of a mile around their homes, into the forest in general, or into the watershed, so they can protect their watershed as well as their homes, is an opportunity that we believe is one that should be maintained for our communities and for the flexibility of our forest managers.

Now, let me repeat. Nothing in the bill, as drafted, would stop the Forest Service from expending not only 70 percent but even more than 70 percent on the wildland/urban interface if it is determined that is the best place for the allocation of these resources.

What the bill says is, no less than 50 percent must be allocated, but it does not prohibit any allocation above 50 percent if the Forest Service and the affected communities can reach an agreement.

The issue here is one of flexibility. Very often, in Washington, as we put together legislation--whether it be over forests or any other issue--one of the tendencies is for us to try to determine every situation around the country and how best to manage it.

The problem here is, not every circumstance is the same around the country. The need is not the same throughout every forest that will need to be treated. In some forests, I am confident that far more than 70 percent of the resources would go to the wildland/urban interface. In other forests, for example, the one I talked about yesterday, which surrounds Elk City, the residents there are very concerned that the entire watershed is threatening to them, and their one route of exit from their community is threatened along an entire corridor. They would need to seek protection along the entire exit corridor to literally safely protect their lives if they needed to evacuate.

It is because the situation in Elk City is very different from the situation in Los Angeles and different from the situation in other communities which have forest environments that our bill seeks to preserve the flexibility that we need to be able to manage these funds adequately.

I encourage all Senators to reject this amendment and to move forward with the provisions as we have provided them, which, again, gives the Forest Service the flexibility to not have to be bound by the cookie- cutter solutions that we often want to put in place in Washington and have the flexibility to be able to manage as the communities and the fire and forest experts know would be the best way to approach it.

Mr. President, I intend to move to table, so if anybody wants to debate before I do that, I will look around and see if someone wants to speak. I wish to make two quick comments about the debate before I move to table the amendment.

First, it has been suggested the intent of those who want to keep the bill the way it is is to allow cutting of old-growth forests. That is simply not the case. First of all, as everyone who has focused on this bill knows, we have provisions in the bill that protect old growth in the forests.

Second, the fact is, as I will say again, the bill gives communities and the Forest Service managers the flexibility to make the decisions about where the fuel reduction will be most effective to preserve and protect our forests and the people who live near the forests. Certainly, our focus on the Western Governors' proposal and the protection of communities is what we ought to be doing in this legislation.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, before I make a motion to table, I thank my colleague, Blanche Lambert Lincoln, for her efforts in protecting our forests in this bill against insect infestation. She has been working very hard and very closely with us in building this compromise.

This legislation does a tremendous job of making sure we can address insect infestations throughout our forests. It is a well-crafted compromise. And the legislation will be a significant benefit to our national forests.

With that, Mr. President, I move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Oregon in opposing this amendment. Let me make a couple of quick points.

First of all, if the Senator from Washington is concerned about the issue of funding, we increase by 80 percent the funding provided for fuel load induction.

With regard to process, the process in this bipartisan amendment will require the agencies work together in collaboration with the public to develop proposed projects.

It will allow the communities to develop community protection fire plans to help land management agencies better understand their individual needs.

It requires the agency to publish a notice of each proposed hazardous fuel reduction project authorized under the act.

It requires the agency to hold public meetings to describe the project and take the public comments on the project.

It requires a NEPA analysis of two action alternatives and one no- action alternative.

It requires the agency to facilitate a predecisional protest process once the project analysis has been completed, and then the publication of a final decision notice.

Finally, it allows the public to pursue a case in the courts if, after all of that, they still do not support the outcome of the decisionmaking process.

Because of this, I believe it is very important that we do not continue to increase the cost and the bureaucracy surrounding the management of these decisions. Therefore, I oppose the proposed amendment.

Mr. President, I move to table this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know Members are here waiting for a vote. I also have to rise in opposition to the amendment. When we first began crafting the legislation in the Agriculture Committee, of which I chaired the Forestry Subcommittee, our first thought was to have no limit on time and no limit on acreage because, frankly, this is a good bill and it provides good management techniques we ought to utilize until we can devise better ones for our forests.

However, in the compromise through the negotiation process, as we were working to make this a strong bipartisan bill and bring it together, we agreed to a 20 million acre cap. I believe that 20 million acre limit is very modest compared to the risk we face. We need to put a perspective on this. The fact is the estimates are that there are 100 million acres at risk in America today, and this bill has a 20 million acre limit.

If anything, we need to be talking about how to consider whether we need to expand the application of this bill rather than to retract it or put more limits on it because we have worked in a bipartisan fashion to put together a good compromise that is going to be good for our forests and good for the people who live near the forests.

I conclude by also thanking those who worked with us to make this truly a bipartisan effort: The chairmen of the two committees, the Agriculture Committee, Senator Cochran, and the Energy Committee, Senator Domenici; my colleague from Idaho, who is the chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee on the Energy Committee, and Senator Lincoln, who is the ranking member on my subcommittee who worked so closely with me to draft the first piece that became the underlying language from which we then built this compromise. She has worked very hard and very effectively to make this all happen; Senator Feinstein and Senator Wyden, who came in and worked with us, with a true and sincere interest to make this a true and strong bipartisan effort; Senator McCain and Senator Kyl from Arizona, who became involved; Senator Baucus and Senator Burns from Montana; and Senator Thomas from Wyoming--all of whom were very integral in working to help make this a broad, successful, bipartisan effort. I am sure I have left some out.

The reason I go through this is to, once again, reiterate how this is the way people in America want the political process to work. They want us to find common ground and build good commonsense solutions to issues that cross party lines and get to the issue on principle rather than on partisanship or personal attacks. That is what this bill is about.

As I move to table this last amendment, I will announce that we will then be going forward after that with a managers' amendment and to final passage. I think tonight we are going to have a very big victory for America.

Yes, I yield.

I believe we could.

I move to table the Harkin amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 282, S. 1618, the 6-month extension of the FAA authorization; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, if I can obtain the floor, not to bring up an amendment, but rather to have a few minutes to explain what it is that I would like to do. I ask if the Senator from Mississippi, someone with whom I have worked closely on several issues related to this, will enable me, by unanimous consent, to have up to 10 minutes to talk about the issue.

Mr. President, I had been recognized. I respect the viewpoint of the Senator from Mississippi, but I disagree with it, and I would like to talk about the mission I see in front of us and withdraw my request that the bill be read three times and passed. I want to discuss what we think is coming over soon from the House.

Contrary to the remarks my friend and colleague from Mississippi made, in terms of his objection, I agree totally that we do not want to hold up the funding of this bill. I want to get the money invested. We have to take care of the requirements of our aviation needs. While we want to make sure we get these funds on their way, we want to make sure we don't throw a blanket opportunity out there to terminate 23,000 loyal, hard-working, safety-oriented employees from the FAA control system; that is, those in the towers, those who are service operators, those who are technicians, because we have a system that has been so safe.

We handle over 700 million airline passengers a year. The numbers are incredible. We saw them, when our FAA controllers were called upon on 9/11, bring 5,000 airplanes out of the sky safely. They got everybody on the ground when it looked as if total chaos was raining on our society.

What I propose to do is say let's just have a 6-month extension, not permit the commercialization of the FAA system to take it away from Government hands. I see this as the fifth branch of the military. We are relying on them 24/7. Without a question of doubt, we need those people in their positions.

We are facing a time within the next 10 years when over 10,000 FAA controllers will be retiring; 23,000 jobs are at stake, and we are going to say they are going into commercial hands--Acme Air Service, or whoever it is.

There is something else that is taking place here. We see a vote coming in the House that looks as if it may carry. Do you know how the votes were obtained? Not on substance but on excluding particular airports from going into private hands and securing votes. That means if you happen to live in one of those areas that is not protected by the sale of a vote, your family could be getting onto an airplane and perhaps not have it handled as perfectly as it could. I know I want my kids and my grandchildren protected to the best of our ability. We have seen it done year after year in the United States with our FAA controllers, with our air control system.

I urge we have a chance to vote on whether we can extend this authorization, have time for discussion to permit the funding and the other elements of the bill. But let's have a serious review. This suddenly has come up as a change in the conference report as a result of a decision by the administration to suddenly change the rules. They want to move toward privatizing the U.S. air traffic control system, but 11 Republican Senators joined me and the remainder of the Democrats, and we had 56 votes in favor of keeping the system in Government hands.

We just recently took the baggage screeners from private hands, from commercial hands, and put them into Government hands. We thought it was a good move. That was 28,000 people. We transferred them over to the Government so we can control them. Those people control the baggage that is going aboard. These people control 700 million lives that fly each and every year. We quickly are saying discard that, forget that, we have our deals, we have our airports protected. We have two in Alaska protected. We have others in other States that are protected and we will worry about the safety later. That is wrong.

I hope people across the country recognize what is happening, that we are putting this on the sale block, that it is part of a scheme to have Government privatized--over 850,000 is the mark--and it should not be done on the backs of safety. That is the issue.

I appreciate the Senator from Mississippi, a very knowledgeable and longtime Government servant, a man who has been responsible for lots of good things, but 71 percent of the Americans who were polled who were asked the question about what they think we ought to be doing with the FAA about keeping it in Government hands or going private with it, 71 percent of the people across this country--and I want everybody to hear it--our constituents, agree we ought to keep the FAA in Government hands.

I am not saying we are going to extend it a long time. I am saying, give

us a chance to review it. Let us take it up and have a discussion about it and not simply have something jammed through the House and us be like the second body, here it is, take it or leave it. I would like to see if we can talk to the 11 Senators who voted with us the last time and see if they will vote with us another time. I think it is reasonable in the interest of safety.

I just received a letter dated today. It is signed by a representative of the Consumers Union of the Public Citizens Congress Watch, Consumer Federation of America. It is addressed to me:

Senator Lautenberg: We commend you for your leadership and

strong opposition to the most recent version of the FAA

authorization conference report. The new conference report

does not restore the original House and Senate language

prohibiting privatization of air traffic control services.

Instead, the report leaves the door open for future

privatization attempts going against the will of the American

people and jeopardizing the safety of our skies.

The letter goes on. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

I hope we can test the will of the Senate and test the determination of the American people to have it done in a way that satisfies them and their families.

A reference was made by the distinguished Senator about what might happen if there was an accident, a crash, as a result of not having facilities up to snuff because of the bill not being passed.

I will say if we look at the record in the U.K. and Canada about what happened after they turned those operations to business hands, to private hands, we will see that the number of near-misses went up substantially in the U.K. That means near-misses in the air.

Many times I sit in the second seat on a small airplane and I want to tell my colleagues something, to find out where another airplane is at the last moment is a life-remembering event.

In Great Britain, since privatization, near-misses of crashes or other problems have increased by 50 percent.

There is something new of which I think we ought to be fully aware, and that is that the space between airplanes is being narrowed in the interest of taking more airplanes into the sky. This is no time to be saying, turn over our safety function, the maintenance function, to private hands, to Acme Air Service.

I do not ask for a lot, but I ask for it on behalf of the American people, 71 percent of whom said they want to keep these services in Government hands because they know Government can manage it best. I want to be able to bring up an amendment and have it voted upon. I am asking for a 6-month extension, and that is it. Give us a chance to reason in a more comfortable time frame. Right now, there is enormous pressure to conclude our business so we can go home, but I do not want to go home in an airplane that I do not think is the safest place I can possibly be, or my kids flying with me on a vacation or my grandchildren flying with me on a vacation over the Christmas holiday not feeling like we had the best possible people in the towers watching us in our flight.

I hope we will reconsider where we are and have a chance to discuss this at length.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I ask for no more than 5 minutes to conclude my remarks in response to the Senator from Mississippi.

I thank the Senator from Idaho.

What I want to ask the Senator from Mississippi--he said: People know when things get in government hands, they are in worse shape. What are we doing with the baggage screeners? We transferred 28,000 of those folks, took them off the line, gave them a raise in pay, took them away from the private handlers and said, No, we want to know our baggage is being thoroughly inspected.

I also remind the Senator in the CR which looms directly in front of us, there is no provision for increased funding for the aviation bill.

When we see what is happening in southern California, our hearts go out to them. The air is full of smog. There is smoke all over the place. You need people on the ground who know exactly how to direct those flights to make sure they travel at appropriate intervals.

When we had the hurricane on the east coast, we had to make sure we were conscious of the fact that weather changes were looming in front of us. This is a different world than we used to know. What a time it would be to turn all of this over to private hands.

Security on the cheap? I know the Senator from Mississippi doesn't really think that is a good idea. But, on the other hand, that is what is going to be happening.

I thank the Senator from Idaho, who is very kind, and my good friend from New Mexico, for their indulgence for these last few remarks.

I yield the floor.