[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 26 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2351-S2355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


           FEDERAL LANDS ACT FOREST HEALTH AMENDMENTS OF 1995

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, along with Senators Heflin, Murkowski, 
Gorton, Domenici, Burns, Packwood, Kempthorne, and a statement of 
support from the minority leader, Senator Daschle, I will, in the near 
future, introduce the Federal Lands Act Forest Health Amendments of 
1995.
  Mr. President, for some time I have attempted, along with others, to 
bring to the attention of this Senate the serious deterioration of this 
country's forest lands from a variety of ills, including drought, 
insect and disease attacks, and natural wildfires. We have come to 
understand that these problems, in combination, affect millions of 
acres of Federal, State, and private forest lands, and they have 
advanced to a point that they simply demand the attention of this 
Congress.
  It should be no surprise to any of us. Numerous recent reports from 
the scientific community, one of them called ``Assessing Forest 
Ecosystem Health in the Inland West'' and the ``Report of the National 
Commission on Wildfires,'' predicted intense wildfire events as a 
consequence of the forest health problems that this legislation will 
speak to. Many believe these costly fires will continue, unless there 
is an aggressive action by man to work with Mother Nature in attempting 
to deal with this situation. Scientists and forest managers met in Sun 
Valley in my State in 1993, and warned us with a very terse message, 
that we had ``A brief window of opportunity, perhaps 15-30 years in 
length''--and in the life of a forest, that is but the blink of an 
eye--to reverse this very unnatural cycle of fire that we were moving 
into.
  And, of course, last summer, it was so vividly dramatized in the 
inland West, as 4 million acres of unhealthy timber burst into fire, 
killing people, destroying homes, destroying ecosystems and wildlife 
and damaging riparian areas, and at a cost of $1 billion to the Federal 
Government in its attempt to suppress these fires, when, 
[[Page S2352]]  in many instances, they simply had to back away and 
watch the violence of the fires and the destruction that occurred.
  Do not be misled by those who proclaim that wildfire is beneficial to 
the environment because of a natural mosaic of vegetation that would be 
created. The 1994 fires were way outside the normal and the historic 
range. Damage to every component of the environment was so extensive 
that it will really cost us hundreds of years to begin to repair that 
kind of damage. A draft environmental impact statement just released by 
the Boise National Forest in my State documents long-term, severe 
damages to watersheds, soils, fisheries, and wildlife from last 
summer's fires that will be, as I mentioned, decades and decades and 
decades in repair.
  The only way we can deal with this serious problem is to develop and 
implement equally serious management strategies and allow our national 
forests our foresters in the scientific community to break the cycle of 
the forests that are in decline with this kind of mortality as a result 
of the disease, the insects, and the drought.
  My bill, titled the ``Federal Lands Act Forest Health Amendments of 
1995,'' is an attempt to do just that. It is now gaining bipartisan 
support. We will want to move it very rapidly through the two 
committees of jurisdiction and bring it to the floor of this Senate for 
debate, while a similar bill will move in the House.
  This bill will set the management procedures in place to identify the 
highest priority forest health problem areas on the national forests, 
the public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the 
public domain wildlife refuges. Once the areas are identified, this 
bill requires the agencies to take aggressive action to restore forest 
health. Most notably, the legislation would relieve some of the 
procedural impediments which have tied the agencies' hands. Our aim 
will be to alter unhealthy forest vegetation through thinnings and 
other cultural practices so the forest more nearly conforms to the 
historic patterns which once prevailed. Once there, the forest 
ecosystem can be maintained through scientific management.
  I see this forest health legislation as a long-term solution to the 
problem at hand. Years of concentrated effort will be needed to treat 
millions of acres now in trouble and restore them to conditions which 
are within the expected natural patterns and cycles. Though our western 
forests are in particular crisis now, forest health problems have 
surfaced in southern forests as well as in the northeastern and Lakes 
States, and this legislation would be very useful in those 
circumstances.
  As with most difficult situations, there is an opportunity here. As 
forest health activities are implemented, benefits will be gained for 
fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, scenic values and for all 
components of the ecosystem. That is the end result we want. At the 
same time, the activities needed to accomplish that end will generate 
forest products, jobs, and economic returns to the local economies 
which have been badly hurt by the shrunken timber supply.
  We do not need to be risking lives and property fighting these 
unnatural wildfires. We don't need to be spending a billion dollars on 
fire suppression when we could be taking effective preventive action to 
reduce risk. We do not need to watch our natural resources go up in 
smoke when there is a critical need for wood fiber to sustain our 
industry and communities. Forest health crises are preventable, and I 
am committed to bringing solutions before the Congress. That is why I 
will introduce this legislation.
  Our time, our window of opportunity, as I mentioned, is very narrow. 
I hope that my colleagues will join with me in a serious effort at 
working with the Forest Service to resolve the crisis that our forests 
are now in.
  Yes, for the time being, we are receiving abnormally high moisture 
levels in the inland West. But still, over the long period of drought, 
the accumulated moisture continues to decline, and along with that is 
the direct decline of the forests' health. Clearly next year, we would 
set ourselves up for another summer of fire and destruction and, 
tragically, the possibility of life lost, the kind that we saw in 
Colorado, in my State of Idaho, in Oregon, in Montana, and certainly in 
Washington and California this past year.
  Something has to be done. I believe my legislation will start us in 
that direction. And it would be foolish for this Senate, this Congress, 
this administration to simply set idly by and say, ``Oh, but it is 
Mother Nature at her finest.'' It is Mother Nature at her worst, 
because part of the problem that we are dealing with is the result of 
our inability to manage fires over the years and our failure to 
recognize that there was a national ebb and flow of the ecosystem that 
we have severely damaged and it will take our work, our efforts, and 
our cooperation with Mother Nature to begin to right this process.
  So I hope my colleagues will join with me in this effort and become 
cosponsors of the legislation that we will be introducing.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, legislation will be introduced soon that 
takes our Nation an important step closer to avoiding devastating 
wildfires in our national forests. I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor of the legislation to be introduced by the senior Senator 
from Idaho--the Forest Health Amendments of 1995.
  Last year, wildfires raged across the Western United States. The fire 
season started in early summer and by the time the smoke had cleared 
nearly 3 million acres of land in the Western United States had 
burned--double the amount of 1993. In the States of Washington and 
Oregon alone, nearly 1.4 billion board feet of Federal timber burned.
  Last summer, after listening closely to the concerns of Washington 
State residents, I offered an amendment during the House-Senate 
Interior Appropriations conference to provide the Forest Service with 
the authority to expedite these salvage sales. Unfortunately, I could 
not convince the members of the conference committee to include my 
amendment in the report. And, unfortunately, the burned timber is still 
sitting on the ground.
  Today, most, if not all, of the 1.4 billion board feet remains on the 
ground in Oregon and Washington. Obviously not all of the 1.4 billion 
board feet of timber that burned last summer would be eligible for 
harvest. According to the Forest Service calculations, usually 50 
percent of the total volume burned in a wildfire can be salvaged. 
Consequently, roughly 700 million board feet is eligible for some type 
of salvaging activity. But, once again, the Forest Service has made 
only token efforts to prepare the sales necessary to get in and get up 
this valuable timber. The urgency is based upon the fact that burnt, 
dead, or dying timber loses its value rapidly.
  The ramifications of inaction by the Forest Service in preparing 
these sales is twofold: These sales will provide small sawmills and 
logging companies in the Northwest--literally on verge of going out of 
business--some much needed wood supply. Beyond this, it is critical to 
remember that if the timber is left to rot on the forest floor it will 
be setting the stage for yet another devastating fire season this 
coming summer. Mr. President, inaction on the part of the Forest 
Service not only hurts working people, but it also hurts the 
environment.
  Regrettably, inaction is exactly what we are getting from the
   Forest Service. In response to the wildfires from last summer the 
Forest Service began to study the forest health issue. Last December 
the Service issued a report on its study entitled the ``Western Forest 
Health Initiative.'' The report highlighted 330 forest health-related 
projects in the Western United States. The majority of these projects, 
however, were not developed in response to the wildfires of the summer. 
For instance, in Washington and Oregon, only 40 projects were 
identified in response to the summer fires. Of the 40 projects, only a 
few were actual salvaging operations.

  Mr. President, the people in my State are asking themselves ``why?'' 
Why isn't the Forest Service going into the burned out areas and 
getting up the timber? Why isn't the Forest Service restoring the 
health of our forests, and putting people back to work? The answer is, 
of course, in large part driven by the fact that the Forest Service 
will most likely go to court if it begins 
[[Page S2353]]  even a modest effort to conduct salvage operations.
  Mr. President, the people in my State are frustrated. They are 
frustrated with a Federal Government that is so petrified by the 
potential filing of law suits that it will not undertake even the most 
limited of management activities in our Nation's forests.
  The legislation to be introduced by the Senator from Idaho would ease 
some of this frustration. The Forest Health Amendments of 1995 would 
require the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to conduct a yearly 
review on the status of the health of our Nation's forests. The bill 
would continue to grant the right to appeal a project, but would limit 
the timeframe for such an appeal. The bill grants the authority to 
allow for an environmental assessment on an individual project versus 
the more costly and time consuming environmental impact statement. The 
bill would also allow for the Forest Service to prioritize forest 
health needs as an emergency or high-risk area.
  The legislation to be introduced will not be enacted soon enough to 
conduct salvage operations in response to last year's wildfires. This 
Senator has already begun to work with his colleagues in the Northwest 
congressional delegation to put together an amendment that will address 
the salvage sitting on the ground from last year's fires, and other 
short-term timber supply issues for the region.
  Mr. President, this legislation will provide the Forest Service with 
some much needed direction. We cannot, and should not, stop managing 
our forests because of the obstructionists tactics of a few groups and 
individuals. If we do, we will be confronted with devastating 
wildfires--like last year--on an annual basis. I encourage my 
colleagues to work with this Senator and the Senator from Idaho to 
enact this legislation, and bring some common sense back to the 
management of our Nation's forests.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, my colleagues should be well aware of my 
sentiments toward a runaway train, known as the Federal bureaucracy, 
and its effect on individuals and small businesses in this country 
through the regulatory process. I have spoken of this situation, here 
on the floor of the Senate, in the past. My colleagues should also be 
well aware of my commitment to the principle of multiple-use regarding 
Federal lands. This principle was established in the Federal Lands 
Policy and Management Act of 1976, known as FLPMA.
  Today, I am here to support an effort to streamline a part of the 
regulatory and decisionmaking process regarding the management of 
federally controlled forest lands. In the course of this section, I am 
also hopeful that we will aid individuals and small businesses whose 
livelihoods depend on the sustainable development of our forest 
resources.
  Mr. President, I am here today as a cosponsor of the Federal Lands 
Act Forest Health Amendments of 1995, to be introduced by Senator 
Craig. These amendments are, indeed, needed, as we all witnessed the 
tragic losses of life and property to fires that devastated many areas 
in the Western United States this last year, including parts of New 
Mexico.
  In regard to the issue of forest health addressed by these 
amendments, I have read report after report, each describing how the 
state of affairs in the forests administered by the U.S. Forest Service 
and the Bureau of Land Management are in decline. At the same time, I 
have heard over and over how every step that he professional land 
managers we have entrusted with the care of these treasured lands is 
challenged through either administrative appeals or in the courts. 
These endless challenges, no matter how well intentioned, have tied the 
hands of the land management agencies to the point that almost every 
activity related to scientifically supported treatment of even the most 
devastated areas is effectively halted.
  Mr. President, this must stop. I believe that this legislation will 
be a significant benefit to our forests, and the people who live and 
work in and around them. It will establish criteria that will allow the 
responsible agencies to place areas most in need of corrective 
management in a high priority designation of either emergency or high-
risk forest health areas. Further, when we say emergency, we mean 
emergency. One of the criteria for designation as an emergency area is 
that 50 percent of the trees are either dead or will likely die within 
2 years. Let me repeat that standard for emergency designation: half of 
the trees are either dead or will soon die.
  Included in the decision to designate an area as a forest health 
emergency or high-risk area will be a listing of the authorized 
corrective activities that will be undertaken to improve conditions in 
the affected areas. None of these management activities will be beyond 
the scope of actions already approved in the appropriate land 
management plan.
  This is an innovative approach to expedite the bureaucratic process, 
and one that will create a finite time from proposal to actual on-the-
ground activities. This should, by no means, indicate that we here in 
Congress are trying to keep the public from participating in the 
process. We provide for a public comment period following the 
publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. We are also not 
attempting to cut off the opportunity for appeals. A period during 
which appeals can be filed is also required. We are quite simply 
providing a process by which constructive and corrective actions can be 
applied in the most dire of circumstances, where the continued inaction 
that occurs under the current system can only result in further 
degradation of our treasured forest resources.
  Finally, Mr. President, this legislation will require the Secretaries 
of Agriculture and the Interior to report annually to the Congress on 
activities carried out under this provision. In this report, the 
Secretaries will also inform the Congress of the current status of 
forest health on Federal lands, describe problems that have been 
encountered over the previous year, and indicate initiatives expected 
for the next year.
  In closing, I want to commend Senator Craig for his commitment to 
resolving the problems faced by the Federal land management agencies, 
and for his leadership in bringing the issue of forest health to the 
forefront here in the Senate.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, first, I would like to commend my 
colleague, Senator Craig, for bringing this issue to the floor of the 
Senate for debate.
  As some of you will remember, last summer catastrophic forest fires 
swept across the west. Governors were forced to declare states of 
emergency. We saw devastating loss of life--and I ask you to recall for 
a moment the 14 firefighters who lost their lives in Colorado, there 
were other as well--of property, of habitat, and of economic resources 
that rural communities in States like Idaho depend on.
  Some of these fires burned so wild and so hot that we could only wait 
for winter snows to put them out. But when the final fires were 
controlled, and the tallies taken, the numbers showed that my State of 
Idaho suffered the most timber lost of any State--over 1.5 billion 
board feet--enough timber to build over 137,000 homes, and to provide 
jobs for up to 35,000 people.
  Idaho was not alone. Our neighboring States suffered as well. The 
Forest Service alone spent $757 million fighting fires across the west. 
That does not include the expenses by BLM, the States, and other 
agencies.
  I would like to be able to tell you that this past summer was a fluke 
and that it hadn't happened before, and won't happen again. But that is 
not the case. These forest fires will come again. High fuel loads, 
long-term drought that made our forests susceptible to disease and 
insect infestations are all still threatening our forests. Huge stands 
of dead and dying timber are ready and waiting to go up like a 
tinderbox again next summer or the summer after that.
  We cannot bring the rain to end the drought--that talent is in higher 
hands than ours. But we can take action with the tools that were given 
to us. We can manage those forests so that they provide the timber, the 
habitat, and the recreation opportunities that we depend on. This bill 
will give the Forest Service the flexibility to manage forests in a 
timely manner to get salvage sales out within the window of 
opportunity.
   [[Page S2354]] Keep in mind that not all of that 1.5 billion board 
feet of timber damaged in the fires had been approved for timber 
harvest. Far from it. The local forest supervisors have taken into 
consideration habitat and other environmental requirements, and have 
set aside possibly as much as 90 percent of the timber that was burned 
to meet other needs besides economic ones. But the remaining timber is 
harvestable, and if we do not expedite the handling of that timber, and 
harvest it within the limited 2-year window of opportunity, then the 
value of that wood is lost.
  Rural communities of Idaho and other western States depend on the 
income from these Federal sales, for direct revenue and income for 
schools and county roads. This letter from the Cambridge School 
District explains the need of Idaho schools for a dependable, steady 
timber supply. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be made part of 
the Record.
  It is Congress' responsibility to ensure that Federal agencies are 
serving the public efficiently and effectively. The timeclock is 
ticking. Let's serve the public we were sent here to work for, and pass 
this bill.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                             Cambridge School District #432-J,

                                                November 15, 1994.
     Dirk Kempthorne,
     Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Kempthorne: The summer of 1994 saw catastrophic 
     fires in many of our forests and a great deal of salvageable 
     timber remains in areas burnt over. That salvage timber 
     deteriorates rapidly if not recovered and it is in the best 
     interests of our society to avoid waste of natural resources. 
     Many of Idaho School Districts receive significant revenues 
     from the sale of timber resources from the federal forests in 
     Idaho to fund educational programs.
       The Cambridge School Board would like to join and support a 
     position calling for the salvage of recoverable timber in a 
     manner consistent with sound environmental practice and to 
     encourage the Forest Service and the Idaho Department of 
     Lands to expedite that salvage to maximize local government 
     revenues and to provide citizens of Idaho with expanded job 
     opportunities.
       Education funding in Idaho is greatly influenced by the use 
     of natural resources in our state.
           Sincerely,
     Cynthia K. Jones,
       Chairman.
     Sharon M. Stippich,
       Vice Chairman.
     Kathryn Wert,
       Trustee.
     Douglas Hansen,
       Trustee.
     Ellis E. Pearson,
       Trustee.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very 
important issue in the Pacific Northwest: inland forest health. Earlier 
today, my colleague form Idaho, Senator Craig, spoke about legislation 
to address a serious forest health problem plaguing forests throughout 
the inland west. He very accurately described the problems of disease, 
insect infestations, and drought that are prevalent in many such 
forests, and which can lead to serious forest fires.
  I commend Senator Craig for his work on this issue. He is correct 
that serious forest health problems exist in many areas, and he is 
correct that we should try to do something about it. The reasons are 
very simple. Healthy forests are essential to ensuring long-term 
economic sustainability in rural communities; they are essential to our 
standard of living; and they are essential to maintaining a healthy 
environment.
  Growing trees provide many benefits. They shade spawning streams, 
they stabilize soil and prevent erosion, they provide wildlife habitat, 
they consume carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. They also provide wood 
for our home, paper for our schools, shelter for our communities, and 
recreation for the people. In short, they are many things to many 
people. If we strengthen our forests, we strengthen our communities. Of 
course, the reverse is also true. If we weaken our forests, we weaken 
our society in many ways.
  So it is important that we do what we can to keep our forests as 
healthy as possible.
  I would like to support a forest health bill. Given the passions 
inflamed when Congress starts legislating forest policy, I believe it 
is incumbent on us to proceed cautiously if we hope to achieve any 
results. Above all, we must not go too far. We need a forest health 
bill that addresses legitimate problems and reflects the public's view 
regarding management of our public lands.
  I have already talked about some of these problems. What about the 
public view? We know the public enjoys its parks and wilderness areas. 
We know the public appreciates aesthetic, wildlife, roadless, and old 
growth values. But we also know the public has a voracious appetite for 
wood products. So, as is so often the case, our challenge and our 
responsibility as legislators is to strike the right balance.
  I have a few concerns I hope can be addressed as we enter the forest 
health debate. I have touched on a few already: We need to make sure we 
are taking steps to address legitimate, serious problems. We need to 
avoid costly, catastrophic fires. The fires we saw last summer ravaged 
thousands of acres, cost a billion dollars to fight, and did no one any 
good. We need to avoid diseases and inspect problems as well.
  We also need to keep in mind what's going on downstream. People in 
the Pacific Northwest have spent the last few years trying to refine 
the concept of watershed-based management. In Tacoma last year, 
Representative Norm Dicks any myself convened a conference of nearly a 
thousand people to discuss watershed issue. Agency managers, fishers, 
private land owners, wildlife specialists, water users, 
conservationists, and citizens of all types came together to recognize 
the importance of watersheds as a resource management unit.
  We are finding more often than not many land-use questions are 
becoming aquatic questions. In other words, what happens downstream is 
quite often affected by what happens upstream. Our entire resource-
based economy is connected one way or another by the streams and rivers 
that criss-cross the region.
  I believe there is ample room for proactive management of forest 
health problems and consideration of aquatic issues. The connection 
between these two issue sets is a concept I would like to introduce in 
the debate over Senator Craig's upcoming legislation.
  We also need to make sure management actions are science-based. The 
good news is that very few people in the scientific community disagree 
over management prescriptions that can help improve forest health. Just 
the same, I think it is important to make it clear that the goal of 
achieving good forest health, and the steps taken to reach it, are 
based in sound science.
  Finally, I want to say a few words about the broader issue of 
ecosystem management. This is a concept that has been very popular in 
recent years. It suggests that active resource management and usage can 
be reconciled with strong conservation goals. It suggests we can make 
decisions on a broad basis so we can avoid stumbling into problems on a 
case-by-case basis. These are goals that I strongly support.
  But the problem remains that ecosystem management is still just 
loosely defined. And of course, the devil is always in the detail. Last 
year, Senator Hatfield introduced legislation that I cosponsored to 
define the concept of ecosystem management more clearly. The goal is to 
arrive at a set of principles or standards that can guide long-term 
resource management decisions.
  I believe this is still the proper course of action. Until we have a 
clear goal in sight, it is not necessarily wise to proceed quickly with 
rifle-shot solutions to short- or intermediate-term problems that may 
not repeat themselves. So I encourage my colleagues, and people from 
the region, to consider some of the threshold questions that remain 
unanswered.
  Mr. President, there are other issues that I have not touched on but 
which I hope can be discussed in the context of forest health. Again, I 
commend the Senator from Idaho for his work. I hope to work with him 
and other Senators from the region in a bipartisan way to come up with 
solutions that work for the people.
           federal lands act forest health amendments of 1995
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Americans rely on the national forests 
for a wide variety of activities, ranging from timber harvesting to 
recreation and 
[[Page S2355]]  the conservation of wildlife. It is incumbent upon us 
to maintain those forests in the healthiest condition possible.
  Unfortunately, throughout the country, and particularly in the inter-
mountain west, forests are in poor shape. Persistent drought, disease, 
and insect infestation have created stands of dead and dying trees that 
pose a serious risk of fire. The forest fires that last summer burned 
thousands of acres of forest throughout the West and claimed the lives 
of men and women of the Forest Service provide bleak evidence of the 
problem. If we are to manage national forest ecosystems in ways that 
provide the services that Americans have come to expect, supply them in 
a sustainable manner and support the diversity of habitat needed to 
maintain fish and wildlife, then we must confront the forest health 
issue squarely.
  Senator Craig will soon introduce the Federal Lands Act Health 
Amendments of 1995, which is intended to establish a more deliberate 
and timely process for dealing with forest health problems. I commend 
Senator Craig for focusing attention on forest health and look forward 
to continuing our collaborative effort on this issue and on the broader 
issue of ecosystem management. As a result of the Craig bill and the 
forthcoming discussions that it will generate, I expect Congress to 
develop a reasonable and effective response to this problem.
  Over the last 2 years, as chairman and ranking member of the Senate 
Subcommittee on Agricultural Research, Conservation, Forestry, and 
General Legislation, Senator Craig and I held hearings on the 
management of the Federal lands. The subcommittee held two hearings on 
ecosystem management, a third on the new appeal process, and a fourth 
on the issue of forest health.
  From those hearings, and through my experiences in working with 
wildlife managers, members of the timber industry and 
environmentalists, it has become clear that federally managed forests 
in some areas of the country suffer from problems related to drought, 
past mismanagement, and insect infestation and disease. The high 
incidence of tree mortality and fires in some national forests suggest 
that we still have much to learn about the causes of these problems and 
how to manage these complex systems.
  The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management should place a 
higher priority on dealing with forest health problems before they 
become worse. To do so effectively, several important steps should be 
undertaken.
  First, forest health problems need to be better defined. We must 
develop a shared vocabulary so that all those interested in maintaining 
healthy forests can work together in common cause.
  Second, scientific research should be conducted to identify problems 
and evaluate options. Only by relying on sound scientific data can we 
hope to proceed in an effective and defensible manner.
  Third, and perhaps most importantly, we must set priorities. We must 
focus our attention on areas of greatest need, while ensuring that 
other issues are managed to prevent future problems.
  And fourth, solutions must be developed and implemented in a timely 
manner.
  Again, I appreciate Senator Craig's foresight and diligence in 
bringing to the attention of Congress the issue of forest health. This 
is a complicated issue that involves important objectives such as 
maintaining species habitat, ensuring that insect infestations and 
diseases are within a natural and healthy range, preventing soil 
erosion, and safeguarding the overall long-term sustainability of 
forest ecosystems.
  The bill to be introduced by Senator Craig provides a valuable 
framework for addressing these critical issues. It will force Federal 
agencies to identify lands at risk and take concrete steps to improve 
forest health on those lands. In the long-run, the public should 
benefit by management activities taken as a result of this bill.
  Senator Craig has expressed a desire to move this legislation through 
the necessary committees as expeditiously as possible. I support this 
goal, and look forward to participating in Agriculture Committee 
hearings on the bill. Concern has been raised that the legislation as 
currently written may provide overly broad discretion to the Federal 
agencies and that it may in some cases overburden those agencies with 
new responsibilities at a time when budget cuts hinder their ability to 
accomplish existing responsibilities. These issues merit further 
attention. Also, it is my hope that the Senate will examine the 
question of whether the bill assures sufficient opportunity for 
deliberation and analysis by the agencies and input by the public.
  I look forward to working with Senator Craig to examine these 
questions and to move this bill through the appropriate committees and 
to the floor this year, so that we can begin to address forest health 
in a systematic, deliberate, thorough, and effective manner.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________