[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 86 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6220-S6224]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HAPPY FORESTS
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes about
a pending national disaster.
Mr. President, I want to discuss something that is unfortunately not
part of this fire package. For over a month, I have been working
intensely with other Members and the Clinton Administration trying to
begin to address a serious problem that in the West has been
highlighted in stark terms by the events that happened to the community
of Los Alamos in my state, as just one example. What happened to the
homes and families of Los Alamos is unfortunately going to happen again
unless we, as a Congress, can convince the Clinton Administration to
join us in bold and deliberate actions. Throughout the United States
there is an increasing amount of land in what natural resource
scientists and firefighting experts call the ``wildland/urban
interface.'' With more people moving into the West, and more homes
being built in communities surrounded by federal lands, neighborhoods
like those that burned in Los Alamos are becoming more numerous.
At the same time, as a consequence of decades of fire suppression as
well as years of increasing drought, many millions of acres--by the
General Accounting Office's estimate, 39 million or more acres--of
national forests are at high risk of wildfires. They are in this
situation because fuel loads have risen to dangerous levels and forest
management has been dramatically curtailed at the same time. The escape
of the prescribed fire in Bandelier National Monument, and its
subsequent effect on the town of Los Alamos make it clear, as Secretary
Babbitt has already conceded, that in many places prescribed fire is
not a viable management tool to reduce fuel loads. It is particularly
risky to use in the wildland/urban interface because of the presence of
homes and families.
Therefore, joined by others Members on both sides of the aisle, I
worked over the last few weeks to provide the Administration with both
the resources and the tools to begin an accelerated program of fuel
reduction in wildland/urban interface areas for communities that are at
risk throughout the West. We suggested a number of proposals that the
Administration found too hot to handle. For instance, we asked whether
the Council on Environmental Quality would designate this an emergency
situation and expedite NEPA compliance for hazard fuel reduction
activities in the wildland/urban interface. The Administration
representatives said no. They felt that this would be too controversial
with national environmental special interest groups. They pleaded with
us not to pursue this option.
We asked whether they could suspend administrative appeals for these
hazard fuel reduction projects. That would eliminate one source of
delay. Anyone who wanted to stop one of these
[[Page S6221]]
projects could still go directly to federal court. Here again, the
Administration said no. They urged us not to propose suspending appeals
because it would be met with opposition by national environmental
special interest groups.
We suggested the use of stewardship contracts to do fuel reduction
work. A stewardship contract is one where the government can trade the
value of any merchantable material removed through a fuel reduction
project against the cost to the government of the fuel reduction
activity. This is an authority that would be very useful, but that the
federal government presently lacks. Here again, the Administration felt
that there was too much national environmental special interest group
opposition to stewardship contracting. They urged us not to pursue this
option.
Throughout this discussion we told the Administration that we would
be sensitive to their concerns, as long as they would commit to us that
they would not treat this crisis in a ``business as usual'' fashion. We
weren't simply going to give them more money and say we had
resolved the problem when we know that isn't true.
Finally, Senator Bingaman and I came to an agreement on the
additional tools and resources that we would provide the Administration
while being sensitive to their concerns. We wanted to increase fuel
reduction activity by $240 million. In the course of doing that, we
were going to direct the Secretary of the Interior and Agriculture to
use all available contracting and hiring authorities under existing law
to do this work. We were also going to provide the Secretaries with
authority which they now lack to do some of this work using grants and
cooperative agreements. We asked the Secretaries, at their sole
discretion, to do this work in a way that would provide jobs to local
people, opportunities to private, non-profit, or cooperating entities,
such as youth conservation corps, and opportunities for small and micro
businesses.
We must begin a serious dialogue throughout the West about the
severity of the problem that we face. In order to accomplish this, we
directed the Secretaries by September 30 of this year to produce a list
of all of the urban/wildland interface communities, within the vicinity
of federal lands that are at risk from wildfire. In that list, we asked
the Secretaries to identify those communities where hazard reduction
activities were already underway, or could be commenced by the end of
the calendar year. We further asked the Secretaries to describe by May
of next year, the roadblocks to beginning hazardous fuel reduction work
in the remaining communities on the list.
It was our view that this would provide an opportunity to commence a
very necessary dialogue: (1) among communities at risk, and (2) between
the affected communities and the federal land management agencies to
gain some consensus on approaching this problem. That was the intent of
directing the Secretaries to produce these lists.
It was also our hope that, as communities recognized the degree of
risk, they would match some of the federal contributions with their own
money and effort. This would get the work done even more quickly.
Regrettably, I must inform the Senate, including Members from western
states who have communities at risk, and some burning now, that the
Administration rejected our proposal because they thought that ``it
might encourage logging.'' Now remember we weren't talking about
wilderness areas. And we weren't talking about roadless areas either.
Nor were we talking about areas of special significance for ecological
or wildlife values. We were just talking about the federal lands
adjacent to communities. We were talking about the woods next to
subdivisions. We were talking about places like the city of Los Alamos,
or people burned out of the Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico. We
could have easily have been talking about Santa Fe, New Mexico, or
Bend, Oregon, or Sedona, Arizona, or Missoula, Montana. We could have
been talking about neighborhoods in each of those cities, and many
dozen more scattered throughout the semi-arid, western states.
Even though we were talking about these kinds of areas, the
Administration was much too concerned with offending environmental
special interest groups to move aggressively and effectively to reduce
fire risks because it might involve encouraging logging.
Well this is a tragedy. And it's a tragedy that will be repeated as
the summer progresses. It is a tragedy that will probably occur each
week until the snow falls later this year.
I want to advise the Senate that when you next look at footage of
forest fires on CNN, just remember that the Administration didn't want
to address this problem because they were afraid it might encourage
logging. When you look at footage on CNN of burned out forests, dead
and dying wildlife, and devastated watersheds, just remember that the
Administration didn't want to address this problem because they were
afraid it might encourage logging. When you see footage on CNN of
burned-out neighborhoods, destroyed homes, devastated families and
ruined lives, just remember that the Administration didn't want to
prevent this problem because they were afraid that by doing so they
might encourage logging. And next winter, when you see the first CNN
footage of dramatic flash floods in watersheds that were burned-over
the previous summer, and you see homes buried in the mud, just remember
that the Administration didn't want to prevent that problem because
they were afraid it might encourage logging.
And finally, when you're forced to see it up close, when it affects a
community in your state, when you're not just watching it on TV, but
actually meeting with the citizens of your state who have been burned
out of their homes and their neighborhoods--just tell them that the
Administration didn't want to prevent the problem from occurring
because they were afraid it might encourage too much logging. Just tell
them that the Administration didn't want to prevent the problem from
occurring because they were afraid of the national environmental groups
who claim to want to save the environment. Maybe then the
Administration will realize that they should have been afraid of what
would happen if they did listen to the national environmental special
interest groups.
The publicly owned forests of America are not very happy today. I
intended to put on the supplemental bill a provision that I was going
to call ``happy forests.'' That is a strange name. But it is either
happy forests or it is what we have today. What we have today is a
philosophy that seems to say to the forests of our land: Burn, baby,
burn. That is the theme.
The administration fears logging and it is frightened to death when
anyone suggests something that might sound like ``logging.'' It is all
right if they keep their policy not to cut anything going, but it is
not all right where the forests of America come in contact with
communities. The interface between communities, buildings, churches,
and the forests of America is just crying out while waiting for a
forest fire that will devour communities and burn down buildings.
I have a city in my state called Santa Fe. Everybody knows of Santa
Fe because it is a great place to go. The mayor recently has taken many
people to see the forests around Santa Fe and the community. Santa Fe
is frightened that their watershed is going to burn down. It is right
up against the community and provides its water. That watershed will
burn down while the U.S. Government sits in its ivory tower and says
don't do a thing that might look like logging, might smell like
logging.
Even on this bill that we have before the Senate, which provides
emergency fire relief, the administration ended up rejecting, after
negotiating for weeks, language that would have helped thin forests to
protect communities. This was a small, but very necessary, program.
Before we are finished this year, the American people are going to have
such a fear about the forests burning down they will support a policy
across this land of thinning these forests in the interface with
communities and buildings.
We had a fire that cost the Government over $1 billion in Los Alamos,
affecting our laboratory and the people that work there, because the
Interior Department started a fire, a ``controlled burn'', on a
national monument
[[Page S6222]]
right next to Los Alamos. They didn't follow the right rules, didn't
have the right weather; they did everything wrong. The little fire got
to be a big fire and the U.S. Government burned down 48,000 acres, put
400-plus families out of their homes by burning them to the ground. The
Cerro Grande fire burned almost $200 million worth of Los Alamos
scientific buildings. We are lucky that the whole community didn't burn
to the ground.
Sooner or later, we are going to have to get serious and pass the
kind of legislation which would have been on this bill. The
administration called it a rider. The distinguished newspaper, the
Washington Post, today argues against riders on this pending bill. They
said one of riders removed encouraged ``timbering.'' I ask the editors
to read the language. It did not encourage timbering. It said thin the
dangerous forests where communities are at risk, and it provided great
limitations. It encourages the use of locals in rural communities, and
give jobs to their young people, to clean out the forests in the
summer.
This committee of appropriations is willing to get it the program
started. This administration said we will veto this whole bill, even as
far as defense of our Nation goes, if you put something in that changes
the way we are doing things on federal land.
A panel of experts recently visited the watershed of Santa Fe, NM.
They made a statement. They are frightened that watershed will burn
down because the area hasn't been thinned and nothing is being done to
the forest land to keep it from turning into a tinderbox.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial
from the Washington Post and an article from the Santa Fe New Mexican.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, June 30, 2000]
A Dirty Water Rider
Senior congressional Republicans slid a provision into the
supplemental appropriations bill late Wednesday night that
would have the effect of blocking a major new clean water
regulation. The notion was that the president would have to
accept the provision, since the alternative would be to veto
a long-delayed bill that he badly wants. The supplemental
request, which he sent to Congress last winter, includes the
administration's proposed aid to Colombia, support for the
military operation in Kosovo and a backlog of domestic
disaster relief, including help for victims of Hurricane
Floyd, which occurred a year ago.
But our sense is that, if the offending language can't be
removed--discussions were continuing last night--the
president should veto the bill. Let the onus for the delay in
these funds--for support of U.S. troops abroad, for people
who have been waiting in line for up to a year for disaster
aid--be placed where it belongs, at the doorstep of members
of Congress who would hold the money hostage to a furtive
cause. The president can make that speech--and should. The
administration made a big thing last year of the clean water
step it was taking, and it's the right step. In recent days,
administration negotiators have knocked four other retrograde
environmental riders out of the supplemental bill, having to
do with hard-rock mining, timbering, reform of the Corps of
Engineers and the opening of a wildlife refuge to
development. Four for four is nifty. Make it five.
The regulation in question involves something called total
maximum daily loads, or TMDLs. The Clean Water Act has mainly
been enforced over the years through a permit system that has
reduced pollution from particular major sources--factories,
sewage treatment plants, etc. The permitting effort has been
a success, but many bodies of water in the country are still
dirty--too dirty to fish or swim in, for example. They either
have too many sources of pollution nearby or are afflicted by
generalized urban and agricultural runoff, which up to now
the government has done little to regulate and which is said
to account for the majority of remaining pollution.
Where bodies of water are still too dirty, states would be
instructed to determine the maximum daily loads they can
tolerate and develop plans to ratchet down pollution
accordingly. The process would be gradual, and indeed, until
recently, some environmental groups were fighting the
proposed regulation on grounds it was too weak. Democrats on
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee sent a
letter to Senate leaders of both parties yesterday,
protesting the late-night insertion of the rider and urging
instead an open debate ``in clear public view.'' That's just
what ought to happen.
____
[From the Sante Fe New Mexican, June 28, 2000]
Experts Urge Immediate Action To Ease Fire Threat in Watershed
(Ben Neary)
The federal government should act fast to try to avert
catastrophic fire on the watershed that provides nearly half
of Santa Fe's city's water supply, a panel of experts
reported on Tuesday.
``We've got the fuels, we've got the topography and we've
got the ignition sources. It's just a matter of them coming
together at the same time,'' Bill Armstrong of the Santa Fe
National Forest told a packed auditorium at the State Land
Office on Tuesday night.
Armstrong escorted a panel of watershed experts to inspect
the 18,000-acre watershed Tuesday. The group ten reported
their findings.
``There's nothing like a couple of large clouds of smoke to
make everyone scurry around,'' Armstrong said. ``I feel like
a rodent on amphetamines here.''
Armstrong had just finished preparing an environmental
study calling for thinning the forest in the Jemez Mountains
before the catastrophic Cerro Grande fire burned through the
area last month and went on to destroy hundreds of homes in
Los Alamos.
The Cerro Grande fire was followed closely by the Viveash
fire, which narrowly missed burning the Gallinas River
watershed, which supplies the city of Las Vegas, N.M., with
the bulk of its water supply.
Those fires, with their huge smoke columns visible from
Santa Fe, have sparked both city and Forest Service officials
to try to step up action on a plan to reduce the danger of
fire destroying the Santa Fe watershed.
The Forest Service and the city are working together on a
study of how thinning work should proceed.
Actual thinning of trees probably couldn't start until next
year at the earliest and likely will continue for five to 10
years, Armstrong said.
Thomas W. Swetnam, director of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring
Research at the University of Arizona, was among those who
toured the watershed.
Studies of three rings over the past 400 years or so show
that fires of low intensity used to burn every 10 years or
so. With flames only a few feet high, such fires burned away
the grass and underbrush without harming the large trees.
In the 20th century, however, Swetnam said, a new pattern
emerged. Heavy grazing by domesticated animals reduced the
grass cover in the forests so low-intensity fires no longer
were common.
The Santa Fe watershed probably hasn't burned in the past
150 to 200 years, Swetnam said. Such lack of fire has led to
unnaturally heavy buildup of dead trees and other material in
the forest.
When such an overgrown forest burns--such as in the Cerro
Grande fire--the huge flames travel through the tops of the
trees, killing them and leaving the landscape denuded.
``The Santa Fe watershed may not burn up tomorrow, or next
year or the next five years or so,'' Swetnam said. ``But the
Santa Fe watershed is one of the places on the landscape of
the Southwest where there is a fairly high urgency.''
Daniel Neary, a soil scientist with the U.S. Forest
Service, said catastrophic fire results in soil that for the
first year or so won't absorb water. This causes heavy runoff
and erosion--both of which would likely hurt the city's water
supply and possibly threaten flooding downstream.
Mark Dubois, an assistant professor of Forestry and
Wildlife Sciences at Auburn University, said conditions in
the Santa Fe watershed are such that it will take a combined
approach of carefully controlled burns, thinning and other
means to try to reduce the fire danger.
``The central observation I walked away with today is there
is not one-size-fits-all,'' Dubois said of the watershed.
Regis Cassidy of the Sante Fe National Forest said there
would probably be enough work in thinning the watershed to
keep contractors employed for five to 10 years. He said there
are perhaps 600 acres where trees could be easily cut,
another 2,000 acres where extremely steep terrain would make
work difficult and perhaps another 4,500 acres where the
terrain is too steep to cut at all.
Some local environmental groups have said they intend to
fight the Forest Service plan to thin the watershed, saying
they believe the plan amounts to an inappropriate plan to log
in sensitive areas along the river. No representative from
such groups spoke at Tuesday's meeting, although officials
said they had been invited.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank Senator Domenici for spelling out so clearly the
crisis on the Nation's public lands today.
Yesterday, I held a hearing and I had two regional foresters: A
regional forester that largely is in charge of all the forests in
Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington; the other forester in charge of
all the forests along the Sierra Nevada in California. They admitted
yesterday that this President's roadless policy is going to jeopardize
21 million acres of forested lands that are now at high risk to
catastrophic wildfires, the very thing the Senator is talking about.
Yet this President's policy is to lock it up, walk away, and hope it
doesn't burn.
We are talking, as the Senator so clearly spelled out, about thinning
and
[[Page S6223]]
cleaning--not extensive logging--but clearly changing the environment
in a way that fire would not be as destructive as it has been at Los
Alamos.
I cannot forget the picture on television, the DA Cat rolling along
the fire line in the forests of New Mexico, rolling along the dirt,
right down through a riparian area. Why? To put out the fire.
Now, if the proper action had happened the way the Senator spelled it
out, that would never have occurred at Los Alamos, with 21 million
acres now at risk of catastrophic wildfires as a result of this
President's policy.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I, too, want to comment briefly on the
comments of the Senator from New Mexico. We will have a lot more to say
about this in the future because this is a national crisis.
For today, let me simply acknowledge that what Senator Domenici and
Senator Craig have said represents a huge challenge to this Nation.
According to the GAO, 38 million acres of forests in the United States
are in jeopardy of either dying or burning unless they are quickly
treated. We have less than 20 years to accomplish this treatment. It is
not only the risk of catastrophic forest fires, including the danger to
communities around which these forests are located, but also the
prospect that they will die of disease or malnutrition because they are
so crowded together that they are competing for the nutrients and the
water which, at least in the Southwest, are so scarce.
In the area of Arizona where there has been research into this--now
at least half a dozen years of experience--we find that when the areas
are thinned and then prescribed burning is introduced, you don't get
the catastrophic fire. You do get much better tree growth, more pitch
content, so that they are not subject to the beetle infestation, for
example, and higher protein content so the grasses can grow on the
floor. This brings in more mammals and birds into the area. And the
forest returns to the park-like condition that existed at the turn of
the century.
There have been a lot of bad policies since then, and a century of
activity which resulted in the destruction of the national forests of
this country.
The task is huge. We need to get started. I will be supporting the
efforts of the Senator from New Mexico and others in trying to ensure
that we can literally save our beautiful national forests.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from New Mexico is not only speaking about
the forests, but people forget that the forests contaminate the private
lands nearby. We warned the Forest Service about the beetle infestation
in Alaska and urged that the areas be sprayed and be thinned to prevent
that from spreading. I regret to tell the Senate just yesterday I had
to have people come and cut down two of our beautiful spruce trees on
the little lot I own because I and my neighbors, who are adjacent to
the national forest, are totally infested--the trees are totally
invested by beetles. The beetles are killing the trees.
All of this could have been prevented. This is the same as wildfires.
In fact, beetle kill is worse than wildfires because it totally
consumes the future, and it is very difficult to remove these trees.
I commend the Senator. I hope he will reinitiate his proposal. He is
correct. Because of the basic problem, all the editorial backlash that
was built up against his legislation, we were unable to include that in
this bill. But I look forward to working with him this year on this
subject to try to force this administration to recognize their
responsibility in protecting these national forests and, in doing so,
to protect the private property owners nearby.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to have printed in the Record the
statutory language Senator Bingaman and I worked on that we wanted to
incorporate here to get started, which language was denied by threat of
the veto. I am not suggesting Senator Bingaman agrees with every
statement I made on the floor, but one can read the proposed
legislation and see that it is very reasonable.
I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Fuels Reduction
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . PROTECTING COMMUNITIES FROM RISK OF WILDLAND FIRE.
(a) In expending the emergency funds provided in any Act
with respect to any fiscal year for hazardous fuels
reduction, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture may hereafter conduct fuel reduction treatments
on Federal lands using all contracting and hiring authorities
available to the Secretaries. Notwithstanding Federal
government procurement and contracting laws, the Secretaries
may conduct fuel reduction treatments on Federal lands using
grants and cooperative agreements. Notwithstanding Federal
government procurement and contracting laws, in order to
provide employment and training opportunities to people in
rural communities, the Secretaries may hereafter, at their
sole discretion, limit competition for any contracts, with
respect to any fiscal year, including contracts for
monitoring activities, to:
(1) local private, non-profit, or cooperative entities;
(2) Youth Conservation Corps crews or related partnerships
with state, local, and non-profit youth groups;
(3) Small or micro-businesses; or
(4) other entities that will hire or train a significant
percentage of local people to complete such contracts.
(b) Prior to September 30, 2000, the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly
publish in the Federal Register a list of all urban wildland
interface communities, as defined by the Secretaries, within
the vicinity of Federal lands that are at risk from wildfire.
This list shall include:
(1) an identification of communities around which hazardous
fuel reduction treatments are ongoing; and
(2) an identification of communities around which the
Secretaries are preparing to begin treatments in calendar
year 2000.
(c) Prior to May 1, 2001, the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly publish in the
Federal Register a list of all urban wildland interface
communities, as defined by the Secretaries, within the
vicinity of Federal lands and at risk from wildfire that are
included in the list published pursuant to subsection (b) but
that are not included in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), along
with an identification of reasons, not limited to lack of
available funds, why there are not treatments ongoing or
being prepared for these communities.
(d) Within 30 days after enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall publish in the Federal
Register the Forest Service's Cohesive Strategy for
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted
Ecosystems, and an explanation of any differences between the
Cohesive Strategy and other related ongoing policymaking
activities including: proposed regulations revising the
National Forest System transportation policy; proposed
roadless area protection regulations; the Interior Columbia
Basin Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; and
the Sierra Nevada Framework/Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. The Secretary shall also
provide 30 days for public comment on the Cohesive Strategy
and the accompanying explanation.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my friends who have spoken to
this, there is a novel position in this legislation I think you will
like. I am not sure it was not what brought certain environmentalists
to the White House, along with some others. There are so many people
such as mayors and councilmen in communities who ask us: Look. Right
over there are all these dead trees, thousands of dead trees. They say:
Why do we leave them there dead? The longer we leave them in that
position, they are going to turn more and more into additional fodder
for fires. What good do we get out of dead trees, just sitting there?
Actually, what we are going to say when we finally get around to
passing this is that the U.S. Government, which owns that property has
to, in writing, tell that community why they cannot thin that forest,
and what is holding up action. It is going to be interesting. This
should become law because, sooner or later, I am going to ask the
Senate to vote on it. We ask something that is very understandable and
makes common sense.
But you see, if you are holding fuel reduction up for a year and a
half for a NEPA statement on land that just has dead trees on it,
somebody is going to say: Why don't we hurry up? Why does it take so
long?
Getting that information is going to be part of this process of
trying to get action. We should be saying to our forests and the
communities abutting
[[Page S6224]]
them: We want you to live together. We don't want one to burn the other
one out. And you cannot promise them that if you do not thin those
forests.
With that, I am finished, and I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum in the
absence of a leader. He has asked for a quorum until he returns. I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be
rescinded so I may simply make a statement as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded so that I may speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue to
call the roll.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________