[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 115 (Thursday, September 12, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8515-S8521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 F_____
                                 

  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 
5093, which the clerk will report.

       A bill (S. 5093) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Byrd Amendment No. 4472, in the nature of a substitute.
       Byrd Amendment No. 4480 (to Amendment No. 4472), to provide 
     funds to repay accounts from which funds were borrowed for 
     emergency wildfire suppression.
       Craig/Domenici Amendment No. 4518 (to Amendment No. 4480), 
     to reduce hazardous fuels on our national forests.
       Dodd Amendment No. 4522 (to Amendment No. 4472), to 
     prohibit the expenditure of funds to recognize Indian tribes 
     and tribal nations until the date of implementation of 
     certain administrative procedures.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4518

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to support the Craig second degree 
amendment. This amendment will address the continuing problem of 
hazardous fuels buildup in our Nation's

[[Page S8516]]

forests. Unfortunately, the excessive buildup of these fire producing 
fuels has reached a crisis stage.
  Nowhere is this fact more evident than what is happening in our 
forests this year. Currently, conditions in our Nation's forests are 
terrible. The fire risks as a result of the buildup of these fuels are 
extremely high. According to the Society of American Foresters, ``As a 
result of 80 years of fuels accumulation and several years of drought, 
the potential for wildfire is at an all time high in many regions of 
the U.S.'' In addition to this, recent forest service estimates 
indicate that approximately 73 million of the Nation's national forests 
are at risk from ``catastrophic'' wildfire.
  For many of the states, the damage is already done. As you all know, 
many western states have experienced devastating wildfires--fires that 
have not only destroyed homes and property, but vast acres of trees and 
wildlife as well. As of late August, more than 6.3 million acres of 
land have burned this fire season--more than double the 10-year 
average. So far in this fire season, we have seen devastating fires in 
Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, and Oregon.
  Mr. President, these fires not only clean out and tear down living 
trees, they kill the wildlife, they threaten homes, they threaten 
lives; most of all, they scorch the Earth, subjecting it to disastrous 
soil runoff into our Nation's rivers, streams, and lakes, and knocking 
out the potential of forest regrowth for decades.
  The time for addressing the problem of excessive fuels buildup in our 
forests is long overdue. Current efforts to reduce fuel loads are 
taking far too long due to senseless bureaucratic delays. According to 
the U.S. Forest Service, it can take up to 8 years to plan and 
executive a relatively routine fuels reduction project. We simply 
cannot afford to wait this long.
  We are talking about good science-based forest management here. In a 
letter to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Dr. Gene Garrett of the 
University of Missouri School of Natural Resources, who has studied and 
taught forestry for over 32 years, indicates that ``In many forests in 
the west, trees become susceptible to insects and disease, die off, and 
add their wood mass to an already excessive fuel load on the forest 
floor. Studies have shown that fuel loads are 5-10 times higher per 
acre in the pine and mixed conifer types in the west than during pre-
settlement times. Forest scientists all across the country believe that 
reduction of these excessive fuel loads is the necessary and prudent 
action to take to restore the health of our forests, to protect our 
environment, to protect our wildlife.

  If we do not address this problem now, we risk losing many of 
America's most pristine forests due to wildfire devastation. Congress 
needs to pass legislation to streamline and expedite the clearing of 
these fire producing fuels.
  I believe that the Craig hazardous fuels reduction amendment will 
accomplish this goal. This amendment is designed to cut through 
bureaucratic red tape and speed up the review and approval process for 
fuels reduction efforts.
  Specifically, this amendment limits projects to areas that qualify as 
Condition Class 3 or high fire risk areas with priority placed on 
wildlife urban interface zones, municipal watersheds, diseased, dying, 
insect-infected or wind-thrown trees and areas susceptible to reburn.
  Proposed projects must also be consistent with the applicable forest 
plan, resource management plan, or other applicable agency plan. 
Furthermore, this amendment limits the aggregate treatment area to 10 
million acres of Federal land or roughly 6 percent of the 190 million 
acres of Federal lands that are at high risk of wildfire.
  Finally, the Craig amendment allows parties to seek judicial review 
in Federal district court.
  This amendment is important to Missouri because it addresses most of 
the causes of excessive fuels buildup in Missouri Forests.
  No. 1, there has been a significant increase in fuels in the Mark 
Twain National Forest as a result of a serious tornado that occurred in 
Southeast Missouri on 4/24/02.
  According to the U.S. Forest Service's Tornado Fuels Assessment for 
the Mark Twain, heavy winds from the tornado caused tops of trees to be 
broken off, stems splintered and whole trees to be uprooted. Because of 
this damage, fuels in this region of the forest have increased by 
anywhere from 5-25 times pre-tornado conditions.
  Fuels in the tornado-affected areas are now classified under two 
levels: ``very high to extreme fire danger'' and ``high fire danger.'' 
Currently, over 470 valuable private structures near this damaged area 
are endangered by this fuels buildup.

  No. 2, Missouri has a significant number of wildlife urban interface 
areas. These are areas in and around forests that have a high 
population with a significant number of private structures. Some of 
these areas include individual residences, numerous rural subdivisions 
and small towns. These areas are particularly prevalent in southeast 
Missouri.
  No. 3, in additional to the tornado, several years of drought, oak 
decline and oak mortality have accelerated the process of fuels buildup 
in other areas of the Mark Twain. The USFS has prepared an 
Environmental Impact Statement for oak decline and forest health for a 
192,000 acre area of the Mark Twain where trees are dying from a 
combination of age, drought and insect infestation red oak--bores and 
two line chestnut bores.
  The first of Missouri's two fire seasons starts next month. The most 
recent high wildfire season in Missouri occurred in 2000 when over 
8,700 acres of wooded lands burned--more than 3,000 acres over the ten 
year average. The time for this body to act on this problem is now.
  As stated earlier, I believe that the Craig amendment will address 
most of the fuels buildup issues in Missouri's forests, and prioritize 
them for expedited cleanup. In closing, I urge you to vote in favor of 
this amendment. By expediting the cleanup or clearing of these fuels, 
Missouri and the rest of the Nation can expect to see the risks of 
catastrophic wildfires reduced.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I proceed 
after the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I amend that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments directly 
following Senator Wyden, if I may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri. He has stated the case very dramatically, not just for 
Missouri but in many respects for the rest of the West and many States 
in this Union where we are losing our forests because we cannot clean 
out from the forests the existing fuel. We cannot keep the forests thin 
so they are not susceptible to the tremendous losses we have been 
suffering.
  Utah is no exception. We have lost thousands and thousands of acres 
of wonderful forests. We have not been able to take care of the forests 
because of basically what I consider to be environmental extremism. We 
are all environmentalists. We all want the forests to last. We all want 
to make sure it works.
  My gosh, what has been going on in this country is environmental 
groups using the courts to override our professional land managers. It 
has led to a total neglect of the forests, a total neglect of what we 
consider to be not only natural resources but the beautiful forests of 
this land and the ability to keep them beautiful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 12 noon, the Senate will resume the issue 
of homeland security.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate has before it the Craig-Domenici 
amendment with respect to how we should spend the money we have in this 
appropriations bill designated for hazardous fuels reduction. It is an 
enormously important issue to my constituents.
  I chair the Senate Subcommittee on Forest and Public Lands 
Management. There were devastating fires throughout this summer all 
over the west. Because of that, I have spent a large

[[Page S8517]]

chunk of my waking hours in the last few months, both out in Oregon and 
here in DC, trying to find the common ground that would allow us to 
deal with the risk of fire on the millions of acres of national forest 
land that are fire prone and at the same time be sensitive to 
environmental values and legal processes.
  It saddens me to rise today in opposition to this amendment because I 
had hoped by this morning to be able to come to the Chamber and talk 
about how the Senate had found common ground. I know the distinguished 
Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, is very much committed to this 
as well.
  I agree that hazardous fuels reduction on our national forests must 
be pursued aggressively. I strongly believe in the concept of expedited 
treatment for fire-prone areas, but I simply cannot agree to the 
excessively broad slashes that this amendment takes at our 
environmental laws.
  For instance, let me spend a moment talking about some of the 
provisions with respect to access to the courts that are in the 
amendment that is before the Senate this morning.
  First, I feel strongly that citizens have a constitutional right to 
access the courts with respect to concerns over the management of our 
national forests, but I also believe they do not have a constitutional 
right to a 5-year delay. So, I have made it clear I support reforms 
that address these questions and expedite the critical work that needs 
to be done. But, I want my colleagues to understand this amendment 
before us today goes too far and that is why I oppose it.

  This amendment strips away a plaintiff's right to a temporary 
restraining order and a preliminary injunction. This means, 
essentially, that the plaintiff's case will be heard on its merits, but 
while he is waiting to be heard the agency does not need to wait to 
complete the project over which the suit was filed. In effect, people 
are going to be suing over stumps.
  I do not think that is what the Senate wants. I do not think that is 
what makes sense.
  They are going to say this keeps the courthouse door open. I want my 
colleagues to know that though the courthouse door may be open, the 
effect of this provision is the plaintiff never makes it past the coat 
closet of the courthouse. This is not a meaningful and balanced 
approach to forestry. Justice is not going to be found with respect to 
the provisions as written.
  This issue is fundamentally about trust. Certainly, there are many 
good people at the federal land management agencies. But suffice it to 
say there are many in the environmental community that do not trust the 
natural resources leadership of these agencies. There are many on the 
other side and many people in rural communities who believe there are 
some in the environmental community that simply are committed to delay.
  So what I have tried to do, along with Senator Feinstein, Senator 
Bingaman, and others who spent many hours with us, is to come up with a 
reasonable, mainstream proposal to reduce hazardous fuels, improve the 
environment and protect communities.
  For example, we have said there ought to be a categorical exclusion 
from required NEPA analysis of the hazardous fuels reduction projects 
that produce a significant amount of green timber and salvage when 
accompanied by environmental safeguards like protecting big old trees 
and the assurance that the building of new roads will not waste the 
limited resources we have for such projects. This provision that we 
have talked about could save between 1\1/2\ and 3\1/2\ years of time.
  Going even further, we said--and this can only be done by statute--
there should be no administrative appeals on these projects.
  Senator Bingaman, Senator Feinstein, myself and others, have said 
these are the kinds of ideas and approaches that help to bring the 
Senate together to try to find the common ground in this area. 
Unfortunately, that has been unacceptable to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle up to this point. That is why I believe the Craig-
Domenici language that overreaches will polarize, in my view, this very 
contentious debate even further.
  I would like to see the Senate make a very real and meaningful 
attempt to address the important forest management issues and reduce 
the risk of wildfire. I would like to see expedited treatment for key 
areas. My sense is there is broad agreement now that on 5 million 
acres, even 6 million acres--I have heard colleagues talk about 7 
million acres--if we could address the questions of a fair and open 
process with respect to the courts, the Senate could come together.
  I am very anxious to work with my colleagues to do that. But given 
the contentiousness of this issue, I think the amendment before us now 
so restrains people who would like to bring legitimate questions of 
forest policy to the courts, that provision is going to so polarize the 
Senate as to set back the effort to try to find common ground.
  What I want to do is work on a bipartisan basis to implement the 
National Fire Plan. That is a collaborative effort. That is the kind of 
effort that would bring the Senate together. That is what we were able 
to do in the county payments law and I hope we can do it again.
  We have to put firefighting dollars where they can best be used in a 
strategic way to reduce hazardous fuels, to start in the places where 
treatment would be most effective, the wild and urban interface 
ecosystems and municipal watersheds where fire can cause the most 
damage.
  Senator Bingaman has worked with Senator Feinstein and others on 
that. I think this is the kind of approach that brings people together. 
Certainly there is a commitment to cut these never-never land legal 
processes down in a significant way, but they have to maintain the 
integrity of the system.
  Already I mentioned the prospect of being able to save 1\1/2\ to 3\1/
2\ years of time when we are talking about the categorical exclusions 
from required NEPA analysis on hazardous fuels that myself and Senator 
Bingaman and others have supported. That is a significant step towards 
reducing the time line that so many folks are upset about in pursuing 
hazardous fuels reduction projects.
  I am open to other ideas and suggestions but I hope the Senate will 
not support the amendment that is before us now. I do believe what will 
happen if this amendment passes is that plaintiffs will be suing over 
stumps. People will not be able to have the issues addressed, in 
effect, while it is appropriate, while the case is moving forward. That 
is why I think the amendment is an overreach.
  I hope my colleagues will continue to work with Senator Bingaman, 
Senator Feinstein and me, and the many colleagues who would like to 
find common ground come forward to work with us and support a package 
that would allow us to get expedited treatment for important projects 
while at the same time be sensitive to fair access to the courts and to 
environmental values.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I truly believe we have a real fire 
emergency in America's forests. It is precipitated somewhat by drought, 
but it is precipitated by a very flawed forest policy, a forest policy 
that has practiced fire suppression and spent over a billion dollars 
this year in suppressing the largest number of acres burned in the 
history of our Nation--6 million acres burned, 28 people lost, hundreds 
of millions of dollars of property lost, and a major concern of the 
American people. All the money cannot be spent suppressing fires. We 
have to begin to spend the money grooming forests so they are more fire 
resistant.
  Over the past 100 years, there has been a buildup of underbrush, a 
buildup of dead, dying, and downed trees, a buildup of infested trees, 
and a buildup of nonindigenous species trees which become fire ladders. 
All of this presents fire ladders. So a fire begins, and it ``ladders'' 
up into the crowns of old growth, and there is a fire conflagration. I 
watched that happen in Colorado. I flew over the fires in Arizona. We 
watched it happen in New Mexico. Yes, it is happening in California, 
and we are not through with our fire season yet.
  There is a true bona fide message. It needs to be met. I have been 
trying to work with Senator Wyden, Senator Craig, Senator Kyl, Senator 
Domenici, Senator Burns. We have spent hours trying to come up with a 
bipartisan amendment which could get 60 votes on

[[Page S8518]]

this floor. I believe we are relatively close to those 60 votes. 
Senator Wyden has indicated some of the parameters in which we have 
been negotiating.
  We have 74 million acres of forests in the highest risk of 
catastrophic fire; 24 million of those acres are Federal lands. We took 
the Federal lands--California alone has 7 million acres of the 24 
million acres in what is called class 3, highest risk of catastrophic 
fire--to see if we could create for 1 year, as an amendment in an 
appropriations bill, an expedited program to address those acres, 
making 70 percent of the effort in urban interface areas where we find 
property, and people, where fire is devastating. Also, in some of the 
watershed areas, the areas of heaviest pest infestation, windthrow, as 
well as those acres which are apt to burn--highly catastrophic.
  We are very close. We can agree on the number of acres which, after 
all, will be conditioned by the amount of money. We have agreed to 
truncate the administrative process. We concentrate on the areas I have 
mentioned.
  But on this side of the aisle, there are very strong feelings we 
should not change the judicial review process. We are trying to come to 
grips with the Republicans on this issue. I am hopeful we can. Those on 
the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee who are negotiating 
hopefully will be on that subcommittee next year as well. If we can 
have a 1-year trial of moving the administrative processes faster, 
creating the emergency within these 5 to 7 million acres of the 24 
million acres, confining most of it to the urban interface and the 
watersheds that are in the resource management and forestry plans, we 
can make a difference. We can see whether it works.
  There are people who say it will not work because there are 
individuals or groups who will go into court to try to stop us. I am 
not sure that is entirely correct. I thought so initially, and then I 
looked at a GAO letter. I will read part of it into the Record. It is 
dated August 31, 2001. It says:

       In summary, as of July 18, 2001, the Forest Service had 
     completed the necessary environmental analyses and had 
     decided to implement 1,671 hazardous fuel reduction projects 
     in fiscal year 2001. Of these projects, 20 (about 1 percent) 
     had been appealed and none had been litigated. Appellates 
     included environmental groups, recreation groups, private 
     industry interests, and individuals.

  That is just with one program, that hazardous fuel reduction project 
in that year. It would indicate that in this small area court 
challenges have not been a big problem. Many people who believe in the 
National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, believe very strongly 
that we should not vitiate the NEPA process in any way, and we should 
not vitiate the judicial process in any way in this 1-year pilot 
project.

  I am hopeful we will be able to find an accommodation that will get 
60 votes. On this side, we clearly have to get Democrats centered 
around an effort. And on the Republican side, we have to be able to 
convince them we are serious about moving in a constructive, emergency 
way to address the problem of catastrophic fire in our country. We can 
do it. Senator Craig, Senator Kyl, Senator Burns, Senator Domenici, all 
want to do it.
  It is true that on both sides there are different approaches. I 
believe in a draft either called Bingaman 3 or Feinstein Modified--
whatever one wants to call it. We are relatively close to that. I am 
hopeful we can, by unanimous consent, not take the vote on any of these 
at this time but continue to negotiate at least until tomorrow morning, 
and hopefully be able to get through the impasse we are in at the 
moment--or even to next week. This bill will not be included. I believe 
it is important we try to move more rapidly this year with hazardous 
fuels mitigation. In what is Bingaman 3 or Feinstein Modified--whatever 
anyone wants to call it--we have a very good first start.
  We would like to hear from the other side of the aisle. We would like 
to continue these negotiations. I am hopeful there is not a vote at 
this time, that we are able to continue the matter, and we are able to 
continue to negotiate. I was present at meetings for 3 hours yesterday. 
I was in a conference call on it for an hour and a half last night. I 
want the Senate to know our efforts are sincere, they are earnest, that 
we would like to find an accommodation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wyden and Senator 
Feinstein. There is no one better to work with as we have moved through 
the negotiations to change the way we look at management areas with 
regard to reduction of the fuel load on the floors of our forests and 
dealing with diseased forests.
  It is most troubling to me that we are seeing the results of 20 years 
of frivolous appeals and putting the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau 
of Land Management under such review that they cannot manage with any 
common sense; 20 years' experience, with a lot of folks on the ground 
who probably do not have 2 days' of education in their whole life, but 
they have been in the forest all their life, saying we are going in 
exactly the wrong direction and this will lead to disaster. But because 
they do not have a certain standing in the process to get their voice 
heard, their warning goes unheeded.
  So we come to the years of 2000, 2002, even 1998. My State of Montana 
is just completing its fifth year in drought and also in low snowpack. 
We had devastating fires in 2000, with a lesser amount this year 
because we got a little rain. But now when the rains come, we see the 
mud slides, devastating mud slides that take streams out, destroy water 
quality, damage watersheds. I have heard people give endless speeches 
on watersheds. They have been damaged beyond repair. It will take years 
and years for them to be restored. It impacts municipalities and also 
impacts wildlife--fish.

  How much do we have to show America that the past 20 years have been 
a disaster, an unmitigated disaster? This policy was recommended by 
groups who, at times you have to believe on the management of forests--
there is an old saying that says they don't know the difference between 
``sic 'em'' and ``come here.'' Hocus-pocus science--a theory. Feel 
good, warm and fuzzy--but it burns. That is what we are talking about 
here and that is what should be at the crux of our discussions with one 
another in this Senate.
  How do we avoid continuing this in a commonsense way, where if you 
want to debate the science or the decision made by an agency or a 
person with regard to the management of that land, that it cannot be 
open and all cards have to be on the table? That is what we are looking 
at here.
  So I am going to work with my chairman, Mr. Byrd, as we try to move 
this piece of legislation along. I will tell you, I have never seen 
more earnest and dedicated people, people dedicated to solving a 
problem, than those in this debate, in the private meetings, the 
endless hours that negotiation have gone on. I appreciate that because 
basically I think we are driven to take care of our forests. But past 
practices have not given us much help.
  Mr. President, I now yield time to my good friend from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for 
yielding some of his time to me. I thank him for his leadership, trying 
to bring some common sense to the way we manage our forests. It is a 
pleasure for me to be on the Senate floor with my western colleagues 
who face a lot of problems similar to those I am facing in the State of 
Colorado.
  The citizens of Colorado and the west are facing a challenging time. 
Faced with drought and fires across the state, our response to the test 
of mother nature is being measured, and will continue to be measured 
with the passage of time. Yet the message I want to send home today, 
and one that my colleagues rising in support of forest health also wish 
to convey, is that we must not fiddle while our forests burn.
  We have studied forest fires, forest health, and forest management. 
We have studied while our forests burn and while our critical habitat 
turns to ash. Yet we continue to imperil life, property and nature with 
catastrophic wildfires.
  I want to thank the rescue workers, fire fighters, police, sheriffs 
offices, aid workers, and the thousands of volunteers who have battled 
the blazes all summer long. I hope these brave firefighters realize 
that their efforts are not in vain, and that new policies will restore 
sound forest health and revitalize our management of our great 
forestlands.

[[Page S8519]]

  Unfortunately, today there is an increasing threat of fire in 
millions of acres of forestlands and rangelands throughout the United 
States. This threat is especially great in the interior States of the 
western United States, where the Forest Service estimates that 
39,000,000 acres of National Forest System lands are at high risk of 
catastrophic wildfire.
  Today's forestlands and rangelands are the consequences of land 
management practices that emphasized the control and prevention of 
fires, disrupting the occurrence of frequent low-intensity fires that 
periodically remove flammable undergrowth.
  As a result of these management practices, forestlands and rangelands 
in the United States are no longer naturally functioning ecosystems, 
and drought cycles and the invasion of insects and disease have 
resulted in vast areas of dead or dying trees, overstocked stands and 
the invasion of undesirable species.
  Population movement into wildand/urban interface areas exacerbate the 
fire danger, and the increasing number of larger, more intense fires 
pose grave hazards to human health, safety, property and infrastructure 
in these areas. In addition smoke from wildfires, which contain fine 
particulate matter and other hazardous pollutants, pose substantial 
health risks to people living in the wildland/urban interface.
  The budgets and resources of local, State, and Federal entities 
supporting firefighting efforts have been stretched to their limits. In 
addition, diminishing Federal resources--including personnel--have 
limited the ability of Federal fire researchers to respond to 
management needs, and to utilize technological advancements for 
analyzing fire management costs.
  Now, I would like to share with my colleagues a little about 
Colorado's devastating fire season. Several months ago, one third of 
the State was blanketed in smoke from forest fires, blocking the sun, 
the mountain view, and creating major pollution problems, and asthma 
related deaths. Over 500,00 acres of Colorado has burned this year. The 
normal is 70,000 acres.
  Over the course of the wildfires, safety and emergency personnel have 
had to evacuate 142 subdivisions, 85,000 people, and ended up spending 
more money on suppression because of the interface complexity. It is 
critical for life and property protection to mitigate this problem.
  The result of the catastrophic fires is a hardened surface that is 
impenetrable by water. When the ground can't absorb the water, not only 
is the drought prolonged, but the water has to go somewhere. So it goes 
downhill. As the volume of the water increases, it picks up rocks, 
additional--possibly undamaged--soil and other debris.
  This flow of tainted water and debris does not discriminate. It 
enters watersheds and people's homes. Right now in southwestern 
Colorado roads are closed, homes are damaged and people are trying to 
dig their yards out of up to ten feet of mud.
  In the past six years, six major forest fires have affected the 
mainstem of the South Platte river, a major source of water for the 
Denver metropolitan area. The Hayman fire this summer was the first of 
these fires to destroy Denver Water property.
  However, all of these fires have caused problems with the watershed 
which has negatively affected the quality of the water delivered to the 
two largest water treatment plants for Denver Water.
  The Hayman fire completely consumed the trees on the acreage 
surrounding Denver Water's Cheesman Reservoir, except where Denver had 
applied Forest Service procedures of thinning and brush removal. As a 
result of the fire and the emulsified granite soil surrounding 
Cheesman, the burned trees and ash has been washing into the Reservoir 
as well as into the mainstem of the South Platte along the burn area. 
About 90 percent of Denver Water's property was burned.
  At Cheesman Reservoir where Denver Water used Forest Service-type 
techniques, fire intensity was diminished and the fire did not destroy 
the entire forest. Therefore erosion and attendant water quality 
degradation will be minimized. One of the Forest Service mandates in 
its enabling legislation was protection of municipal water supplies. It 
is imperative that the Forest Service limit fire damage in municipal 
watershed areas.
  This will take money, personnel, quick response and long-term 
dedication of public resources. In order to protect and preserve 
watersheds as public purpose resources, the Forest Service will need 
money and Congressional support to reverse policies that limit sound 
forest management.
  It is estimated that damage to Denver Water facilities from sediment 
deposits and degraded water quality will occur for the next thirty 
years. To date, Denver Water's cost to try to mitigate some of the 
Hayman fire damage is over $500,000 for erosion prevention and 
protection of facilities.
  It is estimated the cost for the next 8 weeks will be $100,000/week. 
Additionally, the life of our reservoirs impacted by the fire will be 
reduced by about 40 years due to increased sediment. Dredging of the 
reservoir will solve some problems, but will not prevent the continued 
inflow of sediment.
  It is conceivable the total cost of dredging Cheesman Reservoir will 
exceed $20 million.
  These examples are just a few of the tragedies created by the fires. 
Glenwood Springs, Durango, Steamboat and many more, have suffered as 
well. Yet the quiet tragedy of the fires will not be revealed for 
years--what have we done to the ecosystem, to habitat, and wildlife? 
Only after thousands of hours of human capital investment and millions 
of dollars in rehabilitation will we know.
  We all value protection of our forests and the natural beauty of our 
land. But we can no longer respond and react--we must take the steps to 
achieve a healthy balance and return our forests to a state of good 
health.
  We are facing some serious problems. My feeling on this is that the 
forest managers themselves--they are scientists--know how to best 
manage our environment. I think we need to give them some more latitude 
in practicing good science and protecting forest health.
  I will elaborate on this a little later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
for not to exceed 2 minutes before the Senate reverts to the homeland 
security bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will 
not object--I wonder if we could agree that the time would not go 
against either side with regard to the debate of this amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent it not go against either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I seek the floor at this time to ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside temporarily 
so that I may offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Mr. Stevens.
  Mr. PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is it my 
understanding that we would still allow the Craig-Domenici amendment to 
be in place when we return?
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will not object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to know what it is.
  Mr. BYRD. It will take me a little longer than 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask if it has to do with the budget or is in any 
way trying to perfect the budget.
  Mr. BYRD. No. I think the Senator from New Mexico will embrace the 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 2 minutes I 
asked for be extended to 4 minutes so that we would have two additional 
amendments and I may show this amendment to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Chair will withhold temporarily until 
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has looked at the amendment.
  Mr. President, I renew my request.

[[Page S8520]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection. I have looked at it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.


                Amendment No. 4532 To Amendment No. 4472

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

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4532 to amendment No. 4472.

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

  (Purpose: To provide critical emergency supplemental appropriations)

       At the appropriate place in Byrd Amendment No. 4472 insert 
     the following:

                  TITLE  --SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

       That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money 
     in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, 
     namely:

                               CHAPTER 1

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                        Office of the Secretary


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Office of the Secretary'', 
     $18,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary shall transfer these funds to the 
     Agricultural Research Service, the Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service, the Agricultural Marketing Service, and/
     or the Food Safety and Inspection Service: Provided further, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

                               CHAPTER 2

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                       Office of Justice Programs


                  community oriented policing services

       For an amount to establish the Community Oriented Policing 
     Services' Interoperable Communications Technology Program in 
     consultation with the Office of Science and Technology within 
     the National Institute of Justice, and the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance, for emergency expenses for activities related to 
     combating terrorism by providing grants to States and 
     localities to improve communications within, and among, law 
     enforcement agencies, $50,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

            Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance

       For an additional amount for ``Embassy Security, 
     Construction, and Maintenance,'' for emergency expenses for 
     activities related to combating international terrorism, 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

                               CHAPTER 3

                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                             Federal Funds


              federal payment to the district of columbia

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for 
     public safety expenses related to security events in the 
     District of Columbia, $12,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 1, 2003: Provided, That the Chief Financial Officer 
     of the District of Columbia shall provide a report, within 15 
     days of an expenditure, to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and Senate, detailing any 
     expenditure of these funds: Provided further, That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     as amended.

                               CHAPTER 4

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Energy Programs


                                science

       For an additional amount for ``science'' for emergency 
     expenses necessary to support safeguards and security 
     activities, $11,350,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                National Nuclear Security Administration


                           weapons activities

       For an additional amount for ``Weapons Activities'' for 
     emergency expenses, $138,650,000: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(B)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 5

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  funds appropriated to the president

           United States Agency for International Development


                child survival and health programs fund

       For an additional amount for ``Child Survival and Health 
     Programs Fund'' for emergency expenses for activities related 
     to combating HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, 
     $200,000,000, to remain available until June 30, 2003: 
     Provided, That such activities should include maternal health 
     and related assistance in communities heavily impacted by 
     HIV/AIDS: Provided further, That additional assistance should 
     be provided to prevent transmission, of HIV/AIDS from mother 
     to child: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading in this Act, not less than $100,000,000 
     should be made available for a further United States 
     contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, 
     and Malaria: Provided further, That the cumulative amount of 
     United States contributions to the Global Fund may not exceed 
     the total resources provided by other donors and available 
     for use by the Global Fund as of December 31, 2002: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     up to $6,000,000 may be transferred to and merged with funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Operating 
     Expenses of the United States Agency for International 
     Development'' for costs directly related to international 
     health: Provided further, That funds appropriated by this 
     paragraph shall be appropriated to the United States Agency 
     for International Development, and the authority of sections 
     632(a) or 632(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or 
     any similar provision of law, may not be used to transfer or 
     allocate any part of such funds to any agency of the United 
     States Government: Provided further, That the entire amount 
     is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the funds appropriated under his heading shall 
     be subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committee on Appropriations.

                               CHAPTER 6

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         National Park Service


                              construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', $17,651,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
     Congress designates the entire amount as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 7

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                        Office of the Secretary


            public health and social services emergency fund

       For emergency expenses to respond to the September 11, 
     2001, terrorist attacks on the United States for ``Public 
     Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'' for baseline and 
     follow-up screening and clinical examination, long term 
     health monitoring and analysis for the emergency services 
     personnel, rescue and recovery personnel, $9,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which no less than 
     $25,000,000 shall be available for current and retired 
     firefighters: Provided, That the entire amount is designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 8

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Federal Aviation Administration


                       grants-in-aid for airports

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For an additional amount to enable the Federal Aviation 
     Administrator to compensate airports for the direct costs 
     associated with new, additional, or revised security 
     requirements imposed on airport operators by the 
     Administrator on or after September 11, 2001, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, $150,000,000, to be derived from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 9

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                     United States Customs Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses,'' 
     $39,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

[[Page S8521]]

                           INDEPENDENT AGENCY

                               CHAPTER 10

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


              emergency management planning and assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Emergency management 
     planning and assistance'' for emergency expenses to respond 
     to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United 
     States, $200,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2003, of which $150,000,000 is for programs as authorized by 
     section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 
     1974, as amended (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.); and $50,000,000 
     for interoperable communications equipment: Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on Tuesday, September 10, 2002, the Attorney 
General announced an increase in the national threat level to the 
``High Risk'' level. The President accepted the recommendation based on 
what the Attorney General described as specific intelligence received 
and analyzed by the full intelligence community and corroborated by 
multiple intelligence sources.
  The Attorney General indicated that the likely targets include the 
transportation and energy sectors and symbols of American power such as 
U.S. embassies, U.S. military facilities and national monuments.
  I intend to offer an amendment to the Interior bill for $937 million 
of supplemental funding. The package includes $647 million of homeland 
security funding that draws from the $5.1 billion emergency contingency 
fund that the President rejected those items that are most directly 
related to the increased threat. In addition, the amendment includes 
$200 million for international AIDS programs as was approved by the 
Senate 79-14 when Senator Frist offered the amendment last June. The 
amendment also includes $90 million that the Congress had previously 
approved for providing long-term health screening and examinations for 
the emergency personnel who responded to the attack at the World Trade 
Center.
  The Office of Management and Budget currently estimates that there is 
$940 million available under the discretionary caps for fiscal year 
2002 budget authority. Therefore, this amendment does not require an 
emergency designation by the President. If the President signs the 
bill, the funds will be made available.
  Highlights of the $937 million package include $150 million for 
security at our nuclear plants and labs, $150 million for the direct 
costs of new security requirements for our Nation's airports, $150 
million to equip and train our Nation's firefighters for dealing with 
weapons of mass destruction and other threats, $100 million for grants 
to fire and police departments to improve the interoperability of their 
communications equipment, $39 million for the Customs Service for 
improved border security, $17.7 million for increased security at the 
Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial, $18 million for USDA for 
securing biohazardous materials, $12 million for DC for law enforcement 
costs of the September 28 IMF conference and other national security 
events, $10 million for embassy security, $200 million for 
international AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria services, and $90 million 
for long-term health monitoring of World Trade Center first responders.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank all Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________