[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.
____________________