Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 75 (Tuesday, May 20, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 20, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4287-H4324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 239, I call
up the bill (H.R. 1904) to improve the capacity of the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and conduct
hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands and
Bureau of Land Management lands aimed at protecting communities,
watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire,
to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest
and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the
landscape, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Pursuant to House Resolution
239, the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 1904 is as follows:

H.R. 1904

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.

TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
Sec. 103. Prioritization for communities and watersheds.
Sec. 104. Environmental analysis.
Sec. 105. Special Forest Service administrative review process.
Sec. 106. Special requirements regarding judicial review of authorized
hazardous fuels reduction projects.
Sec. 107. Standard for injunctive relief for agency action to restore
fire-adapted forest or rangeland ecosystems.
Sec. 108. Rules of construction.

TITLE II--BIOMASS

Sec. 201. Findings.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Grants to improve the commercial value of forest biomass for
electric energy, useful heat, transportation fuels, and
petroleum-based product substitutes.
Sec. 204. Reporting requirement.

TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

Sec. 301. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 302. Establishment of watershed forestry assistance program.

TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS

Sec. 401. Definitions, findings, and purpose.
Sec. 402. Accelerated information gathering regarding bark beetles,
including Southern pine beetles, hemlock woolly adelgid,
emerald ash borers, red oak borers, and white oak borers.
Sec. 403. Applied silvicultural assessments.
Sec. 404. Relation to other laws.
Sec. 405. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

Sec. 501. Establishment of healthy forests reserve program.
Sec. 502. Eligibility and enrollment of lands in program.
Sec. 503. Conservation plans.
Sec. 504. Financial assistance.
Sec. 505. Technical assistance.
Sec. 506. Safe harbor.
Sec. 507. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. Forest stands inventory and monitoring program to improve
detection of and response to environmental threats.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is--
(1) to reduce the risks of damage to communities, municipal
water supplies, and some at-risk Federal lands from
catastrophic wildfires;

[[Page H4288]]

(2) to authorize grant programs to improve the commercial
value of forest biomass for electric energy, useful heat,
transportation fuels, petroleum-based product substitutes and
other commercial purposes;
(3) to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address
threats to forest and rangeland health, including
catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape;
(4) to promote systematic information gathering to address
the impact of insect infestations on forest and rangeland
health;
(5) to improve the capacity to detect insect and disease
infestations at an early stage, particularly with respect to
hardwood forests; and
(6) to protect, restore, and enhance degraded forest
ecosystem types in order to promote the recovery of
threatened and endangered species as well as improve
biological diversity and enhance carbon sequestration.

TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term
``authorized hazardous fuels reduction project'' means a
hazardous fuels reduction project described in subsection (a)
of section 102, subject to the remainder of such section,
that is planned and conducted using the process authorized by
section 104.
(2) Condition class 2.--The term ``condition class 2'',
with respect to an area of Federal lands, refers to the
condition class description developed by the Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Research Station in the general technical
report entitled ``Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data
for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management'' (RMRS-87), dated
April 2000, under which--
(A) fire regimes on the lands have been moderately altered
from their historical range;
(B) there exists a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem
components from fire;
(C) fire frequencies have departed (either increased or
decreased) from historical frequencies by one or more return
interval, which results in moderate changes to fire size,
frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape patterns; and
(D) vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from
their historical range.
(3) Condition class 3.--The term ``condition class 3'',
with respect to an area of Federal lands, refers to the
condition class description developed by the Rocky Mountain
Research Station in the general technical report referred to
in paragraph (2), under which--
(A) fire regimes on the lands have been significantly
altered from their historical range
(B) there exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem
components from fire;
(C) fire frequencies have departed from historical
frequencies by multiple return intervals, which results in
dramatic changes to fire size, frequency, intensity,
severity, or landscape patterns; and
(D) vegetation attributes have been significantly altered
from their historical range.
(4) Day.--The term ``day'' means a calendar day, except
that, if a deadline imposed by this title would expire on a
nonbusiness day, the deadline will be extended to the end of
the next business day.
(5) Decision document.--The term ``decision document''
means a decision notice or a record of decision, as those
terms are used in applicable regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality and the Forest Service Handbook.
(6) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means--
(A) National Forest System lands; and
(B) public lands administered by the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management.
(7) Hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term
``hazardous fuels reduction project'' refers to the measures
and methods described in the definition of ``appropriate
tools'' contained in the glossary of the Implementation Plan.
(8) Implementation plan.--The term ``Implementation Plan''
means the Implementation Plan for the 10-year Comprehensive
Strategy for a Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland
Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment, dated May
2002, which was developed pursuant to the conference report
for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001 (House Report 106-646).
(9) Interface community and intermix community.--The terms
``interface community'' and ``intermix community'' have the
meanings given those terms on page 753 of volume 66 of the
Federal Register, as published on January 4, 2001.
(10) Municipal water supply system.--The term ``municipal
water supply system'' means the reservoirs, canals, ditches,
flumes, laterals, pipes, pipelines, or other surface
facilities and systems constructed or installed for the
impoundment, storage, transportation, or distribution of
drinking water for a community.
(11) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to National
Forest System lands and the Secretary of the Interior with
respect to public lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management. Any reference in this title to the ``Secretary
concerned'', the Secretary of Agriculture'', or the
``Secretary of the Interior'' includes the designee of the
Secretary concerned.
(12) Threatened and endangered species habitat.--The term
``threatened and endangered species habitat'' means Federal
lands identified in the listing decision or critical habitat
designation as habitat for a threatened species or an
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

(a) Authorized Projects.--Subject to the remainder of this
section, the Secretary concerned may utilize the process
authorized by section 104 to plan and conduct hazardous fuels
reduction projects on any of the following Federal lands:
(1) Federal lands located in an interface community or
intermix community.
(2) Federal lands located in such proximity to an interface
community or intermix community that there is a significant
risk that the spread of a fire disturbance event from those
lands would threaten human life and property in the interface
community or intermix community.
(3) Condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal lands
located in such proximity to a municipal water supply system
or a stream feeding a municipal water supply system that a
significant risk exists that a fire disturbance event would
have adverse effects on the water quality of the municipal
water supply, including the risk to water quality posed by
erosion following such a fire disturbance event.
(4) Condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal lands
identified by the Secretary concerned as an area where
windthrow or blowdown, or the existence or threat of disease
or insect infestation, pose a significant threat to forest or
rangeland health or adjacent private lands.
(5) Federal lands not covered by paragraph (1), (2), (3),
or (4) that contain threatened and endangered species
habitat, but only if--
(A) natural fire regimes on such lands are identified as
being important for, or wildfire is identified as a threat
to, an endangered species, a threatened species, or its
habitat in a species recovery plan prepared under section 4
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) or in
a decision document under such section determining a species
to be an endangered species or a threatened species or
designating critical habitat;
(B) the project will provide enhanced protection from
catastrophic wildfire for the species or its habitat; and
(C) the Secretary complies with any applicable guidelines
specified in the species recovery plan prepared under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(b) Relation to Agency Plans.--An authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project shall be planned and conducted in a
manner consistent with the land and resource management plan
or land use plan applicable to the Federal lands covered by
the project.
(c) Acreage Limitation.--Not more than a total of
20,000,000 acres of Federal lands may be included in
authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
(d) Tree Removal Limitation.--The Secretary concerned, in
the sole discretion of the Secretary concerned, shall plan
and conduct an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project
so as to maintain species composition, size class
distribution, and density of trees, including old and large
trees appropriate for each ecosystem type covered by the
project, consistent with the purposes of this title.
(e) Exclusion of Certain Federal Lands.--The Secretary
concerned may not plan or conduct an authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project that would occur on any of the
following Federal lands:
(1) A component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System.
(2) Federal lands where, by Act of Congress or Presidential
proclamation, the removal of vegetation is prohibited or
restricted.
(3) Wilderness Study Areas.
(f) Protection of Roadless Areas.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall not construct any new permanent road in any
Inventoried Roadless Area as part of any authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project.

SEC. 103. PRIORITIZATION FOR COMMUNITIES AND WATERSHEDS.

As provided for in the Implementation Plan, the Secretary
concerned shall give priority to authorized hazardous fuel
reduction projects that provide for the protection of
communities and watersheds.

SEC. 104. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

[[Page H4289]]

(2) Public meeting.--During the planning stage of each
authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, the Secretary
concerned shall conduct a public meeting at an appropriate
location proximate to the administrative unit of the Federal
lands in which the authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project will be conducted. The Secretary concerned shall
provide advance notice of the date and time of the meeting.
(d) Public Collaboration.--In order to encourage meaningful
public participation in the identification and development of
authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects, the Secretary
concerned shall facilitate collaboration among governments
and interested persons during the formulation of each
authorized fuels reduction project in a manner consistent
with the Implementation Plan.
(e) Environmental Analysis and Public Comment.--In
accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) and the applicable
regulations and administrative guidelines in effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned
shall provide an opportunity for public input during the
preparation of any environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement for proposed agency action for an authorized
hazardous fuels reduction project.
(f) Decision Document.--The Secretary concerned shall sign
a decision document for each authorized hazardous fuels
reduction project and provide notice of the decision
document.
(g) Project Monitoring.--As provided for in the
Implementation Plan, the Secretary concerned shall monitor
the implementation of authorized hazardous fuels reduction
projects.

SEC. 105. SPECIAL FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
PROCESS.

(a) Development of Administrative Process.--Not later than
90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall issue final regulations to
establish an administrative process that will serve as the
sole means by which a person described in subsection (c) can
seek administrative redress regarding an authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project.
(b) Eligible Persons.--To be eligible to participate in the
administrative process developed pursuant to subsection (a)
regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, a
person must have submitted specific and substantive written
comments during the preparation stage of that authorized
hazardous fuels reduction project.
(c) Relation to Appeals Reform Act.--Section 322 of the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612
note), does not apply to an authorized hazardous fuels
reduction project.

SEC. 106. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

(a) Filing Deadline.--
(1) Time limit established for filing.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, to be timely, an action in a court of
the United States challenging an authorized hazardous fuels
reduction project shall be filed in the court before the end
of the 15-day period beginning on the date on which the
Secretary concerned publishes, in the local paper of record,
notice of the final agency action regarding the authorized
hazardous fuels reduction project. This time limitation
supersedes any notice of intent to file suit requirement or
filing deadline otherwise applicable to a challenge under any
provision of law.
(2) Waiver prohibited.--The Secretary concerned may not
agree to, and a district court may not grant, a waiver of the
requirements of this subsection.
(b) Duration of Preliminary Injunction.--
(1) Duration; extension.--Any preliminary injunction
granted regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project shall be limited to 45 days. A court may renew the
preliminary injunction, taking into consideration the goal
expressed in subsection (c) for the expeditious resolution of
cases regarding authorized hazardous fuels reduction
projects.
(2) Submission of information.--As part of a request to
renew a preliminary injunction granted regarding an
authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, the parties
shall present the court with an update on any changes that
may have occurred during the period of the injunction to the
forest or rangeland conditions that the authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project is intended to address.
(3) Congressional notification.--In the event of the
renewal of a preliminary injunction regarding an authorized
hazardous fuels reduction project, the Secretary concerned
shall submit notice of the renewal to the Committee on
Resources and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry of the Senate.
(c) Expeditious Completion of Judicial Review.--Congress
intends and encourages any court in which is filed a lawsuit
or appeal of a lawsuit concerning an authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project to expedite, to the maximum extent
practicable, the proceedings in such lawsuit or appeal with
the goal of rendering a final determination on jurisdiction,
and if jurisdiction exists, a final determination on the
merits, within 100 days from the date the complaint or appeal
is filed.

SEC. 107. STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR AGENCY ACTION TO
RESTORE FIRE-ADAPTED FOREST OR RANGELAND
ECOSYSTEMS.

If an action brought against the Secretary concerned under
section 703 of title 5, United States Code, involves an
agency action on Federal lands in which the Secretary
concerned found that the agency action is necessary to
restore a fire-adapted forest or rangeland ecosystem,
including an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project,
the court reviewing the agency action, in considering a
request for a prohibitory or mandatory injunction against the
agency action, shall--
(1) consider the public interest in avoiding long-term harm
to the ecosystem; and
(2) give deference to any agency finding, based upon
information in the administrative record, that the balance of
harm and the public interest in avoiding the short-term
effects of the agency action is outweighed by the public
interest in avoiding long-term harm to the ecosystem.

SEC. 108. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

(a) Relation to Other Authority.--Nothing in this title
shall be construed to affect, or otherwise bias, the use by
the Secretary concerned of other statutory or administrative
authorities to plan or conduct a hazardous fuels reduction
project on Federal lands, including Federal lands identified
in section 102(e), that is not planned or conducted using the
process authorized by section 104.
(b) Relation to Legal Action.--Nothing in this title shall
be construed to prejudice or otherwise affect the
consideration or disposition of any legal action concerning
the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, part 294 of title 36,
Code of Federal Regulations, as amended in the final rule and
record of decision published in the Federal Register on
January 12, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244).

TITLE II--BIOMASS

SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Thousands of communities in the United States, many
located near Federal lands, are at risk to wildfire.
Approximately 190,000,000 acres of land managed by the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior
are at risk of catastrophic fire in the near future. The
accumulation of heavy forest and rangeland fuel loads
continues to increase as a result of disease, insect
infestations, and drought, further raising the risk of fire
each year.
(2) In addition, more than 70,000,000 acres across all land
ownerships are at risk to higher than normal mortality over
the next 15 years from insect infestation and disease. High
levels of tree mortality from insects and disease result in
increased fire risk, loss of old growth, degraded
watershed conditions, and changes in species diversity and
productivity, as well as diminished fish and wildlife
habitat and decreased timber values.
(3) Preventive treatments such as removing fuel loading,
ladder fuels, and hazard trees, planting proper species mix
and restoring and protecting early successional habitat, and
other specific restoration treatments designed to reduce the
susceptibility of forest and rangeland to insect outbreaks,
disease, and catastrophic fire present the greatest
opportunity for long-term forest and rangeland health by
creating a mosaic of species-mix and age distribution. Such
prevention treatments are widely acknowledged to be more
successful and cost effective than suppression treatments in
the case of insects, disease, and fire.
(4) The by-products of preventive treatment (wood, brush,
thinnings, chips, slash, and other hazardous fuels) removed
from forest and rangelands represent an abundant supply of
biomass for biomass-to-energy facilities and raw material for
business. There are currently few markets for the
extraordinary volumes of by-products being generated as a
result of the necessary large-scale preventive treatment
activities.
(5) The United States should--
(A) promote economic and entrepreneurial opportunities in
using by-products removed through preventive treatment
activities related to hazardous fuels reduction, disease, and
insect infestation; and
(B) develop and expand markets for traditionally underused
wood and biomass as an outlet for by-products of preventive
treatment activities.

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

[[Page H4290]]

(4) Preferred community.--The term ``preferred community''
means--
(A) any town, township, municipality, or other similar unit
of local government (as determined by the Secretary
concerned) that--
(i) has a population of not more than 50,000 individuals;
and
(ii) the Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of the
Secretary concerned, determines contains or is located near
land, the condition of which is at significant risk of
catastrophic wildfire, disease, or insect infestation or
which suffers from disease or insect infestation; or
(B) any county that--
(i) is not contained within a metropolitan statistical
area; and
(ii) the Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of the
Secretary concerned, determines contains or is located near
land, the condition of which is at significant risk of
catastrophic wildfire, disease, or insect infestation or
which suffers from disease or insect infestation.
(5) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to National
Forest System lands; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior with respect to Federal
lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior
and Indian lands.

SEC. 203. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF FOREST
BIOMASS FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY, USEFUL HEAT,
TRANSPORTATION FUELS, AND PETROLEUM-BASED
PRODUCT SUBSTITUTES.

(a) Biomass Commercial Use Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary concerned may make grants to
any person that owns or operates a facility that uses biomass
as a raw material to produce electric energy, sensible heat,
transportation fuels, or substitutes for petroleum-based
products to offset the costs incurred to purchase biomass for
use by such facility.
(2) Grant amounts.--A grant under this subsection may not
exceed $20 per green ton of biomass delivered.
(3) Monitoring of grant recipient activities.--As a
condition of a grant under this subsection, the grant
recipient shall keep such records as the Secretary concerned
may require to fully and correctly disclose the use of the
grant funds and all transactions involved in the purchase of
biomass. Upon notice by a representative of the Secretary
concerned, the grant recipient shall afford the
representative reasonable access to the facility that
purchases or uses biomass and an opportunity to examine the
inventory and records of the facility.
(b) Value Added Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary concerned may make grants to
persons to offset the cost of projects to add value to
biomass. In making such grants, the Secretary concerned shall
give preference to persons in preferred communities.
(2) Selection.--The Secretary concerned shall select a
grant recipient under paragraph (1) after giving
consideration to the anticipated public benefits of the
project, opportunities for the creation or expansion of small
businesses and micro-businesses, and the potential for new
job creation.
(3) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection may not
exceed $100,000.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2004 through 2008 to carry out this section.

SEC. 204. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than October 1, 2010, the
Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary
of the Interior, shall submit to the Committee on Resources
and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry of the Senate a report describing the results of the
grant programs authorized by section 203.
(b) Contents of Report.--The report shall include the
following:
(1) An identification of the size, type, and the use of
biomass by persons that receive grants under section 203.
(2) The distance between the land from which the biomass
was removed and the facility that used the biomass.
(3) The economic impacts, particularly new job creation,
resulting from the grants to and operation of the eligible
operations.

TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) There has been a dramatic shift in public attitudes and
perceptions about forest management, particularly in the
understanding and practice of sustainable forest management.
(2) It is commonly recognized that the proper stewardship
of forest lands is essential to sustaining and restoring the
health of watersheds.
(3) Forests can provide essential ecological services in
filtering pollutants, buffering important rivers and
estuaries, and minimizing flooding, which makes its
restoration worthy of special focus.
(4) Strengthened education, technical assistance, and
financial assistance to nonindustrial private forest
landowners and communities, relating to the protection of
watershed health, is needed to realize the expectations of
the general public.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to--
(1) improve landowner and public understanding of the
connection between forest management and watershed health;
(2) encourage landowners to maintain tree cover on their
property and to utilize tree plantings and vegetative
treatments as creative solutions to watershed problems
associated with varying land uses;
(3) enhance and complement forest management and buffer
utilization for watersheds, with an emphasis on urban
watersheds;
(4) establish new partnerships and collaborative watershed
approaches to forest management, stewardship, and
conservation;
(5) provide technical and financial assistance to States to
deliver a coordinated program that enhances State forestry
best-management practices programs, as well as conserves and
improves forested lands and potentially forested lands
through technical, financial, and educational assistance to
qualifying individuals and entities; and
(6) maximize the proper management and conservation of
wetland forests and to assist in their restoration as
necessary.

SEC. 302. ESTABLISHMENT OF WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.

The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 is amended
by inserting after section 5 the following new section:

``SEC. 6. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE.

``(a) General Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary, acting
through the Forest Service, may provide technical, financial,
and related assistance to State foresters and equivalent
State officials for the purpose of expanding State forest
stewardship capacities and activities through State forestry
best-management practices and other means at the State level
to address watershed issues on non-Federal forested lands and
potentially forested lands.
``(b) Technical Assistance To Protect Water Quality.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with State
foresters or equivalent State officials, shall engage
interested members of the public, including nonprofit
organizations and local watershed councils, to develop a
program of technical assistance to protect water quality, as
described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Purpose of program.--The program under this
subsection shall be designed--
``(A) to build and strengthen watershed partnerships that
focus on forested landscapes at the local, State, and
regional levels;
``(B) to provide State forestry best-management practices
and water quality technical assistance directly to
nonindustrial private forest landowners;
``(C) to provide technical guidance to land managers and
policy makers for water quality protection through forest
management;
``(D) to complement State and local efforts to protect
water quality and provide enhanced opportunities for
consultation and cooperation among Federal and State agencies
charged with responsibility for water and watershed
management;
``(E) to provide enhanced forest resource data and support
for improved implementation and monitoring of State forestry
best-management practices.
``(3) Implementation.--The program of technical assistance
shall be implemented by State foresters or equivalent State
officials.
``(c) Watershed Forestry Cost-Share Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a
watershed forestry cost-share program to be administered by
the Forest Service and implemented by State foresters or
equivalent State officials. Funds or other support provided
under such program shall be made available for State forestry
best-management practices programs and watershed forestry
projects.
``(2) Watershed forestry projects.--The State forester or
equivalent State official of a State, in coordination with
the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee
established under section 19(b) for that State, shall
annually make awards to communities, nonprofit groups, and
nonindustrial private forest landowners under the program for
watershed forestry projects described in paragraph (3).
``(3) Project elements and objectives.--A watershed
forestry project shall accomplish critical forest
stewardship, watershed protection, and restoration needs
within a State by demonstrating the value of trees and
forests to watershed health and condition through--
``(A) the use of trees as solutions to water quality
problems in urban and rural areas;
``(B) community-based planning, involvement, and action
through State, local and nonprofit partnerships;
``(C) application of and dissemination of monitoring
information on forestry best-management practices relating to
watershed forestry;
``(D) watershed-scale forest management activities and
conservation planning; and
``(E) the restoration of wetland (as defined by the States)
and stream-side forests and the establishment of riparian
vegetative buffers.
``(4) Cost-sharing.--Funds provided under this subsection
for a watershed forestry project may not exceed 75 percent of
the cost of the project. Other Federal funding sources may be
used to cover a portion of the remaining project costs, but
the total Federal

[[Page H4291]]

share of the costs may not exceed 90 percent. The non-Federal
share of the costs of a project may be in the form of cash,
services, or other in-kind contributions.
``(5) Prioritization.--The State Forest Stewardship
Coordinating Committee for a State shall prioritize
watersheds in that State to target watershed forestry
projects funded under this subsection.
``(6) Watershed forester.--Financial and technical
assistance shall be made available to the State Forester or
equivalent State official to create a State best-management
practice forester to lead statewide programs and coordinate
small watershed-level projects.
``(d) Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall devote at least 75
percent of the funds appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant
to the authorization of appropriations in subsection (e) to
the cost-share program under subsection (c) and the remainder
to the task of delivering technical assistance, education,
and planning on the ground through the State Forester or
equivalent State official.
``(2) Special considerations.--Distribution of these funds
by the Secretary among the States shall be made only after
giving appropriate consideration to--
``(A) the acres of nonindustrial private forestland and
highly erodible land in each State;
``(B) each State's efforts to conserve forests;
``(C) the acres of forests in each State that have been
lost or degraded or where forests can play a role in
restoring watersheds; and
``(D) the number of nonindustrial private forest landowners
in each State.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008.''.

TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS

SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE.

(a) Definitions.--In this title:
(1) Applied silvicultural assessment.--The term ``applied
silvicultural assessment'' means any vegetative or other
treatment, for the purposes described in section 402,
including timber harvest, thinning, prescribed burning, and
pruning, as single treatment or any combination of these
treatments.
(2) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means--
(A) National Forest System lands; and
(B) public lands administered by the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management.
(3) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest
Service, with respect to National Forest System lands; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
appropriate offices of the United States Geological Survey,
with respect to federally owned land administered by the
Secretary of the Interior.
(4) 1890 institutions.--The term ``1890 Institution'' means
a college or university eligible to receive funds under the
Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), including
Tuskegee University.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) High levels of tree mortality due to insect infestation
result in--
(A) increased fire risk;
(B) loss of old growth;
(C) loss of threatened and endangered species;
(D) loss of species diversity;
(E) degraded watershed conditions;
(F) increased potential for damage from other agents of
disturbance, including exotic, invasive species; and
(G) decreased timber values.
(2) Bark beetles destroy hundreds of thousands of acres of
trees each year. In the West, over 21,000,000 acres are at
high risk of bark beetle infestation and in the South over
57,000,000 acres are at risk across all land ownerships.
Severe drought conditions in many areas of the South and West
will increase risk of bark beetle infestations.
(3) The hemlock woolly adelgid is destroying streamside
forests throughout the mid-Atlantic and Appalachian region,
threatening water quality and sensitive aquatic species, and
posing a potential threat to valuable commercial timber lands
in Northern New England.
(4) The emerald ash borer is a nonnative, invasive pest
that has quickly become a major threat to hardwood forests as
a emerald ash borer infestation is almost always fatal to the
affected trees. This pest threatens to destroy over
692,000,000 ash trees in forests in Michigan and Ohio alone,
and between five and ten percent of urban street trees in the
Upper Midwest.
(5) Epidemic populations of Southern pine beetle are
ravaging forests in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Virginia. In 2001, Florida and Kentucky
experienced 146 percent and 111 percent increases,
respectively, in beetle populations.
(6) These epidemic outbreaks of Southern pine beetle have
forced private landowners to harvest dead and dying trees, in
both rural areas and increasingly urbanized settings.
(7) According to the Forest Service, recent outbreaks of
the red oak borer in Arkansas have been unprecedented, with
almost 800,000 acres infested at population levels never seen
before.
(8) Much of the damage from the red oak borer has taken
place in National forests, and the Federal response has been
inadequate to protect forest ecosystems and other ecological
and economic resources.
(9) Previous silvicultural assessments, while useful and
informative, have been limited in scale and scope of
application, and there has not been sufficient resources
available to adequately test a full array of individual and
combined applied silvicultural assessments.
(10) Only through the rigorous funding, development, and
assessment of potential applied silvicultural assessments
over specific time frames across an array of environmental
and climatic conditions can the most innovative and cost
effective management applications be determined that will
help reduce the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to attack
by forest pests.
(11) Funding and implementation of an initiative to combat
forest pest infestations should not come at the expense of
supporting other programs and initiatives of the Secretary
concerned.
(c) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title--
(1) to require the Secretary concerned to develop an
accelerated basic and applied assessment program to combat
infestations by bark beetles, including Southern pine
beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak
borers, and white oak borers;
(2) to enlist the assistance of universities and forestry
schools, including Land Grant Colleges and Universities and
1890 Institutions, to carry out the program; and
(3) to carry out applied silvicultural assessments.

SEC. 402. ACCELERATED INFORMATION GATHERING REGARDING BARK
BEETLES, INCLUDING SOUTHERN PINE BEETLES,
HEMLOCK WOOLLY ADELGIDS, EMERALD ASH BORERS,
RED OAK BORERS, AND WHITE OAK BORERS.

(a) Information Gathering.--The Secretary concerned shall
establish, acting through the Forest Service and United
States Geological Survey, as appropriate, an accelerated
program--
(1) to plan, conduct, and promote comprehensive and
systematic information gathering on bark beetles, including
Southern pine beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash
borers, red oak borers, and white oak borers, including an
evaluation of--
(A) infestation prevention and control methods;
(B) effects of infestations on forest ecosystems;
(C) restoration of the forest ecosystem efforts;
(D) utilization options regarding infested trees; and
(E) models to predict the occurrence, distribution, and
impact of outbreaks of bark beetles, including Southern pine
beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak
borers, and white oak borers;
(2) to assist land managers in the development of
treatments and strategies to improve forest health and reduce
the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to severe
infestations of bark beetles, including Southern pine
beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak
borers, and white oak borers on Federal lands and State and
private lands; and
(3) to disseminate the results of such information
gathering, treatments, and strategies.
(b) Cooperation and Assistance.--The Secretary concerned
shall establish and carry out the program in cooperation with
scientists from universities and forestry schools, State
agencies, and private and industrial land owners. The
Secretary concerned shall designate universities and forestry
schools, including Land Grant Colleges and Universities and
1890 Institutions, to assist in carrying out the program.

SEC. 403. APPLIED SILVICULTURAL ASSESSMENTS.

[[Page H4292]]

(1) Public notice.--The Secretary concerned shall provide
notice of each applied silvicultural assessment proposed to
be carried out under this section in accordance with
applicable regulations and administrative guidelines.
(2) Public comment.--During the planning stage of each
applied silvicultural assessment proposed to be carried out
under this section, the Secretary concerned shall provide an
opportunity for public input.
(d) Categorical Exclusion.--Applied silvicultural
assessments carried out under this section are deemed to be
categorically excluded from further analysis under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.). The Secretary concerned need not make any findings as
to whether the project, either individually or cumulatively,
has a significant effect on the environment.

SEC. 404. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

The authorities provided to the Secretary concerned by this
title are supplemental to their respective authorities
provided in any other law.

SEC. 405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years
2004 through 2008 such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this title.

TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish the healthy forests reserve program as a program
within the Forest Service for the purpose of protecting,
restoring, and enhancing degraded forest ecosystems to
promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species as
well as improve biodiversity and enhance carbon
sequestration.
(b) Cooperation.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall carry
out the healthy forests reserve program in cooperation with
the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

SEC. 502. ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT OF LANDS IN PROGRAM.

(a) Eligible Lands.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall
designate rare forest ecosystems to be eligible for the
healthy forests reserve program. The following lands are
eligible for enrollment in the healthy forests reserve
program:
(1) Private lands whose enrollment will protect, restore,
enhance, or otherwise measurably increase the likelihood of
recovery of an endangered species or threatened species in
the wild.
(2) Private lands whose enrollment will protect, restore,
enhance, or otherwise measurably increase the likelihood of
the recovery of an animal or plant species before the species
reaches threatened or endangered status, such as candidate,
State-listed species, rare, peripheral, and special concern
species.
(b) Other Considerations.--In enrolling lands that satisfy
the criteria in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the
Secretary of Agriculture shall give additional consideration
to those lands whose enrollment will also improve biological
diversity and increase carbon sequestration.
(c) Enrollment by Willing Owners.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall enroll lands in the healthy forests reserve
program only with the consent of the owner of the lands.
(d) Maximum Enrollment.--The total number of acres enrolled
in the healthy forests reserve program shall not exceed
1,000,000 acres.
(e) Methods of Enrollment.--Lands may be enrolled in the
healthy forests reserve program pursuant to a 10-year cost-
share agreement, a 30-year easement, or a permanent easement
with buyback option. The extent to which each enrollment
method is used shall be based on the approximate proportion
of owner interest expressed in that method in comparison to
the other methods.
(f) Enrollment Priority.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall give priority to the enrollment of lands that, in the
sole discretion of the Secretary, will provide the best
opportunity to resolve conflicts between the presence of an
animal or plant species referred to in paragraph (1) or (2)
of subsection (a) and otherwise lawful land use activities.

SEC. 503. CONSERVATION PLANS.

(a) Plan Required.--Lands enrolled in the healthy forests
reserve program shall be subject to a conservation plan, to
be developed jointly by the land owner and the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service. The conservation plan shall
include a description of the land-use activities that are
permissible on the enrolled lands.
(b) Involvement by Other Agencies and Organizations.--A
State fish and wildlife agency, State forestry agency, State
environmental quality agency, and other State conservation
agencies and nonprofit conservation organizations may assist
in providing technical or financial assistance, or both, for
the development and implementation of conservation plans.
(c) Cost Effectiveness.--The conservation plan shall
maximize the environmental benefits per dollar expended.

SEC. 504. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) Permanent Easement With Buyback Option.--
(1) Payment amount.--In the case of land enrolled in the
healthy forests reserve program using a permanent easement
with a buyback option, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay
the owner of the land an amount equal to--
(A) the fair market value of the enrolled land less the
fair market value of the land encumbered by the easement;
plus
(B) the actual costs of the approved conservation practices
or the average cost of approved practices, as established by
the Secretary.
(2) Buyback option.--Beginning on the 50th anniversary of
the enrollment of the land, and every 10th-year thereafter,
the owner shall be able to purchase the easement back from
the United States at a rate equal to the fair market value of
the easement plus the costs, adjusted for inflation, of the
approved conservation practices.
(b) 30-Year Easement.--In the case of land enrolled in the
healthy forests reserve program using a 30-year easement, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the owner of the land an
amount equal to--
(1) 75 percent of the fair market value of the land less
the fair market value of the land encumbered by the easement;
plus
(2) 75 percent of the actual costs of the approved
conservation practices or 75 percent of the average cost of
approved practices, as established by the Secretary.
(c) 10-Year Agreement.--In the case of land enrolled in the
healthy forests reserve program using a 10-year cost-share
agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the owner
of the land an amount equal to--
(1) 75 percent of the actual costs of the approved
conservation practices; or
(2) 75 percent of the average cost of approved practices,
as established by the Secretary.
(d) Acceptance of Contributions.--The Secretary of
Agriculture may accept and use contributions of non-Federal
funds to make payments under this section.

SEC. 505. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

The Forest Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service shall provide landowners with technical assistance to
comply with the terms of agreements and easements under the
healthy forests reserve program and conservation plans.

SEC. 506. SAFE HARBOR.

In implementing the healthy forests reserve program, the
Secretary of the Interior shall provide safe harbor or
similar assurances, through section 7 or other authorities
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), consistent with the implementing regulations of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to landowners who
enroll land in the healthy forests reserve program when such
enrollment will result in a net conservation benefit for
listed species.

SEC. 507. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to carry out this
title.

TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 601. FOREST STANDS INVENTORY AND MONITORING PROGRAM TO
IMPROVE DETECTION OF AND RESPONSE TO
ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall carry
out a comprehensive program to inventory, monitor,
characterize, assess, and identify forest stands (with
emphasis on hardwood forest stands) and potential forest
stands--
(1) in units of the National Forest System (other than
those units created from the public domain); and
(2) on private forest land, with the consent of the owner
of the land.
(b) Issues To Be Addressed.--In carrying out the program,
the Secretary shall address issues including--
(1) early detection, identification, and assessment of
environmental threats (including insect, disease, invasive
species, fire, and weather-related risks and other episodic
events);
(2) loss or degradation of forests;
(3) degradation of the quality forest stands caused by
inadequate forest regeneration practices;
(4) quantification of carbon uptake rates; and
(5) management practices that focus on preventing further
forest degradation.
(c) Early Warning System.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary shall develop a comprehensive early warning system
for potential catastrophic environmental threats to forests
to increase the likelihood that forest managers will be able
to--
(1) isolate and treat a threat before the threat gets out
of control; and
(2) prevent epidemics, such as the American chestnut blight
in the first half of the twentieth century, that could be
environmentally and economically devastating to forests.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in part A of House
Report 108-109 is adopted.
The text of H.R. 1904, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 1904

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.

[[Page H4293]]

TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
Sec. 103. Prioritization for communities and watersheds.
Sec. 104. Environmental analysis.
Sec. 105. Special Forest Service administrative review process.
Sec. 106. Special requirements regarding judicial review of authorized
hazardous fuels reduction projects.
Sec. 107. Injunctive relief for agency action to restore fire-adapted
forest or rangeland ecosystems.
Sec. 108. Rules of construction.

TITLE II--BIOMASS

TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

Sec. 301. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 302. Establishment of watershed forestry assistance program.

TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS

TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. Forest stands inventory and monitoring program to improve
detection of and response to environmental threats.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is--
(1) to reduce the risks of damage to communities, municipal
water supplies, and some at-risk Federal lands from
catastrophic wildfires;
(2) to authorize grant programs to improve the commercial
value of forest biomass for electric energy, useful heat,
transportation fuels, petroleum-based product substitutes and
other commercial purposes;
(3) to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address
threats to forest and rangeland health, including
catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape;
(4) to promote systematic information gathering to address
the impact of insect infestations on forest and rangeland
health;
(5) to improve the capacity to detect insect and disease
infestations at an early stage, particularly with respect to
hardwood forests; and
(6) to protect, restore, and enhance degraded forest
ecosystem types in order to promote the recovery of
threatened and endangered species as well as improve
biological diversity and enhance carbon sequestration.

TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term
``authorized hazardous fuels reduction project'' means a
hazardous fuels reduction project described in subsection (a)
of section 102, subject to the remainder of such section,
that is planned and conducted using the process authorized by
section 104.
(2) Condition class 2.--The term ``condition class 2'',
with respect to an area of Federal lands, refers to the
condition class description developed by the Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Research Station in the general technical
report entitled ``Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data
for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management'' (RMRS-87), dated
April 2000, under which--
(A) fire regimes on the lands have been moderately altered
from their historical range;
(B) there exists a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem
components from fire;
(C) fire frequencies have departed (either increased or
decreased) from historical frequencies by one or more return
interval, which results in moderate changes to fire size,
frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape patterns; and
(D) vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from
their historical range.
(3) Condition class 3.--The term ``condition class 3'',
with respect to an area of Federal lands, refers to the
condition class description developed by the Rocky Mountain
Research Station in the general technical report referred to
in paragraph (2), under which--
(A) fire regimes on the lands have been significantly
altered from their historical range
(B) there exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem
components from fire;
(C) fire frequencies have departed from historical
frequencies by multiple return intervals, which results in
dramatic changes to fire size, frequency, intensity,
severity, or landscape patterns; and
(D) vegetation attributes have been significantly altered
from their historical range.
(4) Day.--The term ``day'' means a calendar day, except
that, if a deadline imposed by this title would expire on a
nonbusiness day, the deadline will be extended to the end of
the next business day.
(5) Decision document.--The term ``decision document''
means a decision notice or a record of decision, as those
terms are used in applicable regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality and the Forest Service Handbook.
(6) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means--
(A) National Forest System lands; and
(B) public lands administered by the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management.
(7) Hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term
``hazardous fuels reduction project'' refers to the measures
and methods described in the definition of ``appropriate
tools'' contained in the glossary of the Implementation Plan.
(8) Implementation plan.--The term ``Implementation Plan''
means the Implementation Plan for the 10-year Comprehensive
Strategy for a Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland
Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment, dated May
2002, which was developed pursuant to the conference report
for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001 (House Report 106-646).
(9) Interface community and intermix community.--The terms
``interface community'' and ``intermix community'' have the
meanings given those terms on page 753 of volume 66 of the
Federal Register, as published on January 4, 2001.
(10) Municipal water supply system.--The term ``municipal
water supply system'' means the reservoirs, canals, ditches,
flumes, laterals, pipes, pipelines, or other surface
facilities and systems constructed or installed for the
impoundment, storage, transportation, or distribution of
drinking water for a community.
(11) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to National
Forest System lands and the Secretary of the Interior with
respect to public lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management. Any reference in this title to the ``Secretary
concerned'', the ``Secretary of Agriculture'', or the
``Secretary of the Interior'' includes the designee of the
Secretary concerned.
(12) Threatened and endangered species habitat.--The term
``threatened and endangered species habitat'' means Federal
lands identified in the listing decision or critical habitat
designation as habitat for a threatened species or an
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

[[Page H4294]]

consistent with the land and resource management plan or land
use plan applicable to the Federal lands covered by the
project.
(c) Acreage Limitation.--Not more than a total of
20,000,000 acres of Federal lands may be included in
authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
(d) Exclusion of Certain Federal Lands.--The Secretary
concerned may not plan or conduct an authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project that would occur on any of the
following Federal lands:
(1) A component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System.
(2) Federal lands where, by Act of Congress or Presidential
proclamation, the removal of vegetation is prohibited or
restricted.
(3) Wilderness Study Areas.

SEC. 103. PRIORITIZATION FOR COMMUNITIES AND WATERSHEDS.

As provided for in the Implementation Plan, the Secretary
concerned shall give priority to authorized hazardous fuel
reduction projects that provide for the protection of
communities and watersheds.

SEC. 104. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this
title, the Secretary concerned shall plan and conduct
authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4331 et seq.) and any other applicable laws. The Secretary
concerned shall prepare an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement for each authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project.
(b) Discretionary Authority To Eliminate Alternatives.--In
the case of an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project,
the Secretary concerned is not required to study, develop, or
describe any alternative to the proposed agency action in the
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement
prepared for the proposed agency action pursuant to section
102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)).
(c) Public Notice and Meeting.--
(1) Public notice.--The Secretary concerned shall provide
notice of each authorized hazardous fuels reduction project
in accordance with applicable regulations and administrative
guidelines.
(2) Public meeting.--During the planning stage of each
authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, the Secretary
concerned shall conduct a public meeting at an appropriate
location proximate to the administrative unit of the Federal
lands in which the authorized hazardous fuels reduction
project will be conducted. The Secretary concerned shall
provide advance notice of the date and time of the meeting.
(d) Public Collaboration.--In order to encourage meaningful
public participation in the identification and development of
authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects, the Secretary
concerned shall facilitate collaboration among governments
and interested persons during the formulation of each
authorized fuels reduction project in a manner consistent
with the Implementation Plan.
(e) Environmental Analysis and Public Comment.--In
accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) and the applicable
regulations and administrative guidelines in effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned
shall provide an opportunity for public input during the
preparation of any environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement for proposed agency action for an authorized
hazardous fuels reduction project.
(f) Decision Document.--The Secretary concerned shall sign
a decision document for each authorized hazardous fuels
reduction project and provide notice of the decision
document.
(g) Project Monitoring.--As provided for in the
Implementation Plan, the Secretary concerned shall monitor
the implementation of authorized hazardous fuels reduction
projects.

SEC. 105. SPECIAL FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
PROCESS.

(a) Development of Administrative Process.--Not later than
90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall issue final regulations to
establish an administrative process that will serve as the
sole means by which a person described in subsection (b) can
seek administrative redress regarding an authorized hazardous
fuels reduction project.
(b) Eligible Persons.--To be eligible to participate in the
administrative process developed pursuant to subsection (a)
regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, a
person must have submitted specific and substantive written
comments during the preparation stage of that authorized
hazardous fuels reduction project. The Secretary of
Agriculture shall ensure that, during the preparation stage
of each authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, notice
and comment is provided in a manner sufficient to permit
interested persons a reasonable opportunity to satisfy the
requirements of this subsection.
(c) Relation to Appeals Reform Act.--Section 322 of the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612
note), does not apply to an authorized hazardous fuels
reduction project.

SEC. 106. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

SEC. 107. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR AGENCY ACTION TO RESTORE
FIRE-ADAPTED FOREST OR RANGELAND ECOSYSTEMS.

(a) Covered Projects.--This section applies with respect to
a motion for an injunction in an action brought against the
Secretary concerned under section 703 of title 5, United
States Code, that involves an agency action on Federal lands,
including an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project,
that is necessary to restore a fire-adapted forest or
rangeland system.
(b) Injunctive Relief.--When considering a motion described
in subsection (a), in determining whether there would be harm
to the defendant from the injunction and whether the
injunction would be in the public interest, the court
reviewing the agency action shall--
(1) balance the impact to the ecosystem of the short-term
and long-term effects of undertaking the agency action agains
the short-term and long-term effects of not undertaking the
agency action; and
(2) give weight to a finding by the Secretary concerned in
the administrative record of the agency action concerning the
short-term and long-term effects of undertaking the agency
action and of not undertaking the agency action, unless the
court finds that the finding was arbitrary and capricious.

SEC. 108. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

TITLE II--BIOMASS

SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

[[Page H4295]]

(2) In addition, more than 70,000,000 acres across all land
ownerships are at risk to higher than normal mortality over
the next 15 years from insect infestation and disease. High
levels of tree mortality from insects and disease result in
increased fire risk, loss of old growth, degraded watershed
conditions, and changes in species diversity and
productivity, as well as diminished fish and wildlife habitat
and decreased timber values.
(3) Preventive treatments such as removing fuel loading,
ladder fuels, and hazard trees, planting proper species mix
and restoring and protecting early successional habitat, and
other specific restoration treatments designed to reduce the
susceptibility of forest and rangeland to insect outbreaks,
disease, and catastrophic fire present the greatest
opportunity for long-term forest and rangeland health by
creating a mosaic of species-mix and age distribution. Such
prevention treatments are widely acknowledged to be more
successful and cost effective than suppression treatments in
the case of insects, disease, and fire.
(4) The by-products of preventive treatment (wood, brush,
thinnings, chips, slash, and other hazardous fuels) removed
from forest and rangelands represent an abundant supply of
biomass for biomass-to-energy facilities and raw material for
business. There are currently few markets for the
extraordinary volumes of by-products being generated as a
result of the necessary large-scale preventive treatment
activities.
(5) The United States should--
(A) promote economic and entrepreneurial opportunities in
using by-products removed through preventive treatment
activities related to hazardous fuels reduction, disease, and
insect infestation; and
(B) develop and expand markets for traditionally underused
wood and biomass as an outlet for by-products of preventive
treatment activities.

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Biomass.--The term ``biomass'' means trees and woody
plants, including limbs, tops, needles, and other woody
parts, and by-products of preventive treatment, such as wood,
brush, thinnings, chips, and slash, that are removed--
(A) to reduce hazardous fuels; or
(B) to reduce the risk of or to contain disease or insect
infestation.
(2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)).
(3) Person.--The term ``person'' includes--
(A) an individual;
(B) a community (as determined by the Secretary concerned);
(C) an Indian tribe;
(D) a small business, micro-business, or a corporation that
is incorporated in the United States; and
(E) a nonprofit organization.
(4) Preferred community.--The term ``preferred community''
means--
(A) any town, township, municipality, or other similar unit
of local government (as determined by the Secretary
concerned) that--
(i) has a population of not more than 50,000 individuals;
and
(ii) the Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of the
Secretary concerned, determines contains or is located near
land, the condition of which is at significant risk of
catastrophic wildfire, disease, or insect infestation or
which suffers from disease or insect infestation; or
(B) any county that--
(i) is not contained within a metropolitan statistical
area; and
(ii) the Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of the
Secretary concerned, determines contains or is located near
land, the condition of which is at significant risk of
catastrophic wildfire, disease, or insect infestation or
which suffers from disease or insect infestation.
(5) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to National
Forest System lands; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior with respect to Federal
lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior
and Indian lands.

SEC. 203. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF FOREST
BIOMASS FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY, USEFUL HEAT,
TRANSPORTATION FUELS, AND PETROLEUM-BASED
PRODUCT SUBSTITUTES.

(a) Biomass Commercial Use Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary concerned may make grants to
any person that owns or operates a facility that uses biomass
as a raw material to produce electric energy, sensible heat,
transportation fuels, or substitutes for petroleum-based
products to offset the costs incurred to purchase biomass for
use by such facility.
(2) Grant amounts.--A grant under this subsection may not
exceed $20 per green ton of biomass delivered.
(3) Monitoring of grant recipient activities.--As a
condition of a grant under this subsection, the grant
recipient shall keep such records as the Secretary concerned
may require to fully and correctly disclose the use of the
grant funds and all transactions involved in the purchase of
biomass. Upon notice by a representative of the Secretary
concerned, the grant recipient shall afford the
representative reasonable access to the facility that
purchases or uses biomass and an opportunity to examine the
inventory and records of the facility.
(b) Value Added Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary concerned may make grants to
persons to offset the cost of projects to add value to
biomass. In making such grants, the Secretary concerned shall
give preference to persons in preferred communities.
(2) Selection.--The Secretary concerned shall select a
grant recipient under paragraph (1) after giving
consideration to the anticipated public benefits of the
project, opportunities for the creation or expansion of small
businesses and micro-businesses, and the potential for new
job creation.
(3) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection may not
exceed $100,000.
(c) Relation to Other Endangered Species and Riparian
Protections.--The Secretary concerned shall comply with
applicable endangered species and riparian protections in
making grants under this section. Projects funded using grant
proceeds shall be required to comply with such protections.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2004 through 2008 to carry out this section.

SEC. 204. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

SEC. 302. ESTABLISHMENT OF WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.

The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 is amended
by inserting after section 5 the following new section:

``SEC. 6. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE.

[[Page H4296]]

protect water quality, as described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Purpose of program.--The program under this
subsection shall be designed--
``(A) to build and strengthen watershed partnerships that
focus on forested landscapes at the local, State, and
regional levels;
``(B) to provide State forestry best-management practices
and water quality technical assistance directly to
nonindustrial private forest landowners;
``(C) to provide technical guidance to land managers and
policy makers for water quality protection through forest
management;
``(D) to complement State and local efforts to protect
water quality and provide enhanced opportunities for
consultation and cooperation among Federal and State agencies
charged with responsibility for water and watershed
management; and
``(E) to provide enhanced forest resource data and support
for improved implementation and monitoring of State forestry
best-management practices.
``(3) Implementation.--The program of technical assistance
shall be implemented by State foresters or equivalent State
officials.
``(c) Watershed Forestry Cost-Share Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a
watershed forestry cost-share program to be administered by
the Forest Service and implemented by State foresters or
equivalent State officials. Funds or other support provided
under such program shall be made available for State forestry
best-management practices programs and watershed forestry
projects.
``(2) Watershed forestry projects.--The State forester or
equivalent State official of a State, in coordination with
the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee
established under section 19(b) for that State, shall
annually make awards to communities, nonprofit groups, and
nonindustrial private forest landowners under the program for
watershed forestry projects described in paragraph (3).
``(3) Project elements and objectives.--A watershed
forestry project shall accomplish critical forest
stewardship, watershed protection, and restoration needs
within a State by demonstrating the value of trees and
forests to watershed health and condition through--
``(A) the use of trees as solutions to water quality
problems in urban and rural areas;
``(B) community-based planning, involvement, and action
through State, local and nonprofit partnerships;
``(C) application of and dissemination of monitoring
information on forestry best-management practices relating to
watershed forestry;
``(D) watershed-scale forest management activities and
conservation planning; and
``(E) the restoration of wetland (as defined by the States)
and stream-side forests and the establishment of riparian
vegetative buffers.
``(4) Cost-sharing.--Funds provided under this subsection
for a watershed forestry project may not exceed 75 percent of
the cost of the project. Other Federal funding sources may be
used to cover a portion of the remaining project costs, but
the total Federal share of the costs may not exceed 90
percent. The non-Federal share of the costs of a project may
be in the form of cash, services, or other in-kind
contributions.
``(5) Prioritization.--The State Forest Stewardship
Coordinating Committee for a State shall prioritize
watersheds in that State to target watershed forestry
projects funded under this subsection.
``(6) Watershed forester.--Financial and technical
assistance shall be made available to the State Forester or
equivalent State official to create a State best-management
practice forester to lead statewide programs and coordinate
small watershed-level projects.
``(d) Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall devote at least 75
percent of the funds appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant
to the authorization of appropriations in subsection (e) to
the cost-share program under subsection (c) and the remainder
to the task of delivering technical assistance, education,
and planning on the ground through the State Forester or
equivalent State official.
``(2) Special considerations.--Distribution of these funds
by the Secretary among the States shall be made only after
giving appropriate consideration to--
``(A) the acres of nonindustrial private forestland and
highly erodible land in each State;
``(B) each State's efforts to conserve forests;
``(C) the acres of forests in each State that have been
lost or degraded or where forests can play a role in
restoring watersheds; and
``(D) the number of nonindustrial private forest landowners
in each State.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008.''.

TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS

SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE.

SEC. 402. ACCELERATED INFORMATION GATHERING REGARDING BARK
BEETLES, INCLUDING SOUTHERN PINE BEETLES,
HEMLOCK WOOLLY ADELGIDS, EMERALD ASH BORERS,
RED OAK BORERS, AND WHITE OAK BORERS.

[[Page H4297]]

(A) infestation prevention and control methods;
(B) effects of infestations on forest ecosystems;
(C) restoration of the forest ecosystem efforts;
(D) utilization options regarding infested trees; and
(E) models to predict the occurrence, distribution, and
impact of outbreaks of bark beetles, including Southern pine
beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak
borers, and white oak borers;
(2) to assist land managers in the development of
treatments and strategies to improve forest health and reduce
the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to severe
infestations of bark beetles, including Southern pine
beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak
borers, and white oak borers on Federal lands and State and
private lands; and
(3) to disseminate the results of such information
gathering, treatments, and strategies.
(b) Cooperation and Assistance.--The Secretary concerned
shall establish and carry out the program in cooperation with
scientists from universities and forestry schools, State
agencies, and private and industrial land owners. The
Secretary concerned shall designate universities and forestry
schools, including Land Grant Colleges and Universities and
1890 Institutions, to assist in carrying out the program.

SEC. 403. APPLIED SILVICULTURAL ASSESSMENTS.

(a) Assessment Efforts.--For information gathering
purposes, the Secretary concerned may conduct applied
silvicultural assessments on Federal lands that the Secretary
concerned determines, in the discretion of the Secretary
concerned, is at risk of infestation by, or is infested with,
bark beetles, including Southern pine beetles, hemlock
woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak borers, and
white oak borers. Any applied silvicultural assessments
carried out under this section shall be conducted on not
more than 1,000 acres per assessment.
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Exclusion of certain areas.--Subsection (a) does not
apply to--
(A) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System;
(B) Federal lands where, by Act of Congress or Presidential
proclamation, the removal of vegetation is restricted or
prohibited; or
(C) congressionally designated wilderness study areas.
(2) Certain treatment prohibited.--Subsection (a) does not
authorize the application of insecticides in municipal
watersheds and associated riparian areas.
(3) Acreage limitation.--Applied silvicultural assessments
may be implemented on not more than 250,000 acres using the
authorities provided by this title.
(4) Peer review.--Each applied silvicultural assessment
under this title, prior to being carried out, shall be peer
reviewed by scientific experts selected by the Secretary
concerned, which shall include non-Federal experts. The
Secretary concerned may use existing peer review processes to
the extent they comply with the preceding sentence.
(c) Public Notice and Comment.--
(1) Public notice.--The Secretary concerned shall provide
notice of each applied silvicultural assessment proposed to
be carried out under this section in accordance with
applicable regulations and administrative guidelines.
(2) Public comment.--During the planning stage of each
applied silvicultural assessment proposed to be carried out
under this section, the Secretary concerned shall provide an
opportunity for public input.
(d) Categorical Exclusion.--Applied silvicultural
assessments carried out under this section are deemed to be
categorically excluded from further analysis under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.). The Secretary concerned need not make any findings as
to whether the project, either individually or cumulatively,
has a significant effect on the environment.

SEC. 404. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

The authorities provided to the Secretary concerned by this
title are supplemental to their respective authorities
provided in any other law.

SEC. 405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years
2004 through 2008 such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this title.

TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM.

SEC. 502. ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT OF LANDS IN PROGRAM.

SEC. 503. CONSERVATION PLANS.

SEC. 504. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

SEC. 505. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

SEC. 506. SAFE HARBOR.

In implementing the healthy forests reserve program, the
Secretary of the Interior

[[Page H4298]]

shall provide safe harbor or similar assurances, through
section 7 or other authorities under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), consistent with the
implementing regulations of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, to landowners who enroll land in the
healthy forests reserve program when such enrollment will
result in a net conservation benefit for listed species.

SEC. 507. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to carry out this
title.

TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 601. FOREST STANDS INVENTORY AND MONITORING PROGRAM TO
IMPROVE DETECTION OF AND RESPONSE TO
ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed
in part B of the report, if offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller), or his designee, which shall be considered read,
and shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each will control 15 minutes, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) each will control 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) each
will control 5 minutes of debate on the bill, as amended.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1904, the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003. This bipartisan legislation has
undergone remarkable scrutiny and in fact is a rather modest response
compared to the magnitude of the forest health crisis confronting this
Nation. Over 190 million acres of public lands are at risk to damage
from insects, disease and catastrophic wildfire. By that we mean if you
have forests in your district or your constituents benefit from a
forest either by receiving clean water from a forested watershed or
they go hiking in a national forest on weekends, you need to support
this bipartisan bill.
By catastrophic wildfire, we do not mean natural wildfires that burn
across the ground and take out the brush. We mean the kind of fire that
consumes the entire forest, shoots flames into the air hundreds of feet
and takes out entire, huge trees.
We are proposing to treat less than one in six of the acres on
Federal lands using the streamlined procedures authorized in the
underlying bill. This is not a massive logging bill. This is perhaps an
under action to the magnitude of the problem we have on our public
lands.
Why are we doing this? Because these forest health problems are
national in scope and because what is at stake here is far more than
the loss of wood fiber.
Here is a map showing what is known as ``condition classes'' of
forest and rangeland across the United States. As Members can see,
while a good portion of the problem is in the western United States,
there is also a lot of land in the eastern United States that is at
risk to fire, insects and disease. Seventy-five percent of the National
Forest land in Alabama is in condition class 2 or 3, the yellow and red
we see here. Almost 1 million acres in Arkansas is in condition class 2
or 3; 730,000 acres in Illinois; half a million acres in Indiana; 2.1
million in Michigan; 4.2 million acres, all of this bright red, in
Minnesota; 2.3 million in Missouri; nearly half a million in New
Hampshire; almost a million in North Carolina; and nearly three-
quarters of a million acres in Pennsylvania.
In those States alone, that roughly adds up to almost 12.5 million
acres of land in the eastern United States. There are several other
States in the East that have problems at least that severe. This bill
will allow the Forest Service to reach out and treat only a fraction of
this acreage using expedited procedures. I would hope my colleagues in
the East would want to support this bill in order to protect their
forests.
In addition, I support H.R. 1904 because it takes a comprehensive
approach to water quality. If we do not get ahead of these catastrophic
fires, this is what we will be left with on millions of acres of
precious watersheds. If this hillside had been thinned and a normal
healthy forest restored, a creeping fire through here would have done
little damage. Instead, a catastrophic fire has created a dead hillside
that cannot absorb water.
Here the intense heat of a catastrophic fire effectively turns the
topsoil to glass and prevents percolation into the water table. A heavy
rain event on a fire site like this will create massive flooding and
transport large amounts of ash and soil into nearby streams,
contaminating water for wildlife and downstream drinking water
supplies.
Some suggest we should not do any hazardous fuels reduction projects
outside the wildland-urban interface, that we leave watersheds and
recreational lands to whatever situation fate has in store for them.
This is the fate that the situation has in store for them; and if this
is allowed to occur in the interior of our forests and then approaches
the urban interface, nothing that is done will stop this from taking
all of that land as well if it is allowed to get to this magnitude as
it approaches that barrier. If this stand had been actively managed, a
fire here would have done far less damage. That would make it a better
place for everyone, better wildlife habitat, better recreation area,
better watershed, better air quality and certainly a heck of a lot
prettier. Sitting back and hoping for the best is not the way to get
healthy forests.

Some have suggested that we spend almost all of our efforts and funds
within a few hundred yards of inhabited areas. This is an illusion, and
it is irresponsible. We cannot protect communities by doing all of the
work near their boundaries. Fires over the last several years have
raced miles and leaped as much as 2 miles away from the main fire,
crossing huge firebreaks like interstate highways to burn hundreds of
homes.
Sitting back, hoping for the best and letting existing bureaucratic
processes continue to founder is not fiscally responsible. Last year,
the Federal Government spent $1.6 billion fighting catastrophic fires.
States spent hundreds of millions as well. We need to recognize that
these huge expenditures are a land management problem. While we need to
continue fighting fires, we need to be smarter and make investments in
active land management in order to ultimately reduce these exorbitant
firefighting costs.
We have listened to people from all over the country in putting this
bill together. In addition to the remedial hazardous fuels reduction
projects, the legislation now contains authorization to assess and
attack the problem of major insect infestation that are threatening
public and private forestland all over the country. We have added
provisions to create cooperative watershed protection programs on
private forestlands and a healthy

[[Page H4299]]

forest reserve program to ensure continued healthy management of
private forestland.
As we came to the floor, we made adjustments in the bill to clarify
the modest goals of hazardous fuels reduction. The bill now clarifies
that there will be public notice and comment on all projects and, when
projects are judicially appealed, the government will carry the burden
of proof on the merits of the project. We will now require that all
insect assessment projects receive outside peer review. We have
clarified that the contentious debates over endangered species,
roadless areas and old-growth policy are not a part of this modest
bill.
Lastly, I want to point out that there is a truly impressive
coalition of groups supporting this legislation. Labor unions, local
conservation districts, county governments, professional land managers,
volunteer firefighters and State officials have all come out in strong
support of the underlying legislation. We have over 130 cosponsors of
this bill, and it has been reviewed and overwhelmingly approved by
three committees of the House.
As we speak, this year's fire season is getting under way. The
experts at the National Interagency Fire Center expect much of the
interior West, south/central Alaska, portions of California, western
Great Lakes States and northern Maine to experience an above-normal
fire season. Please join me and your colleagues from across the country
in support of beginning to take steps to protect our natural resources
for the benefit of our children and grandchildren who will wonder if we
fail to act why we did not take the obvious steps we needed to take to
conserve our forests. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I recently met with tribal chairmen/representatives from
the tribes in Arizona with timber interests, the Inter-Tribal Council
of Arizona. They had come to thank me for cosponsoring the Healthy
Forests Act and to let me know that they supported the legislation and
hoped for its passage. Unfortunately, for several of these tribes, they
are already facing the devastating impacts of forest fires and insect
infestation, two results that the Healthy Forests Initiative is meant
to help prevent.
The chairman of the White Mountain Apaches recounted for me the mass
destruction that the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire of 2002 had on the forest
resources of the Fort Apache Indian reservation. This fire raged across
the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and the Fort Apache Indian
reservation, burning some 469,000 acres. It grew to 15 acres in the
first 13 minutes of its life and continued to expand at a rate of 1\1/
4\ acres a minute.
Timber harvesting and processing was the main industry of the White
Mountain Apache tribe, and it will be years before the jobs and income
generated by that industry will be seen again. Even their burial
grounds and the graves of their ancestors are in danger as a result of
the environmental damage from the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire.
The bark beetle has decimated the forest resources of several of the
other tribes, with the San Carlos Apache tribe having lost 40 percent
of their forest due to the damage of this pest.
The question before us today is whether we are willing to learn from
our mistaken belief that the best way to protect our forests is to
leave them alone.
We made a decision a long time ago to manage our forests. Having made
that decision, we now have a responsibility to manage them using the
best science we have available.
Well-managed forests can withstand fire. In fact, forests that have
been preventively treated to reduce hazardous fuel loads can benefit
from periodic fires. These fires create forest openings for new growth,
provide a variety of wildlife habitat and reduce fuel buildup.
The bill before us today will help us improve management of our
forests in several important ways. The bill authorizes expedited
approval of forest thinning and cleanup projects on 20 million acres of
Federal lands. It authorizes applied silvicultural assessments on
1,000-acre plots to test treatments for insect and disease
infestations. It provides grants for biomass energy production from the
debris produced by the projects. And it establishes a new conservation
easement system to protect ecologically important forests on private
lands.

{time} 1330

The cumulative effect of these changes will be healthier forests that
are less likely to produce the catastrophic wildfires that have
destroyed millions of acres of private and public forests in recent
years. These catastrophic fires burn hotter, spread faster, and cause
long-term, severe environmental damage, sometimes even sterilizing the
soil.
Last year, 23 firefighters lost their lives fighting wildfires; and
taxpayers spent about $1.5 billion to contain record-setting fires. In
the rural communities nearest to forests, tens of thousands of people
were evacuated from their homes, thousands of structures were
destroyed, and tourist-dependent economies suffered significant
financial losses.
Let us untie the hands of our forest managers and let them begin
using the management practices that are best suited to prevent the
wildfires that have already taken so much from us. I urge my colleagues
to support H.R. 1904 and oppose the substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden), one of the original authors of the bill.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to first acknowledge the
comments of my colleague from Texas and appreciate his great leadership
on this effort and his support of this bill. This legislation has 17
Democrat co-sponsors. We have 137 overall filed on the bill. Three of
those Democrat co-sponsors are the ranking members of their committees.
And I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for his leadership
on this issue.
Let us talk about what this bill does.
This is land that was on fire at Squires Peak last year, 2002. This
is in a treated area that is burning right now. This is where the
Forest Service workers have gone in and done the treatments we are
advocating in this bill.
Here is the aftermath. We can see the trees are green, some of the
brush, but otherwise the forest is in pretty good health.
This is the fire burning the same location but just over the hill a
bit from where the first photo was. This is a place where it had not
been treated. See the severity of the fire, the density of the stands.
This is what it looks like when that fire is finished, enormous
catastrophic fire. In fact, there are still some trees burning there.
Dense stands, black timber, scorched ground, sterilized soil, ruined
habitat.
Here we see a pine beetle infestation in the Nez Perce National
Forest. This is what we are trying to figure out the best way to treat.
How do we get in there and deal with the forests like that and get the
disease and the bug infestations out? This is the Tanner Gulch fire. It
occurred in 1989. What is important about this, this was in my
district. It is in the Wallowa-Whitman, and it wiped out a spring
Chinook salmon run. We can see the burned trees, the destroyed
hillsides and all the mud and all going down that stream. We ruined
that habitat. These are unhealthy forests. The Moose Creek fire in
Montana destroyed more timber on the Flathead National Forest than has
ever been harvested on that Forest.
Human consequences of these kinds of fires, we lost 23 men and women
last year fighting these fires or going to fight them. The American
taxpayer spent $1.5 billion on 2002's record blazes.
So who supports this legislation? The professional biologists, the
professional silviculturists, the Society of American Foresters, the
National Association of State Foresters, the Western Forestry
Leadership Council.
Let me tell my colleagues what the Society of American Foresters said
in their letter dated May 29 of this year: ``Serious problems of insect
and disease outbreaks, catastrophic wildfire, and invasive species are
reducing the health of forests across the country. Professional forest
managers need to be able to act now to address these

[[Page H4300]]

issues and the ecological, social, and economic conditions associated
with them.''
The Society of American Foresters endorsing the underlying bill,
1904.
Finally, let us make the point, because there is a lot of
misinformation out there, the provisions of this legislation do not
touch national parks. They do not touch national wildlife refuges,
wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, national monuments, or
inventoried roadless areas. None of those areas fall under the precepts
of this bill.
I urge passage of H.R. 1904 and urge rejection of the Miller-DeFazio
substitute.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the pending legislation. Others
will come to the floor to discuss the threat of wildfire to the health
and general welfare of segments of the American population. Others will
come to the floor to discuss other elements of this legislation such as
its provisions concerning insect infestation which threatens some of
our forests and forest industries.
These are debatable issues, and the House will be presented with an
alternative to the pending bill in the form of a substitute that will
be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers), and myself. We are not unmindful of the need to address the
issues raised by this bill, but in our view we would do so in a more
prudent and responsible manner.
There is one pending issue in this legislation, however, which
transcends the debate over forest fires and forest health: the
independence of our judiciary and right of Americans to seek redress
from the courts when they believe they are aggrieved by a governmental
action. Indeed, the judicial review provisions of this bill would set a
dangerous precedent for anybody concerned with civil liberties, civil
rights, workers' rights and any other issue that may come before our
judiciary.
Consider this: Under this bill the Courts are told to expedite the
consideration of any lawsuit involving forest hazardous fuels reduction
projects. In effect, they are told to give priority consideration to
these types of lawsuits and render a decision within 100 days of
filing.
Terrorist trials, corporate crime cases, civil rights cases, name it,
those would have to be put on the back burner because this legislation
says that lawsuits involving cutting trees are the most important types
of litigation there is before the courts. Incredible. Simply
incredible. This bill tells the court that litigation involving
thinning trees is more important than prosecuting suspected al Qaeda
terrorists. To judge lawsuits over forest thinning projects more
important than all other civil cases, let alone criminal cases, is
seriously misguided. To make this policy law is absurd.
But the violation of our judiciary does not end there. By no means.
For example, the sponsors of this measure have rigged the system in
favor of the Federal agencies. The bill sets a brand new standard for
injunctive relief by mandating that courts must give the greatest
weight to what a Federal agency determines to be in the public
interest. In essence, a directive to ignore the basis of appeal brought
by the plaintiffs in a lawsuit.
Think about the ramifications of that for a moment. Think about it.
Think about the precedent we would be setting. In my neck of the woods,
for example, it would be like telling the families of coal miners who
died in a mine explosion that if they sued the Mine Safety and Health
Administration for alleged failure to adequately inspect the mine, when
they walked into the courthouse, the judge by statute had already been
ordered to defer to the Federal agency. Basically, to ignore the
contentions of the aggrieved families.
Many of us have been here long enough to remember when conservatives
did not trust the Federal Government, and they did not endorse expanded
and unchecked Federal powers. These provisions have caused a whole
group of organizations which have no interest in forest policy to take
a stand in opposition to this bill. The NAACP, for example, is opposed
to this bill. In a letter sent to all Members of the House, they state:
``We urge you to reject H.R. 1904 as it could severely impact the
ability of our Federal courts to issue time decisions in civil rights,
workers' rights, and other pressing matters, and change the fundamental
balance that has been struck in our legal system.''
The effect of these provisions are to unfairly and arbitrarily shut
the courthouse door on Americans, making the Federal Government far
less accountable to its citizens. It is unfortunate that the sponsors
of this bill chose to inject this controversial attack on the
independence of our judiciary in a measure of this nature. These
provisions are a poison pill, and they do a disservice to our
addressing issues such as forest insect infestation and forest fires in
a prudent and responsible fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I want to respond to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
This bill, far from closing the courthouse door, opens it wide, makes
it effective for those who seek redress in the courts to address the
issue at hand. Right now, under current procedures, individuals who
want no activity to take place in our forests at all will use our
judicial system to delay action on our forests for 2, 3 years. If we
have a forest that is prime for a forest fire because of the fuel
density that is built up in it or because disease or insects have
destroyed it, we need to take action promptly. That is what this does.
In no other area of the law that I know of is one allowed on appeal
in the judicial process to raise issues that they did not raise at the
outset, and that is also done commonly by extreme environmental groups
who wait until the end. This cures that. It opens it up. The public is
able to participate in the process throughout public comment, in the
administrative process and in the appeals process, but it gets it done
in a timely fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Burns).
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, America's forest ecosystems are being
decimated at an alarming rate by large-scale catastrophic wildfire and
massive outbreaks of disease, insect infestation, and invasive species.
In the State of Georgia alone, we have a little over 800,000 acres of
Federal forest. Last year, 13,000 acres of those trees were infested
and destroyed by the southern pine beetle. H.R. 1904 combats these
infestations and assists land managers in reducing the susceptibility
of forest ecosystems to severe infestations.
Prior to consideration of this bill in the Committee on Agriculture,
I consulted Dr. James Sweeney, Interim Dean of the Warnell School of
Forest Resources at the University of Georgia, and I got his views on
the state of our forests. He said, ``We need to do a better job of
prevention, a more efficient job of control, and a bigger effort at
restoration. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act is a bill that needs
to be passed.''
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Sweeney is an expert in forestry. With his
recommendation and that of the Georgia Forestry Commission and Georgia
Forestry Association, I support this bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, last summer, we all watched
millions of acres of forestland burn up in wildfires; thousands of
animals, including threatened and endangered species, killed or
displaced; and, worst of all, dedicated firefighters losing their lives
trying to extinguish these out-of-control blazes. These tragedies were
compounded by the knowledge that these fires were preventable and
resulted from misguided forest management policies designed with good
intentions but leading to disastrous results. While the most
devastating fires occurred in the West, all parts of the country,
including Georgia and the Southeast, are at risk.
Moreover, millions of additional acres are destroyed or threatened by
insect infestations each year, both on private and public forestlands.
In Georgia, the Southern pine beetle has ravaged many forestlands, and
in other parts of the South this insect damage is occurring at an
alarming pace. It

[[Page H4301]]

threatens to destroy the forests with less fanfare than a wildfire but
with the same devastating result.
This needless destruction can be prevented with additional research
and active forest management. I support H.R. 1904 as a way to move
towards the prevention of unnecessary forest fires and insect
infestations. This legislation would assist our public land managers by
allowing for the reduction of excessive fuels on the forest floors that
are turning our lands into tinder boxes. It would also assist the
Forest Service and our land-grant universities and colleges with needed
research dollars into insect infestations and ways to turn this
research into practical applications.
The bill would also help protect other forestlands through the
Watershed Assistance program, designed to assist landowners in
protecting critical watershed areas, and the Healthy Forests Reserve
Program, developed to rehabilitate degraded forest ecosystems through
the use of conservation plans. It even advances the use of renewable
fuels by providing grants for the use of biomass for energy production.

{time} 1345

Mr. Speaker, with the help of H.R. 1904, hopefully we will see less
damage from wildfires and insect infestations in the future. It is time
to start preventing these massive wildfires, instead of simply reacting
to them once they have already started burning.
The legislation is good for Georgia, good for the South, and good for
the forestlands of America. I urge the passage of this much-needed
legislation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and ask unanimous consent that
he control said time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1904. The bill
before us represents a compromise achieved after arduous and intense
negotiations which began in earnest last fall. It is certainly not
everything that I would have wanted, that is the nature of compromise,
but it is a noteworthy attempt to deal with a very real problem of
forest fires on lands where fire has been too long suppressed in
regions that are increasingly populated.
If used properly, the tools provided in this bill will ease the path
of projects that are carefully designed to reduce the risk of fire in
those forests where fire would most threaten lives and homes and water
supplies. This is not meant to be a bill that increases commercial
logging or to give the Forest Service carte blanche. The projects
undertaken through this bill ought to be environmentally sound and
carefully planned, especially given the remarkably immature nature and
state of our knowledge of forest ecology and fire management.
The compromise negotiated with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman
Goodlatte), the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), the
gentleman from Colorado (Chairman McGinnis), and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the White House is designed to help ensure that
the vision of this bill that I just outlined is actually the one that
comes to pass.
Let me describe some of the key elements of the compromise. Most
important, the compromise rewrites section 107 to ensure that courts
still have the latitude they need when they consider whether to grant
injunctions. It does this in several ways.
First, it makes clear that this bill does not change the basic test
courts use when deciding whether to issue an injunction. Instead, the
bill lays out some matters that must be weighed when courts apply two
of the standard tests.
Specifically, the bill makes clear that both undertaking a project
and not undertaking a project can have short-term and long-term costs
and benefits that need to be weighed. Balancing harms, to use the legal
term, is not a simple matter that involves assuming that a project
would produce harms that matter only in the short-term or that it would
produce nothing other than benefits over the long term.
Third, the bill makes clear that while the court should give weight
to the views an agency holds concerning balance of harms, the court has
no obligation to defer to the agency and no reason to heed the agency
at all if its findings are arbitrary and capricious. In other words,
the agency cannot, and I emphasize, cannot, do as it pleases when it
pleases.
What all these technical concerns add up to is this: courts will
continue to be able to issue injunctions against forestry projects that
harm the environment, either while a case is pending or permanently.
The compromise also puts in place other protections against
questionable projects. To be more specific, it limits the geographic
reach of the expedited projects created by the bill; it requires that
an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment be
conducted on every project covered by this bill; it removes language
that could be construed to weaken the Roadless Rule; it ensures that
notice and comment periods will be sufficient to allow genuine airing
of fire projects; and it requires experimental projects in response to
insect infestations to be treated as true experiments with an
objective, outside peer review and with recourse to the courts.
In short, while this bill does create expedited procedures, it is not
devoid of safeguards to protect our forestlands, which belong to all
the people of our Nation, today and in future generations.
This bill will require careful monitoring along the way; and if the
version emerging from conference is worthy of support, our task will
have just begun. Implementation must be carefully monitored to make
sure the new law lives up to its intended purpose.
Those purposes are worthy, the protection of lives and property; the
implementation of sensible forestry projects to prevent fire; the
return of our forests gradually to something more like their natural
fire cycle.
Right now, this bill is our only chance to achieve these goals. I
urge its adoption, and I oppose the substitute.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
the great State of Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, there are some grounds for agreement here. This chart
shows what we want to prevent. Fires are not partisan. In fact, last
fall we negotiated a bipartisan agreement, something that was not
everything the timber industry wanted; and it certainly was not
everything the environmentalists wanted. But that approach was
abandoned several weeks ago. Now the White House is calling the shots
here, and they are going to jam through a bill.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose this bill. I mean, one is do we
trust appointed bureaucrats with our precious natural resources? They
created this problem through 100 years of mismanagement; and this is
giving all the discretion in terms of appeals, protection of old
growth. Even the courts have to give deference to the judgment of the
appointed bureaucrats. I do not think the Republicans would support
that for a Democratic administration. I would not support it for a
Democratic or Republican administration.
But there are another 5 billion reasons to oppose this bill. There is
no money in it. The bill we wrote last fall admitted that this is an
expensive proposition. Undoing 100 years of mismanagement is very
expensive.
There is no money in this bill, and they are going to finance this
bill potentially by cutting the very resource that should be protected,
what we wanted to restore.
We just heard about low-intensity fires. We want to go back to low-
intensity fires, big old trees, widely spaced in Eastern Oregon and
down through the intermountain States.
But we give all of the discretion on the harvest to the Secretary of
Agriculture and his or her appointees, and we say there is no money and
that we are going to finance this by putting contractors out there and
having them remove things and paying for the

[[Page H4302]]

projects that way. If you do that, guess what they are going to take
first? They are going to take out the big old trees. They might not
bother with the brush and poles and dead stuff, which is what we need
to be targeting.
This is not the bill we should be voting on today, and not a single
Democratic amendment was allowed. What the heck kind of a process is
this?

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in the distribution of time, I heard that,
I believe, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, yielded his time for
management to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Did anyone claim the time on the Democratic side for the Committee on
the Judiciary?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That 5 minutes is controlled by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, no one doubts the need to reduce the threat of forest
fires after last summer, when our country experienced the second-worst
fire season in 50 years. However, H.R. 1904 is not the answer, and,
contrary to its name, does little to make our forests healthier.
Sections 106 and 107 of this bill make unwise changes to the Federal
appeals and judicial review process. Under the guise of expediting fire
control programs, the intent of these two sections is clear: to limit
public input and to shift the review authority from an independent
judiciary toward Federal agencies run by political appointees.
Section 106 of this bill would limit the amount of time the public
has to file a legal challenge to a mere 15 days, inclusive of holidays
and weekend days. Clearly, this time limit is not long enough for
someone to grasp and analyze how a project will affect the health of
their family and the communities around them.
Ironically, this provision could exacerbate the problem it proposes
to address. I suspect more people might dash up the courtroom steps and
file preemptive lawsuits against projects, since failing to do so
closes the door thereafter.
Section 106 also attempts to limit the time judges have to review
cases and mandates that they inform congressional committees whenever
they extend injunctions beyond 45 days. Besides making judges postpone
other important cases, like criminal matters, civil rights or
terrorism, this provision makes judges subject to constant legislative
scrutiny.
Section 107 also seeks an unwise change in American legal standards
by requiring courts to give unprecedented deference to Federal agency
findings when considering whether to grant a restraining order or
injunction. This provision would essentially allow the executive branch
agencies to decide what is in the public's best interest without taking
the concerns of judges or communities into consideration.
This so-called Healthy Forests Restoration Act is anything but. It is
yet another example of the Bush administration rolling back our
environmental protections. Now is the time for those who understand how
important the environment is for future generations to stand up to this
administration.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
(Mr. REHBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker talked a little bit about
the need for this legislation as a result of last year's fires. I am
insulted by that. It is almost as if the tree did not burn in your
district, there was no disaster.
It happened year after year after year in Montana. In 1988, I was
surrounded by fires. It happens every year in the State of Montana. In
the Year 2000, we burned 1 million acres.
When are we going to wake up and say enough is enough? This
legislation goes a long ways toward solving the problem. I remember
1988. I thought to myself, God, I hope now the legislature, the
Congress, wakes up and understands that fire can be a tool if it is a
prescribed burn, if it is a controlled fire. Grazing can be a tool. It
not only controls the underbrush, but also controls weeds.
We can have control within our forests, management controls within
our forests. It does not have to be looked on as a bad thing. It is a
good thing. It can keep our forests safe.
To those preservationists who have tipped the scales of our justice
system against doing the right thing, I tell them you are loving our
forests to death.
Do you like this? Because this is exactly the way the people of
Montana feel with the forest fires coming in. I hope you will support
this legislation.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the charge that the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act cuts the heart out of the National Environmental Policy
Act.
The fact is, this bill requires the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management to conduct environmental reviews of forest thinning projects
in accordance with NEPA. The most important element of NEPA is the
environmental review of the proposed project, the project that is to be
implemented; and that review is retained under the bill.
The bill also gives agencies discretion to limit environmental review
to the proposed project only, which means an agency would not have to
consider multiple alternative project options that are not likely to be
implemented as is currently required under NEPA. Under current law,
land management agencies are required to analyze multiple alternatives,
devoting scarce resources to hypothetical projects instead of to
developing additional projects in other vulnerable areas of our
forests.

{time} 1400

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, America deserves a fuels reduction program in our
forests that protects two American icons: first, small towns; and
second, big trees. This bill does neither. This bill is doomed to
failure in not protecting either small towns or big trees, for three
reasons.
The first reason is, it does not provide the money that is necessary
to do the job. If we take a look at this map, the Forest Service
suggests there are 190 million acres needing treatment. They propose to
do about 2.8 million in the next year, this tiny little red dot. That
is the combination of three States.
They want to propose to do a tiny little red dot, and they do not
authorize a dollar for the fuels reduction program. They are so fixated
on red tape they forget green money. They cannot do the job without it.
Our bill does that job.
Second, the bill does not target our precious resources to protect
human property and life first as a priority, unlike our bill, which
does. It is not just me that says this. There are a dozen letters to
the Republican chairman of the committee responsible for this bill
pleading for help for our local communities to protect against a fire
in the crucial wildline-urban interface.
A letter from Donald Vanderhoof, Mayor of the city of Glenwood
Springs, said, ``Unfortunately, H.R. 1904 does not provide local
communities with the necessary tools to mitigate future fires. Despite
the fact that 85 percent of the land within the community protection
zone is non-Federal, H.R. 1904 channels funds to Federal land
projects.''
They have not provided monies for small communities where the rubber
meets the road and the fire hits the edge of their town; our bill does.
Third problem, their bill does not protect big trees. Now, there is a
bipartisan consensus that there is some thinning that is appropriate in
the forest, but we do not thin trees like this multiple century-old
tree. Their bill allows that to be done. Their bill does cut the heart
out of NEPA, because the very heart of NEPA is considering alternatives
to what size trees they are going to thin.
It seems to me that our Federal agencies ought to think about what
size they are going to thin and study alternatives in the NEPA process.
Their bill cuts that out. Instead, essentially, they want to sell these
big trees

[[Page H4303]]

to generate money. That is where they propose to get money for this
program.
That is a little bit like somebody who is sick selling their good
kidney to treat the bad one. They end up with no kidneys. That is what
they are proposing to do to forests. They want to let the Forest
Service finance this plan by cutting down big trees to do these
thinning projects. It is unnecessary, it is wrong, it is against what
their constituents want and ought to be defeated. Support the
Democratic substitute.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the Healthy Forest Restoration Act
increases protection for communities from wildfires by speeding up the
implementation of forest thinning projects. That is true. That is why
we keep hearing it.
To my friend, the gentleman from Washington, and his response, that
little, bitty red dot, many of us who have spent considerable amount of
time studying this problem believe that by reallocation of current
forest services we can deal with this. It does not require all of the
new money that some propose if we in fact readjust the manner in which
we regulate the forests of our country.
Even the critics of this bill acknowledge, as the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall) states in his dissenting remarks to the Committee
on Agriculture report, that streamlining of the administrative appeals
process would be appropriate for high-priority fuel reduction projects.
In a Dear Colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) argues that his substitute provides for expedited treatment of
Federal lands that pose a risk of wildfire to local communities. Under
the bill, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management
would have to conduct a full environmental analysis of each proposed
thinning project, but the agencies would not have to analyze a full
range of alternatives to the proposal, as current law requires.
The bill would set a 15-day time limit for filing lawsuits
challenging the fuel reduction project once the agency has formally
announced a final decision and would urge the courts to the maximum
extent possible to rule from within 100 days from when the suit was
filed.
Critics of the bill seem to want it both ways. First, they argue that
the bill does not do enough to implement these projects. Then they
argue in favor of continuing the unnecessary and time-consuming
analysis of alternative projects under NEPA and against reasonable time
limitations on legal challenges.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to address what the
Environmental Protection Act does. It is intended for taxpayers to ask
agencies to think twice about what they do. It is intended to ask
agencies to look at alternatives to what they do, to figure out what
the best alternative for the taxpayer dollar is and for the
environment.
The reason this bill cuts the heart out of the Environmental
Protection Act is that it stops any consideration of any alternative to
exactly what one person who works for this agency may say.
Now maybe cutting 18-inch trees is the appropriate thing in one
forest, but maybe it is appropriate to cut 12-inch trees or 8-inch
trees in another one. What they have done is taken away from taxpayers
the right to ask their government employees to consider what the right
size trees ought to be in these projects. That is the heart of the
Environmental Protection Act.
It is an unfortunate step and an unnecessary one, because we ought to
preserve both our big trees, our small towns, and our citizens' rights.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1904, the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Our Nation's forests are facing a
crisis, a crisis that, if not addressed, could have an overwhelming
effect on the property and livelihood of Americans all across these
United States.
Tens of millions of acres of public and private forests throughout
the country face catastrophic damage from a host of pests, like the
southern pine beetle and the red and white oak borers throughout the
South and Midwest.
The southern pine beetle is the most destructive insect pest of pine
trees in the southern United States. From 1960 through 1990, this
insect caused $900 million of damage to pine forests. This aggressive
tree killer is a native insect that lives predominantly in the inner
bark of pine trees. During epidemics, southern pine beetle infestations
often begin in weakened or injured trees, but the populations can
invade and overcome healthy, vigorous trees by attacking in large
numbers over a short period of time. These attacks are not limited to
private or public lands. This insect destroys indiscriminately.
Red and white oak trees in the South are also facing serious
conditions. In Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, over a quarter of
standing saw timber are red oak trees, and it is expected that we will
lose up to 33 percent due to borer infestations and related causes.
This translates to over $1 billion in losses in those three States
alone.
These pest outbreaks are not normal. Although oak borers are
frequently found in oak-dominated forests, scientists report that the
current outbreak is of epidemic proportions. Nearly 1 million acres of
national forestlands, almost one out of every three acres, in Arkansas
are at risk of losing key ecosystem components. These acres will be
eligible for the expedited procedures authorized by this bill.
In addition to its original intent to address catastrophic wildfires,
H.R. 1904 will also allow us to act fast due to the threat unhealthy
forest conditions present to our southern forest ecosystems, air
quality, and water quality. We must act fast to help protect our
national and private forests throughout the southern and eastern United
States and the jobs they provide.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Virginia, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee),
offered a rather imperfect analogy when he talked about someone selling
their kidney to deal with financial problems.
No, Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the analogy to a kidney, and the
problem is not with cutting the heart out of environmental regulation.
The problem we are confronting, Mr. Speaker, is that we have cut the
very heart out of rural communities in the western United States who
live surrounded by national forests.
In Arizona, in the Rodeo-Chedeski fire of last summer, nearly a half
million acres and over 400 homes were destroyed. If there is a silver
lining to the pyrocumulous clouds, it is the very real human tragedy;
not an abstraction, not a governmental study.
But we have had paralysis by analysis. The Forest Service has spent a
quarter of a trillion dollars of their time and their financial
resources to say, stop these projects because of lawsuits. What we ask
for is what is reasonable, what is reasonable at long last, to have a
true, balanced policy. This is an important first step. Support the
legislation.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the subcommittee chairman.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank the chairman for
all the efforts he has put in regarding the infestation we have had,
regarding the forest fires, and the gentleman's focus in this committee
to get this piece of legislation out before the fire season besets us.
I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). He has gone way out of his
way to help move this bill forward. It is a very, very important bill.

[[Page H4304]]

I need to clarify a couple points here. I say to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee), I know what his ethics are like. His ethics
are, in my book, of a very high standard.
What I would do is to say to the gentleman that Glenwood Springs,
which the gentleman quoted from the letter from the mayor, is my
hometown. I grew up at the bottom of Storm King Mountain, where I, with
12 others, took 15 firefighters, deceased firefighters, off it.
I know something about fire, I know something about this bill, and I
know something about the gentleman's ethics. The gentleman would be
well advised to disassociate himself from the letter that he quoted in
his comments, which was obtained through very deceitful means, as has
been acknowledged this morning by the City of Glenwood Springs.
So I do not think the gentleman is aware of that. I just want the
gentleman to be aware of how that letter was obtained.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I see a copy of one of these letters was
sent to a fellow congressman from Colorado. I was provided these by my
staff.
If these are inaccurate copies, please advise me. But everything I
have read, as far as I know, is accurate. If these are inaccurate
copies, please advise me; and I will correct the Record.
To date, I have 12 letters from cities and counties in Colorado
claiming that they are not taken care of.
Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am talking
specifically about a letter. I am not saying that the signature is
inaccurate, that it is a fraud. I am saying that the way it was
obtained was very, very deceitful. I would be happy to talk to the
gentleman after we are finished here about that.
In regard to the comments of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms.
Baldwin), I am not sure she has read the bill, with all due respect. It
does not cut out public input. It does not stop the judiciary process.
I have not seen the gentlewoman at one meeting, I have not seen her at
one negotiating session where we discussed the details of that.
Frankly, I consider it a cheap shot when one of my colleagues stands
up here in front the American public and talks about a bill that we so
firmly believe in on a bipartisan basis to stop and help us do
something about these fires and bugs, and the gentlewoman stands up and
acts like we are shortcutting the judiciary process, like we are
cutting out the public input. Sure, I take insult with those kinds of
remarks, and I do wonder whether or not the bill was read before staff
or somebody drafted those comments for the gentlewoman.
Let me talk in regard to the comments of the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall). His comments about the bugs and the Miller
substitute, if we look at the substance of the Miller substitute,
unless it has been changed in the last 15 minutes, it contains nothing
of substance within the four corners of that. I am talking about the
substance part of the bill with regard to bug infestation.
We have to do something to help our people in the South. These bugs
are throughout the country, but that is their biggest focus right now.
This bill is about between what we call the green hats and the black
hats. Let me read the Oregonian Newspaper out of Oregon in the district
of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

{time} 1415

By the way, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), we did not have
an agreement. We came this close to an agreement, and you and the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) negotiated in absolute
good faith. Unfortunately, we could not get there; but we did not have
an agreement. I wish we would have inked an agreement. I wish we would
have had it because it would have been signed in by now.
I do acknowledge, by the way, although they are strongly opposed to
what we have today, which is not different than what we had yesterday,
I do acknowledge the good-faith efforts of the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Let me quote the newspaper in Oregon: ``By its words and actions, the
Sierra Club has shown what it wants. It wants the status quo, no
logging, only a handful of small thinning projects and more devastating
fires like those that swept Oregon and the rest of the west this
summer. On the issue of forest thinning for which national polls have
found overwhelming support, the real extremists include the Sierra
Club.''
This is a good bill. It has got good merit, and it deserves your
support.
Today the House will consider among the most important pieces of
environmental legislation in a generation. The bipartisan Healthy
Forests Restoration Act is focused on addressing the single largest,
most complex and destructive challenge facing the management of our
Federal lands--catastrophic wildfire and exploding epidemics of insect
and disease outbreaks. Mr. Speaker, these are the destructive symptoms
of America's forest health crisis.
During the last Congress, as most of us remember, my colleagues
George Miller, Greg Walden and Peter DeFazio were nano-inches from
reaching a bipartisan agreement for the ages. But ultimately, because
of the invidious attacks of certain special interest groups, and
because of the late stage in which those talks began, we were unable to
cement a deal. Let me note that I have immeasurable respect for Mr.
Miller and Mr. DeFazio for enduring unwarranted ostracism from the
national environmental movement throughout that process. That
community, in my opinion, showed its radical colors when they attacked
these two icons and champions of the environmental cause. So I admire
these two statesmen and deeply hope that we can continue to work
together as this bill moves through the process.
Colleagues, I believe this bill enjoys strong bipartisan support
because of emerging areas of solid agreement. It's my hope and
expectation that these areas of agreement will provide the foundation
on which a Congressional majority can arise.
As I see it, the pillars of agreement are these:
First, America is facing a forest health crisis of colossal
proportions. a century of wholesale fire exclusion has been proven by
the years to be a foolhardy pursuit--catastrophically so. Fire is part
of nature's way--it replenishes, it rejuvenates, it restores. Shunned
for a century, however, wildfire has returned to the landscape with a
searing vengeance, burning bigger, hotter, and with a runaway ferocity
than nature never intended. At the same time, unnatural forest stand
densities have left our forests in a weakened state; their defenses
susceptible to insect and disease epidemics.
The second principle of agreement is this: The primary symptom of
America's forest health crisis, catastrophic wildfire, has done
shocking harm to our environment. The summer of 2002 provided too many
horror stories of wholesale environmental destruction to discuss in
this one setting--stories of our air and water fouled, of old growth
forest ecosystems left barren and black, of threatened and endangered
species dealt irreversible ecological impacts.
One has to wonder about the sanity of a person who would chain
themselves to tree-tops in an effort to ``Save the Forests'' while
watching silently; seemingly unconcerned, as environmental calamities
like the Hayman, Biscuit and Rodeo fires destroy some of America's most
biologically rich forest ecosystems.
The third area of agreement is that the bureaucratic status quo on
our Federal forests and rangelands is not working. Most reasonable
people would agree that if shouldn't take upwards of several years to
get a thinning project near a community through the Federal maze of
analysis, appeals and lawsuits, but that is exactly what the status quo
has brought us.
Witness what took place over the course of the last several years on
the Black Hills National Forest. Most of us remember these rather
notorious projects--they are the Wildland Urban Interface projects that
South Dakota's senior Senator rescued from a bureaucratic swamp with
some legislative language in an emergency spending bill last Congress.
Senator Daschle, apparently tired of the viscous cycle of analysis,
appeals and lawsuits tormenting these projects, took matters into his
own hands and legislated these projects into forward movement.
But for those of us who aren't the Majority Leader of the Senate, and
for those of us who don't face a pliant environmental community when we
start tinkering with environmental laws, extravagant bureaucracy and
delay is what we're up against.
That brings us to the final point of agreement--reasoned and prudent
steps must be taken by Congress to make sense of this process gone mad.
But as we alter the manifestly broken status quo, certain priorities
must

[[Page H4305]]

be rigorously adhered to. Foremost, the public must be given an
expansive opportunity to engage decision-makers at all stages of
project development and implementation. That cannot change. Meaningful
public participation is an imperative. The real success of the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act, in my opinion, is that it streamlines
bureaucratic process in a way that honors the fundamental role that
public participation plays in informed decision making. Anyone who
argues that this bill provides anything other than a thorough,
overlapping and robust opportunity for public participation is being
disingenuous--or maybe they just inhaled too much carbon and mercury
from one of last summer's big fires.
This brings me to the bill, Mr. Speaker, which proposes to address
the root causes of this analysis paralysis. I will briefly describe it.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes streamlined
procedures to expeditiously implement hazardous fuels reduction
projects on Forest Service and BLM lands (1) near communities in the
wildland urban interface, (2) on high risk lands in the proximity of
municipal water sources, (3) on high risk lands that encompass habitat
for threatened and endangered species where Federal wildlife officials
have identified catastrophic wildfire as a threat to the viability of
the species, and (4) on high risk landscapes particularly susceptible
to disease or bug infestation. No wilderness areas, wildlife refuges,
national parks, national monuments, other special congressional
designations would be eligible under the bill's expedited procedures.
The bill prohibits permanent road building in Inventoried Roadless
Areas.

The bill codifies the bipartisan WGA 10-Year Strategy's robust public
input and participation requirements. The WGA strategy was endorsed by
numerous government and non-government organizations, including leading
environmental groups like the Wilderness Society. The bill also
requires an additional public meeting for all projects implemented
under this Act over-and-beyond that which is required under current
law.
In codifying the WGA framework, the bill also cements the bipartisan
plan's express priority on focusing management actions on lands near
communities and on at-risk lands in proximity to sources of municipal
water.
The WGA plan is widely regarded as the holy grail of wildfire policy.
This bill gives that bipartisan plan the status of Federal law.
The expedited procedures outlined in the bill are these. First, the
legislation would give the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) discretionary authority to limit analysis during the
NEPA phase to the proposed action only, meaning the agencies would not
be required to analyze and describe a number of different alternatives
to the preferred course. While expediting the analysis phase, this
procedure ensures that all projects will receive an exhaustive analysis
of all potential environmental effects.
Next, the bill would provide a limited waiver of the Appeals Reform
Act for forest health projects implemented under the Act, instead
directing the establishment of an alternative review process under
which persons could seek administrative redress against forest
restoration projects. The Forest Service is the only Federal land
management agency with an administrative appeals process memorialized
in statute--a 1992 Appropriation Rider called the Appeals Reform Act.
In practice, this means that a forest restoration project implemented
on at-risk lands on the White River National Forest (or any other
forest) faces a significantly higher administrative appeals bar than
the exact same project would encounter if implemented in Yellowstone
National Park or the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (BLM).
With the National Fire Plan's emphasis on interagency cooperation, this
makes little sense. This bill would put the Forest Service on more even
footing with its sister agencies.
With regard to judicial review, the bill would require the Federal
courts to reconsider and reauthorize any preliminary injunctions on a
45-day interval, while requiring the courts to more fully weigh the
long-term environmental risks associated with management inaction. The
45-day preliminary injunction language is modeled on a proposal first
offered by Senator Feinstein last summer, who I hasten to add, has been
a real leader on this issue in her own right.
Additional provisions of the bill (1) facilitate the utilization of
the otherwise valueless wood, brush, and slash removed in conjunction
with the forest health project in the production of biomass energy, (2)
authorize Federal programs to support community-based watershed
forestry partnerships, (3) direct additional research focused on the
early detection and containment of insect and disease infestations that
have reached epidemic proportions, and (4) establish a private
forestland easement program, supported by groups like Environmental
Defense, focused on recovering forest ecosystem types in decline.
These provisions were included in this bill in recognition of the
fact that America's forest health is not just a western wildfire issue.
In particular, rampant insect and disease infestations should be in the
front and center of any discussion about forest health legislation.
This bill places them there.
I would also note that in the self-executing manager's amendment, the
terms of a compromise between myself and Mr. Boehlert were incorporated
into this legislation. Mr. Boehlert and his staff showed tremendous
good faith in helping us improve and clarify an already outstanding
piece of legislation. I commend him for his good faith and leadership.
It is with that, Mr. Speaker, that I urge the House to adopt this
landmark environmental legislation.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to myself to respond
to the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke made reference to earlier
remarks I had claimed on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary.
As you may be aware, the Committee on the Judiciary received referral
on this bill for sections 105 through 108, a very narrow part, to
engage in scrutiny in what we believe is our area of expertise. And I
would certainly defer to the gentleman on his areas of expertise. But
you may or may not be aware that numerous civil rights organizations in
this country have taken a strong stance against those provisions. I
specifically spoke to sections 106 and 107 of the bill that create a
new sort of inequality, a tipping of the scales, an unevening of the
playing field which I find very dangerous in terms of a precedent.
What this bill does in those provisions is it tilts the playing field
by giving executive agencies with political appointees greater weight
on the issue of injunctive relief and other provisions than the public
or other parties. And that is a slippery slope that I think we should
not go down. I certainly object to the gentleman's characterizations of
my understanding of those provisions in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Pombo) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms.
Baldwin) has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo) for purposes of control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo)
has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)
has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire who has the right to
close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)
has the right to close.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I quarrel not with the intentions of anyone who has
spoken here today. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation
because I believe it does what needs to be done in order to break an
impasse on how we deal with our Nation's forests.
We have heard the arguments against for year after year after year.
The bottom line is the situation is not getting better. It is getting
worse. I have read carefully this legislation, the specific points that
seem to be coming under the most attack, and I do share the belief of
my colleagues on this side of the aisle that it does all of the bad
things that they allege it does.
Is it perfect legislation? Probably not. But I have traveled and
visited some of our forestry areas, and I have seen the results of good
management and sound science. Some of those, not my colleagues, but
some of those organizations who oppose time and time again legislation
like we have on the floor today, oppose it not from the sound science
and good management but from a deep visceral feeling of how our
Nation's natural resources ought to

[[Page H4306]]

be cared for; and I respect that, but I differ very strongly with that
because I do not believe that we can do those things necessary to
maintain and improve our Nation's forests without applying sound
science and good management.
The public should not be left out, and the public is not left out.
But those who have learned to use the law in ways that keep things from
happening by constantly and consistently going to the courts are not
doing our Nation the service that they allege that they are doing.
I urge support of the basic bill. I urge opposition to the amendment.
Let us give those in charge of our Nation's forests a chance to do a
better job than what is done under current law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms.
Baldwin) for yielding me time.
I have spent a great deal of time on this legislation studying it. I
have friends on both sides of the aisle, and I respect and understand
the general intent of this. I sincerely do.
We have a huge problem in the Pacific Northwest forests. But I have a
great concern about the provision regarding the insect assessments.
Apparently, there has been an amendment that allows for the Secretary
to no longer have sole discretion on the reviews, but she would still
appoint the panel that makes the reviews of these assessments. Frankly,
this administration has a dismal record of appointing objective panels.
I introduced an amendment that would have offered a National Academy
of Science provision that would have allowed a truly independent body
within 60 days to review these. Had that passed, I would have been very
inclined to support this amendment or this legislation. But it did not.
We must address this problem of fuel overload and insect infestation
in an expeditious manner, but we need to make sure it is not used as a
cover to engage in intents that it was not designed for.
So I would hope that when this legislation goes to the other body we
can address that. There is no need to give the Secretary such broad
latitude. We can have independent assessments, and I would encourage
this body to insist upon those.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we do have a problem. And I think that everybody who has
come to the floor today to talk about the underlying bill has
recognized that we have a serious problem. The gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio) talked about 100 years of mismanagement in our forests,
and I think it is the only thing that he said that I really did agree
with him on, because there has been a hundred years of mismanagement in
our forests. We went from what I believe was a point of cutting too
many trees, and we had the clear cuts and all of the resulting
environmental degradation and the problems that resulted out of that.
And as a response to that, we had a number of environmental groups and
people that came to this floor over the years that said we cannot
continue to treat and manage our forests this way. And the pendulum
swung all the way in the other direction. And a lot of folks that over
the years have worked on the issue really did believe they were doing
the right thing, but they were not.
The problem is they adopted a policy of hands off, keep man out, we
do not want to impact the natural state of our forest. But what they
forgot was we are part of nature and we are part of the impact on our
forests. So when you take man out of it and you control all of the
fires that would have burned over the last 30 or 40 years, you ended up
with all of this underbrush that grew up in our forests. And our
forests today are much more dense than they were naturally. And the
underbrush is much more full than it would have been naturally. And we
ended up with a situation where a hundred years ago if a small fire had
started, it would have burned along the bottom of the forest and that
would have been a natural, healthy event. But today that same fire
starting in our forest gets into that underbrush, climbs up the trees
and gets into the crown of the trees and destroys the forest. It
sterilizes the ground. It destroys our watersheds. It destroys the
communities that have grown up in these areas.
So we have to do something about that. And what we have tried to do
over the last couple of years is negotiate out a way of dealing with
the current situation that we have in our forests. And I do give the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) credit because they did negotiate with us. And the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
McInnis) spent literally dozens and dozens of hours working this
through and trying to come up with a compromise.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the underlying bill is a compromise. It does
not do everything I want. It does not do everything that the people in
my communities want. But it does begin to move in the right direction,
and that is what we are trying to do.
I listen to the opponents of this legislation. It is as if they
dusted off their arguments that they had during the 1970s and rolled
them out again. They have absolutely nothing to do with the underlying
legislation.
This is a middle-of-the-road moderate compromise to deal with a very
real problem that we have today. That is what we are trying to do. You
can take an extreme position if you want. You can run out as far to the
left as you possibly can and hold up your flag, but that does
absolutely nothing to protect the health of our forests today. What we
are trying to do is stop the risk or lessen the risk of a catastrophic
fire starting in our forests.
The gentleman talked about the provisions that deal with insect
infestations. We spent literally hours and hours going over that
provision trying to come up with something that would limit the
research to a small area and allow the researchers, the biologists, the
scientists to come up with a way of stopping these insect infestations
from spreading to the forests. That is what we are trying to accomplish
with this bill. I would hope that my colleagues would at least try to
moderate their rhetoric and join us in supporting this bipartisan
compromise.
Today the House of Representatives will consider landmark
environmental legislation--the bipartisan Healthy Forests Restoration
Act. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to note that this critical environmental
legislation originated in the House Resources Committee earlier this
year. Actually, it's the upshot of years of sweat equity on the part of
a number of Members, many here and others not, each of whom believed
deeply in the importance of restoring our forests to a healthy state.
Since its introduction earlier this year, the bipartisan bill has run
the legislative gauntlet through three committees, where it has been
discussed, debated and redebated more times than I care to discuss.
With another bleak wildfire season bearing down us, clearly there's
been more than enough talking. The time for action on the part of the
united States House of Representatives is now.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1904, authorized by Representatives McInnis and
Walden along with Chairman Goodlatte and myself, is as important as any
environmental legislation to pass through this Congress in a long time.
And make no mistake about it, this legislation is vital to protecting
our natural environment.
With 190 million acres at unnaturally high risk to catastrophic
wildfire and massive insect and disease outbreaks, cherished forest
ecosystems and all that they sustain are squarely in harm's way. Air
quality, water quality, the viability of old growth forests and
threatened and endangered species, all are directly threatened by
America's forest health crisis. Last summer we experienced these
ecological horrors first hand. We all watched the images on TV, and
many of us witnessed first hand, as the Nation's forestlands were
denuded, air quality was despoiled, and sources of drinking water for
millions were devastated. The scope of the destruction was breathtaking
.
The good news is that our Federal land managers can slow this
destructive environmental march, if only Congress will let them.
Currently, it typically takes upwards of several years for forest
managers to get a scientifically validated thinning project through the
bureaucratic maze of analysis, documentation, appeals and lawsuits.
This bureaucratic pace is unacceptable given the size of the
environmental destruction that awaits.
With this understanding, the legislation's underyling premise is
simple and clear: With 190 million acres at unnaturally high risk to
catastrophic wildfire, it is indefensible that it takes Federal land
managers upwards of several years to maneuver forest health projects

[[Page H4307]]

(like thinning and prescribed burns) through sundry procedural
requirements. Under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, forest
management projects on certain high-risk landscapes would still be
subject to rigorous environmental analysis as well as administrative
challenges and lawsuits, but these multiple processes would be
completed in a matter of months, rather than years as is currently the
case.
On one point I want to be particularly clear: This bill goes to
unprecedented lengths to ensure that the public has a full and thorough
opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. The bill
codifies the bipartisan Western Governor Association 10-Year Strategy's
robust public input and participation requirements, ensuring that
interested persons will have numerous opportunities to engage decision
makers during all phases of a project's development and implementation.
The WGA strategy was endorsed by numerous government and non-government
organizations, including leading environmental groups like the
Wilderness Society. The bill also requires an additional public meeting
for all projects implemented under this Act--a public meeting over and
beyond what is currently required. Finally, the bill locks in place the
public notice and comment requirements currently required during the
environmental analysis phase for a wildfire mitigation project.
Mr. Speaker, this is a thoughtful and balanced approach to addressing
what amounts to a cataclysmic environmental problem. The common-sense
nature of this bill is borne out by the overwhelming bipartisan support
it has received. At last check, there are nearly 140 cosponsors of the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act, 16 of whom are Democrats, who hail
from all parts of the country and all ideological stripes. It's hard to
imagine anything but a common sense legislative package drawing this
kind of broad-based support.
I would also note that Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, a Member with
whom I have had any disagreements, has been a constructive partner in
helping shape this legislation. The self-executing managers amendment
makes perfecting amendments to an already outstanding legislative
package. Mr. Boehlert deserves high praise for his leadership and
goodwill in this process.
Mr. Speaker, the House has a chance today to do something meaningful,
important and lasting. Imperiled as they may be, our forests are a
great national asset, deserving of the immediate attention and care of
this House.
They are an unmistakable part of our heritage. The bipartisan Healthy
Forests Restoration Act will ensure that this natural inheritance is
healthy, vibrant and thriving into the future.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is quite
right. Our forests were mismanaged a century ago. And we have had a
great challenge in the last century because people live in and around
these forests and we must fight forest fires. But the fact of the
matter is if you fight forests fires, you are going to have this
density building up. Many of our forests have several times the amount
of firewood growing in them than is normal, than is natural. So the
fires that occur are not natural forest fires.
I have heard the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) say that we
are cutting the heart out of our environmental laws. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The fact of the matter is our environmental
laws will be retained. This measure is quite modest. It only applies to
a little more than 10 percent of the land that is subject to these
catastrophic wild fires because of this density of the forests that has
built up.
The fact of the matter is, if we do not pass this legislation, the
abuse of those environmental laws by extremists will cause us to burn
the heart out of our Nation's forests. This is a responsible response
to that.
This is something that will allow the people who know how to manage
our forests to apply scientific analysis of the forests. And with
public comment, with local government input, with an appeals process
both administratively and through the courts, we will get a prompt and
expeditious response to the problem that we are seeing every year now
in our national forests. It will give us the opportunity to begin the
process of making those forests safer and healthier for the animals
that live in them, for the air that we all breathe, for the streams
that we all recreate in and are so important to our communities; and it
will give us the opportunity to have a better environmental and
economic future for rural America. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have discussed with Mr. Matheson from
Utah the issue of local preference contracting for hazardous fuels
reduction projects. I agree with Mr. Matheson that this issue needs to
be addressed and I pledge to work with the gentleman from Utah as H.R.
1904 goes to conference.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I submit the following
exchange of letters with the respective Committees of jurisdiction with
regard to H.R. 1904, the Health Forests Restoration Act of 2003 for
printing in the Congressional Record:

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, May 19, 2003.
Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to recognize your
Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 1904, the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act.
I appreciate your recognition of the need to move this
legislation expeditiously. The U.S. Forest Service is
predicting another very dangerous fire season and Congress
needs to get the tools contained in H.R. 1904 implemented for
the Forest Service post haste. I recognize that your decision
not to request a sequential referral of this bill does not
waive, reduce or otherwise affect any jurisdictional interest
the Energy and Commerce Committee may have in the bill.
I will support the appointment of conferees from your
Committee on those sections of the bill the parliamentarians
determine are in the Energy and Commerce Committee's
jurisdiction if a conference is convened.
Thank you again for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
____

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2003.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I am writing with regard to H.R.
1904, the Health Forests Restoration Act of 2003, which was
reported to the House on May 9, 2003. As you know, Rule X of
the Rules of the House of Representatives grants the
Committee on Energy and Commerce jurisdiction over the
exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing,
and regulation of energy resources, including all fossil
fuels, solar energy, and other unconventional or renewable
resources, as well as public health and quarantine.
I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before
the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not
exercise my Committee's right to a referral. By agreeing to
waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and
Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R.
1904. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves
its right to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill
that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate
conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask
for your commitment to support any request by the Energy and
Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 1904 or similar
legislation.
I request that you include this letter as part of the
Record during consideration of the legislation on the House
floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2003.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R.
1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1904 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.
Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over
certain provisions of the bill, I agreed not to request a
sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our
mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my
decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or
otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and
of your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest
will be included as part of the Congressional Record during
consideration of this bill by the House.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also
asks that you support our request to be conferees on the
provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

[[Page H4308]]

Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, May 19, 2003.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to your May 15,
2003 letter concerning your committee's jurisdictional
interest in H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. I
welcome this opportunity to respond.
I appreciate your recognition of the need to move this
legislation expeditiously. The U.S. Forest Service is
predicting another very dangerous fire season and Congress
need to get the tools contained in H.R. 1904 implemented for
the Forest Service post haste. I recognize that your decision
not to request a sequential referral of this bill does not
waive, reduce or otherwise affect any jurisdictional interest
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee may have in
the bill.
I will support the appointment of conferees from your
Committee on those sections of the bill the parliamentarians
decided are in the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee's jurisdiction if a conference is convened.
Thank you again for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I agree that 50 years of aggressive fire
suppression necessitate an increase in fuels reduction. But H.R. 1904
is not the answer and public comment is not the enemy.
Last year, wild fires swept across the West and my home state of
Colorado was particularly hard-hit. The Hayman fire ultimately burned
over 138,000 acres and the area surrounding Cheesman Reservoir, which
provides much of the drinking water for my Denver district.
Thinning efforts must focus on the wildland-urban interface. But H.R.
1904 fails to prioritize and fund efforts where they would have the
greatest impact. The Miller-DeFazio substitute would guarantee that 85
percent of funding for thinning projects is spent near communities and
watersheds; and provides for accelerated consideration of forest
thinning projects near communities in non-controversial areas.
I am also concerned about the ways in which this bill overreaches.
Specifically, H.R. 1904 attempts to limit the amount of time the public
has to file a legal challenge to any fuel reduction project to a mere
15 days, places limitations on the time judges have to review cases and
mandates that they inform congressional committees whenever they extend
injunctions beyond 45 days. There are reasons that groups like the
NAACP and Planned Parenthood have come out against this bill and they
have little to do with their positions on the state of our nation's
forests. They have correctly foreseen the very real threat that this
bill poses to fair process for administrative appeals and the undue
burden it places on our court systems.
And the public has little recourse. Shutting the public out of the
decision making process will not facilitate or streamline anything.
Many communities throughout the West are ready and eager to play a role
in sustaining the forests that surround their homes. They should be
meaningfully engaged in land management decisions that affect them,
rather than closed out of the process altogether as H.R. 1904 proposes.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-considered legislation and
instead support the logical and worthy substitute from my Democratic
colleagues.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, last year the U.S. taxpayers paid
$1.5 billion to fight forest fires and twenty-three firefighters lost
their lives. In fact, over the past few years, taxpayers are expected
to pay billions more to fight forest fires unless changes are made in
forestry management. Many of the fires we have seen over the past
several years could have been prevented, billions of tax dollars could
have been put to better use, and dozens of lives could have been saved.
Furthermore, critical forest habitat would have been saved for the
enjoyment of future generations of Americans and for wildlife,
including endangered species.
Too many of our nation's forests continue to be damaged by out of
control forest fires, insect infestations, diseases, and invasive
species. Today, Federal forestry experts estimate that 190 million
acres of federal forest are at risk for catastrophic wildfire.
Unfortunately, current laws put too many barriers and delays in the way
of properly managing our forests, meaning that these forests will
remain at risk for years to come unless better management practices are
implemented in a more timely manner. It currently takes several years
for forest management plans to get through the bureaucratic and legal
quagmire. During this delay, too many forests suffer damage from fires
and insects and billions of dollars--and in some cases human lives--are
lost.
Last year, the President proposed a Healthy Forests Initiative to
facilitate better management of forests. Bipartisan legislation was
introduced in the House of Representatives, The Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003 (H.R. 1904) to address this concern. Many of
the proposals contained in this legislation were put forward during the
Clinton administration but were never acted upon by that
administration.
Under current rules, it is estimated that federal land managers will
only be able to address the catastrophic fire threat in about 2.5
million of these 190 million acres each year. This is unacceptable.
In 2002, then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota)
included an environmental rider to allow for logging in the Black Hills
of South Dakota to protect these forests from catastrophic fires.
Senator Daschle recognized the dangers that these potential
catastrophic fires could pose to the forests and communities of South
Dakota. Under the Daschle provision all court cases to block forestry
management plans in the Black Hills were prohibited. H.R. 1904 does not
go nearly as far as Senator Daschle's plan. H.R. 1904 allows appeals to
be made, but expedites the process so that it does not take several
years to approve forest management plans.
This is a common sense solution to a very serious problem. H.R. 1904
finds the middle ground between the Daschle plan, which prohibited
challenges, and the current system, which allows flammable underbrush
to pile up, forests to become dangerously dense, and forest fires to
rage out of control while the courts are jammed with suits over
forestry management plans.
Through the use of environmentally sensitive thinning, prescribed
burns, and other scientifically validated management practices, our
nation's forests can be returned to a sustainable balance, the risks of
catastrophic wildfire and disease infestations can be reduced, and
habitat for wildlife will be preserved.
This bipartisan legislation reforms the current forest management
system so that forest management plans can be approved and implemented
in a timely process while still respecting the right of public
participation in the decision making process. I believe that this
legislation will aid us in this effort and I support its passage.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about an
issue that is very important in my home state and in my congressional
district--hazardous fuels reduction. Oregon has been hit hard by
wildfires in recent years, and there is no question that we must take
steps to make up for years of neglect of our federal forests.
First of all, I want to praise Mr. Walden and Mr. DeFazio for their
tireless work and passion on this issue. Both of these fine Congressmen
have spent countless hours over the past several years working together
to address this very real problem, and I appreciate their hard work.
Last Congress, I was pleased at the progress they were making, and was
disappointed that, because of the lateness in the year, they did not
have the opportunity to complete negotiations and bring the fruits of
their efforts on fire prevention to the floor. Had they had time to do
so I would have supported their legislation.
While I appreciate the efforts that Mr. Walden has put forward, and
while I agree 100 percent with his goals of creating healthier forests
and preventing fires, I have concerns about the legislation, H.R. 1904,
which we are considering on the floor today.
I am first and foremost concerned about the fact that this
legislation does not provide any additional funds to undertake the
projects necessary for healthy forests. The legislation being discussed
last year included funding, and today's DeFazio substitute also
includes the money important to protect our forests. Without money we
face an impossible task. The best intentions are well and good, but we
need money to fight this battle against fire and insect infestation.
Second, I am concerned that this legislation, in the name of reducing
``red tape,'' gives complete authority to the Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture. Regardless of which party is in power, I am
concerned about allowing the Secretaries to set their own rules,
regardless of congressional intent and public opinion.
I have reasons for these concerns. Last Congress I led a bipartisan
charge with Republican Congresswoman Mary Bono to require Country of
Origin Labeling on agricultural products. This proposal was strongly
supported by farmers in my home district, and passed the House of
Representatives overwhelmingly. My proposal was signed into law last
Congress. Despite this overwhelming support in my district, and despite
the voice of the Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture has repeatedly
blocked implementation of Country of Origin Labeling. I have other
examples as well, and I do not feel comfortable giving the

[[Page H4309]]

Secretaries this much leeway in determining our national priorities.
The public needs to be involved in the process.
Mr. Speaker, I am urging swift consideration of fuels reduction
legislation in the Senate as we have a huge problem in the Pacific
Northwest that must be addressed before the heat of summer. This is a
real problem and we need a real solution with money to match the talk.
I hope that when the Senate considers this legislation they will
provide funding to address the need for fuels reduction in our national
forests. I also hope that they will allow local participation in fuels
reduction proposals, and will not give such total authority to the
Secretaries.
In closing, I would urge the Senate to work quickly to send the House
hazardous fuels reduction legislation that many of us from timber
communities can support.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill
and in favor of the Miller substitute.
Mr. Chairman, there are few things more heartbreaking than to tune
into the evening news and watch as wildfires once again bring
devastation and loss to our neighborhoods in the West.
In Wisconsin, we have been relatively lucky: It has been over 130
years since Wisconsin experienced the magnitude of destruction many of
today's western fires have wrought. On October 8, 1871, the same day as
the Chicago fire, the great Peshtigo fire ravaged 2400 square miles and
became known as the Nation's worst forest fire, in terms of lives lost,
in history.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats agree with our colleagues from across the
aisle--that the recent propensity of wildfires are a result of years of
forest mismanagement in combination with years of sustained drought
have created the undeniable need to develop a sensible hazardous fuels
reduction policy on our public lands.
Unfortunately, the bill offered by my colleague, Mr. McInnis does not
get us there. It fails to target our resources to where they are needed
most--the areas surrounding our interface communities and municipal
water supply systems. And like so many other policies championed by
this administration, the bill does not provide any funding mechanism to
provide those interface communities new financial resources to treat
non-federal lands within their community protection zones. Mr. Speaker,
fire does not recognize a federal tree from a non-federal one and if
communities are unable to treat abutting lands the underlying bill will
do practically nothing to stop a wildfire's terrible destruction.
Furthermore, the underlying bill needlessly undermines the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by eliminating its core requirement,
the consideration of alternatives to a planned activity such as logging
or thinning. This was the intent of Congress in passing NEPA.
But perhaps most troubling to me, as a former prosecutor, are the
unprecedented judicial review provisions of the bill. This section is
necessary, say its proponents, because ``frivolous appeals'' have
hamstrung the forest service's efforts to prevent fires.
Unfortunately, a recent GAO report refutes that argument and found
that 95 percent of thinning projects have proceeded in a timely manner,
even when challenged in court.
The judicial review section of this bill requires challenges to
Forest Service's action be filed within 15 days--A time limit very few
communities would be able to meet. Furthermore, this provision forces
courts to make changes to their docket--regardless of the volume or
nature of pending cases--to force a decision within an arbitrary 100-
day deadline.
Finally, this section establishes a new standard for injunctive
relief by directing courts to give deference to the agencies when
deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction against an activity
even when that activity has already proven to be illegal.
Mr. Speaker, in contrast, the Miller substitute provides federal
resources where it will do the most good. Unlike the underlying bill,
it authorizes $4 billion for hazardous fuel reduction and dedicates 85
percent of the available funds to communities that are most at risk.
The substitute also provides $500 million in funds to communities to
address fuel buildup on adjacent private lands.
Furthermore, the substitute expedites fuel reduction programs around
communities and watersheds without gutting NEPA or imposing dangerous
judicial review provisions that are opposed by all of the major civil
rights groups.
Mr. Speaker, I join my Republican and Democrat colleagues today in
calling for a sensible hazardous fuels reduction policy on our public
lands--one that will actually protect our citizens and reduce the
occurences of these devastating fires. It is my hope, that the result
of the policy we make today will allow the citizens of the western
states, like the citizens of Wisconsin, to go 130+ years without
knowing firsthand the awful loss wildfires often bring.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the Miller substitute.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition
to H.R. 1904, the poorly-named Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It preys on our legitimate
concerns and fears about the impact of deadly forest fires in the
upcoming fire season. Indeed, we must acknowledge the destruction that
has been caused by poor fire management practices over the past
century. But H.R. 1904, the McInnis-Walden bill, is the wrong solution.
It is not only inadequate to address these failures, it is deeply
harmful to our environment.
Under the guise of helping to protect communities from forest fires,
this bill actually undermines critical environmental laws. Even more
egregiously, it also violates our core democratic values by restricting
the rights of Americans to seek redress in courts for grievances
against the Federal Government.
H.R. 1904 should be defeated because it fails to protect our
communities from wildfire. It allows the logging of remote backcountry
with no requirement that at-risk homes and communities closest to
forests are protected first. It does not provide sufficient funding for
local fire districts, communities, or tribes for fire prevention.
In addition, this bill undermines existing environmental protections.
It provides exemptions from the National Environmental Policy Act, the
cornerstone of all environmental legislation. Without these critical
NEPA safeguards, this bill will allow commercial logging projects to
proceed with minimal environmental analysis or public involvement. As a
result, old-growth forests and roadless areas would not be adequately
protected.
The Miller substitute is a great improvement over H.R. 1904. While
H.R. 1904 in effect would allow logging in remote areas, the Miller
substitute explicitly prioritizes thinning projects that are closest
and most threatening to at-risk communities and water supplies. The
Miller substitute aims to protect our rarest and most precious trees,
prohibits new road construction, and limits the total amount of federal
land eligible for thinning projects. It requires environmental reviews
of forest thinning projects, making exceptions only for projects within
half a mile of an at-risk community.
We can all agree that destructive forest fires must be prevented
through improvements in our forest management practices. But we must
not let our eagerness to avert these tragic fires blind us to the flaws
of this bill, which essentially offers a carte blanche for timber
companies to log in remote forests. I urge my colleagues to vote for
the Miller amendment and to oppose the McInnis bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed forest
bill as well as the patently unfair procedure in which this legislation
is being considered today by the House of Representatives. Neither the
bill nor the procedure we are following brings credit to this body.
Last night in the House Rules Committee, Democrats brought forward
eleven amendments and asked the Committee to allow the House to debate
them today. Many of these amendments were thoughtful and constructive.
All of them deserved to be debated by the full House, yet the
Republican-controlled Rules Committee denied all but one of the
amendments. The result is that we will have a severely curtailed debate
on a very divisive piece of legislation with little opportunity for
Members to improve the bill.
This is a lost opportunity. Clearly there is a significant public
divide in this country on forest policy issues, and the best way to
bridge these differences is to have a full debate in which alternative
proposals can be debated. Instead, the Rules Committee has adopted a
procedure in which Members will be effectively gagged. Sadly, this
practice has become the norm whenever the House considers controversial
bills.
I also disagree with the substance of the legislation before the
House today. This so-called ``Healthy Forest Restoration Act'' is not
an effective response to the wildfire problems we have experienced in
recent years. The bill seeks to weaken longstanding environmental
protections, including the landmark national Environmental Policy Act,
under the guise of fighting wildfires. But the severe fires we have
experienced are not the result of our nation's environmental laws; they
have been due, in large measure, to a combination of severe drought,
the overgrown conditions of many federal forests resulting from past
fire-suppression policies, and the growing number of settlements
adjacent to forested areas.
I will vote for the substitute that will be offered by
representatives Miller, DeFazio, Rahall and Conyers. In my view, the
substitute more effectively deals with the wildfire threat by focusing
federal resources on protecting the communities most at risk from
forest fires. Specifically, the substitute would dedicate 85 percent of
the available funding to fire abatement projects near vulnerable
communities. There is no similar guarantee in the underlying bill which
allows logging to take place in roadless areas and old-growth forests
far from

[[Page H4310]]

the communities at risk. If the substitute is not adopted, I urge my
colleagues to join me in opposing final passage of this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.

Request To Remove Member As Sponsor of H.R. 1904

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) be removed as a sponsor of the bill. He was
put on there through staff error. I want to make sure I am appropriate
procedural-wise to get the name off before we get locked into it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. On the bill that is currently under
consideration?
Mr. McInnis. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is informed it is too late to
remove the name from the bill. It has been reported.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. George Miller of
California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
George Miller of California:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Hazardous
Fuels Reduction Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Hazardous fuels reduction projects authorized.
Sec. 4. Collaboration and public input process.
Sec. 5. Expedited planning and implementation process.
Sec. 6. Development of definitions of old and large trees.
Sec. 7. Ongoing projects and existing authorities.
Sec. 8. Preference to communities with fire prevention ordinances.
Sec. 9. Sunset.
Sec. 10. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

(a) Land Type and Fire Regime Definitions From Forest
Service Rocky Mountain Research Station.--In this Act:
(1) Condition class 2.--The term ``condition class 2''
refers to lands on which--
(A) fire regimes have been moderately altered from their
historical fire return intervals;
(B) there exists a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem
components; and
(C) vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from
their historical range.
(2) Condition class 3.--The term ``condition class 3''
refers to lands on which--
(A) fire regimes have been significantly altered from their
historical fire return intervals; and
(B) there exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem
components.
(3) Fire regime i.--The term ``fire regime I'' refers to
lands--
(A) on which historically there are low severity fires with
a frequency of 0-35 years; and
(B) are located primarily in low elevation forests of pine,
oak, and pinyon-juniper.
(4) Fire regime ii.--The term ``fire regime II'' refers to
lands--
(A) on which historically there are stand replacement
severity fires with a frequency of 0-35 years; and
(B) are located primarily in low- to mid-elevation forests,
rangelands, grasslands, or shrublands.
(5) Fire regime iii.--The term ``fire regime III'' refers
to lands--
(A) on which historically there are mixed severity fires
with a frequency of 35-100 years; and
(B) are located primarily in forests of mixed conifer, dry
Douglas Fir, and wet Ponderosa pine.
(b) Other Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Administrative unit.--The term ``administrative unit'',
with respect to Federal lands, means a unit of the National
Forest System or a land management district of the Bureau of
Land Management
(2) At-risk community.--The term ``at-risk community''
means a geographic area designated by the Secretary concerned
as any area--
(A) defined as an interface community on page 753 of volume
66 of the Federal Register, as published on January 4, 2001,
or consisting of a collection of homes or other structures
with basic infrastructure and services, such as utilities,
collectively maintained transportation routes, and emergency
services;
(B) on which conditions are conducive to large-scale fire
disturbance events; and
(C) for which a significant risk exists of a resulting
spread of the fire disturbance event, after ignition, which
would threaten human life and property.
(3) Best value contracting.--The term ``best value
contracting'' means the contracting process described in
section 15.101 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations,
which allows the inclusion of non-cost factors in the
contract process.
(4) Comprehensive strategy.--The term ``Comprehensive
Strategy'' means the Comprehensive Strategy for a
Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to
Communities and the Environment, dated May 2002, which was
developed pursuant to the conference report to accompany the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001 (House Report 106-646).
(5) Federal lands.--Except as provided in subsection (c),
the term ``Federal lands'' means--
(A) National Forest System lands; and
(B) public lands administered by the Secretary of the
Interior acting through the Bureau of Land Management.
(6) Goods for service contracting.--The term ``goods for
service contracting'' means the contracting process described
in section 347 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section
101(e) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 16 U.S.C. 2104
note).
(7) Hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term
``hazardous fuels reduction project'' means a project--
(A) undertaken for the purpose of reducing the amount of
hazardous fuels resulting from alteration of a natural fire
regime as a result of fire suppression or other activities;
and
(B) accomplished through the use of prescribed burning or
mechanical treatment, or combination thereof.
(8) Inventoried roadless area.--The term ``inventoried
roadless area'' means one of the areas identified in the set
of inventoried roadless areas maps contained in the Forest
Service Roadless Areas Conservation, Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000.
(9) Local preference contracting.--The term ``local
preference contracting'' means the contracting process
described in section 333 of the Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 (division F of
Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 277), that gives preference to
local businesses.
(10) Municipal water supply system.--The term ``municipal
water supply'' means reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes,
laterals, pipes, pipelines, or other surface facilities and
systems constructed or installed for the impoundment,
storage, transportation, or distribution of drinking water
for a community.
(11) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture (or the designee of the
Secretary) with respect to National Forest System lands; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior (or the designee of the
Secretary) with respect to public lands administered by the
Secretary through the Bureau of Land Management.
(c) Excluded Federal Lands.--This Act, including the
expedited process described in section 5, does not apply to
any Federal lands--
(1) included as a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System;
(2) where logging is prohibited or restricted by Act of
Congress, presidential proclamation, or agency determination;
(3) included in a wilderness study area; or
(4) included in an inventoried roadless area.

SEC. 3. HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED.

(a) Consistency With Implementation Plan.--The processes
authorized or required by this Act shall be consistent with
the implementation plan for the Comprehensive Strategy to
reduce hazardous fuels on Federal lands.
(b) Priority Hazardous Fuels Reduction Projects.--
(1) Projects on certain lands.--In implementing hazardous
fuels reduction projects under this Act, the Secretary
concerned shall give priority to projects on the following
Federal lands and other lands:
(A) Lands that are located within one-half mile of an at-
risk community where fire regime I, fire regime II, or fire
regime III exists and that are in condition class 2 or
condition class 3.
(B) Lands where fire regime I, fire regime II, or fire
regime III exists that are in condition class 3, or condition
class 2 if the lands are intermingled with condition class 3
lands, and that are located in such proximity to a municipal
water supply system that a hazardous fuels reduction project
should be carried out in order to reduce the risk of harm to
such system or the quality of a municipal water supply
resulting from an unusually severe wildfire.
(2) Limitation on other projects pending completion of
priority projects.--With respect to projects on Federal lands
in a State, the Secretary concerned shall complete all
projects on Federal lands identified in paragraph (1) in that
State before carrying out projects in areas outside of those
Federal lands in that State.
(c) Compliance With Land Management Plans.--A hazardous
fuels reduction project planned and conducted under this Act
must be consistent with the land and resource management
plan, land use plan, and other agency plans and regulations
applicable to the Federal lands covered by the project.
(d) Project Contracting.--To conduct a hazardous fuels
reduction project under this Act, the Secretary concerned
shall use local

[[Page H4311]]

preference contracting and best value contracting. Payments
under a contract entered into to implement a project under
this Act shall only be made on a fee-for-service basis. The
Secretary concerned shall not use goods-for-service
contracting to implement a project under this Act.
(e) Old Growth and Other Limitations.--In conducting a
hazardous fuels reduction project under this Act, the
Secretary concerned--
(1) shall not construct new permanent or temporary roads;
(2) shall maintain all old and large trees and the
structure, function, and composition of late-successional
forest stands appropriate for each ecosystem type, until the
process required by section 6 is complete and Congress
formally adopts or rejects the recommendations by Act of
Congress;
(3) shall focus on thinning from below when using
mechanical treatment.
(f) Acreage Limitation.--Not more than 20,000,000 acres of
Federal land may be treated using the authorities provided by
this Act.
(g) Funding Priority.--Of funds expended for hazardous
fuels reduction projects under this Act, at least 85 percent
shall be expended on projects on lands described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (b)(1). Upon forming
cooperative agreements with the appropriate parties, the
Secretary concerned may use these funds for treatment of non-
Federal lands.
(h) Monitoring.--
(1) Monitoring required.--The Secretary concerned shall
establish a balanced multiparty monitoring process in order
for Congress to assess a representative sampling of the
hazardous fuels reduction projects implemented under this
Act.
(2) Report required.--Not later than one year after the
expiration of this Act, as provided in section 9, the
Secretary concerned shall submit to Congress a report
containing, at a minimum, the following:
(A) An assessment of the cumulative accomplishments or
adverse impacts of the fuels reduction projects conducted
under this Act.
(B) A description of the ecological effects of the projects
conducted under this Act.
(C) A description of the economic viability, impacts, and
costs of the projects conducted under this Act.

SEC. 4. COLLABORATION AND PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS.

(a) Process Required.--
(1) Development.--As a condition on the selection of
hazardous fuels reduction projects under section 3, the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior
shall jointly develop a collaborative process with interested
parties, consistent with the implementation plan for the
Comprehensive Strategy. The collaborative process developed
by the Secretaries may be the process set forth in title II
of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note).
(2) Required maps and public meetings.--As part of the
process developed under subsection (a), the Secretaries
shall--
(A) produce maps, at the appropriate landscape scale,
designating the condition class of Federal lands and other
lands and including a fire risk assessment based on natural
and human-caused factors, including insect and disease
mortality, associated with those lands;
(B) make such maps readily available for public inspection;
and
(C) hold a public meeting by administrative unit to discuss
condition class and associated fire risk factors and to
identify priority areas for the hazardous fuels reduction
projects.
(b) Public Notice.--
(1) Quarterly notice.--The Secretary concerned shall
provide quarterly notice of each hazardous fuels reduction
project proposed to be conducted using the expedited process
described in section 5. The quarterly notice shall be
provided in the Federal Register, in a local paper of record,
and on an agency website. The Secretary concerned may combine
this quarterly notice with other quarterly notices otherwise
issued regarding Federal land management.
(2) Content.--The notice required by paragraph (1) shall
include, at a minimum, the following information regarding
each hazardous fuels reduction project contained in the
notice:
(A) Specific identification that the project is a hazardous
fuels reduction project for which the expedited process
described in section 5 will be used, including a clear
statement whether the agency intends to use a categorical
exclusion or to prepare an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement.
(B) A description of the project, including as much
information on its geographic location as practicable.
(C) The approximate date on which scoping for the project
will begin.
(D) Information regarding how interested members of the
public can take part in the development of the project
pursuant to the expedited process described in section 5.
(c) Public Meeting.--Following publication of each
quarterly notice under subsection (b), but before the
beginning of scoping for the project pursuant to the
expedited process described in section 5, the Secretary
concerned shall conduct a public meeting at an appropriate
location in each administrative unit of the Federal lands
regarding those hazardous fuels reduction projects contained
in the quarterly notice that are proposed to be conducted in
that administrative unit. The Secretary concerned shall
provide advance notice of the date and time of the meeting in
the quarterly notice or using the same means described in
subsection (b)(1).
(d) Final Agency Action.--The Secretary concerned shall
provide notice in the local paper of record and on an agency
website of any final agency action regarding a hazardous
fuels reduction project for which the expedited process
described in section 5 are used.
(e) Public Petitions for Inclusion or Exclusion of Lands.--
(1) Right to petition.--An entity referred to in paragraph
(4) may submit to the Secretary concerned a petition, with
supporting evidence, that requests the inclusion or exclusion
of an area of Federal lands in subsection (a) with regard to
condition class.
(2) Evaluation.--The Secretary concerned shall respond to a
petition under paragraph (1) by public notice of a public
viewing of the area in question, within 90 days of receipt
the petition, with the petitioner and any other interested
parties.
(3) Response.--The Secretary concerned shall accept or deny
the petition within 180 days of its receipt, based on the
site evaluation under paragraph (2) and a specific review of
the historical conditions, forest type, and present fuel
loads of the Federal lands covered by the petition.
(4) Authorized petitioners.--A petition under paragraph (1)
may be submitted by any of the following:
(A) A political subdivision of a State.
(B) A federally formed resource advisory council or
provincial advisory committee.
(C) A resource advisory committee established under section
205 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500
note).

SEC. 5. EXPEDITED PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS.

(a) Scoping.--The Secretary concerned shall conduct scoping
with respect to each hazardous fuels reduction project for
which the expedited process established by this section are
to be used.
(b) Categorical Exclusions.--
(1) Presumption near communities.--If a hazardous fuels
reduction project covered by section 3, for which the
collaborative and public input process required by section 4
is used, covers Federal lands located within one-half mile of
an at-risk community, the project is deemed to be
categorically excluded from further analysis under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et
seq.). The Secretary concerned need not make any findings as
to whether the project, either individually or cumulatively,
has a significant effect on the environment. However, within
one-half mile of an at-risk community, the Secretary
concerned shall vary the treatments used to achieve
heterogeneity of forest conditions and to ensure forest
health.
(2) Extraordinary circumstances exception.--Paragraph (1)
shall not apply to Federal lands located within one-half mile
of an at-risk community if extraordinary circumstances exist
with respect to the lands.
(3) Extraordinary circumstances.--In the case of a
hazardous fuels reduction project for which a categorical
exclusion applies under paragraph (1), if extraordinary
circumstances exist with respect to the project, the
Secretary concerned shall follow agency procedures (as
contained in CEQ regulation 1508.4, Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, chapters 30-33, as of August 22, 2002, and Bureau of
Land Management Handbook H-1790-1, 516 DM 2.1-2.10) related
to categorical exclusions and extraordinary circumstances.
(4) Appeals.--Hazardous fuels reduction projects
implemented using a categorical exclusion under paragraph (1)
are not subject to appeal requirements imposed by section 322
of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612
note), or the Department of the Interior Office of Hearings
and Appeals.
(c) Environmental Assessments.--
(1) In general.--With respect to priority lands identified
in section 3(b), if a categorical exclusion does not apply
under subsection (b) to a hazardous fuels reduction project
under section 3 for the lands, the Secretary concerned shall
determine, consistent with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, whether an environmental assessment will be
sufficient to meet the requirements for the project under
such Act.
(2) Content.--An environmental assessment prepared for a
hazardous fuels reduction project under section 3 shall--
(A) be concise, if possible not more than 10-15 pages;
(B) describe sufficient information and analyses for
determining whether to prepare an environmental impact
statement or a finding of no significant impact;
(C) state the need for the proposed action;
(D) describe alternative actions, as required by section
102(2)(E) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
(E) briefly describe the environmental impacts of the
proposed action and alternatives;
(F) list the agencies and persons consulted, as required by
section 1508.9 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, with
respect to National Forest System lands;
(G) reference supporting data, inventories and other
documents on which the Secretary concerned relied to make the
decision; and

[[Page H4312]]

(H) involve interested agencies and the public in the
preparation of the environmental assessment.
(3) Availability of decision document.--When the decision
document is complete for a hazardous fuels reduction project
under section 3 for which an environmental assessment or
categorical exclusion memo is prepared, the Secretary
concerned shall--
(A) provide notice of the decision document in the Federal
Register, the local paper of record, and an agency website,
including notice stating how the documentation listed in
subparagraph (B) will be available; and
(B) make the environmental analysis document,
administrative record, and decision document or memo for the
project, pursuant to section 215.2 of title 36, Code of
Federal Regulations, readily available for public review.
(4) Appeals.--Notwithstanding the appeal requirements
imposed by section 322 of the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-
381; 16 U.S.C. 1612 note), or the Department of the Interior
Office of Hearings and Appeals--
(A) persons must file any administrative appeal of a
project under this subsection within 30 days after the date
of issuance of the decision document for the project;
(B) the Secretary concerned shall resolve any appeal not
later than 20 days after the closing date for filing an
appeal; and
(C) the Secretary concerned shall stay implementation of
the project until the end of the 15-day period beginning on
date on which the Secretary concerned resolves any
administrative appeal that complies with the requirements in
subsection (d).
(d) Additional Limitation on Administrative Appeals.--
Notwithstanding section 322 of the Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law
102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612 note), if a draft document prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for
a hazardous fuels reduction project covered by section 3 was
available for public comment, the Secretary of Agriculture
may require that a person filing an administrative appeal
with respect to the project must have been involved in the
public comment process for the project by submitting written
comments raising specific issues with regard to the project.
(e) Statement of Compliance.--A catagorical exclusion memo
or environmental assessment decision document prepared under
this section shall include a short statement as to how the
hazardous fuels reduction project complies with the
requirement of section 3(c).

SEC. 6. DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS OF OLD AND LARGE TREES.

(a) Use of National Academy of Sciences.--The Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly
enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences
for the preparation of recommended definitions of old and
large trees appropriate for each ecosystem type to be used
for purposes of this Act.
(b) Qualifications.--To be eligible to serve on the panel
of the National Academy of Sciences used to prepare the
recommended definitions of old and large trees, a member of
the panel shall have scientific expertise in the
characteristics of old growth and the seral stages of forest
types.
(c) Submission of Recommended Definitions.--Not later than
one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
National Academy of Sciences shall submit to the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and Congress the
recommended definitions of old and large trees appropriate
for each ecosystem type.

SEC. 7. ONGOING PROJECTS AND EXISTING AUTHORITIES.

Nothing in this Act shall affect a hazardous fuels
reduction projects for which scoping has begun before the
date of the enactment of this Act or affect authorities
otherwise granted to the Secretary concerned under existing
law.

SEC. 8. PREFERENCE TO COMMUNITIES WITH FIRE PREVENTION
ORDINANCES.

In determining the allocation of funding for the Community
and Private Land Fire Assistance program under section 10A(b)
of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C
2106c(b)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall prioritize
funding to those communities that have taken proactive steps
through the enactment of ordinances and other means to
encourage property owners to reduce fire risk on private
property.

SEC. 9. SUNSET.

The provisions of this Act shall expire at the end of the
five-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act, except that a hazardous fuels reduction project for
which a decision notice, or memo in the case of a categorical
exclusion, has been issued before the end of such period may
continue to be implemented using the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) National Forest System Lands.--For the purpose of
planning and conducting hazardous fuels reduction projects
under this Act on National Forest System Lands, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture
$1,943,100,000 during the five-fiscal year period beginning
October 1, 2003. Subject to section 9, amounts appropriated
in one fiscal year and unobligated before the end of that
fiscal year shall remain available for use in subsequent
fiscal years.
(b) BLM Lands.--For the purpose of planning and conducting
hazardous fuels reduction projects under this Act on Federal
lands described in section 2(b)(2)(B), there are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior
$1,888,000,000 during the five-fiscal year period beginning
October 1, 2003. Subject to section 9, amounts appropriated
in one fiscal year and unobligated before the end of that
fiscal year shall remain available for use in subsequent
fiscal years.
(c) Other Lands.--For the purpose of planning and
conducting hazardous fuels reduction projects under this Act
on tribal lands, nonindustrial private lands, and State
lands, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Interior $500,000,000 during the five-fiscal
year period beginning October 1, 2003. Subject to section 9,
amounts appropriated in one fiscal year and unobligated
before the end of that fiscal year shall remain available for
use in subsequent fiscal years.

{time} 1430

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
239, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and a Member
opposed each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)
will control the time in opposition.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5
minutes.
Already today we have heard a lot of heated exchange on the subject
of fire policy. Our Republican colleagues will make impassioned
speeches about the need to pass this legislation to protect
communities. The President has implored the Congress to act. And
without question Democrats and Republicans agree that this is a
critically important issue to so many of our western communities, to
the health of our forests, to the safety of those communities and to
those who are engaged in firefighting during the fire year in the
western United States.
But there is a big difference between these pieces of legislation.
There is a big difference between talking about catastrophic wildfires
and really helping communities that are at risk. There is a world of
difference between wildfire legislation put forth by my colleagues on
the Republican side of the aisle and the alternative that we are
proposing on this side of the aisle. That really comes down to an issue
about the priorities of these communities.
Yes, we have drawn an area around these communities of a half mile
which we have slated for fire treatment; and if we treated all those
communities we would use up all of the money that is in the budget for
the treatment of those fires, those where we engage in catastrophic
fires, not necessarily the largest fires that take place in the western
United States or in the United States, including Alaska, where huge
fires rage very far from communities, far from where people live. Those
are destructive fires in many ways, but they are not the catastrophic
fires where we engage in the intensity of firefighting, the risk of
human life, and the risk to property.
So we think in our legislation that we have made a decision that we
will concentrate the resources on that, we will do it in a bill that is
essentially noncontroversial, that addresses the problem, that can go
to work right away, can create the jobs in the community that are
necessary to provide for the health of our forests and the safety of
our communities.
It is very clear, I think, when we look at both bills. Westerners
understand the difference between smoke and fire, and I would suggest
that the Republican bill is a lot of smoke if we are talking about
protecting those communities. I think it is important to understand
what are the distinctions in the bill. We provide direct aid to local
communities to treat private lands and public lands because they are
intermingled. To suggest you are going to do one without the other is
to put the other at risk.
In fact, we find that there is not the aid to local communities in
the Republican bill. Our provisions are noncontroversial and will speed
up the thinning projects. I think when my colleagues read the
legislation presented by the committees, they will see, as we have
already heard comments from so many organizations that are deeply
concerned about the due process provisions of this law, that will make
it much more difficult, certainly delay its consideration in the
Senate.

[[Page H4313]]

We create the new jobs quickly, providing that aid for the treatment
on public and private lands, and we target the resources to those
communities that are at risk and to the watersheds in those communities
that are at risk. That is what we should be doing. That is what we
should be doing. And we should especially be doing that when we
consider the budget requests of this administration, which requested
less money in this budget for hazardous fuel treatment than in the
previous year.
The Department of the Interior requested stable funding in this year.
The fact of the matter is, in total, what we see is there is less money
to treat fewer acres. That is why we had to set some priorities.
Yes, we would like to think that we could second-guess nature, that
we could go out to where lightning is going to strike, treat that area
this year, and we would not have a fire there next year. But the fact
of the matter is, in the urban-suburban interface, where communities
have moved into the forest, where there is a risk, where there is a
different urgency about fighting a fire because of properties and
threats to communities where we put people most at risk in fighting
those fires, that is where we ought to have the priority.
That is really what this legislation does. It makes a decision that
the Congress, living within the budget constraints, and I hope the
Committee on Appropriations will add additional money to this, but
living within those constraints, let us treat those lands where we have
the most critical need on this.
The suggestion in the Republican bill is that if we just cut down
enough big trees, enough big valuable trees that are not the problem
with fire, therefore we can pay for the treatment of more lands. In
California, it is suggested that we could cut down many of the areas of
the giant sequoia monuments, where we are preserving some of the oldest
trees on the face of the earth, that we could cut down these trees and
pay for treatment in Southern California or Northern California. That
is a Faustian bargain the public does not want.
We have heard much discussion here about how fires used to creep
along the forestlands. The suggestion we have to cut down the biggest
trees so fires will once again creep along the forestlands is a
mistake. What we need in many instances, and what many communities can
do on a priority basis, is mechanical treatment and controlled burns to
get rid of that understudy of brush that then allows those fires to
jump into the crowns. But that is not what the Republican legislation
does. It does not put the priority in the protection of those
communities.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on
Resources, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to manage that
time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo)
will control 15 minutes of the time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, last year this Nation lost 6.9 million acres to
catastrophic forest fires. That is an area larger than the entire State
of Vermont. The Federal Government spent $1.6 billion in a losing
effort to save that forestland. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act
would expedite hazardous fuels reduction projects on a fraction of the
190 million at-risk acres in our national forests.
The Miller substitute seeks to throw us back into the morass of
inaction and delay that is destroying our natural resource base.
According to the Chief of the Forest Service, last year the Forest
Service spent over $250 million on land management projects. Forty
percent of that amount, over $100 million, was wasted on process
delays. If we continue to approach catastrophic fire losses like this,
we will have lots of lawyers and still lose the forests.
The Miller substitute would reinstate the opportunities for
procedural delay and even adds new unnecessary steps. This will drag
the system even further into the mire that is exposing forest after
forest to catastrophic fire threats.
The substitute forces 85 percent of funding for hazardous fuels
reduction to be spent within one-half mile of an at-risk community.
This arbitrary standard provides little meaningful protection to towns
caught in the path of raging fires, the pictures some of which we have
seen already in the debate, that have been observed to leap up to 2
miles past the main fire. By throwing almost all the projects into a
narrow useless belt around towns, the substitute ignores the peril to
watersheds, wildlife, particularly endangered species, and the forest
itself.
The basic approach of the Miller substitute seems to be: If you can't
beat it, wreck it. The most puzzling aspect of the substitute is that
it totally ignores most of the bill. It does a thorough job of heaping
needless process delays on the hazardous fuels reduction projects, but
it ignores the threat of insect infestation on public and private
lands. In my part of the country, it is the disease and insect
infestations that are the greatest threat in the east and the south.
The substitute refuses to accept the watersheds protection and healthy
forest reserve programs created by H.R. 1904.
The Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a balanced approach to
responsible conservation of our public and private forest resources. It
addresses forest health problems and promotes good stewardship across
the Nation. The Miller substitute is a scheme to undermine fire
protection efforts and effectively pretends there are no other forestry
problems worth addressing. The labor unions, conservation associations,
State and local governments, and professional foresters who support
H.R. 1904 disagree.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of the Miller substitute and the
passage of this outstanding bill, a first step to ending the carnage of
our Nation's forestlands.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Miller-DeFazio
substitute, H.R. 1261. I do so because I think we need a positive
vision, and that positive vision is the Miller-DeFazio substitute.
Protecting homes and keeping people safe must be the top priority of
wildfire policy. Forest Service researchers believe making homes
firewise and creating defensible space near communities is the best way
to achieve this goal, one that could be realized within a short period
of time.
Advocating for fuel reduction treatments to be focused on community
protection zones does not mean the rest of the forest is left to burn.
Restoration treatments focused on prescribed burning and small diameter
thinning must proceed in the forest dependent on frequent fires, such
as the Ponderosa Pine. More than 50 southwest conservation
organizations have been calling for precisely this type of action since
1996. With continuing droughts and tight budgets, focusing on the
community is the most effective, common-sense approach.
The Miller-DeFazio substitute is the definitive middle ground and is
the only option that addresses hazardous fuels reduction and community
protections.
H.R. 1261, the Miller-DeFazio substitute, protects old-growth
forests, promotes thinning from below, guarantees due process, protects
the NEPA review process, and, in complete contrast to H.R. 1904,
actually provides guaranteed funding directly to communities, States,
and tribal governments for protection of their people, their homes, and
their businesses.
This is an effective solution before us today, and I ask, no, indeed
I implore, that we vote for the solution in the Miller-DeFazio
substitute.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the Miller amendment would
eliminate title 4, and it is about management techniques on an
accelerated basis to stem the exploding insect epidemics.

[[Page H4314]]

To say that a research program is a ruse for commercial timber
harvest is to ignore the plain language of this legislation. Large-
scale studies are needed to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of
treatments. This title creates a partnership between the Forest Service
and academia to bring the very best minds in this country to solve
these problems.
We want to talk about a new insect, the Hemlock woolly adelgid. It
has come into the eastern part of this country. It came in 1950, and by
the early 1990s this had spread into 11 States from North Carolina to
Massachusetts, causing extensive Hemlock decline. This map shows where
it is now spreading.
This insect, the adelgid, kills infected trees in 3 to 5 years after
attack and spreads quickly. This next picture here shows these egg sacs
that have up to 300 eggs apiece and how to identify a tree that has
this insect. It feeds on the needles, and when they are done, here is
what a Hemlock tree looks like. A beautiful Hemlock tree now looks
devastated.
We need research. We need the ability to stop these insects that will
destroy the Hemlock forests in the East. The substitute is removing the
ability to do this. This substitute is not about helping fight the
insects that are destroying the forests in this country.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in strong support for the Miller-
DeFazio substitute, and I hope that everyone in this room will proudly
support that amendment as well. It puts local people first in making
decisions about forest fire prevention, and it will get people to work
right now before other emergencies come up. It focuses research where
they are needed the most, in areas surrounding communities where people
live.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, because last year we were also faced with
one of our forest fires in Los Angeles, the Angeles National Forest,
right on the periphery near cities that both I and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) represent. By contrast, H.R. 1904 is a bill
that ignores the needs of communities near forests.
H.R. 1904 drastically revises our legal review process and will
create gridlock in our court system by virtually guaranteeing that
every fire prevention plan be contested. It gives priority to those
cases over all other legal matters, including cases pertaining to
murder and civil rights.

{time} 1445

That is why many groups and organizations that I work with, the
NAACP, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the
National Organization of Women, and all other major environmental
groups oppose H.R. 1904. H.R. 1904 ignores regional approaches to fire
protection that has been carefully crafted with input from our local
communities, industry, environmentalists, and State government. If we
want a plan to truly protect our forests and our environment and the
people that live there, then do the right thing and vote for the
Miller-DeFazio substitute.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the amendment
specifically because it sets a one-size-fits-all policy across the
country. The gentlewoman just spoke about local control, local
coordination. That is exactly what this amendment does not do. Imagine
for a minute looking down on one's own garden and being told you cannot
weed anywhere but within 6 inches of your tomato plants. That is what
we are telling the forest officials across the West, they have a half-
mile diameter radius outside their city. That is where they will
concentrate the money and weed the forest. That is where they will take
out the small diameter, dog-hair thickets. Mind the scientists and the
experts that proved that the vector fires, the pattern of where the
fires are going to come from, where the prevailing winds and terrain
are, never mind being able to thin in those areas so the firemen have a
fall-back position, thinning is only within a half mile of town. That
is it, no fall-back. This binds the hands of the Forest Service. Vote
``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Cannon).
(Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank those
people who have worked so hard on both sides of the aisle on this bill,
and I rise in support of the underlying bill and in opposition to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Last year's wildfire season was among the most destructive in half a
century. With frightening speed and growing intensity, wildfires swept
across pristine forest preserves around the country destroying homes by
the hundreds and forcing evacuations of thousands of residents, and
blighting America's skies with thick, black, choking smoke. Over 190
million acres are now at heightened risk of wildfires.
The incidence and severity of these fires can be reduced through the
controlled reduction of fire accelerants. For several years, procedural
and legal obstacles have precluded land managers from taking timely
steps to address these dangers. Currently, it takes several years to
propose, analyze, re-analyze, litigate, and appeal preventive
management options.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 helps provide Federal
land managers with the tools to ensure timely and effective response to
wildfire threats.
H.R. 1904's judicial review and expedited administrative procedure
provisions formed the basis of the Committee on the Judiciary's
consideration of this legislation and comprised some of its most
critical components.
Specifically, section 104 streamlines procedures for implementing
threat reduction projects on Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management lands near at-risk communities, on fire-prone lands near
municipal water sources, on lands that encompass habitat for endangered
species, and on lands particularly vulnerable to disease and insect
infestation. The Secretary must permit an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement for each of the authorized hazardous
fuel reduction project.
Section 105 requires robust public participation throughout the
process by requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a formal
administrative appeals process for persons who wish to challenge the
implementation of forest preservation efforts.
Harmonizing the Forest Service's administrative appeal mechanism with
the highly protective appeals process employed by the Department of the
Interior promotes public participation, safeguards procedural due
process, and permits the more timely implementation of urgent forest
protection measures.
Section 106 pertains to the judicial review that requires the Federal
courts to reevaluate the factual conditions underlying preliminary
injunctions halting threat reduction projects every 45 days. This is
critical. Presently, injunctive stays may remain in effect for years
before courts reach the merits of a legal challenge, with sometimes
catastrophic consequences. Periodic judicial reappraisal of the
circumstances predicating injunctive relief will better equip courts to
assess and address hazardous forest conditions.
Finally, under the current system, Federal courts focus almost
exclusively on the consequences of implementing fire reduction
projects. Section 107 of this legislation simply requires Federal
courts to also assess the consequences of inaction.
This section, as amended by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), also instructs Federal courts to weigh the factual and
scientific assessments of forest threat conditions provided by the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management when reviewing threat
reduction initiatives. This guidance is consistent with Congress's
plenary authority to determine the level of probative value courts may
ascribe to agency determinations.
For millions of Americans, particularly in western States such as
Utah, which I represent, the threat of forest conflagrations is not a
hypothetical possibility, but a daily reality. H.R. 1904 enjoys
overwhelming bipartisan support in the areas most threatened

[[Page H4315]]

by forest fires. Passage of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act will
help reduce the growing prevalence of forest fires that have destroyed
irreplaceable natural resources, including endangered species, and that
have threatened hundreds of communities over the last several years.
I urge my colleagues to help safeguard America's forests from
increasingly intense and common conflagrations. As chairman of the
Bicameral Western Caucus, I can personally attest to the urgency of
passing this bill, and encourage my colleagues to support this
carefully tailored, proenvironmental legislation and to oppose the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
substitute amendment, not because I think it is perfect, but because I
think it is a better choice than the underlying bill. The substitute is
partly better because what it includes and partly because of what is
not in it.
Most importantly, the substitute includes some of the best parts of
the McInnis-Walden bill the Committee on Resources approved last year.
Like last year's bill, the substitute earmarks most of the fuel-
reduction money for projects to protect our communities and their water
supplies.
In both the Resources and Agriculture Committees, I tried to amend
the bill to restore the requirement that at least 70 percent of the
money for forest thinning projects go to protect communities and their
water supplies. That 70 percent requirement was in the McInnis-Walden
bill last year, but it is not in this year's bill. So on this very
important opportunity, the substitute is more in line with the bill I
voted for last year.
Also, the substitute has a sunset clause. I think it should be
included because that title is strong medicine to respond to an
emergency situation. It is only sound policy to allow it to work for
several years and then look at how well it has worked. A sunset clause
will make sure that happens. The substitute also includes essentially
the same provisions on administrative appeals as those in last year's
bill. The purpose is to cut red tape and to speed up the resolution of
appeals to avoid unnecessary delays.
I think those provisions are appropriate and have included similar
ones in my own bill on this policy area. However, the new bill does not
include any of those provisions. It simply allows the Secretary to
establish any kind of appeals process the administration prefers. This
is essentially a blank check. I do not think that is a good idea
because it does not ensure that the result will strike the right
balance between the need to avoid unnecessary delays while still
affording local governments and other interested parties a meaningful
opportunity to appeal things they find objectionable.
At the same time, the substitute does not include some of the most
troubling parts of the new bill. Unlike the bill, the substitute does
not go beyond the scope of last year's McInnis-Walden bill approved by
the Committee on Resources. Many parts of the bill are absolutely new.
There are things on which we have had no hearings and which threaten to
bog us down in new controversies. They may have some merits, but I
think it would be better to consider them separately, not as a part of
this bill.
Finally, as I said, the substitute is not perfect, with all due
respect to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). If it was
just up to me, it would be different in several respects. In fact, it
would read just like the bill H.R. 1042, the bill I introduced with my
cousin and colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). I
would have a broader definition of the wildland urban interface. If we
are to truly address the risks to communities and their water supplies,
we must include lands that are sometimes outside an arbitrary mileage
limit from the edge of a particular community.
That is why my bill uses a definition based on the one developed by
our Colorado State forester. On this one point, H.R. 1904, as well as
my bill, is closer to the Committee on Resources bill from last year.
But, unfortunately, my bill is not one of the choices before the House.
We have to choose between H.R. 1904 and the substitute.
The substitute builds on the bill the Committee on Resources passed
last year, while H.R. 1904 throws away some of the best parts of that
bill and adds many new and troublesome provisions. I think the
substitute is the better choice, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, who supports our bill? I would
tell my colleague from Colorado, the Colorado State forester supports
our bill.
Mr. Speaker, the Society of American Foresters, the National
Association of State Foresters, and the Western Forestry Leadership
Council support the underlying bill, H.R. 1904. These are the
professionals in the field in the forests who want to do the work to
prevent this kind of catastrophic fire. These are the people who come
to us every day and say free our hands so we can do what we were
trained to do in the colleges and universities across this country, to
cut the underbrush, to tend to the garden for more than half a mile.
There is no scientific, underlying purpose to limit the scope of
either of these bills to half a mile. There is not. That is a political
decision somebody made. Members want to talk about the abuse we are
getting on this side for somehow doing away with NEPA? Check the
substitute, page 16, that grants the Secretary's categorical exemption,
and let me read from line 4. The Secretary concerned need not make any
findings as to whether the project, either individually or
cumulatively, has a significant effect on the environment. They do not
even have to do an analysis. We require an environmental assessment or
an EIS in these areas, but theirs to do hazardous fuels says they can
do whatever they want as long as it is within a half mile from the
community, no NEPA required. There is a specific exemption from NEPA.
That is on page 16, beginning line 4, categorical exclusion.
But let us talk about what is really at stake here, and that is what
we do to prevent fires from engulfing our communities, destroying our
watersheds, wiping out habitat of threatened and endangered species.
And let me quote from the National Association of Forest Service
Retirees who wrote: ``The big fires of 2002 came roaring out of
interior forests, and nothing but a change in the weather stopped them.
The consequences of only thinning around communities will be to give
residents a false sense of security that may put property and their
very lives in danger.''
Mr. Speaker, a false sense of security. That is what the Miller-
DeFazio substitute gives people in communities. We say we are solving
the problem, but we are only going a half mile back. We ought to be
stopping catastrophic fires that affect the watersheds and people; but
they would not qualify for the kind of quick, hazardous fuels
reductions that we both want to see happen throughout the forests.
Once again, where does this not apply? The legislation does not touch
national parks, national wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, wilderness
study areas, national monuments, or roadless areas. It does not get
into any of those areas. This is a very small step forward, 20 million
out of 195 million acres we want to get an expedited process in to see
if we cannot make a difference. We want to do the assessments and the
research to figure out what the best way to stop the bug and disease
infestation we have seen in our forests.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to wipe out our hardwood forests and our
softwood forests across this country if we debate this to death and do
not act. I urge defeat of the Miller-DeFazio substitute, and I urge
enactment of H.R. 1904.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me rise today
on behalf of the Miller-DeFazio substitute because I believe it is the
much

[[Page H4316]]

better bill before this body today, and let me tell Members why.

{time} 1500

We are talking here about trying to deal with forests that are
overgrown, a situation that has grown over 100 years; and we are trying
to find out a way to get those forests healthy. The approaches that are
before us here are pretty radical. The bill that has been offered by
the majority in this case does some unprecedented things in terms of
judicial review. It really in fact guts some of the injunctive relief
provisions and slants the whole process towards the Federal Government.
I hear on their side of the aisle talk all the time, limited
government, we want limited government. What they are voting for is
giving the Federal Government the balance of the power when you get
into court on injunctive relief. And so they are tipping the scales in
behalf of the Federal Government. And who else is in court? The
citizen. That is who is in court. The citizen is in court with the
Federal Government. And so this majority bill is basically saying, when
you get into court and you start looking at these tough issues,
citizens raise good concerns, well, it doesn't matter that they have
raised good, proper concerns, let's rig the court system, let's rig the
court system so it comes out in behalf of the Federal agencies.
I hear talk all the time in the Committee on Resources, oh, we have
got to limit the Federal Government, we have got to watch these Federal
agencies, we have got to keep an eye on them. You are not doing that in
this bill. This bill is just opening the gates wide open for Federal
agencies to abuse that power. The Miller-DeFazio substitute does not
have a judicial review section. It does not have that egregious
section. So it is better by far just on that account. But what Miller-
DeFazio does is actually focus the Federal Government on thinning in
the areas where it is needed most. The base bill is completely
unfocused. You do not have a clue where they are thinning. Miller-
DeFazio focuses in and says, let's look at urban-wildland interface,
let's look at municipal watersheds, let's spend our time and resources
in those areas. That is a significant difference here.
Another significant difference is in the NEPA process. I beg to
differ with the gentleman from Oregon who says that our bill does some
unfair things in terms of NEPA. We allow the citizens to participate
with their forests, participate in the process. The underlying bill,
the base bill, does everything it can to cut the citizens out of the
process, shorten the deadlines, weight the judicial system against
them. When it comes to allowing citizens to participate in their
forests, these, after all, are the forests of the United States of
America. The public owns these forests. What we are doing in this base
bill is gutting the ability of the citizens to actually participate in
the process.
And so the better bill today is Miller-DeFazio. I would urge everyone
to vote for that. And if that is not adopted, to vote down the base
bill, the bill that is before us, because it is unbalanced, it is
unfair, and it hurts citizens' ability to comment on their forests.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Radanovich).
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, 190 million acres of our Federal forests
and rangelands are at unnaturally high risk to catastrophic wildfire.
Currently, only 2.5 million of these acres are treated by forest
managers. This is due to the immensely bureaucratic, litigious process
that prevents proper forest management. The Miller amendment does not
address this.
An example of the crisis facing our national forests was evident last
year when a fire was blazing out of control in the Sequoia National
Forest. The fire, called the McNally Fire, was raging dangerously close
to an ancient sequoia grove within the National Sequoia Monument.
Firefighters were prevented from controlling the blaze for several days
because it was too dangerous.
In total, the McNally Fire charred over 150,000 acres of the forest;
and it could have decimated the sequoia trees, some of which are over
1,000 years old. Responsible stewardship would have prevented this
problem and would have minimized the amount of trees, habitat, and
watersheds that were destroyed in the Sequoia National Forest. The
Miller amendment would almost guarantee that this fire could happen
again.
The McNally Fire is just one example demonstrating why the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act is necessary. The enhanced flexibility given to
local forest managers in the bill will better protect our forests. By
streamlining procedures and ensuring public participation, forest
management projects will be finished within months rather than years.
The Miller-DeFazio amendment falls short of this goal.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of those who participated in the
process of the healthy forests reform legislation for doing a pretty
good job. I think we are moving in the right direction. In this piece
of legislation today we are moving significantly in the right
direction. It does not go the whole way that all of us want to do, but
we move significantly in the right direction. For those Members who
will support the Miller amendment and oppose the underlying bill, the
democratic process is a never-ending story, so we will always have
opportunities to do what we want to do in this constant management
regime.
The other thing is, we do something, I think, that is extraordinary
in the underlying bill and that is that it deals with the hydrology, or
the watershed approach, to our national forests. This kind of approach
takes out the fragmentation piece by piece, the politically charged
process of dealing with what we need to deal with, and that is healthy
forests. What were they like 10 years ago? They were not very well 10
years ago. What were they like 20 years ago? Healthy forests did not
exist 20 years ago. But what were they like 500 years ago? It was a
natural process. What we are trying to do in this legislation is go
through a process to get back to restore the prodigious bounty of
nature and our healthy forests.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues should hear
themselves over there. I have been sitting up in my office listening to
this debate. They are saying our forests are diseased. They are right.
But I ask, when was the last time they supported adequate funding for
forest disease research in any of our bills?
They rightfully worry about fires devastating our forests. But I ask,
when last did they support any kind of growth control, any kind of
control that would prevent neighborhoods from butting up against our
forests?
Their solution is right, cut the trees. Because if there are no
trees, there will be no forest fires.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I must at this time speak in opposition to
the Miller-DeFazio amendment. As a member of both the Committee on
Agriculture and the Committee on Resources, I saw the evolution of the
McInnis-Walden bill, H.R. 1904, heard it debated at length and heard it
amended at length. The base bill provides desperately needed safeguards
for our Nation's forests. It is well crafted, it is thorough, it is
comprehensive.
I have five major concerns with the Miller-DeFazio amendment:
Number one. As has been stated many times today, the one-half-mile
thinning zone is not adequate obviously to protect many homes and many
residential areas. Many fires have jumped further than the one-half-
mile limit.
Number two. The Miller amendment does not adequately address bug and
insect outbreaks. This has been particularly a big problem in the
South, in the East, and in some of the areas in the Midwest which abut
to the State of Nebraska. The red oak disease has been particularly
predominant in that area.
Number three. This amendment prohibits new road development.
Certainly no one wants a lot of new roads in our forests, but new roads
occasionally are

[[Page H4317]]

critical to firefighting. Last summer that was one of the major
problems that we had; we could not get to the fires. And so at times
some road building will be necessary.
Number four. The Miller amendment requires several mapping and
reporting procedures which will slow down the decision-making process
necessary to reduce fuel loads. We need less paperwork; we do not need
more. The base bill, I think, does eliminate paperwork, and that is
very important.
Number five. There is a concern that this amendment does not address
some watershed concerns that are critical to clean water. I am a
fisherman. I am very concerned about streams. I am concerned about
habitat. The base bill, I think, does a better job of protecting the
watershed areas.
The base bill is comprehensive and thoroughly crafted. I urge its
passage without amendment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the committee.
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in favor of the Miller
substitute. I have two, I think, critical questions that need to be
answered. The first question is, How does the majority party in the
underlying bill purport to actually pay for what the Forest Service
says is millions and millions of acres of fuel reduction treatment? Are
they going to hold a lottery? Are they going to hold a bake sale? There
is nothing in their bill to say how to get the payment. The Miller
substitute is a mature, responsible bill because it authorizes the
money. It authorizes the money not only for the Federal Government but
for the State and local government.
It is not just the Federal Government that needs help here. It is
local government. Earlier I made reference to Glenwood Springs, the
mayor sending a letter asking for an amendment to make sure there is
help to local governments. It was suggested, I suppose, that there is
something wrong with that. In fact, we went through and we found out
that it is not just Glenwood Springs. There are letters from officials
in Basalt, Pitkin County, Gunnison County, Summit County, Nederland,
Boulder, Wheat Ridge, Golden, Silt, San Miguel, and Carbondale asking
this Congress to help local communities solve this problem. There is
not a penny in the majority's bill that does that. It is wrong.
It is an echo of the homeland security issue. It is an echo. We have
not helped local communities deal with this problem. I think the
assessment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) of how we got
into this pickle was really quite eloquent. I think it was right, that
there was a bipartisan failure of management for a long time. But the
problem is that there is not bipartisan support not on whether to have
a fuels reduction program but how to have a fuel reduction program. We
think on this side of the aisle we ought to help these local
communities.
The second question: How in the underlying bill do they guarantee the
American people we are not going to cut down old growth timber like
this in this fuel reduction program? We have no business cutting down
big trees like that instead of the little, tiny, skinny trees that we
ought to be cutting down in a fuel reduction program. Their bill does
nothing to guarantee Americans in that regard. They criticize the
gentleman from California's bill for having categorical exclusions. But
those categorical exclusions have protections to guarantee against this
stuff being cut in those wildland-urban interfaces and the community
protection zones. We have language protecting specifically against old
growth being cut. We have provisions against using the fiber from these
big trees for financing this program.
This dovetails back to the very first question I asked, Where are
they going to get the money to pay for this? I know they are
intelligent folks and I respect them all. They are not going to get it
from lotteries and bake sales. They have only got one place I can
possibly imagine to get the money from this and that is cutting down
trees just like that to pay for it. We could do a lot better job on a
bipartisan basis answering the question how to have a fuels reduction
program, whether to have one, and that is by having protections for
trees like this. They did not do the job. We ought to pass the Miller
substitute.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the base bill by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) and in opposition to the Miller
amendment. I note that today's New York Times calls this a flawed fire
bill. I might suggest that The New York Times would do better to look
at the credibility and believability of its reporters, indeed to their
veracity, than at fire policy because they have got this one dead
wrong. What they do is they attack the McInnis bill for not doing
enough to protect the areas where there is human habitat. Indeed, they
say the bill does nothing to protect our communities. They say it
allows logging to go forward in back country areas where fires offer no
threat to human safety. I would suggest to The New York Times and to my
colleagues that the issue behind forest thinning is not human safety.
The issue behind forest thinning is to protect our forests.

{time} 1515

It is true that we have a situation in the southwestern United States
where our forests are gravely overgrown, but they are not just
overgrown on the urban interface. They are overgrown everywhere. And
the experts such as Dr. Wally Covington at Northern Arizona University
and others all concur that we have an unnatural condition in our forest
which is a radical danger. We need to protect not just the urban
interface. We need to protect the entire forest. Indeed, to protect
endangered species, if we do not do the remote parts of the forest
where it needs to be thinned to protect wildlife, then we will destroy
their habitat.
I strongly support the base bill and oppose the Miller substitute.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bonner).
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from
California's amendment.
When President Bush proposed this healthy forest initiative, great
care was taken by the administration and leadership in crafting a bill
that is beneficial to all forest in the United States, not just some.
This is a laudable and logical goal. Healthy forests are not simply
forests that are free from brush and undergrowth. Healthy forests are
also free from disease and pest infestation.
In my home State of Alabama, our forests are under attack every day
from pest infestation in the form of the Southern pine beetle. The
beetle burrows into the trees and lays eggs below the bark. The result
is a rapid deterioration of the health of the tree and in most cases
its death.
Unfortunately, this amendment would take out every single reference
to insects or disease. It is not good public policy to address the
health of our forests without addressing insects and disease.
Mr. Speaker, if I had been elected to represent the southern pine
beetle in my home State I would probably support this amendment. But on
behalf of the thousands of landowners and timber growers I strongly
oppose it, and I support the underlying bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Virginia has 5 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Pombo) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on what the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee) said here, because it is a part of the bill
that is in fact a subterfuge in the underlying bill of the committee,
and that is that they are not prepared to authorize money to be
expended for this purpose, so they are going to rely on forest
stewardship contracts.
We have already been put on notice by the people in the Forest
Service in California that they are going to need

[[Page H4318]]

to log the large trees around Lake Tahoe in Northern California to go
down and to do treatments in forests in Southern California where there
are no big trees. It will not pay for it. They cannot cut enough trees
to pay for it. It costs about $1,500 to $1,800 an acre to treat these
lands, and yet there is no money in this. So they rely on forest
stewardship. They have got to go out, and they have got to cut the big
trees. If the communities do not have the big trees, then they are not
going to be in the priority because they have got to pay for the
projects.
That is why we put up real money in the authorization for this
purpose so those communities could be treated and they can cut any size
tree they want. There is no limitation on this, and they just balance
out the books.
Forest stewardship is not about balancing the books. It is about
balancing the watersheds. It is about balancing the ecology of the
area. It is about balancing the soils. It is about balancing the growth
rate. It is about balancing the infestation. It is all of that in
determining the health of those forests. But what we have suggested is
they just create an accounting system. They have got to treat 1,000
acres. Then they have got to go cut enough big trees somewhere to pay
for the treatment of that 1,000 acres.
That is not the proper way to do this. There is a public cost to
this, and it ought to be authorized. If they are going to spend all the
money on infestation, then where are they going to get the money to do
the fire treatment that is necessary in forests where fire is the major
threat, not necessarily infestation?
So that is the weakness in the underlying bill. If we want to deal
with the problem that was agreed upon, that there was this area around
the cities, around these communities that needed to be treated because
that is where the catastrophic fires could break out, that is where the
danger was posed; and to protect those watersheds, that is where we
were prior to the election.
Now that it is decided, they have got those votes, they are going to
open the door, and the fact of the matter is we now have a bill with no
discipline. There are no priorities, and they simply must pay for it by
cutting down late successional old forests or the largest trees they
can find in the area.
Because if one could make money outside of chipping them, people
would take the small trees. They would be happy to have them. But we
know that that is not going to happen; and when we look at the budget
submissions of this administration, they are planning on treating less
land this year than they did the year before.
So we have got kind of a cataclysmic event taking place here between
the needs of the forest, what many are projecting to be a dramatic fire
year, maybe more so than the past year, no budget money, which then
pushes them into large forests where the fire treatment in many cases
is less needed than around the communities. That is the irrational part
of the Republican bill.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. McInnis).
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, keep in mind, Mr. Miller,
that the national fire plan has hundreds of millions of dollars in
there. This big tree argument is nonsense. We are not going out there
and saying, gosh, we have got to go to the redwoods or the sequoias and
cut down all this beautiful stuff. That is an emotional argument that
is used for one purpose and that is to divert from the science.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. But it also happens to be accurate.
Mr. McINNIS. I do not mind the gentleman making that comment. The
fact is it is not accurate, Mr. Miller, and you know it is not
accurate. We are not going out there saying let us pick the most
beautiful big tree we can find and cut it down. That is exactly the
kind of picture you want to portray to the general public out there so
you can divert from the fact that we have reached this status quo on
trying to fight these forest fires, on trying to protect our wildlife
habitat, on trying to protect our watersheds.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) gets up here, my
colleague. She starts lecturing the Republicans. I want you to know the
partisan portion here is the Democratic substitute. You have no
Republicans on your substitute.
My bill, the underlying bill, is a bipartisan bill. It has heavy
Democrat support. Mr. Miller, what do you do for the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Ross)? What do you do for the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Barry)? What do you do for the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop)?
What do you do for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)? You take
out all the bugs and the infestation problems.
Folks, we have got problems out there. We have got fire problems, and
we have got bug problems. And the courts do not wear green hats. They
are not forest rangers. They are not going to get this resolved. We
cannot afford one more fire season sitting on our haunches, twiddling
our thumbs and pretending these horrible fires are not occurring.
Let me mention Mr. Udall. Mr. Udall says our language guts the
injunctive relief. Mr. Udall, for your information, that language is
called the Feinstein language. Why do you not take this issue up with
Senator Feinstein?
Let us go on here a little. When we talk about what we are attempting
to do, look at the substance of the bill.
Mr. Udall from Colorado, it is never good enough for you. At some
point we have to say, enough is enough. Let our forest people go back
to managing the forests. Let the forests be managed by science, not by
emotion; and the way you drive emotion is to stand up here on this
House floor and talk about how we are going to cut down the big trees,
that in order to pay for this we are going to take the big trees and
take them out.
Not at all. The fact is, we need to manage our forests. We cannot
take the position of the radical environmental organizations like Earth
First and the Sierra Club. We can take the position of a bipartisan
group on this floor, Democrats and Republicans, and that position is
represented by the underlying bill.
I urge a no vote on the Democrat non-Republican partisan substitute,
and I urge support for the underlying bill that is bipartisan, has
heavy Democrat and Republican support.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to direct
their comments to the Chair and not to others in the second person or
who may be viewing the proceedings.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the Chair how much
time is remaining and who has the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has the right to
close. The gentleman from Virginia has 5 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has 6 minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
(Mr. REHBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I have been watching the
screenplay from Dumb and Dumber. We all admit that the last few years
of managing our forests has been dumb. If we pass this substitute, we
are even dumber than I thought we were. We are changing this bill from
a healthy forest bill, by passing this substitute, to a healthy
community bill.
I am not against healthy communities, but I can tell my colleagues,
from being in an area where we fight these fires, the communities are
the first things that we come in to protect when the fire gets treated.
We go in with bulldozers, and we clear it out. So they are probably the
last ones that need our help because we always find the money when the
fire is going on.
What we need to understand is that dead and dying grass is every bit
as bad as overgrazed grass. The dead and dying trees are every bit as
bad as overlogging trees.
I look up in the audience and I look out at America and I see people
with hard hats and what do I think of? I think of heroes, because they
use their capital, they use their labor, and they use their equipment
to go in and cut down the trees. We tell them to.
I look at the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Inslee) picture of a
tree. The Members cannot tell me whether

[[Page H4319]]

that is a healthy tree or not sitting 2,000 or 3,000 miles away looking
at a picture of it.
A Congresswoman from the other side of the aisle graced us with her
presence for about 30 seconds to come down and tell us she was watching
this debate on TV. That is the problem. Too many bureaucrats are
sitting in Washington, D.C., making a determination of what is a
healthy forest without ever getting out on their hands and knees, we
call it the buns-up kneeling position, and looking and counting bugs
and looking at the grass and determining what the mineral cycle looks
like and what the grass and the trees and the endangered species are
actually doing.
Let us pass something sensible. There is finally a piece of
legislation that makes an effort to start removing the cancer of the
dead and dying forests that are causing a problem within this country.
We have an opportunity to finally show some leadership after so many
years of a lack of leadership that has allowed this country to kill its
forest with kindness. Pass this bill. Let us oppose this substitute.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. There is some room for agreement here. This is what we
want to prevent. It is a fire in my congressional district last summer.
The gentleman who just preceded me talked about bureaucrats. This
bill is a bureaucrat's dream, because this bill gives all the
discretion to appointed bureaucrats, and I know that that party would
not be supporting this bill if there was a Democrat in the White House.
They would not want to give Bruce Babbitt this authority. But they do
want to give it to this administration.
This bill was written at the White House and sent down. This is not
the bill we negotiated last fall. If this was the bill that we had
negotiated last fall, and I give the gentleman from Colorado and others
credit for sitting down in tough negotiations where we took flack from
both sides, from the environmentalists and from the industry, and came
up with something that would have worked, would have gotten this done,
would have turned this into a nonpartisan problem. If it was that, I
would vote for it in a split second. But it was not, so I tried to
offer some amendments to improve it.
No, we cannot have any amendments because the House has to adjourn at
5 o'clock this afternoon. Why? I do not know. Someone has got a golf
game. People have got to make fund-raising phone calls for the big
event tomorrow night. I do not know. We do not have time for
amendments. This is only the Congress after all in the House, no time
for amendments.
There has been a lot of talk about whether or not this would allow
the harvesting of big old trees. The bottom line is we do not do this
on the cheap. It is 100 years of mismanagement. The only good study was
done in Oregon at Oregon State. Sixteen hundred and eighty-five dollars
an acre is the estimate to do this work. And guess what? They do not
get $1,685 an acre for a bunch of brush and dead poles, do they? No. If
they are going to generate that much money to do the work that needs to
be done, they are going to high-grade the damn forests the same way
that they high-graded them early in the last century when we were
really stupid.
That is what is going to happen under this bill. It gives the
discretion to protect or not protect old-growth to Mark Rey. I love
Mark. Great guy. But I do not want to give him that discretion. I would
like a definition of what has to be protected and what is not. No, he
has that authority and people cannot hardly appeal his decisions
because the White House wants to pretend it can be done on the cheap.
The President's budget, his big request is $230 million for fuel
reduction this year. At that rate, if we did all of the land that they
want to put into this bill, it would take 174 years. So I do not think
the President is exactly asking for the money needed.
Where is the rest of the money going to come from? How are we going
to do it more quickly than a 174 years? There is only one answer: The
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said the truth, and the
truth hurts. We have got to take high-value products out.
What is a high-value product? It is a big old tree. And only one
person stands between cutting that tree to fund this bill and the
reality of that, and that is an appointed bureaucrat.
This is really too serious to consider in this way, and it affects
too many of us too much. I am really sad that it has come to this.
I was willing to take the heat, and I did last fall. A couple of
Democratic Senators took a lot of heat, attacked by national
environmental groups for trying to do something that made sense in this
area. The environmental groups, they succeeded. They stopped the bill
last year, and now we are going to see something in the House much
worse. There is a lesson in that.
But there is also a lesson in overreaching. My colleagues know this
bill cannot become law as it is. It is either a bargaining chip with
the Senate. That is one thing I hear. It is a bargaining chip with the
Senate to try to pull them back, or it is a political event so that
they can blame a couple of prominent Democrat Western Senators who are
up for election for stopping the bill over there and use it against
them as an election year issue. I do not know which one it is.

{time} 1530

I do not know which one it is, but either are pathetic reasons to
stick this bill through in this way without a single amendment being
allowed.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to my colleague from Colorado, for
whom I have great respect and just make this set of remarks.
I have never seen a piece of legislation that cannot be improved. In
fact, it is our responsibility as Members of this body to work to
improve legislation as it comes forward. I did vote for the McGinnis-
Walden bill last fall, proudly, and would have supported it this year
if it came to the floor in that same structure.
But my approach has been to try and create consensus and trust and
involve all of us. We could have had the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and myself on this bill, brought it to the
Senate with a true broad-based bipartisan coalition, and moved ahead.
I am worried we are going to have more stalemate, more litigation,
more problems, and we are going to get the very result that we are all
worried about here, which is no treatment of our fuels, no reduction of
these hazardous materials, and an even bigger fire season; and we are
all going to bear the responsibility for that outcome.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one other point: the
President also did not ask for enough money to fight the fires. It is
not new. We had the same problem with Clinton, we had the same problem
with Bush I, we had the same problem with Reagan. They never ask for
enough money to fight the fires. So what do they do? They go back in.
They used to borrow the money from the KB funds. KB funds do not exist
anymore. What do they do now? They rob all the other accounts of the
Forest Service.
Do you know what the first one they rob is? The Fuel Reduction
Program. So you are not going to put out any real money to do the work.
We know that money is going to be stolen this year and used for
fighting the fires, because there is not enough.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I
will go back from passion to policy for just a minute.
The Miller amendment ignores the forest health crisis in Southern,
Midwestern and Eastern forests. I strongly oppose the Miller amendment.
In spite of the fact that millions and millions of acres of pristine
forests are spoiled each year by large-scale and unnatural insect and
disease outbreaks, in this amendment the words

[[Page H4320]]

``insect and disease'' do not appear in the text.
The Miller amendment would strip out the bug and insect provisions in
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act that have given the bill such broad
backing with Members from every region and every political orientation.
The Miller amendment would transform this nationally focused Healthy
Forests Restoration Act into the ``California and Oregon Unhealthy
Forests Act.''
Living in the South, where Southern pine beetles and red oak borers
have destroyed millions of acres of old-growth forest, or in the
Midwest, where the emerald ash borer is raking across America's
forests, I am very disappointed by the Miller amendment.
Wildfire is an important part of the healthy forests debate, but not
the only part. Are western forests inherently more valuable than those
east of the Mississippi? The author of the amendment apparently thinks
so.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote against the amendment and support the
underlying bill.
Are western forests inherently more valuable than those East of the
Mississippi? The authors of this amendment apparently think so because
no other region gets a thing out of this amendment.
Even in the West, massive beetle outbreaks are often the precursor to
calamitous wildlife. The beetles kill the trees, and then wildfire
burns them, threatening homes and watersheds and wildlife.
Vote against this amendment and vote for the base bill which gives a
balanced common sense approach to healthy forests.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, 7.2 million acres last
year. When is enough enough? This is a 20-year-old problem. How did we
get there? On the Allegheny National Forest, which I represent, we have
foresters, biologists, hydrologists, soil scientists, game biologists,
fish biologists, and renowned research labs trying to help to do things
right.
One college student with a free lawyer from the university and a
judge who knows nothing about forestry suddenly stops the whole
process, and that is why we are having a problem in this country.
This bill is trying to open up at least 20 million acres so we have
the ability to prevent forest fires; 7.2 million last year.
I flew over with a group in the West a few years ago with the
Speaker. We flew for an hour and a half. We never saw a blade of grass,
never saw a green leaf, where the fires had been the year before. The
streams were full of mud; the hillsides were washing into the valleys.
You talk about devastation: no bugs, no insects, no birds, no animals.
That is what is left in the path of these forest fires.
You talk about environmental degradation? These forest fires are the
worst, and we must stop them.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I think that this process that we
have seen with this bill is indicative. It gives us warning about the
Forest Service process. Here we see this bill being rammed through the
House of Representatives, no amendments being offered, on a day when we
do not have a full schedule; but the intent and the purpose is to ram
it through without the full participation and the deliberations of this
body.
It is reflective of what is in this bill. It is an effort to ram
through these treatment programs, the cutting programs, the logging
programs, the fire treatment programs, and limit the public
participation to the greatest extent possible. That is what is wrong
with this legislation.
The suggestion that somehow we are going to unilaterally turn over
the decision on whether or not to protect old forests, or protect old
growth, to protect large trees, to mark gray unilaterally without
review, is like turning the banking system over to Bonnie and Clyde. It
just does not make any sense in terms of the well-being of these
forests, in the long-term, multiple use of these forests.
If you are just out there hunting for large trees to cut and you need
a rationale to cut them, then this bill will give you the ability to do
that, because it throws open the doors to logging of those large trees
that matter the most to the communities in the West, matter to the
citizens that we represent, matter to the citizens sense in our State;
and that is what this bill does.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, when I look at the Democrat substitute to this bill, I
am kind of reminded of the old sign show. They used to say it was a
show about nothing. Well, the Democrat substitute is the substitute
about nothing.
They come to the floor, and they say all the right words. They talk
about how concerned they are about protecting our communities,
protecting the health of our forests, stopping the catastrophic fires.
The truth is that their substitute leaves all of the problems in
existence.
To make matters worse, and this is probably the most difficult part
of the Miller substitute, is that by limiting most of your effort to
that half mile around our communities, you completely ignore the real
problem.
What we have tried to do in the underlying bill is to give the local
foresters, the local people the chance to look at their forest and
determine the areas that really need to be protected, the areas that
they really need to go in and treat. Sometimes if you go up a canyon,
that is more important, maybe 2 or 3 or 5 miles away from the
community, it may be more important to treat that than a half mile
radius around that community.
You heard people testify already today about fires this past year
that jumped 3 or 4 miles because of the high winds. Your substitute
does nothing to deal with that. You give some false sense of protection
to our communities that we are going to treat a half mile radius around
the community. That does nothing to protect them.
You talk about how you want the local people to be involved with
this; but then you cut them out of the process, and you are going to
dictate from Washington exactly what they can and cannot do.
Through this entire last couple of years that we have been
negotiating this bill, we have sat down and tried to work this out; and
the resulting bill, the underlying bill is an effort of that
compromise. We came from over here to compromise in the middle, and now
you want us to go over here. Bipartisanship is when we meet somewhere
in the middle; it is not when we agree with you.
When we work our way through some difficult issues like this, it is a
little give and take. I know there were Members on that side that tried
to work with us, and they were unable for one reason or another to come
to final agreement on that. But the underlying bill is our best shot at
protecting our forests from increased risk of catastrophic fire.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the Miller substitute and
support the underlying bill.

A Blind Eye To Forest Health Crisis Outside the West

Miller-DeFazio totally ignores the forest health crisis in southern,
Midwestern and eastern forests. The Miller-DeFazio amendment would
transform this national healthy forests legislation into the California
and Oregon Healthy Forests Act.
The bill does nothing (zero!) to address the growing epidemic of
insect and disease outbreaks. It would strip out all of the provisions
that have been included at the urging of so many southern and
Midwestern Members of Congress, including a large block of Democrats.
Even the rigid management prescriptions in the bill are based on a
grossly false assumption that every acre of national forest has all of
the features, attributes and characteristics of western ponderosa pine
forests.
This may be news to the authors of this amendment, but the nation's
forest health crisis does not end on the western banks of the
Mississippi.

Arbitrary Limitations on Community Protection

The bill limits its expedited NEPA analysis procedures to projects
within a \1/2\ mile of at risk communities. The \1/2\-mile area is
grossly insufficient to protect at-risk communities, especially in the
case of hot and fast moving fires in the West where topography and wind
speed influence fire movement dramatically.
For example, the Rodeo-Chediski fire jumped as far as 3 miles. A fire
in Colorado jumped a river, a railroad track and an interstate in a
single bound. Anyone who's seen the breathtaking destruction of a
western wildfire knows that a \1/2\-mile buffer is fundamentally
inadequate.

[[Page H4321]]

This \1/2\-mile limitation won't do much beyond giving folks false
comfort. Even my colleague Mark Udall opposes this type of arbitrary
limitation. It's too bad Mr. Miller didn't follow his cue on this
point.

New Process

The Miller bill would require the production of maps designating so-
called condition classes of landscapes. This would extend the time
needed to complete a fuels reduction plan, increase costs, and expend
unnecessary resources.
Currently, the USFS does not have the ability to meet mapping
requirements. They do not expect have this capability until 2006.
Unfortunately, no projects could be implemented until that technology
comes to fruition. That will be years, according to the agency. We
don't have years to wait around.
Any Healthy Forest legislation needs to expedite and streamline the
NEPA process--not lengthen it. The current process already takes an
average of 3-5 years. While the Miller bill does expedite some
procedures, it also creates new procedures and documentation
requirements.

Road Construction

The bill under no circumstances allows the constructions of roads.
This includes escape routes, fire fighting access, access to prevent
fires in communities, etc. This puts communities, wildlife, and fire
fighters in grave danger.
Again, who are we to tell a community that it can't build a road in
conjunction with a project if that road is needed to treat a high-risk
area, or provide an escape route for citizens?
Communities adjacent to habitat for endangered or threatened species
or roadless areas would not be eligible for expedited fuels reduction
projects. The bill's extraordinary circumstances limitation on
hazardous fuel reduction projects is tantamount to saying ``Tough
Luck'' to the hundreds, and probably thousands of at-risk communities
adjacent to a roadless area or habitat for threatened or endangered
species. I bet if Mr. Miller's home was pressed up against a forest
that's home to an endangered species, this proposal would look a heck
of a lot different.

Stewardship Contracting

The bill takes away the authority of the Federal land management
agencies to use the Stewardship contracting authority that was just
granted as part of the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
Congress just approved this authority, a key part of the President's
Healthy Forests Initiative, so the agencies could reduce wildfire risks
while supporting local economies and defraying taxpayer costs.

Judicial Review

Finally, the bill does nothing to hasten the Federal judiciary's
consideration of lawsuits against wildfire mitigation projects, even
projects in the highest priority areas. In my view, this element of the
``analysis paralysis'' simply cannot be ignored, even if it makes some
constituencies uncomfortable.
Again, last year Mr. Miller appeared prepared to support legislation
hastening the Court's consideration of high priority projects.
In that sense, like so many others, the Miller Amendment represents a
real step backward from where we were just last year.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The gentleman is recognized for
2 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bipartisan bill. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
McInnis), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), the gentleman from South Dakota
(Mr. Janklow), the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson), people from all parts of the country of both parties came
together and negotiated carefully a balanced bill that we have before
you.
I have heard people talk about big trees and show some pictures of
big trees. Let me show you a picture of some big trees, burning up in
flames, rising hundreds of feet. That is what happens to big trees if
you do not address the problem.
There are two big reasons why people should oppose the Miller
substitute. There are a lot of other reasons as well, but the two
really big ones are, number one, it ignores the number one problem, and
that is the process. That is what is slowing us down. That is what is
taking 2 or 3 years of tying our courts into knots, using up all kinds
of judicial time, arriving at nowhere.
This simply streamlines the process. It does not exclude public
comment, it does not exclude public administration in the
administrative process, it does not exclude the right to appeal. It
simply makes it more practical and effective.
The second problem is this: it ignores the East and the South. This
is a southern pine beetle. What does it do? It devastates the
Southeastern part of the United States. Millions of acres of public and
private forest lands untreated. This is the woolly adelgid, the
Southeast and the Northeast, absolutely destroyed by it.
The result? Here is a forest that has been worked over by the
southern pine beetle. No, this is not fall foliage; those are pine
trees. That is what you get all across the East. The gentleman ignores
that whole aspect of the problem.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the substitute and
support the underlying bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, earlier during general debate I noted we are
not unmindful of the need to address the issues raised by the bill, but
in our view, we would do so in a more prudent and responsible manner.
And do so without incorporating the poison pill judicial review
provision in H.R. 1904.
That is the purpose of the pending amendment.
For instance, the issue of insect and disease infestation is one of
importance to me and to West Virginia's hardwood forests.
Exotic insects, in particular, pose a serious threat to America's
forests. For example, the hemlock woolly adelgid is already widespread
from North Carolina to New England and in parts of the West.
The McInnis bill, however, only authorizes $5 million--an amount far
short of what the agency needs to research and address this problem.
The bill also specifies certain insects for study. Yet, several other
species have also been detected.
Again, as I noted, there are issues in H.R. 1904 which should be
addressed and that is the purpose of our amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 239, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended, and on the further amendment by the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller).
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller.)
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California . Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote
on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184,
nays 239, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 198]

YEAS--184

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman

[[Page H4322]]

Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NAYS--239

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Boswell
Brady (PA)
Case
Conyers
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Gephardt
Larson (CT)
Manzullo
Miller, Gary
Stupak

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1601

Mr. OTTER and Mr. COBLE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 198, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 198, had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Yes, I am opposed to it in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Tom Udall of New Mexico moves to recommit the bill,
H.R. 1904, to the Committee on Judiciary with instructions to
report the bill forthwith with the following amendment:
Strike Sections 106 and 107.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
motion.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the motion to
recommit, and I first want to say that this is not a motion to kill the
bill. This is a motion to recommit that will make the bill fairer and
will make it more balanced.
The motion to recommit would merely strike the most egregious
provisions of this bill, sections 106 and 107, which are known as the
judicial review provisions of this bill. In the first instance, Members
should be appalled at how this bill came to the floor and how the
judicial provisions that are in it got here. We had very short notice
to the committees. There was no bill actually introduced. There was a
committee print. That means it was never introduced as a bill in the
Committee on Resources.
Apparently, the majority did not want to expose their bill to public
light. Therefore, it being a committee print, there is no legislative
history; and this is, in the annals of the Committee on Resources,
absolutely unprecedented action.
Let me tell my colleagues what the judicial review sections do in
this bill. First of all, when a court hears an action, you have before
that court in these hazardous fuels actions citizens and Federal
agencies and others. This section, adopted in this bill which had no
hearings, adopts a standard where the Federal agency decides what is in
the public interest.
When the issue comes before the court and you have citizens and
Federal agencies and others that are before the court, the section that
is adopted, the judicial review section, does something which is
unprecedented and I do not think has been done in Federal court before.
It says that the Federal agency that is acting in the public interest
should be given great weight in terms of what they decide. So it tips
the scale in favor of the Federal Government, and it basically rigs the
system in favor of the Federal agencies.
Throughout the debate here today, I have been asking the majority
why: Why would you, who favor limited government, who favor smaller
government, who are always talking in our committee about the Federal
powers being too broad, why would you want to give a Federal agency not
only the power to determine the public interest, but when it gets in
the court, you say to the Federal Court that this Federal Court has to
decide in favor of the agency? Well, the only answer I could get from
the other side is that some Senator from the other body introduced an
amendment, which never made it out of the Senate, and because she
happens to be in our particular party, that that is why this language
is good language.
Well, she may not be right all of the time. Make no mistake about it,
the majority may talk a lot about limited government, but they have a
very specific purpose here. They want to give the Federal agencies,
which my understanding is the President has requested this authority,
unprecedented power in the Federal courts at the expense of citizens.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just urge a vote for the motion to
recommit. It makes the bill a more balanced bill, it makes it a fairer
bill, and it protects the rights of citizens.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the
Committee on Resources, who has done an outstanding job leading this
legislation to the floor of the House.

[[Page H4323]]

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I tell my colleagues that this is another attempt, again
another attempt to protect the status quo.
We all come down on the floor and we talk about how important it is
to protect the health of our forests from the risk of catastrophic
fire, but my friends on the left have continually, throughout the day,
argued to protect the law exactly the way it is and to not make the
necessary changes that we have to make in order to move this forward.
The provisions that we talk about in the motion to recommit are the
result of negotiations between both bodies, between the minority and
the majority; and it was a compromise that was reached. Granted, it is
not where we started. It is not the language that I would have used to
deal with this specific problem. But it was a compromise, and it was
something that we all agreed on.
I would remind my colleagues that the underlying bill is an attempt
to step into our national forests, areas that have been mismanaged for
over 100 years, to step in and try to bring some balance, to bring
local control, to bring local input and some balance into the decisions
that are being made to protect those forests. That is the attempt that
we are trying to make.
I am not interested in protecting the status quo. I am not interested
in protecting the bureaucracy in Washington. I am interested in
protecting the health of our forests and reducing the risk of
catastrophic fire.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this is a catastrophic wildfire. It is
not a natural fire that burns along the ground and takes out the brush.
It consumes millions of acres of big, beautiful trees, 6.9 million
acres last year, more than the size of the entire State of Vermont.

{time} 1615

This is the risk in every part of the country. This is a serious
problem in the West, but it is also a serious problem in Minnesota,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia, all
across the south and Missouri. Every part of this country is impacted,
and that is why this is bipartisan legislation crafted by Members of
the House of Representatives from all across the country.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo),
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thompson), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Ross) contributed to the effort to make this good, bipartisan
legislation.
This is what happens with a catastrophic wildfire. It does not leave
a healthy forest. It leaves this kind of devastation subject to
erosion. And then it rains. This is what happens when it rains. It
washes everything into the rivers and streams. It turns the ground to
glass. This water will not go into the ground. The ground will not
percolate, these forest fires are so intense.
This is one of the main reservoirs for the city of Denver, Colorado,
and this is what was washed into it after a forest fire, damaging the
water supply of the community.
This is what happens in the East and Southeast, bugs: pine beetle
outbreaks in Georgia and Alabama and Tennessee and the woolly adelgid
in Virginia. This picture shows what happens in the eastern part of the
United States without this legislation.
What does the motion to recommit do? It takes out a key provision in
the bill which is the source of this problem, which is the process. The
process takes 2, 3 years. The forest go up in flames from wildfires
before we ever get to treat the forests for disease and insects and for
buildup of fuel density that causes this kind of fire.
Do not let him take out the key provision of the bill which expedites
the process. It still allows for public comment, and it still provides
for public input in the administrative proceedings. It still allows for
judicial review, but it does it in a fair and timely fashion that
recognizes that if we do not make a change in the bureaucratic morass
that we are in today, we are going to see this year after year after
year until we do not have any forests.
Let us protect our endangered species and our watersheds. Let us
protect our citizens from air pollution and our firefighters from dying
in these hazardous fires.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the motion to recommit and
support the underlying bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 250, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 199]

AYES--176

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--250

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)

[[Page H4324]]

Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Oberstar
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Boswell
Brady (PA)
Conyers
Delahunt
Gephardt
Miller, Gary
Nussle
Stupak

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1636

Mr. CARDOZA and Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. DICKS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256,
noes 170, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 200]

AYES--256

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--170

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--8

Bilirakis
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Conyers
Delahunt
Gephardt
Miller, Gary
Stupak

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1643

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________