[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 77 (Thursday, May 22, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1056]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. TOM UDALL

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 20, 2003

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
  I cannot overstate the importance of the nature of this legislation. 
As a Member of Congress from the west, I take very seriously the need 
to find a balanced approach to reduce the threat of catastrophic 
wildfire. The Cerro Grande fire, which occurred within my district in 
2000, scorched over 40,000 acres and consumed over 400 homes and 
businesses in Los Alamos, NM. This tragic example highlights the 
importance of this issue in New Mexico.
  Wildfire prevention and protection is of such grave importance that I 
am extremely concerned about, and strongly object to, the manner that 
this legislation was brought before us today. A Committee Print of this 
bill was received in my office, during a recess period, five days 
before it was scheduled for Resources Committee markup. Not only did 
we, nor the public, have time to analyze and digest its content, but 
the importance and depth of this issue was further undermined by the 
fact that this committee did not even hold any hearings on the bill 
before proceeding straight to mark-up.
  In the past, I have worked with Mr. McInnis on fire issues and had 
hoped to be able to do so again this Congress. I believe that by 
working together on a bill in a bipartisan manner, we could have 
crafted legislation that protects our communities from catastrophic 
fires without the perceived need to impose unprecedented deadlines and 
standards for injunctive relief on the federal judiciary, and without 
emasculating our environmental laws. However, due to the manner in 
which this bill was presented to us, the opportunity to work together, 
or at least consider any viable alternatives to H.R. 1904, did not 
arise.
  Considering this, I would like to point out that H.R. 1904 was not 
the sole option available to Congress for the protection of our at-risk 
communities from wildfire devastation. Similar to H.R. 1904's Section 
104, which essentially eliminates any public alternatives to agency 
action as set out in NEPA, the majority did not allow us to consider 
any alternatives to H.R. 1904, aside from the Miller/Defazio Substitute 
offered here today. For example, in February Mr. Udall of Colorado and 
I introduced H.R. 1042, the Forest Restoration and Fire Risk Reduction 
Act. Had we had an opportunity to hold hearings on our bill, Mr. Udall 
and I would have been able to formally raise some of the issues not 
addressed in H.R. 1904, but that are critically important to wildfire 
prevention and protection.
  H.R. 1042 refocuses the implementation of the National Fire Plan 
(NFP) to areas designated as ``wildland/urban interface,'' the critical 
zones that are of the highest risk to people, property and water 
supplies, by redirecting NFP funding and hazardous fuels reduction 
projects through state selection panels. H.R. 1042 would accomplish 
this through the collaboration between state and federal land managers, 
and local and tribal communities in both decision and implementation 
activities. Through their individual contributions, we could 
develop cost-effective restoration activities, and empower these 
diverse organizations to implement activities that value local and 
traditional knowledge, build ownership and civic pride, and ensure 
healthy, diverse, and productive forests and watersheds. Such 
collaboration would result in the efficient restoration of areas 
distressed by wildfires and help protect our homeowners and businesses 
from future losses.

  While I agree with the general consensus that thinning our forests--
by controlled burns or mechanical means--will lessen the likelihood of 
unusually severe fires, I cannot support the contention of the Bush 
Administration and the majority that to facilitate such projects we 
need to expunge our environmental laws and procedures for public 
comment and participation. The exemption of fire-risk reduction 
projects from environmental review and administrative appeals, and to 
deny the public the full and fair opportunity to have viable 
alternatives to agency action considered, circumvents established 
policy of public participation, an important aspect of our democratic 
process for making decisions affecting public lands. Excluding public 
comment does not assist in developing sound forest management.
  H.R. 1042 makes some relatively innocuous procedural concessions that 
can expedite the process of resolving appeals, but, unlike H.R. 1904, 
it maintains these sound principles of law and public policy, and does 
not affect the traditional judicial review process and standards of 
equity inherent in our legal system.
  H.R. 1904 contains unwarranted judicial review standards. Not only 
does it impose unreasonable time limits for filing cases in federal 
court after final agency action, H.R. 1904 contains an unprecedented 
provision that changes the fundamental legal standard of equitable 
relief. H.R. 1904 directs the court, when considering a motion for 
injunctive relief, to determine whether there would be harm to the 
defendant and whether the injunction would be in the public interest. 
In effect, these provisions tip the scales of justice in favor of the 
administrative agency.
  The equitable balancing of competing claims has historically been 
part of the court's province. Injunctions are intrinsic to our federal 
judiciary's ability to remedy wrongs. Consequently, H.R. 1904's 
judicial review provisions serve to diminish the court's ability to 
balance competing interests, and blur the line separating the 
legislative role and the role of our courts.
  In conclusion, I believe, as all of us from the western United States 
would likely agree, that it is imperative to support proactive programs 
that reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires and aid in the 
restoration of lands that have met the same unfortunate fate as the 
Cerro Grande. However, such programs should be community-based and 
should not gut our environmental protection laws, nor affect existing 
standards of judicial review.
  H.R. 1024 had the capacity to meet these important objectives. 
However, we were not offered the opportunity to consider that 
alternative. For this reason, and those reasons stated above, I must 
oppose H.R. 1904.




                          ____________________