[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 93 (Monday, June 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8362-S8365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Murray, and Ms. 
        Cantwell):
  S. 1314. A bill to expedite procedures for hazardous fuels reduction 
activities on National Forest System lands established from the public 
domain and other public lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management, to improve the health of National Forest System lands 
established from the public domain and other public lands administered 
by the Bureau of Land Management, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive 
legislation to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health on 
our national forests and public lands. I am pleased that Senator 
Daschle is a cosponsor of this bill.
  Everyone in the Senate wants to do what we can to reduce the threat 
of catastrophic wildfire. We all agree on the need to accelerate fuels 
reduction activities because the risk of severe fire is so high. 
Ongoing drought, past fire suppression policies, and overly-excessive 
harvesting of timber have all contributed to the problem. All of us 
also agree that it is much better to devote limited resources to 
proactive efforts to reduce fire risk rather than paying to fight fires 
once they occur.
  I have tried for years to improve the Federal agencies' forest 
thinning program in a variety of ways. I am also a vocal proponent for 
spending Federal dollars conducting proactive forest restoration. 
Although some may contend that restoration costs too much money, over 
the long-term, it is much less expensive than fighting fires.
  Every year, the Forest Service borrows funds from other accounts to 
pay for firefighting. It is clear that this practice substantially 
contributes to project delays and cancellations. For example, in 2002 
alone, the Forest Service states that:

     some critical projects in New Mexico were postponed for up to 
     one year as a result of fire borrowing. These include 
     wildland-urban interface fuels projects on the Carson, Gila, 
     Lincoln, and Santa Fe National Forests. A contract for 
     construction of a fuelbreak around a community at risk on the 
     Cibola National Forest was postponed for six months.

  The legislation I am introducing today eliminates the current fire 
borrowing practice by authorizing the Forest Service, during years in 
which the agencies' firefighting costs exceed its budget, to borrow 
funds directly from the Treasury. I urge my colleagues to reject any 
bill purporting to decrease on the ground delays if it does not address 
this problem.
  A 2002 report by the National Academy of Public Administration, and a 
letter to Congress from the Society of American Foresters dated 
November 2002, confirms that the main obstacle constraining us from 
increasing our efforts to reduce fire risk is a lack of adequate 
funding. Clearly, the Forest Service's fire borrowing practice 
contributes to this lack of funding. Ever since Congress first funded 
the National Fire Plan more than two years ago, I have continually 
emphasized the need to sustain a commitment to the FY 2001 funding 
levels over a long enough period of time to make a difference--at least 
15 years.
  Important programs that are part of the National Fire Plan, including 
economic action programs, community and private land fire assistance, 
and burned area restoration and rehabilitation have been drastically 
cut--and some have been zeroed out--by the Administration over the last 
three budget cycles. For some accounts included under the National Fire 
Plan, but not all, Congress has made up the difference. However, it 
would certainly be much easier to fully fund the National Fire Plan 
with the Administration's support.
  Beyond funding constraints, some allege that administrative appeals 
and lawsuits limit our ability to reduce fire risk across the country. 
As set forth in my legislation, I am willing to provide new legal 
authorities and exemptions from administrative appeals to address this 
concern.
  Let me briefly describe the expedited procedures provisions of our 
bill. We propose to exempt from National Environmental Policy Act 
analysis all forest thinning projects located near communities or in 
municipal watersheds that remove up to 250,000 board feet of timber or 
one million board feet of salvage timber. We prohibit administrative 
appeals on these projects, thereby saving 135 days in the process. In 
addition, we eliminate judicial review granted under NEPA for thinning 
projects within one-half mile of at risk communities or within certain 
municipal watersheds. The combination of these provisions would save 
between one and one-half to three and one-half years of process.
  Targeting the expedited procedures to areas near communities and in 
municipal watersheds is consistent with a 2002 National Academy of 
Public Administration report recommending that the Federal Government 
conduct fuels reduction treatments near communities and municipal 
watersheds before treating more distant areas. We also require that 
seventy percent of forest thinning funds be spent within these critical 
areas.
  We agree with, and included, some provisions similar to ones found in 
H.R. 1904. For example, our bill covers the same amount of Federal 
land, namely, up to 20 million acres. H.R. 1904 requires the 
Secretaries to select projects through a collaborative process and give 
priority to protecting communities and municipal watersheds. Moreover, 
H.R. 1904 requires that projects be consistent with applicable forest 
and resource management plans. I agree with all of these provisions.
  Both bills establish systematic programs, in cooperation with 
colleges and universities, to gather information on insect infestations 
that can be applied to forest management treatments. However, our bill 
provides actual funds, $25 million annually, to implement the program 
whereas H.R. 1904 does not.
  This bill differs from H.R. 1904 in some other important aspects. Our 
bill comprehensively addresses the issue of on the ground delay by 
doing away with the Forest Service's fire borrowing practice and 
exempting the Forest Service from the Competitive Sourcing Initiative.
  Our legislation provides $100 million annually to reduce fire risk 
and restore burned areas on non-Federal lands. Forest Service 
researchers state that seventy-seven percent of all high risk areas are 
on non-Federal lands. In addition, the National Academy of Public 
Administration's 2002 report notes that forty-seven percent of acres 
burned each year are non-Federal lands and stated that decreasing fuels 
on all owners' lands is needed to address the large scope of the fire 
hazard problem. Moreover, given that the Administration has zeroed out 
funding for burned area restoration and rehabilitation, the secure 
funding provided by our bill is desperately needed to protect 
communities from landslides and other adverse effects of catastrophic 
wildfire.

  The bill I am introducing today recognizes the role that forest 
dependent

[[Page S8363]]

communities play in restoring our lands by requiring that at least 
thirty percent of hazardous fuels reduction funds be spent on projects 
that benefit small businesses that use hazardous fuels and are located 
in small, economically disadvantaged communities. In order to provide 
robust monitoring of new authorities, we require that an independent 
commission report to Congress on the results of the program and that 
the agencies establish a multiparty monitoring program. H.R. 1904 does 
not contain similar provisions.
  Most fuel reduction projects will take several years to implement. It 
is critical that the agencies have reliable funding to complete the 
projects they start. If funding is obtained to thin trees the first 
year, but not to complete the slash disposal and reintroduce fire 
through prescribed burning the following years, short-term fire risk 
will be increased. Moreover, slash that is left on the ground increases 
the likelihood of beetle infestations. The bill I am introducing today 
ensures that agencies address long-term fuels management whereas H.R. 
1904 does not contain any similar provision.
  At this point in time, I do not believe we need to expedite judicial 
review beyond what we offer in this bill. The judicial review 
limitations in H.R. 1904 are excessive. In May 2003, GAO completed an 
analysis of Forest Service decisions involving fuel reduction 
activities. In the first two years of activity under the National Fire 
Plan, GAO found that only three percent of all of the decisions were 
litigated covering 100,000 acres. Decisions affecting the remaining 4.6 
million acres treated in those two years proceeded without any 
litigation.
  H.R. 1904 provides new legal authorities and judicial review 
limitations without regard to many independent analyses that have 
discovered numerous flaws with the agencies' existing implementation of 
the National Fire Plan. In November 2001, the Inspector General for the 
Department of Agriculture found that the Forest Service was 
inappropriately spending its burned area restoration funds to prepare 
commercial timber sales. Similarly, it was recently discovered that the 
Forest Service ``misplaced'' $215 million intended for wildland fire 
management due to an accounting error.
  Finally, another GAO report concluded that, because the Forest 
Service relies on the timber program for funding many of its other 
activities, including reducing fuels, it has often used the timber 
program to address the wildfire problem. GAO states, ``The difficulty 
with such an approach, however, is that the lands with commercially 
valuable timber are often not those with the greatest wildfire hazards. 
Additionally, there are problems with the incentives in the fuel 
reduction program. Currently, managers are rewarded for the number of 
acres on which they reduce fuels, not for reducing fuels on the lands 
with the highest fire hazards. Because reducing fuels in areas with 
greater hazards is often more expensive--meaning that fewer acres can 
be completed with the same funding level--managers have an incentive 
not to undertake efforts on such lands.'' GAO/RCED-99-65.
  The parameters set forth in our bill will ensure that the agencies 
conduct forest thinning in a way that truly reduces the threat of fire 
and improves forest health. For example, we require the agencies to 
focus on thinning projects that remove small diameter trees. Too often, 
the Forest Service has cut large trees because of their commercial 
value instead of removing small-diameter trees that tend to spread 
fire. A group of respected forest fire scientists recently wrote 
President Bush a letter stating that, ``thinning of overstory trees, 
like building new roads, can often exacerbate the situation and damage 
forest health.''
  Our bill prohibits new road construction in roadless areas whereas 
H.R. 1904 contains no similar provision. The National Forests already 
contain 380,000 miles of road, as a comparison, the National Highway 
System contains 160,000 miles of roads, and the deferred maintenance 
needs on these existing roads totals more than $1 billion. Forest 
Service analysis reveals that roads increase the probability of 
accidental and intentional human-caused ignitions.
  Returning receipts to the Treasury is consistent with a provision in 
Senator Wyden and Senator Craig's county payments legislation enacted 
two years ago and avoids existing perverse incentives. Numerous GAO 
reports reveal that existing agency trust funds provide incentives for 
the agency to cut large trees because it gets to keep the revenue. 
Cutting large trees will not reduce fire risk, therefore, we should 
direct receipts back to the Treasury. Jeremy Fried, a Forest Service 
Research specialist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, states, 
``If you take just big trees, you don't reduce fire danger.''
  The provision in our bill stating that seventy percent of hazardous 
fuels reduction funds be spent within one-half mile of at risk 
communities or within municipal watersheds is necessary because GAO 
recently found that more than two-thirds of the Forest Service's 
decisions involving fuels reduction activities were targeted 
exclusively at lands outside of the wildland/urban interface. H.R. 1904 
contains no similar provision.
  In conclusion, our bill represents a comprehensive and balanced 
approach to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Collaborative Forest Health 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) The term ``at-risk community'' means--
       (A) an urban wildland ``interface'' or ``intermix'' 
     community as those terms were defined by the Secretaries on 
     January 4, 2001 (66 Federal Register 753), or
       (B) consisting of a collection of homes or other structures 
     with basic infrastructure and services, such as utilities, 
     collectively maintained transportation routes, and emergency 
     services;
       (i) on which conditions are conducive to large-scale fire 
     disturbance events; and
       (ii) for which a significant risk exists of a resulting 
     spread of the fire disturbance event, after ignition, which 
     would threaten human life and property.
       (2) The term ``community protection zone'' means an at-risk 
     community and an area within one-half mile of an at-risk 
     community.
       (3) The term ``Secretaries'' 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.
       (4) 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.
       (5) The term ``Federal lands'' means public lands as 
     defined in section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)) and the National Forest 
     System as defined in section 11 (a) of the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1609(a)).

     SEC. 3. EXPEDITED PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS.

       (a) Categorical Exclusion.--Subject to subsection (h), the 
     Secretaries may find that a proposed hazardous fuels 
     reduction project, including prescribed fire, that removes no 
     more than 250,000 board feet of merchantable wood products or 
     removes as salvage 1,000,000 board feet or less of 
     merchantable wood products and assures regeneration of 
     harvested or salvaged areas will not individually or 
     cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
     environment and, therefore, neither an environmental 
     assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
     required
       (b) Public Meeting.--Prior to implementing a project 
     pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretaries shall conduct a 
     public meeting at an appropriate location proximate to the 
     administrative unit of the Federal lands in which the project 
     will be conducted. The Secretaries shall provide advance 
     notice of the date and time of the meeting.
       (c) Collaboration.--
       (1) The Secretaries shall identify projects implemented 
     pursuant to this section through a collaborative framework as 
     described in 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, developed pursuant to the 
     Conference Report to the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2001 (H. Rept. 106-
     646) to reduce hazardous fuels. Any project carried out 
     pursuant to this section shall be consistent with the 
     applicable forest plan, resource management plan, or other 
     applicable agency plans.
       (2) The Secretaries shall ensure that local level 
     collaboration includes Tribal representatives, local 
     representatives from Federal and State agencies, local 
     governments, landowners, other stakeholders, and community-
     based groups.

[[Page S8364]]

       (3) The Secretaries shall establish incentives or 
     performance measures to ensure that Federal employees are 
     committed to collaboration.
       (d) Acreage Limitation.--In implementing this section, the 
     Secretaries shall implement projects on an aggregate area of 
     not more than 20 million acres of Federal lands. This amount 
     is in addition to the existing hazardous fuels reduction 
     program that implements projects on approximately 2.5 million 
     acres each year.
       (e) Administrative Appeals.--
       Projects implemented pursuant to this section shall not be 
     subject to the appeal requirements of section 322 of the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (16 U.S.C. 1612 note) or review by 
     the Department of the Interior Board of Land Appeals. Nothing 
     in this section affects projects for which scoping has begun 
     prior to enactment of this Act.
       (f) Conclusive Presumption.--Within--
       (1) the community protection zone; or
       (2) municipal watersheds in which National Environmental 
     Policy Act documentation and analysis has been completed and 
     no new road construction is allowed, no timber sales are 
     allowed, and no log skidding machines are allowed,

     unless there are extraordinary circumstances, the decision of 
     either Secretary that a proposed hazardous fuels reduction 
     project authorized by subsection (a) is categorically 
     excluded is conclusive as a matter of law and shall not be 
     subject to judicial review. This conclusive determination 
     shall apply in any judicial proceeding brought to enforce the 
     National Environmental Policy Act pursuant to this section.
       (g) Excluded Federal Lands.--This section does not apply to 
     any Federal lands--
       (1) included in a wilderness study area or a component of 
     the National Wilderness Preservation System; or
       (2) where logging is prohibited or restricted by an Act of 
     Congress, presidential proclamation, or agency determination.
       (h) Extraordinary Circumstances.--For all projects proposed 
     pursuant to this section, if there are extraordinary 
     circumstances, the Secretaries shall follow agency procedures 
     related to categorical exclusions and extraordinary 
     circumstances consistent with Council on Environmental 
     Quality regulations.
       (i) Reduce Fire Risk and Improve Forest Health.--
       (1) In order to ensure that the agencies are implementing 
     projects pursuant to this section that reduce the risk of 
     unnaturally intense wildfires and improve forest health, the 
     Secretaries--
       (A) shall not construct or reconstruct new temporary or 
     permanent roads in inventoried roadless areas;
       (B) shall maintain the integrity of mature and old growth 
     stands appropriate for each ecosystem type and shall focus on 
     thinning from below for all forest thinning projects;
       (C) shall use integrated pest management techniques to 
     forestall significant fuel loading in areas infested by 
     native insects;
       (D) shall require a slash treatment plan when thinning to 
     reduce hazardous fuels in areas with insect mortality and 
     limit timber salvage activity to areas with fifty percent or 
     more mortality; and
       (E) shall deposit in the Treasury of the United States all 
     revenues and receipts generated from projects implemented 
     pursuant to this Act.
       (2) In addition to the requirements set forth in paragraph 
     (1), the Secretaries shall ensure that projects implemented 
     in municipal watersheds protect or enhance water quality or 
     water quantity.
       (3) The Secretaries shall not use goods-for-service 
     contracting to implement projects pursuant to this section.
       (j) Long-Term Fuel Management.--In implementing hazardous 
     fuels reduction projects pursuant to this section, the 
     Secretaries shall ensure that--
       (1) funding to assure completion of all phases of the 
     project be committed by the management unit before the 
     project begins;
       (2) a follow-up treatment plan describing the long-term 
     maintenance activities to keep the treated areas within the 
     historical range of variability, and the project costs, shall 
     accompany all proposed projects; and
       (3) a system to track the budgeting and implementation of 
     follow-up treatments shall be used to account for the long-
     term maintenance of areas managed to reduce hazardous fuels.
       (k) Hazardous Fuels Reduction Funding Focus.--In order to 
     focus hazardous fuels reduction activities on the highest 
     priority areas where critical issues of human safety and 
     property loss are the most serious and within municipal 
     watersheds, the Secretaries shall expend at least seventy 
     percent of the hazardous fuels operations funds provided 
     annually only on projects within the community protection 
     zone or within municipal watersheds.
       (l) Communities.--
       (1) The Secretaries shall expend at least thirty percent of 
     the hazardous fuels operations funds provided annually on 
     projects that benefit small businesses that use small 
     diameter material and woody debris removed in hazardous fuels 
     reduction treatments and are located in small, economically 
     disadvantaged communities.
       (2) To conduct a project under this section, the 
     Secretaries shall use local preference contracting and best 
     value contracting. Best value contracting criteria includes--
       (A) the ability of the contractor to meet the ecological 
     goals of the projects;
       (B) the use of equipment that will minimize or eliminate 
     impacts on soils; and
       (C) benefits to local communities such as ensuring that the 
     byproducts are processed locally.
       (m) Monitoring.--(1) The Secretaries shall jointly 
     establish a commission to complete an assessment of the 
     positive or negative impacts and effectiveness of projects 
     implemented under this section. The commission shall be 
     composed of 12 to 15 members with equal representation from 
     conservation interests, local communities, and commodity 
     interests. The Commission shall submit a report to Congress 
     within 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act. The 
     report must include identification of the total dollar value 
     of contracts awarded to natural resource related small or 
     micro enterprises, Youth Conservation Corps crews or related 
     partnerships, entities that hired and trained local people to 
     complete the contract or agreement, or local entities that 
     meet the criteria to qualify for the Historically 
     Underutilized Business Zone Program pursuant to section 32 of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a).
       (2) (A) The Secretaries shall establish a multiparty 
     monitoring, evaluation, and accountability process in order 
     to assess a representative sampling of the projects 
     implemented pursuant to this section.
       (B) The Secretaries shall ensure that monitoring data is 
     collected and compiled in a way that the general public can 
     easily access. The Secretaries may collect the data using 
     cooperative agreements, grants, or contracts with small or 
     micro-enterprises, Youth Conservation Corps work crews or 
     related partnerships with State, local, and other non Federal 
     conservation corps.
       (3) Funds to implement this section shall be derived from 
     hazardous fuels operations funds.
       (n) Sunset.--
       The provisions of this section shall expire five years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, except that a 
     project for which a decision notice, or memorandum 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. 4. INSECT INFESTATIONS.

       (a) During fiscal years 2004 through 2008, the Secretaries 
     jointly shall make available from funds otherwise available 
     in the Treasury, without further appropriation, $25,000,000 
     each fiscal year to conduct a systematic information 
     gathering program on certain insect types that have caused 
     large scale damage to forest ecosystems in order to complete 
     research that can be applied to forest management treatments 
     and product utilization.
       (b) The Secretaries 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 Secretaries shall designate universities and 
     forestry schools, including Land Grant Colleges and 
     Universities and 1890 institutions, to carry out the program.
       (c) The Secretaries shall ensure that the program includes 
     research on:
       (1) determining how to best use mechanical thinning and 
     prescribed fire to modify fire behavior and reduce fire risk, 
     and to improve the scientific basis for design, 
     implementation and evaluation of hazardous fuels reduction 
     treatments;
       (2) gathering systematic information on insect types, 
     including Emerald Ash Borers, Gypsy Moth, Red Oak Borers, 
     Asian Longhomed Beetles, and Bark Beetles, that have caused 
     large-scale damage to forest ecosystems, to establish early 
     detection programs for insect and disease infestation in 
     order to prevent massive breakouts, to determine the 
     correlation between insect mortality and fire risk in 
     specific forest types, and to test silvicultural systems that 
     use integrated pest management; and
       (3) developing new technologies and markets for value-added 
     products that use the byproducts of insect infestation or 
     hazardous fuels reduction treatments.

     SEC. 5. FIREFIGHTER SAFETY AND TRAINING.

       The Secretaries shall track funds expended for firefighter 
     safety and training and include a line items for such 
     expenditures in future budget requests.

     SEC. 6. BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION.

       (a) The Secretary of Agriculture may request up to $250 
     million in a fiscal year from the Secretary of the Treasury 
     to cover fire suppression costs that exceed the amount of 
     funding available to the Forest Service for fire suppression 
     in a fiscal year.
       (b) Upon such request, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     make such sums available to the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     without further appropriation.
       (c) Upon amounts being appropriated by Congress to 
     reimburse funds transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture 
     pursuant to this section, such amounts shall be deposited in 
     the Treasury.

     SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON THE COMPETITIVE SOURCING INITIATIVE.

       The Competitive Sourcing Initiative and the Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular No. A-76, dated May 29, 2003, 
     shall not apply to the Forest Service.

     SEC. 8. WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION AND BURNED AREA RESTORATION.

       (a) In General.--During fiscal years 2004 through 2008, the 
     Secretaries jointly shall

[[Page S8365]]

     make available from funds otherwise available in the 
     Treasury, without further appropriation, $100,000,000 each 
     fiscal year to reduce the risk of wildfire to structures and 
     restore burned areas on tribal lands, nonindustrial private 
     lands, and State lands using the authorities available 
     pursuant to this section, the National Fire Plan and the 
     Emergency Watershed Protection program.
       (b) Cost Share Grants.--In implementing this section, the 
     Secretaries may make cost-share grants to Indian tribes, 
     local fire districts, municipalities, homeowner associations, 
     and counties, to remove, transport, and dispose of hazardous 
     fuels around homes and property to--
       (1) prevent structural damage as a result of wildfire, or
       (2) to restore or rehabilitate burned areas on non-Federal 
     lands.
       (c) Non-Federal Contribution.--The non-Federal contribution 
     may be in the form of cash or in-kind contribution.
       (d) Priority.--Priority for such funds shall be given to 
     areas where the applicable local government has enacted 
     ordinances for wildland areas requiring or promoting brush 
     clearance around homes and requiring fire-retardant building 
     materials for new construction.
       (e) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated in one 
     fiscal year and unobligated before the end of that fiscal 
     year shall remain available for use in subsequent fiscal 
     years.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join Senators Bingaman, Murray, 
Cantwell and others to introduce the Collaborative Forest Health Act to 
expedite forest thinning and improve forest health on our national 
forests and public lands. I thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership 
on this important issue.
  Everyone in the Senate wants to do what we can to reduce the threat 
of catastrophic wildfire. There is agreement on the need to accelerate 
fuel reduction activities because of the risk of severe fire is so 
high. Ongoing drought, past fire suppression policies, and past 
forestry practices have all contributed to the problem. These problems 
have made fire management much more expensive for American taxpayers. 
It is important to devote limited resources to proactive efforts to 
reduce fire risk rather than paying to fight fires once they occur.
  The risk of damage to human life and property from severe wildfires 
has increased in areas where rapidly expanding populations are 
intermingled with forested wildlands, and a primary purpose of the 
National Fire Plan is to reduce the risks of such fires. Last week, 
Governors Judy Martz of Montana, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Janet 
Napolitano of Arizona, and Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho issued a letter to 
the Agriculture Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee endorsing this approach stating that ``priority in project 
selection should be given to projects that reduce fire risk in 
communities at risk and the watersheds that supply them.''
  This comprehensive legislation will assist communities from the 
threat of wildfire by expediting fuel reduction in high risk areas and 
target resources near communities and municipal watersheds. We propose 
to exempt from environmental review and analysis all forest thinning 
projects located within one-half mile of at risk communities or within 
certain municipal watershed. While these targeted exemptions from 
environmental review are warranted, the Senate should proceed with 
caution in considering any comprehensive changes to judicial review. On 
May 14, 2003, the General Accounting Office, GAO, issued a report on 
the Forest Service's fuel reduction activities. For fiscal year 2001 
and fiscal year 2002, the GAO found that hazardous fuel reduction 
activities were conducted on 4.7 million acres. Only 3 percent of all 
the fuel reduction projects, covering only 100,000 acres, faced any 
legal challenge during this period.
  In 2002, the National Academy of Public Administration issued a 
report recommending the Federal Government conduct fuels reduction 
treatments near communities and municipal watersheds before treating 
more distant areas. We also require that 70 percent of forest thinning 
funds be spent within these critical areas. Our bill authorizes 
projects on up to 20 million acres over 5 years.
  The bill also recognizes the role that forest-dependent communities 
play in restoring our lands by requiring that at least 30 percent of 
the hazardous fuels reduction funds be spent on projects that benefit 
small businesses that use hazardous fuels and are located in small, 
economically disadvantaged communities.
  It is widely known that approximately 80 percent of the land 
surrounding homes and communities is non-Federal land. Our legislation 
provides $100 million annually to States, tribal and private lands to 
reduce wildfire risk and restore burned areas.
  In addition, our bill establishes a $25 million research program, in 
cooperation with colleges and universities, to gather information on 
insect infestations that can be applied to forest management 
treatments.
  Our bill promotes wildfire management activities that maintain the 
integrity of our national forests and public lands. The bill requires 
protection of old and large trees, prevents new road construction in 
roadless areas, and protects municipal watersheds.
  In conclusion, our bill represents a comprehensive and balanced 
approach to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health. I urge 
my colleagues to support this important legislation.
                                 ______