[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 149 (Wednesday, October 22, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12997-S12998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            HEALTHY FORESTS

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak for just a few minutes 
about the need for the so-called Healthy Forests initiative that was 
discussed earlier this week.
  Earlier this week, there was a unanimous consent request made to 
proceed to H.R. 1904, the so-called Healthy Forests initiative. The 
unanimous consent request sought to limit debate on the bill to a 
specified list of amendments to be offered by particular Senators.
  Included in that list were two amendments that were purported to be 
offered or suggested to be offered by me. I have never spoken to 
anybody about my intent with regard to offering amendments. And I 
certainly have not agreed to any particular amendments that I wanted to 
offer. Therefore, I have real concerns with that unanimous consent 
request because the proposed unanimous consent request would have 
limited me to offering certain amendments that I had not previously 
heard about. Obviously, I would have objected had not other Senators 
done so.
  This is an important issue that the Senate needs to try to address 
this year. I do not favor delaying that consideration. There is always 
a threat that we have seen in the West, particularly in recent years, 
of unnatural, intense, catastrophic wildfire. That is a threat to many 
of our communities, to millions of acres of public land and forests in 
the West.
  It was alleged early this week by some who were supporting moving 
ahead with that unanimous consent request that those who did not favor 
the unanimous consent request did not favor active management of the 
national forests. I want to be clear in my statement this morning that 
I certainly do not fall in that category.
  I do not think we should just let nature take its course. I do think 
we should pursue active management. What I want to be sure of is that 
the bill we finally enact provides meaningful new authority to our land 
managers; that it is focused on the communities that are most 
threatened by wildfire; and that it does not unduly restrict the 
public's right to participate and have oversight in the management of 
these lands.
  I am aware that a deal of some sort has been developed by certain of 
the Senators who are concerned on the issue. I was not involved in that 
set of negotiations that led to that deal. The provisions, as I 
understand them, that have come out of that are complicated, complex.
  I have a number of questions about the ramifications of some of those 
provisions, especially the ones dealing with administrative appeals, 
judicial review, and such issues.
  I think there should be a hearing. That would be the right way to 
proceed. We have new legislative language. The right way to proceed 
would be to have a hearing where we can get testimony on these 
provisions and better understand them. I have asked for such a hearing. 
I hope that will occur.
  I believe having a clearer understanding of what the amendment means 
and encouraging constructive suggestions would be a preferable course 
for us to pursue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, to conclude my statement, I do think 
there are serious questions regarding this new language. It differs 
substantially from the bill that was reported by the Agriculture 
Committee. Some of the major issues raised by the amendment include a 
lack of any new funding to reduce hazardous fuels; failure to eliminate 
the harmful agency policy of borrowing from proactive forest 
restoration accounts to pay for firefighting; the curtailment of public 
participation in the management and oversight of public lands, 
including the establishment of a new so-called predecisional review 
process, which I do not, frankly, understand; and also, of course, as I 
mentioned before, limitations on judicial review.

  It also appears to create some new standards for injunctions that 
might be issued by the Federal court, both preliminary and permanent 
injunctions. There is no protection that I can see for national 
monuments and roadless areas and other environmentally sensitive areas 
in the bill.
  I am not aware how some of these issues have been adequately 
addressed in the proposed amendment. For that reason I think we need to 
have an opportunity to offer amendments.
  I hope the Senate can consider this forest health legislation this 
year. As do many Senators, especially those from Western States who 
have suffered in recent years from catastrophic wildfire, I very much 
want to see us resolve these issues as best we can. But we should do so 
under conditions that allow for amendments and allow for full debate. 
And that is my purpose at this stage.
  So I hope we can proceed and do so in a way that all of us get to 
participate in the process.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.

[[Page S12998]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________