[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 150 (Thursday, October 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13072-S13073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HEALTHY FORESTS
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Madam President. I think we will have a
discussion about forestry. I see my colleagues from Idaho and
Mississippi.
I will take just a few minutes because I think in recent days there
has really been the suggestion that in some ways Senate Democrats don't
want to move ahead on this forestry issue. Senator Daschle, in
particular, in my view, has been very constructive on this issue and
wants to have the Senate vote on this legislation.
I wish to make it clear that I think it is urgent we vote on this
bill before the Senate adjourns for this year. I happen to believe
there are 60 votes for the Senate compromise that has been worked out.
I think it is important to address the concerns of all the Members.
I really hope this isn't left to just the political season, which
gets awfully silly sometimes in the course of a Presidential election
season next year. I think the Senate must vote on it this year.
Senators know that this issue sort of makes Middle East politics look
noncontroversial. This is a very difficult and contentious subject. But
I think the Senate has come together around an important compromise.
I wish to take a few minutes this morning to outline how the Senate
bill would differ from what has been done in the House of
Representatives.
First, the Senate compromise authorizes $760 million for hazardous
fuel reduction projects. The House bill does not authorize any
additional money for these projects.
The Senate compromise--I want to emphasize this to my Democratic
colleagues--does not rely on commercial logging to get these projects
done. The House bill does. I think this is unfortunate.
The Senate compromise protects our rural communities. The House bill
does not.
The Senate compromise directs that 50 percent of the funding be spent
inside what is known as the wildland-urban interface. The House bill is
silent with respect to directing these funds.
The Senate compromise protects old growth and large trees and
requires projects that thin--not clear-cut--our forests. Again, that is
in contrast to the House bill. The House bill does not protect old
growth and large trees, and it doesn't limit how the projects can be
executed.
Fourth, the Senate compromise keeps the current standard of judicial
review of these projects and rejects the House of Representatives
standard which is not as balanced. The House bill would actually change
the outcome of lawsuits, in my view, regrettably, by robbing the
judiciary of an independent ability to weigh all of the evidence put
before them with respect to forestry matters.
Finally, the Senate compromise keeps the public in the process.
Regrettably, the House bill does not. The Senate compromise allows the
public to actually propose what is known as a NEPA alternative.
The National Environmental Policy Act is an extraordinarily important
statute. It has been of great importance to a lot of Members of the
Senate. Look back to people such as the late Scoop Jackson who were so
involved in this issue. The Senate compromise clearly allows the
public, through a public process, to propose NEPA alternatives. In my
view, the House bill pushes the public out of the process by, in
effect, predetermining these alternatives in the NEPA area.
Talking for a few minutes about the compromise, in particular the
value of having the first ever statutory protection of old growth,
preserving the public's right to participate, while streamlining the
appeals process to get at some of the abuses we have seen, strikes the
right balance. With respect, for example, to this question of making
sure citizens can be involved in appealing matters relating to a forest
resale, it is critical those rights be protected.
I also do not think there ought to be a constitutional right to a 5-
year delay on every timber sale. The Senate compromise which we put
together strikes that appropriate balance.
As we get ready to vote, some very creative work has been done. Folks
have asked, How do we know the old-growth protection is actually going
to get put in place? We say, for example, for the old-forest plans that
in effect the Forest Service would have to go back and revise those
plans to make sure the old growth is protected before the overall
projects with respect to thinning go forward. We create for the first
time in these old-forest plans an actual incentive for the Forest
Service to get busy, get going, and protect the old growth while
allowing the thinning to go forward. The compromise makes it less
likely that old growth will be harvested under current law because
under the compromise we mandated the retention of the large trees and
focused the hazardous fuels reduction programs authorized by the bill
on thinning the small trees.
Several of my colleagues want to talk on this, but I make it clear,
again, Senator Daschle has said publicly, privately, in every
conceivable forum, he wants this legislation to move forward
expeditiously. Let us address the concerns of all Senators. This is a
matter Senators feel strongly about. Let us vote on this legislation
this year. The fires we have seen in the west are not natural. They are
infernos coming about as a result of years and years of neglect. The
compromise we have crafted reflects a balanced approach. We are not
stripping the American people of their rights to be heard with respect
to forestry policy. Quite the contrary. We protect all of those avenues
of public participation.
I know we are going to hear from our colleagues who have been
involved in the compromise. I thank Senator Craig and Senator Cochran,
in particular, for working with myself and Senator Feinstein for many
months. A number of Senators have already come out for this proposal,
including, of course, the minority leader, Senator Daschle, but also
Senator Dayton and Senator Johnson. We have a host of Democratic
Senators. We can get 60 votes on this legislation and see it passed
from this body. We want to have it done this year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his explanation and
his evaluation of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, H.R. 1904, that
we want to get before the Senate. He is so right in all of his
comments. We have worked together in a very bipartisan way.
I come to the floor today as a frustrated Senator over the current
situation. I chair the forestry subcommittee of Energy. My colleague
from Oregon is the ranking member. Yet the ranking member of the full
Energy Committee came to the floor and objected to proceeding on this
legislation. I am frustrated as to why the Senator from New Mexico, Mr.
Bingaman, would object now that we have crafted this bipartisan
balance. I am perplexed, when you evaluate the record of full
bipartisan participation, why we will not allow this to go forward
under the normal course.
On June 26, the Agriculture Committee held a full hearing on H.R.
1904. Many of our colleagues attended. I am not a member of the
Agriculture Committee, but I attended that hearing. Those Members
critically in need of this legislation for our states and our forests
attended that hearing. Then the Energy Committee the Senator from New
Mexico is on, on July 22, held hearings on this issue and on the impact
of fires, insects, and disease on our forests. The committee also
considered S. 1314, the Collaborative Forest Health Act. Senator
Bingaman's bill, H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, was
also considered at that time. There has been full consideration in both
the Agriculture Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee of this legislation.
Two Senators who have engaged in the hearings full time, Senator
Wyden of Oregon and Senator Feinstein of California, worked in a very
bipartisan way with the chairman of the full Agriculture Committee,
Senator Cochran, who I understand will speak in a few moments.
Why, therefore, is there an objection? More importantly, why are we
now calling for hearings on an amendment? I don't know that has ever
been done
[[Page S13073]]
once a bill is marked up and left the full committee. Are we going to
revert backward now, and every time an amendment is offered, some
Senator is going to stand up and say: you cannot go further; you have
to have a hearing on that amendment?
The Senator from New Mexico and others know exactly what is in this
legislation. We have worked extremely hard to bring all parties into
it. The staff of the Senator from New Mexico was involved in some of
the negotiations and then decided not to attend the rest of them as
they went forward. It has not been a private process. It has been most
open and most public with the Senators from the Republican side and the
Senators from the Democrat side and their staffs working
collaboratively and cooperatively together to get where we are today.
We heard a very clear explanation from the Senator from Oregon of the
kind of process we went through and the product we have produced.
Is this now the handbook of the environmental community playing its
card? I hope not. I hope that is not the process in the end. It is
almost like the forest vernacular of the appeals process. You stay
involved just long enough and just before the decision comes about, you
ask for an appeal. No more appeals. The process has worked its will.
All parties have been involved. All amendments have been worked. Now it
is time to come to the Senate and debate it and if the Senator from New
Mexico has amendments, offer them up. Let's debate them. Let's talk
about them.
What is so critically important for the health of America's forests
is that we move forward with a process that begins to allow an active
management approach we think this legislation has very skillfully
crafted. We still have to work out our differences between the House
and the Senate. I am supportive of the Senate bill. I will work in a
conference, if I am a part of that conference, to try to get the
Senate's bill to work its will and to become part of our forest
management law. That is what is critical. That is what is important.
Clearly, it is time we move forward. It is now not time to stall.
There would be all kinds of reasons to argue if these bills had never
had hearings, if these bills had never been allowed to be amended in
committee, if these bills had never been allowed to do a full markup,
but all of that has happened. Why are we in the fifth inning in an
appeals approach suggesting we hold more hearings on an amendment that
can be effectively debated on the floor of the Senate? It is a critical
issue for my State and for the public forests of this country.
I hope in a bipartisan way we can bring this legislation to the
floor, have a thorough debate and an amendment process, and move it on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I believe we need to do something for
healthy forests. I know how hard the Senator from Oregon has worked on
this, along with others. I applaud and commend them for working.
Nevada, of course, is a State very large in area and we have had some
devastating fires in the last several years. Something needs to be done
about it.
In response to my friend from Idaho, who I have the greatest respect
for, he did not mention by name the Senator from New Mexico, but he is
talking about Senator Bingaman, speaking in not a favorable light about
my friend, the junior Senator from New Mexico. I have served with Jeff
Bingaman. We were elected to Congress the same year. He is a man of
intellect. He is Harvard educated, and he has a fine legal mind.
Certainly he is not anyone, by virtue of his record, which would be
easily obtainable, to go whatever way the environmental community wants
him to go.
I can speak from experience. I have issues where I believe the
Senator from New Mexico should have followed what I felt was the right
way, and the environmental community supported it, and he did not go
that way.
All I am saying is Senator Bingaman is one of the finest Senators we
have in this body. He has some problems with this legislation, some of
which are based upon the fact he is the ranking member and former
chairman of the committee which some believe should be the authorizing
committee and not the Agriculture Committee. I do not take a position
on that because I do not know which committee should be involved. But
as the ranking member of that committee, Senator Bingaman has some
concerns and there are some questions he has asked. I do not think that
is out of line in any way.
So without belaboring the point--and I certainly know Senator
Bingaman can defend himself, but he is not here--I want to simply say
he is one of the fairest people, one of the people who understands
Senate procedure and rules as much as anyone I know, who is also
interested in doing something about the forest fires sweeping the west.
New Mexico has had them. We know one fire which got so much attention
was a manmade fire when a Forest Service burn got out of control and
nearly wiped out one of the defense installations there in Los Alamos.
I would hope everyone understands Senator Bingaman is trying to come
forward with what he believes are some serious questions about the way
this legislation has moved. If his questions are answered, there will
be a number of us who will look to him for leadership on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I understand under the order a certain
amount of time is allocated to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
____________________