[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.

                          ____________________