[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 150 (Thursday, October 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13126-S13127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        GIVE US A VOTE, PART II

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as a Senator frustrated by this situation, 
I rise today to respond to comments made by my colleague from New 
Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, regarding the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, 
H.R. 1904. As he chose to address the entire Senate, I too am following 
his lead in addressing the entire Senate. I appreciate Mr. Bingaman's 
attention to this issue and look forward to future discussions with him 
on this issue.
  However, I am perplexed and troubled by some of my colleague's 
statements and feel it is important to include some additional 
information for the Record.
  First, on June 26, the Agriculture Committee held a hearing on H.R. 
1904 and many of our colleagues, including myself, took the time to 
attend the hearing, listen to the testimony, and participate in the 
discussions. Mr. Bingaman could have done the same, but chose not to.
  In the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we then held a hearing 
on July 22. The purpose of this hearing was to examine the impacts of 
fires, insects and disease on forest lands. And we looked at processes 
for implementing hazardous fuels reduction projects more expeditiously.
  The committee also considered S. 1314, the Collaborative Forest 
Health Act, Mr. Bingaman's bill; H.R. 1904 the Healthy Forest 
Restoration Act; as well as other related legislation that addresses 
these issues.
  During that hearing, Senator Bingaman hardly even mentioned his bill 
and had very few questions about H.R. 1904.
  In Mr. Bingaman's statement to the Senate, he brought up having 
concerns about many of the issues covered at the hearing. If he had so 
many questions, I have to wonder why he waited until now to ask them?
  Two Senators who did engage at the hearing, Senator Wyden and Senator 
Feinstein, asked probing questions that helped the bipartisan group, 
hosted by Mr. Cochran, find a commonsense solution.
  Second, Mr. Bingaman's staff was invited to the table, at the point 
discussions of the major issues began in earnest and were never 
excluded from being a part of the discussions that developed the 
compromise amendment. In fact, his staff attended several of the 
negotiations sessions, but chose to stop being a part of the 
discussions.
  At that time in the discussions, all the major issues related to 
Title I--old growth, judicial review, large tree retention--were still 
in flux and any contributions they would have made could have been a 
fruitful part of the discussion. But, again, they chose not to 
participate.
  In addition, his staff attended the all-staff briefing once the 
compromise amendment was agreed to by the bipartisan group of Senators 
participating in the discussions and Mr. Bingaman's staff was very 
active in that briefing. And it is my understanding that they asked 
many of the questions and received answers for the issues Mr. Bingaman 
now is questioning.

  It is one thing to disagree about the approach we have taken and 
offer amendments to modify that approach and another to foster needless 
delay.
  If any of my colleagues would like a personal briefing on the 
compromise amendment, and the process in which it was developed, I am 
certain that the cosponsors of this amendment would join me in sitting 
down with anyone who would like to be a part of this discussion.
  While Senator Bingaman has supported active management and wants to 
be a part of the solution, it would appear that he is taking a play out 
of the environmentalist's handbook and is delaying the process through 
stalling, such as asking for a hearing on the amendment.
  I believe the Senate should not get into the habit of holding 
hearings on amendments because a Senator chose not to participate in 
the process.
  Again, this is a move the radical environmental community uses time 
and time again to prevent hazardous fuel reduction projects from going 
forward. In the vernacular of forest appeals, Mr. Bingaman has stayed 
involved just enough to meet the standing requirements, he has held his 
water till the appeal period is just about over and now he is launching 
his appeal.
  The question now is, what now? The environmental community usually 
files a lawsuit when they don't see the results they wanted. Will 
Senator Bingaman try to filibuster this important legislation? Or will 
he step forward to offer amendments to make the modifications he 
believes need to be made.
  There have been two unanimous consent requests offered that included 
the opportunity to offer amendments on the very issues that the Senator 
brought up today. Yet he has objected both times. A third unanimous 
consent request that is even more broad was offered this morning.
  It is time to move on and proceed to a debate on the floor of the 
Senate. This is important legislation that needs to be signed into law 
so that we can start to address the hazardous fuels problems that are 
threatening our communities.
  This legislation will result in a more public, expedited, process for 
moving hazardous fuels projects through the NEPA process.
  It provides for the development of a new and improved predecisional 
protest process for projects authorized under this bill. The new 
process will replace the highly contentious, time consuming, appeals 
process that currently delays many forest health projects.
  It directs that all preliminary injunctions be reviewed every 60 
days, with the opportunity for the parties to update the judges on 
changes in conditions so the court may respond to those changes if 
needed, something that Senators Wyden and Feinstein desired.
  Finally, it reminds the courts that when weighing the equities that 
they should balance the impact to the ecosystem of the short and long-
term effects of undertaking the project against the short and long-term 
effects of not undertaking the project. I am sure there are communities 
in New Mexico that would welcome this balancing of the harms.
  It is time for the Senate to take action on this issue. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in bringing this legislation up for 
consideration.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate Catherine 
Bertini, former Executive Director of the United Nations World Food 
Program, for her selection as recipient of the 2003 World Food Prize, 
presented in a ceremony in Des Moines, IA on October 16.
  Ms. Bertini has worked long and hard and with innovation and 
creativity to rid the world of the scourge of hunger. For her efforts 
this recognition is richly deserved. As the leader of the World Food 
Program between 1992 and 2002, Ms. Bertini directed programs 
responsible for addressing hunger around the world, providing 
assistance to an estimated 700 million people during that period. 
Because of her dedication and leadership, millions are alive today 
whose need for assistance would otherwise have been ignored.
  Catherine Bertini is the twenty-first recipient of the World Food 
Prize, and the second civil servant so honored. During her tenure at 
the World Food Program, or WFP, Ms. Bertini reorganized the agency and 
improved its logistical capacity, while focusing attention on 
delivering food aid through women in the developing world, and thereby 
nourishing women and girls

[[Page S13127]]

both in nutrition and education. As she wrote in the Des Moines 
Register, ``The key to ending hunger may lie in a little girl's hands. 
In her left, she holds a bowl of rice; in her right, her school 
books.'' I strongly support these goals, and share Ms. Bertini's desire 
to fund fully for fiscal 2004 the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Program, which we included in the 2002 farm bill.
  Even as we celebrate her achievements, Catherine Bertini is focused 
on the challenges that lie ahead. She may have left her position at the 
WFP, but her long-time work to defeat global hunger and poverty 
continues. Only a few months after her departure from the WFP, she was 
asked by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to work for him in New York, 
as Under Secretary General for Management. Prior to her selection as 
WFP Executive Director, Ms. Bertini served as Assistant Secretary of 
Agriculture for Food and Consumer Services in the first Bush 
Administration.
  Ms. Bertini exemplifies the best ideals of public service and reminds 
us that our fundamental work is not to leave the world as we found it, 
but as we know it should be--free of deprivation, devoid of want and 
with equal opportunity for all regardless of who they are or where they 
are. For her efforts, I salute Ms. Bertini and her dedication to the 
cause of helping the needy around the world.
  The World Food Prize was established in 1986 to provide international 
recognition for individuals who have made vital contributions to 
``improving the quality, quantity, or availability of food throughout 
the world.'' The World Food Prize embodies the vision of Dr. Norman E. 
Borlaug, an Iowa native who received the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for his 
development of dwarf wheat. Through the adoption of dwarf wheat 
varieties in the 1960's, developing countries doubled their wheat 
yields in what became known as the Green Revolution. Dr. Borlaug's 
achievements and devotion to eliminating world hunger exemplify the 
ideals honored by the World Food Prize.
  Within a few years after the World Food Prize was created, it lost 
critical sponsorship and its future was in serious doubt. In short, the 
Prize badly needed a committed benefactor. Iowa businessman and 
philanthropist John Ruan stepped forward to provide critical funding 
and to establish a headquarters for the World Food Prize in Des Moines, 
IA. Under Mr. Ruan's stewardship, and with the leadership of its 
president, Ambassador Kenneth M. Quinn, the Prize now rests on a solid 
foundation. The annual awarding of the Prize serves as the anchor to a 
two-day international symposium and many other activities in support of 
defeating world famine and hunger.
  It is a sobering reality that the world is still plagued with 
staggering levels of hunger and poverty. The World Food Prize heightens 
awareness of that reality, but it also inspires hope by recognizing 
that progress has been made and that much more can be done. Dr. Borlaug 
and Ms. Bertini, along with previous World Food Prize laureates, serve 
as examples to inspire and motivate us all to commit ourselves 
wholeheartedly to ending global hunger and poverty as rapidly as 
possible.

                          ____________________