[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 155 (Thursday, October 30, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13600-S13611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is under the previous order 
the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1904, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1904) to improve the capacity of the Secretary 
     of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and 
     conduct hazardous fuel reduction projects on National Forest 
     System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands aimed at 
     protecting communities, watersheds, and certain other at-risk 
     lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to 
     protect watersheds and address threats to forest and 
     rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the 
     landscape, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. We need the manager of the bill on the floor for the 
majority. Senator Bingaman is ready to offer an amendment. He was here 
all day yesterday.
  What we would like to do is have Senator Bingaman offer his 
amendment--I have not spoken to the two leaders--have that set aside 
temporarily and then move to the Leahy amendment. They will both be 
relatively short in time, and then we can arrange an appropriate time 
for voting on these.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
for 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Good Economic News

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as we prepare over the next several minutes 
to shift gears back to a very important piece of legislation, I just 
want to take this opportunity to comment on another issue and that is 
the issue of the economy. There is very good news, news that was 
released today, and that is that the economy grew by 7.2 percent in 
this last quarter--in July, August, and September. This to me is really 
a spectacular piece of news, especially as we know the people are 
following this economy very closely, especially to see what the 
response is to the President's tax relief package several months ago.
  Mr. President, 7.2 percent is spectacular in so many ways. In fact, 
it has been nearly 19 years--I guess the last date was in 1984--that 
the economy last saw such growth. This news is not totally unexpected. 
For the last several days I have come to the Senate Chamber to suggest 
that this is the sort of figure we could expect, in large part because 
of the policies we enacted earlier this year, specifically the tax 
reductions which we knew would result in such growth. Indeed, we are 
now seeing that hard data of growth--7.2 percent in the last quarter.
  This positive news was also reflected and added to by this morning's 
numbers which showed that personal consumption has increased at 6.6 
percent as well. It is interesting that consumption makes up about 70 
percent of our economic growth. That is, 70 percent of all of this 
economic growth is accounted for by consumption. If we looked at just 
that impact of consumption alone, we would have seen growth in our 
economy of 4.6 percent.
  Equally if not more important for the longer term, another measure, 
business investment, grew by 11.1 percent. To me, this suggests we will 
continue to see growth well into the future as they rebuild, as they 
reinvest, as they retool their factories and prepare for the future.
  Government spending, another component of growth which accounted for 
much of the growth earlier this year, was not the most important factor 
accounting for today's news. Indeed, Government spending only increased 
about 1.4 percent. I say that because a lot of people say we are just 
spending so much these days in terms of Government; that is why the 
economy is growing. But as the figures show, most of that growth is in 
this dramatic increase in consumption, an increase of 6.6 percent 
according to today's news.
  Maybe lost in the big news this morning is what really matters in 
this growth--the jobs issue. The Department of Labor reported this 
morning that the initial claims for unemployment declined by 5,000 last 
week, affirming this downward trend in unemployment. So this morning we 
have good news released. The numbers released today indeed indicate a 
ramp up to recovery. I do expect the growth in the quarters ahead will 
settle down to a more realistic and sustainable level.
  The point is, we are making progress. We are making real progress. 
The policies we put into place are beginning to take hold.
  We clearly have a lot more work to do. We must do more to create jobs 
and bring economic recovery to all of our citizens. Thus, we really 
can't rest on these reports today. But at the same time, in this body 
we must continue to work toward reducing the cost of doing business in 
this country.
  I immediately turn to issues we are talking about, both on the floor 
and off--health care, energy, class action, litigation costs. We need 
to remove barriers to investment and economic growth so employers can 
create jobs.

  Our work here in the Congress must go forward with renewed 
dedication. Today we do see firsthand the effects of the President's 
economic policies. Such results should encourage all of us to work even 
harder to bring economic recovery to the doorstep of every American.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I, too, am pleased at the good news that the 
GDP has gone up. But for the 3 million people who have lost jobs, J-O-B 
is more important than G-D-P. This last month, another 46,000 jobs have 
been lost in this country; during this administration, more than 3 
million jobs. This is the only President since Herbert Hoover who has 
had a net loss in jobs. I think this is very unfortunate. I hope the 
GDP continues to grow and in the process create jobs.
  Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the committee that has 
jurisdiction of the bill now before the Senate and I spoke with the 
majority leader and minority leader a few minutes ago. It is the wish 
of the distinguished chairman of this committee, the manager of this 
bill, that when an amendment is offered--unless there is some 
exception--we are going to debate that and vote on it, dispose of it 
one way or the other.
  As we spoke to the majority leader, the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi and I--everyone should be--we were both in tune with the 
majority leader. Today's votes are going to take 20 minutes. After 20 
minutes, the majority leader said he is going to ask that the clerk 
announce the vote. There are going to be people who miss votes, but 
that is their problem. All staffs who are listening to me, everyone 
should understand, if the majority leader follows through on what he 
said--and I am confident he will--a few people will miss votes. But I 
think fewer will miss them the second time and fewer the third time.
  If we are going to finish this most important bill, we cannot have 
votes going 40 minutes, and that is what they were going yesterday. It 
is unfair to the managers of the bill, unfair to the Senate, unfair to 
the country.
  I hope that following the vote of Senator Bingaman, we will stick to 
20-minute votes, no matter who isn't here for the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me compliment the distinguished 
acting leader. He correctly states the content of the conversation that 
we had which included the majority leader. The custom, in recent 
history anyway, has been to accumulate amendments and then have the 
votes stacked to occur at a certain time. That is well and good, if you 
know how many amendments you have. We don't have a finite list of 
amendments. That is one thing we need. If Senators would let us know 
which amendments they intend to offer, we can probably manage this bill 
more efficiently and save time for everybody.
  We want to finish the bill tonight. That is my intention. I think 
that is

[[Page S13601]]

the intention of the acting Democratic leader as well.
  The regular order is, if you have an amendment, come and offer it. We 
will debate it and dispose of it. We will give you a vote on it and 
move to table it or we will accept it.
  Senator Bingaman is here with an amendment. It is an important 
amendment. I understand that he is going to seek the floor and offer 
that amendment. We will debate it and dispose of it.
  I very much thank the two leaders for their effort to help move this 
bill along and ensure that the votes we have are held to a minimum 
amount of time. We are going to try to enforce that.
  I thank everybody concerned.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could say one additional thing, we have 
run a hotline on our side. We are very close to having a finite list of 
amendments. That will be offered on this side. We know the intense 
interest in this bill from all sides. No one exemplifies the interest 
in this bill more than the Senator from Oregon. Senator Wyden has been 
very responsive to the bill that is before us. He has been here 
virtually every minute this matter has been on the floor. Like so many 
people who are concerned about this, he wants this bill to be completed 
as quickly as possible. I think with the cooperation of the Senate we 
can do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I want to recognize 
my friend from New Mexico who has spent a lot of time on this bill and 
has an important amendment.
  As we go to the amendments this afternoon--particularly those from my 
side--I think it is critically important that the bipartisan compromise 
which was consummated yesterday in a 97-to-1 vote on the floor of the 
Senate not become unraveled today. This is, in my view, the only bill 
that can make it to the President's desk. It is a balanced approach on 
management. It ensures that the public has every single opportunity to 
participate in the debate about forestry but, at the same time, it does 
not establish a constitutional right to a 5-year delay on every 
conceivable matter that may relate to the forestry sector.
  In particular, it provides for potentially lifesaving hazardous fuel 
reduction projects in our national forests. We have to respond to what 
we have seen in California. It is a heartfelt need in that State.
  If this legislation as set out in the compromise doesn't become law, 
what we have seen in California in the last few days, and as we saw in 
Oregon last year, is going to be what the country faces year after 
year.
  I am very interested in working with our colleagues in an expeditious 
manner. I thank Senator Cochran again for all of his cooperation. 
Senator Bingaman has been waiting for a long time.
  I intend to work with all of our colleagues on this amendments today. 
What I especially look forward to is completing the work on this 
legislation. It was a very exciting development to have yesterday's 
vote by such a large plurality. It shows what you can do if you stay at 
it and try to find common ground in an area that is about as 
contentious as you can find. As Senator Cochran noted, we hope 
colleagues will bring amendments to the floor and move expeditiously.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2031

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2031.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide the Secretary of Agriculture with the authority to 
   borrow funds from the Treasury to pay for firefighting costs that 
  exceed funds available and to provide funding to conduct hazardous 
  fuels reduction and burned area restoration projects on non-Federal 
                    lands in and around communities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following two new 
     sections:

     SEC. __. BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, upon 
     the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, make available 
     to the Secretary of Agriculture, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be 
     necessary in each fiscal year to carry out fire suppression 
     activities. The Secretary of Agriculture may make such 
     request only if fire suppression costs exceed the amount of 
     funding available to the Forest Service for fire suppression 
     in a fiscal year.
       (b) Audit.--Not later than 180 days after the Secretary of 
     Agriculture exercises the authority provided by this section, 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture shall 
     submit to the Secretary and to the Congress an audit of 
     expenditures of funds provided under this section. Upon a 
     determination by the Inspector General that specific amounts 
     of such funds were used for purposes other than fire 
     suppression, or upon a determination that specific 
     expenditures of such funds were both unreasonable and 
     excessive, the Secretary, not later than 30 days after 
     receiving the audit of the Inspector General, shall reimburse 
     the Treasury, out of unobligated balances for the Forest 
     Service for the fiscal year in which the funds were provided, 
     for the amounts so identified by the Inspector General.

     SEC. __. COMMUNITY PROTECTION AND BURNED AREA RESTORATION.

       (a) In General.--During fiscal years 2004 through 2008, the 
     Secretaries shall carry out a joint program to reduce the 
     risk of wildfire to structures and restore burned areas on 
     non-Federal lands, including county-owned lands, 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) Appropriation and Availability of Funds.--The Secretary 
     of Treasury shall make available to the Secretaries out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated 
     $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to 
     carry out this section, which shall remain available until 
     expended.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, although I interrupted the clerk before 
the clerk was able to read the entire amendment, I think probably the 
best way for me to start my description of the amendment is to go 
through and read some portions of it so Members know what I am 
proposing.
  There are two parts to the amendment. It adds two new sections to the 
bill in order to provide meaningful new authority and actual resources 
to protect communities at risk from unnaturally intense catastrophic 
wildfire.
  We had a little bit of debate yesterday--and we will again today--
about what exactly has been the problem and what the policy mistakes 
and failures are here in Washington that have contributed to this 
problem.
  I would suggest to you that the major failure which has occurred here 
in Washington that has contributed to the problem is the one I am 
trying to address with this amendment; that is, inadequate funding with 
which to proceed not only to fight fires but to do the necessary 
thinning and the necessary restoration activities that we are all in 
agreement need to be made.
  The first section that this amendment would add reads as follows: I 
will read through the most significant parts of it. It says:

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall, upon the request of 
     the Secretary of Agriculture--

  And, of course, that is where the Forest Service is located, in the 
Department of Agriculture--

     make available to the Secretary of Agriculture, out of any 
     money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums 
     as may be necessary in each fiscal year to carry out fire 
     suppression activities. The Secretary of Agriculture may make 
     such request only if fire suppression costs exceed the amount 
     of funding available to the Forest Service for fire 
     suppression in a fiscal year.

  What we are saying is we are going to do our best here to appropriate 
money for fire suppression; that is, firefighting activities. But to 
the extent that we fall short, the Secretary of Agriculture can go to 
the Department of the Treasury and get funds with which to do that 
firefighting.
  We have a second part of this section. It is an audit provision. It 
says:


[[Page S13602]]


       Not later than 180 days after the Secretary of Agriculture 
     exercises the authority provided by this section, the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture shall 
     submit to the Secretary and to the Congress an audit of 
     expenditures of funds provided under this section. Upon a 
     determination by the Inspector General that specific amounts 
     of such funds were used for purposes other than fire 
     suppression, or upon a determination that specific 
     expenditures of such funds were both unreasonable and 
     excessive, the Secretary, not later than 30 days after 
     receiving the audit of the Inspector General, shall reimburse 
     the Treasury, out of unobligated balances for the Forest 
     Service for the fiscal year in which the fund were provided. 
     . . .

  Essentially, we are doing an audit. If there is any misuse of funds, 
if they are used for anything other than fire suppression, then the 
Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture shall essentially take 
those funds out of their hide and deal with the situation that way.
  That is the first part of the amendment.
  The second part of the amendment that I am offering is entitled, 
``Community Protection And Burned Area Restoration.'' It says, in 
general:

       During fiscal years 2004 through 2008, the Secretaries [the 
     Secretary of Agriculture who has jurisdiction over the Forest 
     Service and the Secretary of the Interior] shall carry out a 
     joint program to reduce the risk of wildfire to structures 
     and restore burned areas on non-Federal lands, including 
     country-owned lands, 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.

  We are talking about funds to do restoration work on land that the 
Federal Government doesn't own.
  The second part of this talks about cost share grants. It says:

       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.

  This is still on non-Federal lands. It says the non-Federal 
contribution may be in the form of cash or in-kind contribution, and 
then it authorizes the appropriation of $100 million in each of those 
years, 2004 through 2008, to do their work, to make these grants, to 
help these non-Federal agencies and entities deal with the problems.
  Much of the fire we have seen on television in recent days is, in 
fact, not on Federal land. They are desperately in need of assistance 
from the Federal Government. This is assistance that would be of that 
type and should be in place every year.
  I will go through a more complete description of the amendment. The 
amendment does add two new sections to the bill to provide meaningful 
new authority and actual resources to protect communities at risk from 
unnaturally intense catastrophic wildfire. If we are not going to add 
real resources as part of this bill, we are, in fact, making a false 
promise to the American people. We can give all the speeches about how 
we are going to pass the bill, the President is going to sign it, 
everything is going to be rosy, the clouds are going to clear, and we 
are going to be in the sunny uplands--the broad sunny uplands, is the 
way Churchill said it.
  The reality is, if we do not provide resources to help, it is a false 
promise. This amendment will try to help provide those resources.
  The first part of the amendment allows the Forest Service to borrow 
funds from the Treasury to pay for firefighting during the years in 
which available funds do not cover costs. Someone might say that is a 
pretty rare occasion, a year when the funds available do not cover the 
cost. Let me cite the last 3 years: 2001, 2002, and 2003, Forest 
Service firefighting funding.
  We have three columns on my chart: The President's request, what was 
actually appropriated, and what was actually spent, what we wound up 
spending out of Federal Government funds to deal with this problem.
  In 2001, the President requested the Congress appropriate the budget 
he sent us of $291 million. Fortunately, through the good offices of 
Senator Cochran and other Members, we did better than that. I very much 
appreciate that. Senator Byrd deserves credit, as do other Members on 
the Democratic side. We appropriated $469 million--not quite twice what 
the President asked for, but it is getting close. The amount that was 
actually needed was $683 million. So we missed it by a little--we were 
more than $200 million short of what the Forest Service actually had to 
spend for firefighting in that year.
  In 2002, the President asked for more. He said $291 million was not 
enough, how about $325 million. This is for the whole country. He said, 
$325 million ought to be plenty for the whole country. In fact, we 
appropriated a little less than he asked for, $321 million. What was 
actually needed was $1.28 billion. So we missed it by not quite $1 
billion. That is $1 billion that was spent by the Forest Service of 
funds not appropriated to them for this firefighting activity.
  In 2003, which we just finished, the President said we need $421 
million. The Appropriations Committee said no; let's make it $418 
million. We spent over $1 billion--$1.02 billion.
  There is a shortfall each year. It is a question of whether the 
shortfall is $1 billion, a couple hundred million, but every year we 
have done this. At least since this President has been in town, we have 
seen a significant shortfall. What I am trying to do is begin to 
address that problem.
  The real problem that needs to be addressed with respect to the 
Forest Service situation is the practice of borrowing. Every time we do 
this, every time we give them much less money that turns out to be 
needed for firefighting, they have no choice but to take money from 
other accounts in order to deal with that problem. They do that.
  Let me point out for the year 2002, the year we had the total amount 
transferred out of other accounts to fight fires was $1.02 billion. 
What did that come from? It came from different accounts, but a big 
chunk of it came out of accounts that are the accounts we are saying in 
the Senate are our highest priority. We want money for forest 
restoration, we want money for thinning of forests, for getting the 
underbrush out of the way so we do not have the fires. In fact, that 
funding is not available to the Forest Service because they are too 
busy using it to fight fires rather than to get ahead of the problem 
and deal with that.
  There are many examples I will cite of the problem we are dealing 
with. In my home State of New Mexico, we have a publication, a 1-page 
sheet the Forest Service issued called ``Effects of Transferring Money 
to Fire Suppression.'' That is what this chart is reflecting. All of 
the money on the chart was transferred to fire suppression, to 
firefighting. This was issued in April by the Forest Service with 
regard to New Mexico. It says the 2002 fire season was intense. The 
cost of suppressing these fires was nearly $1.3 billion. The Forest 
Service transferred $1 billion from other discretionary and mandatory 
accounts to defray fire suppression costs. Over $55 million was 
borrowed from national forests in Arizona and New Mexico. Some critical 
projects in New Mexico were postponed for up to 1 year as a result of 
fire borrowing. These included wildland/urban interface fuels projects, 
in the Carson National Forest, in the Gila National Forest, in the 
Lincoln National Forest, in the Santa Fe National Forest; a contract 
for construction of a fuel break around the community at risk in the 
Cibola National Forest was postponed for 6 months.
  What they have to do when they shift the money out of these accounts, 
they have to put that forest thinning or forest restoration project on 
hold because they cannot afford it. They are too busy fighting fires. 
We need the money to fight fires. We have caused them to do that every 
year.
  A similar problem exists in many other States. I will indicate a few 
of those, States that have a great interest in this legislation. I have 
a document called ``Summary of Effects of Transferring Money to Fire 
Suppression.'' As a result of recent fire transfers in which money has 
been transferred from various Forest Service accounts to pay for 
emergency wildfire suppression, critical Forest Service projects were 
postponed or canceled throughout the West. There are literally hundreds 
of examples of unfortunate consequences

[[Page S13603]]

that resulted, including canceled prescribed burns, thinning projects, 
timber sales, evasive weed control programs, and emergency burned area 
rehabilitation projects.
  The consequences are felt beyond dangerous forest conditions, and 
they range from the postponement of dam safety inspection to the 
inability to finalize a tribal energy development agreement.
  I have already given examples from my State of New Mexico. In Idaho, 
spring burning projects in the Nez Perce National Forest were 
postponed.
  A brush-cutting project in Clearwater National Forest could not be 
completed.
  In Montana, a hazardous fuels reduction project in the wildland/urban 
interface of the Bitter Root National Forest was postponed and slated 
for possible cancellation.
  In Oregon, watershed assessments and restoration activities 
associated with the Biscuit Fire were delayed. Numerous timber sales 
and wildland/urban interface thinning work was postponed.
  In Washington, white pine blister rust thinning and pruning projects 
were deferred.
  In California, nearly $6 million was transferred out of forest health 
vegetation management and ecological restoration accounts in 2003, 
resulting in having to withdraw stewardship contracts for wildland/
urban interface fuels reduction projects and the failure to complete 
prescribed burns.
  So this issue of borrowing is serious. It is one that we need to 
address as part of this bill.
  I commend Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan, who are the chairman and 
ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for their 
efforts to secure $400 million to repay the accounts from which the 
agencies have borrowed to fight fires.
  Now, what happens each year, when we, in fact, give the Forest 
Service less money for firefighting than they need, we have to come 
back the next year in supplemental appropriations and ask for funds 
with which to pay back those accounts so they can hopefully get back to 
those projects they had to postpone.
  My understanding is that this amount, this $400 million, was included 
in the conference report that was agreed upon Monday night. I also 
appreciate Senator Burns' comments that the $400 million is not the 
final word. I believe he said this is especially true since the Forest 
Service alone actually borrowed $695 million from other programs so far 
in this last year.
  However, this year-to-year approach to the fire-borrowing problem is 
not an adequate solution. Even when our Senate appropriations 
colleagues do everything they can to make sure these accounts are 
repaid every year, on-the-ground restoration work is delayed--it is 
substantially delayed--while the Forest Service waits for Congress to 
pass a supplemental appropriations bill to once again give them the 
money they had originally been given but could not use for that 
purpose. They had to use it for firefighting.
  The events that occurred earlier this year are a devastating example 
of that. I have sort of gone through that on this chart. The Senate 
approved $289 million in extra wildfire funding in the fiscal year 2003 
supplemental spending bill. However, the House dropped it.
  On July 28, Senator Burns correctly stated on the floor:

     . . . without work in the House to help get these funds, we 
     will be facing an even more drastic situation.

  Nonetheless, the bill that was sent to the President did not contain 
these urgently needed funds.
  In my State of New Mexico, some critical Forest Service hazardous 
fuels reduction projects were postponed for up to a year, last year, as 
a result of borrowing to fight fires. These include projects in all 
these national forests I have mentioned.
  In February 2003, the Missoulian, which I understand is a Montana 
newspaper--I assume in Missoula--reported that because of fire 
borrowing, Montana and northern Idaho forests ``lost about $80 million, 
including $25 million intended for the repair and replanting of forests 
burned two years earlier on the Bitterroot National Forest.''
  Moreover, as evidenced last year by a $200 million shortfall, the 
supplemental appropriations often are not sufficient to provide full 
repayment to the programs that have been raided.
  So what you have, as we spend what we have on fighting fires--and 
there is no choice about that--the Forest Service gives up funds that 
were intended for other purposes. In many cases, this restoration work, 
that we all are now saying is so important--and I certainly agree is so 
important--then we never get around to giving them the full money. We 
never get around to replacing all the funds that we have taken.
  Mr. President, let me talk a little about the second part of my 
amendment. The second part of the amendment provides $100 million 
annually to reduce fire risk and restore burned areas on non-Federal 
lands.
  The Forest Service's own researchers state that 77 percent of all 
high-risk areas are on non-Federal lands. In addition, the National 
Academy of Public Administration, in their 2002 report, found that 47 
percent of acres burned each year are on non-Federal lands. They 
concluded that decreasing the fuel on all owners' lands is needed to 
address the large scope of the fire hazard problem.
  So the second part of the amendment I am offering provides real 
assistance to States and to local partners to conduct projects that 
will complement the work we are trying to do in national forests and on 
public lands.
  If we send a bill to the President which just deals with the issue on 
Federal lands, and then declare victory, the truth is, we will not have 
dealt with the biggest part of the problem. Mr. President, 77 percent 
of all high-risk areas are not on Federal lands; they are on land owned 
by someone else. This second part of my amendment tries to provide some 
level of Federal support to those other entities to do the clearing 
they need to do.
  Many communities that are adjacent to national forests are doing 
their part to better protect themselves from the risk of these 
catastrophic wildfires.
  For example, last year--this, again, is an example from my home 
State--the village council in Ruidoso, NM, adopted new laws that set 
fire-resistant construction and landscaping standards and established 
forest health and fire danger reduction requirements. However, even 
with these new requirements, just a few months ago homeowners in 
Ruidoso received notices from insurance companies warning them to thin 
the trees on their lots or risk losing their coverage altogether.
  Clearly, we need to assist these communities and these homeowners to 
quickly accomplish that needed work. We need to attack the problem in a 
comprehensive way. If we reduce fuels on public lands, Federal lands, 
without also treating the adjacent non-Federal lands, we will not 
adequately protect our communities.
  I think anyone who has watched television for the last several days 
has to believe that is the case. Obviously, many of these subdivisions 
are not on Federal land. They are, in some cases, adjacent to Federal 
land, but much of the thinning that has to occur, in order to protect 
communities, is not thinning on Federal lands.
  A lack of adequate funding for forest health projects continues to 
constrain our efforts to actively manage the forests to reduce the 
threat of fire and insects and disease.
  Three years ago, Congress found that funding was the main obstacle to 
improving forest health and reducing the threat of unnaturally intense 
catastrophic fire.
  Specifically, we created the National Fire Plan. The National Fire 
Plan talked about $1.6 billion in new funding for programs to improve 
forest health conditions. At that time, we all agreed on the need to 
sustain a commitment to the National Fire Plan over a long enough 
period to make a difference. We were talking about perhaps 15 years.
  That meant, at a minimum, sustaining the fiscal year 2001 funding 
levels for all components of the fire plan. Unfortunately, we have not 
followed through. The administration has systematically and continually 
proposed major cuts from that level. In some cases, they have proposed 
zeroing out critical programs within the National Fire Plan, including 
this burned area, restoration, and rehabilitation, the economic action 
programs, the community and private fire assistance.
  The administration proposed these extreme cuts and the elimination of

[[Page S13604]]

funding, notwithstanding the clearly identified demand for these 
programs. We hear that demand from communities in all of our States 
where forest fires have burned in excess in recent years.
  This provision, this amendment that I am offering, will also provide 
actual dollars to restore the burned areas on non-Federal lands. After 
a fire is extinguished, communities often face equally hazardous 
threats from landslides and flooding. There has been very little 
attention to that as yet because the fires continue to burn in 
California. But once those fires are out, we will start hearing about 
flooding and landslides. There needs to be assistance to deal with that 
as well.
  In creating the national parklands 3 years ago, Congress provided 
$142 million for burned area restoration and rehabilitation. 
Nonetheless, in its fiscal year 2002 budget request, the administration 
requested $3 million--not $142 million--for burned area restoration and 
rehabilitation. In fiscal year 2004, they requested no funds for this 
account.
  The amendment I am offering will provide funds for urgent community 
needs for activities such as soil stabilization after fires occur. The 
question we are faced with today is: Are we going to legislate 
solutions that will really make a difference on the ground?
  I very much appreciate the provision in the Cochran amendment that 
authorizes $760 million, but as we all know, authorizing a certain 
level of funding in the Congress is not an adequate solution. In fact, 
agency officials tell me under current law there is no ceiling on the 
amount of money that could be appropriated to address this problem. 
Providing actual dollars, as my amendment does, clearly is part of the 
solution.
  I urge my colleagues to support both sections of this amendment. This 
is an important issue. I believe that if we pass this legislation 
without dealing with both of these issues--the borrowing problem and 
the problem of not providing funds for work on non-Federal lands--we 
will be falling far short of where we should be.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada be added as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, after looking at this amendment, I see it 
clearly increases mandatory spending and, if adopted, would cause the 
underlying bill to exceed the committee's section 302(a) allocation. 
Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to 
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the applicable sections of the 
Budget Act be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator making a motion?
  Mr. REID. I am.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me speak very briefly to the amendment 
of the Senator from New Mexico. I will be very brief. It is a debatable 
motion.
  Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has the floor. Will the 
Senator yield for an inquiry?
  Mr. CRAIG. For a parliamentary inquiry only.
  Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized very briefly 
after Senator Craig before we go to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief. The Senator from New 
Mexico makes eminently good sense. There is no question that we have a 
funding problem. I have spoken with the Assistant Secretary and the 
Chief. I chair the Forestry Subcommittee and the committee on which the 
Senator is the ranking member. What I am suggesting we do--because the 
motion that has just been made in this budget point of order is an 
appropriate one--is to reexamine the whole funding mechanism of the 
Forest Service. Your figures are accurate. The kinds of programs that 
go unfunded now, that would help to begin to correct our forest health 
problem that is in part driving these fires, is a very real question.
  As you know, the Forest Service used to have a cash cow. We called it 
logging. Those revenues flowed in, and money moved around from 
different accounts. You could borrow, as we did during fire seasons, 
and they got replenished. So you raise a very important point. But it 
is a point that we need to totally reexamine. To actually allow the 
Forest Service to borrow from the Treasury without going through the 
appropriating process, in my opinion, doesn't really give us the kind 
of fiscal control and responsibility we all ought to have.
  Certainly as ranking member of the authorizing committee and as a 
member of the authorizing committee myself, you and I, on an annual 
basis, ought to aggressively look at this budget, knowing that we have 
fallen far short, and deal with it in an appropriate way. But we have 
not done that.
  You recognized, appropriately, the Senator from Montana, who chairs 
the Subcommittee on Interior that funds this, and others. We ought to 
get at it in an aggressive way. I have already tasked the Assistant 
Secretary and the Chief to look at a variety of mechanisms that fit the 
funding shortfalls that we need to create the new mechanisms necessary. 
But I don't believe that direct ability to borrow from the U.S. 
Treasury by an agency itself, without the authority of the authorizing 
committee and the appropriators, is an approach we ought to undertake 
at this time. It is, however, an issue whose time has come, and we 
ought to deal with it in the appropriate fashion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have already indicated I want to make 
sure the compromise we voted on yesterday does not unravel. I will 
support the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico because I believe 
it will allow us to go forward and make sure the work that the 
bipartisan group did is not in vain.
  The bottom line is very simple: To get the money to put the fires 
out, fire suppression, you have to go out and steal from every single 
Forest Service program around and then hope that at some point down the 
road you are going to get repaid. It makes a mockery out of any effort 
to responsibly budget in this area. In our part of the world, we see, 
in effect, funds robbed from nonprofit organizations such as Wallowa 
Resources, a small nonprofit in eastern Oregon.
  My only concern about putting this off is that if we don't deal with 
this issue now, the question is, When will we deal with it? This is an 
extraordinarily important question. It will not, in my view, unravel 
the compromise which I will fight like crazy to protect, despite the 
fact that I think what the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator 
from Idaho have said has considerable validity as well.
  I hope we will support this amendment and then figure out in the 
course of the afternoon some way in which we can find some common 
ground on this issue. Today the process of just stealing from every 
program around to fight fires really becomes almost farcical. The 
Bingaman amendment responds to that. I hope my colleagues will support 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me briefly respond. I know the point 
of order has been made. A motion has been made to waive the Budget Act.
  First, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Cantwell as a cosponsor 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the good intent of my friend from Idaho in 
saying that this is something on which we ought to start working or on 
which we ought to work. The reality is, this is our best chance. This 
legislation is likely to go to the President, likely to be signed into 
law in some form. If we don't take the opportunity this legislation 
presents to fix this problem, it

[[Page S13605]]

will remain unfixed. We can have all of the assurances we want from the 
administration, but the reality is, the administration is under very 
severe budgetary restraints as it goes into this next year. We in 
Congress are under very severe budgetary restraints. Everyone around 
this place is going to be looking for ways to save money. That means 
that when it comes to actually providing the resources to fight fires, 
the course of least resistance is to do what we have always been doing, 
what President Bush has done in the last several years: Ask for way too 
little money for firefighting. And then, when it turns out that you 
need an extra billion dollars, tell the Forest Service to take it out 
of their other accounts.
  That is exactly what we have done in the last several years. We are 
getting ready to do that again. I, for one, am not persuaded that the 
concern the Senator from Idaho has expressed here is shared by all in 
the administration. I am confident he believes the issue is one that 
should be addressed. But each of us, as we know, has different 
priorities for what needs to be addressed. I would say this is a fairly 
low priority for the people putting the administration's budget 
proposal together, which we are going to receive this next January.
  I very much think this issue needs to be addressed as part of this 
bill. Again, as I said a couple of times in my earlier statement, if we 
pass this bill without addressing the resource problem and the 
borrowing problem I am trying to get at in my amendment, we can give 
all the speeches we want, issue all the press releases, have all the 
press conferences we want saying what a great thing we have done for 
the American people, but 77 percent of the areas at highest risk are 
not going to have any Federal resources available to them.
  In addition to that, the thinning activity, much of the forest 
restoration activity we all say we favor, is not going to be funded. So 
we need to deal with this as part of this bill.
  Frankly, I am sorry to see the decision has been made to try to deal 
with this as a procedural vote. I think this is an important enough 
issue that we ought to have an up-or-down vote on it and let people 
express their point of view. When you raise a Budget Act point of 
order, basically what you are saying is this is not a big enough 
priority to justify changing the way the budget now sits. If that is 
the conclusion of most Members of the Senate, then I think shame on us. 
If we have the fires going in California, we have all the other 
problems we all talk about, and we are not willing to put that to the 
front of the priority list, then I think shame on us.
  I very much prefer to see us have an up-or-down vote on this 
amendment. Obviously, that is not possible now with the Budget Act 
point of order and the motion to waive the Budget Act.
  I will yield the floor, but I urge my colleagues to support the 
motion to waive the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) is absent 
attending a family funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 36, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 421 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--60

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Nelson (NE)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 36, the are nays 
60. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to ask how long that vote took.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-nine minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I don't know what more we can do here. I 
want everyone to know we are doing our best over here to move these 
amendments. We have a lot of them over here. We are trying to move 
them. We can't do it if we waste a lot of time on these votes. I want 
everyone within the sound of my voice to know that we cannot finish the 
bill if these votes take 30 or 40 minutes. Everyone should understand 
that.
  There are going to be people coming and asking: When can we leave? I 
have a plane. Are we going to have votes tomorrow?
  We will have votes for days, the way this is going. We cannot finish 
this bill tonight with these votes taking as long as they are taking. I 
am disappointed, frankly, that the majority leader wasn't here to 
terminate the first vote. If we limit votes to 20 minutes, people would 
stop straggling in. It is not fair to the Senate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada is exactly 
correct in the fact that we are going to have to have more cooperation 
to move this bill along. We agreed before this vote that we could cut 
off votes after 20 minutes. We had the endorsement of that by the 
majority leader. But because Senators were on their way to vote and 
people told us they were on their way to vote, the vote dragged out 
longer than that.
  I hope Senators will cooperate with the managers of the bill and 
leadership and let's get here and vote when the buzzer sounds and not 
wait until the last minute. These votes are going to be cut short. I 
hope everyone will cooperate with us.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with the understanding of the manger of this 
bill, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana, Mr. 
Baucus, be recognized for 15 minutes to speak on the bill and whatever 
else he wishes to speak on; further, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Bingaman, who still has a number of other amendments that he wishes to 
be offered be recognized to offer the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend, the Senator from 
Nevada, and the managers of the bill for their accommodation.
  It is vital that we pass this legislation this year.
  Montana recently suffered from devastating wildfires, as have other 
western States. As the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein 
pointed out repeatedly, the current news from Southern California is a 
painful reminder of a very large problem.
  Across this country forests are threatened by insects, disease and 
the build up of hazardous fuels. The impacts of these conditions are 
real. And they play out year after year, fueling large fires that 
destroy lives and homes, diminish water and air quality, and destroy 
wildlilfe habitat.

[[Page S13606]]

  The cost of containing these large fires is staggering, straining 
State and Federal budgets and devastating local economies.
  There are many reasons for the situation we are in today, ranging 
from weather and natural cycles to urban sprawl and the fire 
suppression policies of the past.
  We can't do anything to change the weather and we certainly can't 
change the past, but we can use today's knowledge and the wisdom of our 
experience to do better.
  Neglecting the problem is not the answer; nor is more talk. We have 
to try a new approach. The compromise healthy forests bill is not 
perfect, but I believe it offers options to more efficiently address 
our forest health problems and the consequences they have on real 
people. I also believe this bill will help put people in rural 
communities back to work in the woods, especially in my State of 
Montana.
  I have said over and over again that a healthy forests bill must 
first allow federal agencies and communities to address dangerous fuel 
loadings on a local level, quickly and efficiently. Second, it must 
support small, independent mills and put local people to work in the 
forests and the mills. Third, it must promote and protect citizen 
involvement and be fair to the principles underlying the federal 
judicial system. And finally, it must protect and help restore special 
and sensitive places like wilderness areas.
  I think we have achieved that with this legislation.
  People impacted by forest health problems don't belong to just one 
political party.
  This is a problem that requires all sides to work together. I would 
like to commend the tremendous efforts of my Democratic and Republican 
colleagues, including Senators Feinstein, Wyden, Cochran, Craig, Crapo, 
McCain and Lincoln, who along with several other Senators and myself 
worked very had to put together the compromise on healthy forests that 
I am proud to support and co-sponsor.
  This was no small feat; this bill touches on some very divisive 
issues that I wasn't sure we would ever find a way to solve. But, we 
did and that is why we are here today having a serious conversation 
about actually passing a bill.
  I believe the compromise healthy forest bill is responsive to our 
need to more efficiently reduce the threat of wildfire while ensuring 
adequate environmental protections, citizen participation, and an 
independent judiciary.
  There is nothing in this legislation that undermines existing 
environmental laws, or a person's ability to be involved in decisions 
that impact their public lands. In fact, this legislation requires 
citizen collaboration beyond existing law--current law does not require 
the secretary to encourage citizen collaboration or to hold a public 
meeting on proposed projects.
  What I believe this legislation does do is help keep the process open 
and honest. I ask unanimous consent that an article for today's 
Missoulian newspaper, from Missoula, MT, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Groups File Lawsuit Over Kootenai Forest Timber Sale

                           (By Sherry Devlin)


            Harvest threatens water, environmentalists argue

       Environmentalists filed another lawsuit against the 
     Kootenai National Forest on Tuesday, hoping to stop a 12.5 
     million-board-foot timber sale they believe would pollute an 
     already degraded stream.
       At almost the same time, not knowing a lawsuit had been 
     filed, the Forest Service awarded a contract for the Garver 
     timber sale to Riley Creek Lumber Co.--which bid $1.3 million 
     over the advertised price of $230,000.
       Filed by Alliance for the Wild Rockies and The Lands 
     Council, the complaint seeks to stop the Garver sale on 
     grounds it violates the Clean Water Act and destroys habitat 
     for species that depend on old-growth trees.
       The groups used a similar lawsuit to stop the Lolo National 
     Forest from logging in areas burned by wildfires during the 
     summer of 2000.
       In that case, environmentalists successfully argued that 
     the logging would degrade water quality in streams identified 
     as ``water-quality impaired'' by the state of Montana.
       Until the state of Montana sets ``total maximum daily 
     load'' figures for the streams, the Forest Service cannot 
     adequately judge how much additional sediment the streams can 
     handle, the lawsuit said.
       Federal District Judge Don Molloy agreed, shutting down all 
     post-burn logging until TMDL figures are available.
       In the Garver sale, the at-risk stream is the West Fork of 
     the Yaak River, which is also listed as water-quality 
     impaired.
       Logging caused the West Fork's problems, and more logging 
     will make them worse, said Michael Garrity, executive 
     director of Alliance for the Wild Rockies.
       ``It is exactly the same issue as in the Lolo,'' Garrity 
     said. ``Instead of wasting the court's time and money, the 
     Kootenai should just follow the judge's ruling.''
       (The Forest Service has appealed Molloy's decision to the 
     9th Circuit Court of Appeals.)
       At Kootenai forest headquarters, Supervisor Bob Castaneda 
     did not know a lawsuit had been filed until contacted by the 
     Missoulian. He quickly and vigorously defended his staff, 
     which had just awarded the timber sale to Riley Creek Lumber.
       ``Ever since the Lolo decision, our approach has been to 
     have a good analysis of the watershed and to use best 
     management practices,'' Castaneda said. ``We think through 
     some restoration efforts and by following BMPs, we can 
     improve the current watershed condition.''
       Would the logging pollute the West Fork of the Yaak? 
     ``No,'' Castaneda said. ``I just don't agree with their 
     statement. We worked very closely with the Yaak Valley Forest 
     Council and used a lot of their recommendations in making the 
     decision. They worked closely with us.''
       The Kootenai forest did a number of water-quality surveys 
     in the Yaak this past summer, he said, and the preliminary 
     results are encouraging.
       ``They're telling us the water quality is much better than 
     what the state suggested,'' Castaneda said.
       He also rebutted the lawsuit's contention that the timber 
     sale would cut into the Kootenai forest's declining base of 
     old-growth trees.
       The forest is, in fact, staying out of designated old-
     growth areas, Castaneda said.
       In the lawsuit, the Alliance and the Lands Council cite the 
     Forest Service's own environmental impact statement, which 
     said the Garver sale would likely have adverse affects on 
     every sensitive old-growth species in the Kootenai: fishers, 
     wolverines, flammulated owls, black-backed woodpeckers, 
     northern goshawks and others.
       ``It is time for the Forest Service and the Bush 
     administration to start cleaning up our streams and 
     protecting our wildlife instead of subsidizing timber 
     corporations and breaking the law,'' Garrity said.
       News of the lawsuit was a double-blow to Jim Hurst, co-
     owner of Owens and Hurst Lumber Co. in Eureka. He, too, had 
     bid on the Garver sale but lost out to the north Idaho mill.
       Now, he said, the lawsuit has the potential to make things 
     even worse for lumbermen.
       ``It's just more of the same,'' Hurst said. ``Nothing 
     coming from the environmental community would surprise me 
     anymore.''
       Another lawsuit filed earlier this year by The Ecology 
     Center stopped several timber sales on the Kootenai forest, 
     some of which were bound for Hurst's Eureka mill.
       The Kootenai's timber sale program has decreased by 75 
     percent since 1989.

   Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this article demonstrates why the 
provisions of this bill would be beneficial to moving fuel reduction 
projects forward.
   This article describes a lawsuit filed to stop a timber sale after 
the timber sale had been awarded. As I understand the situation, the 
lawsuit was based on an issue that had not been raised at any time 
during the environmental review process or the administrative appeals 
process. It was sprung at the last minute just to delay and stop the 
sale. It was sprung even after the Forest Service was thanked by other 
groups for doing a better job to address old growth issues that had 
been raised earlier.
   Now, I know that this article is about a timber sale and not a 
hazardous fuels project, but the same concerns apply. If someone has 
particular concerns about the impact of a proposed project, the 
compromise healthy forests bill very appropriately requires that they 
raise that issue during the administrative review process before they 
can file a lawsuit.
   No one is saying the public's concerns are not valid and that they 
should not have every right to raise those concerns, and appeal 
projects that they do not feel address their concerns. But, they should 
not be allowed to use the process simply to stop and delay. That's only 
fair. Particularly when we are talking about projects like those 
contemplated by the compromise healthy forests bill, which are projects 
intended to reduce the risks of dangerous fires. The compromise Healthy 
Forests bill simply requires citizens to be thoughtful and thorough 
when they oppose projects.
   This in turn helps the agencies be more efficient, because they can 
do a better job of addressing controversial

[[Page S13607]]

issues--like old growth--earlier in the process, without wondering what 
might be coming at them from left field. This is a good example of why 
the compromise bill will have real, positive impacts on the ground.
   Keeping Montana's small timber mills and forest workers in business 
is a top priority for me because of their importance to rural 
economies. But, the fact, is we also need this industry to accomplish 
the hazardous fuel reduction work on the ground.
   I worked in committee to ensure this legislation provides support 
for building a thriving forest industry in rural communities. In 
particular, I worked with Senators Crapo and Leahy to develop the Rural 
Community Forestry Enterprise Program, included in Title VII of the 
bill. The Rural Community Forestry Enterprise Program, is intended to 
give a much needed economic boost to small businesses and small mills 
in rural communities, particularly those in Montana that have been hit 
hard in recent years.
   The Program would establish forest enterprise centers around the 
country, including one in Montana, that would do the following: Ensure 
that the Small Business Administration timber set-aside program works 
better for Montana and other small mills; enhance technical and 
business management skills training; organize cooperatives, marketing 
programs, and worker skill pools; facilitate technology transfer for 
processing small diameter trees and brush into useful products; and 
enhance the rural forest business infrastructure needed for a fuel 
reduction program on both private and public lands.
   Keeping small mills in Montana in operation is a top priority for 
me. These businesses are vitally important to rural economies, 
providing good-paying jobs and revenue to local communities. I support 
this legislation because I believe we do have a serious problem with 
hazardous fuel build-up in our National Forests that we must solve 
sooner rather than later.
   I also believe the bi-partisan Healthy Forests bill has the elements 
necessary to allow local citizens and leaders to make wise decisions 
that address this problem efficiently and effectively. We need to pass 
this bill.
   This is not a problem that we will solve overnight, or even in the 
next few years. But, we have to start somewhere, and this is a great 
place to start.
   I am proud to support this compromise. I ask all of my colleagues to 
take a bold step and support it as well.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, 
notwithstanding the order previously entered, the distinguished Senator 
from Maine be recognized up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for 
his courtesy and also for the extraordinary job he has done in bringing 
together people of diverse views on this critical issue of forest 
management. I also thank the Senator from New Mexico for agreeing to 
let me deliver my comments before he offers his amendment.
  Responsible management of our Nation's forests is vital to preventing 
the highly destructive forest fires that we are seeing plaguing the 
West and also to protecting our ecosystems. I am very pleased the 
Senate is moving forward with this important issue which I know matters 
greatly to the Presiding Officer as well.
  No discussion of a responsible forest management system would be 
complete, however, without addressing another threat to our Nation's 
working forests and open spaces; that is, suburban sprawl. Sprawl 
threatens our environment and our quality of life. It destroys 
ecosystems and increases the risks of flooding and other environmental 
hazards. It burns the infrastructure of the affected communities, 
increases traffic on neighborhood streets, and wastes taxpayer money. 
It leads to the fragmentation of wood lots, reducing the economic 
viability of the remaining working forests.
  Sprawl occurs because the immediate economic value of forests or 
farmland cannot compete with the immediate economic value of developed 
land in the areas that are experiencing rapid growth.
  No State is immune from the dangers of sprawl. For example, the 
Virginia State Forester says that since 1992 the Commonwealth of 
Virginia has lost 54,000 acres of forest land per year to other uses. 
The Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments recently reported that 
southeastern Michigan saw a 17-percent increase in developed land 
between 1900 and 2000.
  In my home State of Maine, suburban sprawl has already consumed tens 
of thousands of acres of forest land. The problem is particularly acute 
in southern Maine where a 108-percent increase in urbanized land over 
the past two decades has resulted in the labeling of the greater 
Portland area as the ``sprawl capital of the Northeast.''
  I am particularly alarmed by the amount of working forest and open 
space in southern and coastal Maine that has given way to strip malls 
and cul-de-sacs. Once these forests, farms, and meadows are lost to 
development, they are lost forever. Maine is trying to respond to this 
challenge. The people of my State have approved a $50 million bond to 
preserve land through the Land For Maine's Future Program, and they 
contribute their time and their money to preserve important parcels and 
to support our State's 88 land trusts. It is time for the Federal 
Government to help support these local community-based efforts.
  For these reasons, I will be offering an amendment, along with 
Senator Harkin, that establishes a $50 million grant program, the 
Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Program, within the U.S. 
Forest Service, to support locally driven, market-based land 
conservation projects that will preserve our working forests and farms.
  Locally driven and market based are the essential aspects of this 
program. This program is locally driven because it encourages 
communities and nonprofit organizations to work together with 
landowners to help promote sustainable forestry and public access. The 
program will allow local governments and nonprofits to compete for 
funds and hold title to land or easements purchased with programmed 
funds. Projects funded over this initiative must be targeted at lands 
located in parts of the country that are threatened by sprawl. In 
addition, the legislation requires that Federal grant bonds be matched 
dollar for dollar by State, local, or private resources.
  This program is market driven because it relies upon market forces 
rather than government regulations to achieve its objectives. Rather 
than preserving our working forests and open spaces by zoning or other 
government regulation at the expense of the landowner, this program 
will provide the resources to allow a landowner who wishes to keep his 
or her land as a working farm or wood lot to do so.
  The legislation also protects the rights of property owners with the 
inclusion of a ``willing seller'' provision that will require the 
consent of a landowner if a parcel of land is to participate in the 
program.
  The $50 million that would be authorized would help achieve a number 
of stewardship objectives. First, the amendment would help prevent 
forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to maintain 
the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most significant industry. 
Second, the resources would be a valuable tool for communities that are 
struggling to manage growth and to prevent sprawl.
  Currently, if a town such as Gorham, ME, or another community is 
trying to cope with the effects of sprawl and turns to the Federal 
Government for assistance, they would find there is no program. My 
proposal would change that by making the Federal Government an active 
partner in preserving forest land and managing sprawl, while leaving 
decisionmaking at the State and local level where it belongs.
  There is great work being done in Maine and in other States to 
protect our working forests for future generations. I am grateful for 
the many organizations that are lending support to this effort and 
which have also endorsed my legislation. There is a nationwide network 
of organizations that have endorsed my proposal, including the National 
Association of State Foresters, the New England Forestry Foundation, 
the Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Lands, the Land Trust 
Alliance, and many others.
  By adopting this proposal and incorporating it into this bill, 
Congress can

[[Page S13608]]

provide a real boost to conservation initiatives, help prevent sprawl, 
preserve special open places, forest lands, and farms, and help sustain 
natural resource-based industries.
  I thank Senator Cochran in particular for his assistance on this 
legislation. It is always a great pleasure to work with him. I hope 
this proposal will be incorporated into the final bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Maine for her contribution to the legislation we have before us today. 
She has been a leader in this effort, and we always appreciate the 
opportunity of working with her. I thank her for her kind comments as 
well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2035

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2035.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require the treatment of slash and other long term fuels 
           management for hazardous fuels reduction projects)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     ``SEC.   . LONG-TERM FUEL MANAGEMENT.

       In implementing hazardous fuels reduction projects, the 
     Secretaries shall ensure that--
       (1) a slash treatment plan is completed;
       (2) acres are not identified as treated, in annual program 
     accomplishment reports, until all phases of a multi-year 
     project such as thinning, slash reduction, and prescribed 
     burning are completed; 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.''

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the issue of 
the treatment of long-term fuel management and treating what is called 
slash. Many fuel reduction projects require two or more sequential 
treatments over several years on the same parcel of land--for example, 
an initial timber harvest, followed by the piling and burning of slash, 
which is, obviously, the brush and trees that have been cut down.
  Completing these followup slash treatments in a timely manner is a 
very important part of forest restoration work. It is important because 
the slash provides fuel for wildfires, and it provides habitat for 
beetles and other insects.
  I think we have some studies that demonstrate the insect disease 
problem expands where this slash is not properly treated. Everyone 
agrees it is important to conduct these followup treatments in 
locations where fuel reduction projects have been completed in order to 
prevent the area from returning to the condition that puts these 
locations at high risk of unnaturally intense catastrophic wildfire.
  There is a recent GAO analysis in my State that found the Forest 
Service and the BLM completed about only 19 of 39 followup slash 
treatments in a timely manner.
  In addition, the GAO found the agencies' reported figures for the 
acres treated were inflated because they had double-counted acres where 
the same acreage was treated in multiyear phases. Where you have this 
kind of a slash treatment necessary, we are getting inaccurate 
accounting by the Forest Service and by the BLM.
  This is troubling because it means the Forest Service and the BLM are 
providing inaccurate data with respect to the number of acres on which 
this fire threat is actually being addressed. My amendment tries to 
ensure there is accurate accounting. In my view, it is a simple and 
straightforward amendment. I do not see why it should be controversial. 
It is a minor matter in the eyes of some, but the Forest Service's 
failure to properly manage this slash treatment has worsened the fire 
risk in some areas. Obviously, the focus of this legislation is to 
reduce that fire risk.
  I think it is an appropriate amendment. I hope this is something the 
managers of the bill could accept. If not, obviously we can have a vote 
on it.
  Let me just briefly describe the amendment in a little more detail 
and essentially read it. It says:

       In implementing hazardous fuels reduction projects, the 
     Secretaries--

  That is the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the 
Interior--

     shall ensure that--
       a slash treatment plan is completed;
       acres are not identified as treated, in annual program 
     accomplishment reports, until all phases of a multi-year 
     project such as thinning, slash reduction, and prescribed 
     burning are completed; and
       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.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am advised this amendment would really 
be a recipe for gridlock in that it mandates new requirements for the 
Forest Service as well as the Bureau of Land Management--processes they 
have to carry out and go through before they can engage in any fuel 
treatment processes.
  It would require the Forest Service, for example, to prepare a plan 
for treatment of slash that contains all of the information and data 
specified in the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico. It opens up 
the Forest Service to legal challenges if someone has the opinion that 
the plan is inadequate for some reason. It forces the Forest Service to 
set up a new system for tracking the implementation of fuels treatment 
projects, and any followup treatments to them.
  The amendment would add new reporting processes to hazardous fuel 
work. The amendment calls for the development of a plan which is 
already required but requires the agencies to develop multiyear 
treatment plans and report on those plans on an annual basis.
  The whole purpose of this legislation is to try to help simplify and 
get the work done that needs to be done to reduce the chances of 
devastating fires like we have seen in California, to manage the 
forests in a more effective way, a safer way, for those who live in 
those areas, and to get more done in terms of enhancing survivability 
from insect infestation and generally improve the overall health of our 
national forest resources.

  The Forest Service is going to end up spending more time, the Bureau 
of Land Management as well, in their offices working on plans, than out 
doing the work that they were actually hired to do under existing 
legislation. This amendment is, as I have said before, a recipe for 
gridlock. I urge that the amendment be opposed.
  I don't know of any other Senators who wish to speak on the 
amendment. I will be prepared to move to table the amendment when those 
who want to speak have been heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just say that I think this 
amendment is anything but a prescription for gridlock. There is the 
suggestion that all sorts of new program accomplishment reports are 
going to be required. Those reports are currently produced. And the 
real issue is, do we get proper accounting in those reports or do we 
not? The GAO has told us we do not. Each year they give us an 
accomplishment report, and they list acreage on which they have not 
completed the forest restoration work. They have done one of the phases 
of that forest restoration work, and then the next year they take 
credit for that acreage again by doing another phase. The next year 
they take credit for that acreage again by doing another phase.
  All we are saying is that acres should not be identified as having 
been treated in these annual reports, which are already provided, until 
they have done all of the different phases--the thinning, slash 
reduction, and the prescribed burning.
  We are not requiring additional reports. We are requiring accurate 
reports. That is not an unreasonable request.
  I am somewhat disappointed. This is an amendment we delivered to the 
managers of the bill yesterday, to their

[[Page S13609]]

staff. We asked them to review it, to give us suggestions. If they had 
problems with any aspect of it, they did not get back to us, except to 
say it is unacceptable. That seems to be the position they are taking 
with regard to any and all suggested amendments to the bill.
  This is intended as a constructive amendment. I see it as a 
constructive amendment to deal with a specific problem that the GAO has 
identified as existing with regard to management of the long-term fuel 
supply.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
2035. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) is absent 
attending a family funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 422 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Domenici
     Edwards
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Nelson (NE)
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2036

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2036.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To require collaborative monitoring of forest health 
                               projects)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     ``SEC. __ . COLLABORATIVE MONITORING.

       (a) In General.--The Secretaries shall establish a 
     collaborative monitoring, evaluation and accountability 
     process in order to assess the positive or negative 
     ecological and social effects of a representative sampling of 
     projects implemented pursuant to title I and section 404 of 
     this Act. The Secretaries shall include diverse stakeholders, 
     including interested citizens and Indian tribes, in the 
     monitoring and evaluation process.
       (b) Means.--The Secretaries may collect monitoring data 
     using cooperative agreements, grants or contracts with small 
     or micro-businesses, cooperatives, non-profit organizations, 
     Youth Conservation Corps work crews or related partnerships 
     with State, local, and other non-Federal conservation corps.
       (c) Funds.--Funds to implement this section shall be 
     derived from hazardous fuels operations funds.''

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment requires the Forest 
Service and the Bureau of Land Management to establish a collaborative 
monitoring process in order to assess the environmental and social 
effects of a representative sampling of projects implemented under this 
act. There are many forest-dependent communities that support 
collaborative monitoring of forest projects on public land. This simply 
means it is collaborative monitoring. That phrase simply means that 
interested communities and individuals may participate with Federal 
agencies in monitoring the ecological and social effects of forest 
health projects.
  Proponents of the legislation that we are considering today 
continually state that they want more collaboration at the beginning of 
the process. However, unless there is collaborative monitoring of the 
effects of the projects, we will never be able to rebuild trust between 
rural communities and these agencies.
  Congress enacted a similar requirement when authorizing the 
Stewardship Contracting Program. In addition, Senator Craig and I 
sponsored the community-based Forest and Public Land Restoration Act. 
That bill, which was passed by the Senate unanimously, also required 
collaborative monitoring. This is a simple amendment. I believe it is 
noncontroversial. I hope this is acceptable to the managers of the bill 
and can be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico for this suggested change to the bill. It actually could be 
argued it is duplicative of a provision that is already in the bill at 
the request of Senator Wyden and Senator Feinstein, but it is not 
wholly inconsistent. We think it can be worked into the bill and will 
not cause confusion, so I am prepared to recommend that the Senate 
accept the amendment. I hope the Senate will vote for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just very briefly, Chairman Cochran has it 
exactly right. If there is one thing we want to accomplish in the 
natural resources area, it is to try to move this bill away from 
confrontation to collaboration. That is what we tried to do in the 
bipartisan compromise. I think we can reconcile that with the Bingaman 
amendment. I urge its support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2036) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2039

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am soon going to send to the desk an 
amendment.
  The people of my State of Vermont, and Americans across the Nation, 
mourn with our colleagues, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, and 
with the people of California, over the tragic loss of life and 
property from the wildfires in San Diego County.
  Today, we lost a firefighter from Novato, CA. These brave men and 
women on the front lines need to be recognized first in this debate. 
Our hearts go out to the firefighters' families and friends.
  We have all been riveted by the vivid images we have watched, day 
after day, and by the heart-wrenching stories of loss and of bravery 
that go with these pictures.
  Our hearts go out to all of these families that have lost so much. 
And our thanks go out to the courageous and diligent firefighters and 
emergency response team members who are fighting those fires and are 
doing all they can to protect these communities.
  Here in the Congress, we need to do more to protect forests and 
communities from wildfires. That is why I introduced the Forest and 
Community

[[Page S13610]]

Protection Act this summer. This is a bill and an approach that would 
make a real difference for communities facing this kind of potential 
devastation.
  The bill before us now, unfortunately, would not offer the same level 
of help.
  The bill before us is a well-camouflaged attempt to limit the right 
of the American people to know and to question what their government is 
doing on the public's lands.
  When you look at the tidal wave of regulatory changes the 
administration has produced in the last year to cut the public out of 
the process, it could not be clearer that the administration does not 
want the public or the independent judiciary looking over its shoulder.
  Communities that face wildfire threats need real help, not false 
promises.
  As this chart shows, the administration has been busy creating a 
broader number of projects that will be excluded from environmental 
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, limiting how, who 
and when citizens can appeal agency decisions, and even cutting out 
other agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, from advising 
the Forest Service on the impact of the actions on endangered species 
habitats.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today could be the last in this 
series of steps that completely erode the public's trust of the Forest 
Service. Many of us saw the aftermath of the salvage rider on our 
forests and the public trust. We should not go down that road again.
  That is why I am offering an amendment today, along with Senators 
Bingaman, Durbin, Harkin and Boxer, to strike sections 105 and 106 of 
the bill. These sections go too far in undermining the decades of 
progress we have made in public participation and judicial review.
  The administration has worked overtime to try to sell the false idea 
that environmental laws, administrative appeals and the judicial 
process are the cause of wildfires. But they have not been able to back 
up their scape-goating with facts. And the facts themselves contradict 
their claims.
  In May, the GAO issued a study examining delays in all Forest Service 
fuels reduction projects, from appeals or litigation, during the last 2 
fiscal years.
  Contrary to what some advocates of this bill will tell you, the 
results show that neither appeals nor litigation have delayed fuels 
reduction projects.
  As you can see, out of 818 projects, only a quarter were appealed. Of 
those, even fewer took more than the standard 90-day review period. In 
fact, only 5 percent of all the projects took more than 90 days.
  And they can't honestly blame litigation, either, for the delays. 
Again, of the 818 projects, only 25 were litigated. Of those, 10 were 
either settled or ruled in favor of the Forest Service--meaning that 
only 9 out of 818 projects were delayed by court order.
  That is only one percent. Where is the ``analysis paralysis'' my 
colleagues like to talk about so much?
  On the ground, these appeals had even less effect. Of the 4.8 million 
acres covered by fuel reduction projects, only 111,000 acres were 
impacted by litigation. The numbers simply do not back up the 
administration's assertion that appeals and litigation are delaying 
projects.
  The bill before us today rolls back environmental protections and 
citizen rights with no justification at all.
  Enough about numbers. The bill before us is really a solution looking 
for a problem. So let's take a closer look at the solution on the 
table.
  First, the bill would make it much more difficult for the public to 
have any oversight or say in what happens on public lands, undermining 
decades of progress in public inclusion.
  In this new and vague pre-decisional protest process, this bill 
expects the public to have intimate knowledge of aspects of the project 
early on, including aspects that the Forest Service might not have 
disclosed in its initial proposal.
  Section 105 gives the Forest Service a real incentive to hide the 
ball or to withhold certain information about a project that might make 
it objectionable such as endangered species habitat data, watershed 
analysis or road-building information.
  If concerns are not raised about this possibly undisclosed 
information in the vaguely outlined predecisional process, the Forest 
Service can argue to the courts that no claims can be brought on these 
issues in the future when the agency either through intent or 
negligence withheld important information from the public.
  I want to take a couple of minutes to respond to a couple of 
statements that my colleagues have made over the last 2 days with 
regard to appeals and judicial review.
  First, my colleagues keep talking about ``analysis paralysis.'' This 
has become a mantra for those who want to cut the public out of 
decision-making and blame appeals and litigation.
  When the administration went looking for a problem to fit their 
solution of cutting out appeals and judicial review, they came up with 
analysis paralysis.
  When they went looking for facts to back up this new mantra, they 
threw together a Forest Service report that argued that 48 percent of 
decisions were appealed.
  But when people starting asking questions about the report though, 
they found that the Forest Service spent just a few hours gathering 
information for the report. The so-called data it was based on was just 
phone conversations made in an afternoon.
  In fact, the Forest Service does not actually track appeals. Until 
the GAO did its independent report, they really had no idea what impact 
appeals were having on fuel reduction projects.
  But they, and many of my colleagues, already had their talking 
points. As we have seen with many other so-called environmental 
policies of this administration, facts are never allowed to get in the 
way of rhetoric.
  When the facts did start coming out this spring, with an independent 
study by Northern Arizona University and the GAO, they showed that only 
5 percent of projects are appealed and only 3 percent are litigated.
  The report also found that opposition was not a leading factor in 
slowing fuel reduction projects:

       While the issue of formal public resistance, such as 
     appeals and litigation, has recently been contentious, only a 
     few local land unit officials we visited indicated that this 
     type of resistance had delayed particular fuels reduction 
     treatments.

  What the facts do tell is that the main reasons fuel reduction 
projects could not proceed were due to the weather and the diversion of 
fuel reduction funds to fight wildfires.
  Just this summer, while the President was out in Oregon pushing this 
bill, the Forest Service was back here cutting fuel reduction projects 
because the House Republicans refused to pass emergency funding for 
fire suppression.
  Let's cut through the smokescreen and focus on the facts before 
leaping on board to a solution that will let the administration pick 
and choose 20 million acres of forestland around the country to cut 
with little real public accountability.
  This is not a problem of analysis paralysis but a problem of 
situation exaggeration.
  Essentially, this provision penalizes citizens and rewards agency 
staff when the agency does not do its job in terms of basic 
investigation and information-sharing regarding a project.
  The other significant change to judicial review is section 106. Even 
under the ``compromise'' version of H.R. 1904, the provisions will 
interfere with and overload judges' schedules.
  This section will force judges to reconsider preliminary injunctions 
every 60 days, whether or not circumstances warrant it.
  In many ways, this provision could backfire on my colleagues' goal of 
expediting judicial review. It will force judges to engage in otherwise 
unnecessary proceedings slowing their consideration of the very cases 
that H.R. 1904's proponents want to fast track.
  Moreover, taking the courts' time to engage in this process will also 
divert scarce judicial resources away from other pending cases.
  It is also likely to encourage more lawsuits. Requiring that 
injunctions be renewed every 60 days, whether needed or not, gives 
lawyers another bite at the apple. Something they often find hard to 
resist.
  Instead of telling the courts when and how to conduct their business, 
we should instead be working to find a workable and effective approach 
to reducing wildfire risks.

[[Page S13611]]

  This bill does not achieve that, but through sections 105 and 106, it 
instead poses a real risk to the checks and balances that the American 
people and their independent judiciary now have on government decisions 
affecting the public lands owned by the American people.
  Sadly, this bill is just a Halloween trick on communities threatened 
by wildfires. It is not fair to rollback environmental laws, public 
oversight or judicial review under the guise of reacting to devastating 
wildfires.
  It will do nothing to help or to prevent the kind of devastation that 
Southern California is facing. It is a special interest grab-bag 
shrouded behind a smokescreen.
  Let us offer real help and real answers, and let us not allow fear to 
be used as a pretext for taking the public's voice out of decisions 
affecting the public's lands and for ceding more power to special 
interests.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in striking these provisions.


                           Amendment No. 2039

       (Purpose: To remove certain provisions relating to 
     administrative and judicial review)
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself, Mrs. 
     Boxer, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2039:

         Strike sections 105 and 106.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there has been considerable attention 
paid to the provisions of the House-passed bill which was referred to 
in our Committee on Agriculture. The version the House passed has the 
same provisions that would change substantially the judicial review and 
appeals provisions of current law. When we were looking at the bill in 
our committee, it was decided that while we didn't disagree with the 
objectives of the House, we thought that there could be more 
appropriate language which would help ensure that litigation and 
appeals weren't abused to the extent that they created impasses and 
gridlock in the process.
  I have to give credit to the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. 
Wyden, and the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, 
for coming up with suggestions for changes that were included in this 
bill that is now before the Senate. It was included in the language of 
the compromise that we made to substantially change title I as it 
relates to the judicial review section of the bill.
  Let me point out that it balances risk, which is what this is about. 
Looking at ramifications of approving or not approving a fuel reduction 
project can be explained by looking at certain examples from which we 
have learned. On the Kenai Peninsula in south-central Alaska, for 
instance, over 300,000 acres of forest have been lost to a spruce bark 
beetle infestation which we are told could have been avoided but was 
not because of litigation and appeals that were generated over the 
project's proposal. The Dixie National Forest has 112,000 acres that 
have been devastated by the spruce bark beetle as well which could have 
been prevented with treatment but was slowed by the appeals and 
litigation in that situation.
  Over the last 3 years, bark beetles have ravaged forests around Lake 
Arrowhead in the San Bernardino National Forest in southern California 
causing an 80-percent mortality rate and substantially increasing the 
fuel loads of that forest.
  What I am afraid we are going to see if the Leahy amendment is 
approved is a reversal of efforts that we have made to come to a new 
approach which we think will improve forest help. We still have 
rigorous environmental safeguards in place, but the suggestions that 
courts do not bog down the process with endless appeals and litigation 
is one of the goals of this legislation.
  I don't know if other Senators want to be heard on this amendment. 
But I would be prepared, after Senators have had an opportunity to 
express themselves, if they want to debate this issue, to move to table 
the Leahy amendment.
  I move to table the Leahy amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) is absent 
attending a family funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 423 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Edwards
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Nelson (NE)
  The motion was agreed to.

  

                          ____________________