[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 170 (Friday, November 21, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15368-S15373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of the conference report to H.R. 1904,
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the report will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
1904) to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture
and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and conduct
hazardous fuels 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, having met, have agreed
that the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate to the text of the bill and agree to the same
with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same; that the
House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the
Senate to the title of the bill and agree to the same, signed
by a majority of the conferees on the part of both Houses.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of
November 20, 2003.)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the
conference report on the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
Senators may remember that this bill was passed by the Senate on
October 30 by a vote of 80 to 14. It embodied a bipartisan agreement to
improve forest health on both public and private lands. It provides
Federal land managers the tools to implement scientifically supported
management practices on Federal forests, in consultation with local
communities. It also establishes new conservation programs to improve
water quality and regenerate declining forests on private lands. The
legislation will reduce the amount of time and expense required to
conduct hazardous fuel projects.
The conference report retains provisions adopted by the Senate that
will protect old growth forests. It improves the processes for
administrative and judicial review of hazardous fuel projects. But it
will continue to require rigorous but expedited environmental analysis
of such projects.
The conference report specifically encourages collaboration between
Federal agencies and local communities to treat hazardous fuels that
threaten communities and their sensitive watersheds. It provides for
expedited environmental analysis of hazardous fuel reduction projects
adjacent to communities that are at risk to catastrophic wildfire. It
requires spending at least 50 percent of Federal hazardous fuels
reduction funds to protect communities.
It requires courts considering legal actions to stop a hazardous fuel
reduction project to balance the environmental effects of undertaking
the project against those of not carrying it out. And in carrying out
hazardous fuel reduction projects in areas that may contain old growth
forests, it requires Federal agencies to protect or restore these
forests.
In other areas, it requires agencies to maintain older trees
consistent with the objective of restoring fire resilient stands. It
authorizes $720 million annually for hazardous fuels reduction
activities. It provides grants for removal of hazardous fuels and other
biomass to encourage their utilization for energy and other products.
It provides for assistance to private land owners to protect and
restore healthy watershed conditions.
It authorizes research projects designed to evaluate ways to treat
forests to reduce their susceptibility to insects, diseases and fire.
It also authorizes agreements and easements with private landowners to
protect and enhance habitats for endangered and threatened species. And
it encourages more effective monitoring and early warning programs for
insect and disease outbreaks.
This conference report would not be possible without the active
involvement of Senators on both sides of the aisle who worked hard
together to develop this bill. I especially appreciate the able
assistance of the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, who
chairs the Forestry Subcommittee of the Senate Agriculture Committee;
the Energy Committee chairman, the distinguished Senator from New
Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and his Forestry Subcommittee chair from Idaho,
Mr. Craig, were also very helpful in guiding this legislation along its
path passage.
The Agriculture Committee also had assistance of Senator Lincoln of
Arkansas and active involvement on her part in developing the bill, and
we also had the benefit of suggestions and assistance from Senators
Wyden and Feinstein who came to me early and asked to be a part of the
effort to develop this bill. They were involved along with many others
whose contributions were necessary to make the approval of this bill
possible.
The Agriculture Committee also benefited from the assignment of an
employee of the Forest Service, Doug MacCleery, who assisted our staff
in the development of this legislation. We appreciate his assistance.
And our committee staff did a superb job under the able direction of
the Agriculture Committee staff director, Hunt Shipman.
Let's not forget, it was President Bush, the President of the United
States, who recommended in the first place that Congress act on a
healthy forest initiative. It was at his suggestion and his urgings
that we pushed and pushed until we finally achieved success, with the
adoption today by the other body of the conference report, on this
bill. I must also mention the able assistance of his Secretary of
Agriculture, Ann Veneman, who provided valuable insight and assistance
all along the way.
I urge the Senate approve this conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this is truly a historic day. As the
Presiding Officer knows, we have worked literally for a decade or more
to try to find a path forward in the area of finding a solution to the
problems we face in our national forests.
In recent years, we have seen an average of 4 million acres a year
burn. We have seen devastating wildfires this
[[Page S15369]]
year that have destroyed not only tremendous amounts of property and
environment in our forests, but have also taken lives. We have seen
insect infestations that have jeopardized the future of one of the most
incredible environmental resources we have in America, our forests.
All of it has occurred while we have been battling in the courts,
trying to find a path forward simply to allow our forest managers the
ability to implement their forest management decisions, to deal with
insect infestation, to deal with the threat of catastrophic wildfire,
and to help preserve the great legacy we have in America, in our
forests.
I stand today to thank those in our Senate conference who have worked
with us to build and strengthen the bipartisan solution that has
brought us to this point.
Sitting here beside me is the Senator from Mississippi, Thad Cochran,
chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Without Senator Cochran's able
leadership, without his patience and his wisdom in guiding us through
this process, we would not be here today. I want to personally thank
him. I thank him, as well, on behalf of a grateful Nation for the skill
and the patience he has given us to help bring this bill forward.
Also, I thank Senator Larry Craig, my colleague from Idaho, who has
worked on this issue tirelessly for the better part of the last decade
to try to help bring America to an understanding of the need for
reform, and for helping us work through a bipartisan solution in the
Senate. Senator Craig deserves great praise and commendation for his
untiring work to help give us the possibility of being here today--just
a short time away from successfully passing in both the House and the
Senate this Healthy Forests legislation.
Also, Senator Domenici, chairman of the Energy Committee, has worked
tirelessly on this issue and he deserves to be thanked for his
tremendous efforts. Not many people follow it this closely, but there
is forestry jurisdiction in both the Energy Committee and the
Agriculture Committee. Senator Cochran chairs the Agriculture
Committee, and Senator Domenici the Energy Committee. By coincidence,
both of the Idaho Senators chair the respective subcommittees on
forestry. Senator Craig chairs the subcommittee on forestry in the
Energy Committee, and I chair the forestry subcommittee on the
Agriculture Committee. Together, on the Republican side, we have
developed a strong team to work in the Senate.
I also thank Senator Blanche Lincoln, from Arkansas, for stepping
forward as the ranking member on the forestry subcommittee and working
with me to develop the senate bill that set the mark for improving this
legislation and moving it through the Senate. We then expanded that
bipartisan base and worked with Senators Feinstein from California,
Wyden from Oregon, and others, including additional Republicans and
Democrats, all of whom came together to bring a bipartisan solution to
the Chamber.
It was not easy. There were many who wanted to use this issue to
further their political efforts, to either cause further strife and
conflict on the issue surrounding our forests or to simply promote some
agenda that was not consistent with our efforts to move forward on a
bipartisan basis to protect and preserve our forests.
We fought many battles over the last 2 or 3 months, and they were the
resulting, concluding battles in a crescendo that has been developing
over the last decade. When we were done, we needed to work with the
House of Representatives. There was concern at that point. There was
actually another filibuster to stop us from even going into conference
with the House because there was concern that the bill would be changed
too much in ways that would not allow us to find a common consensus-
based path forward.
Yet we have gone on together, again, in that bipartisan fashion that
we developed in the Senate to work in a bicameral fashion and
bipartisan fashion with the House to come together with this
legislation that is now before us.
As many of us said as we developed this legislation, it is not
necessarily what any of us would have written had we had complete
control over the issue. But it is the result of what can happen if we
work across party lines, across the lines of the rotunda between the
House and Senate, and across regional lines in our Nation, to try to
make sure that we get past the politics, the partisanship, past the
personal attacks, and focus on the principles that will allow us to
move forward and develop positive legislation such as that.
I am confident this legislation will pass the Senate today. I am
confident that when it goes to the President's desk, he will sign it.
The United States will have taken a very big step forward in terms of
preserving one of the great environmental legacies we have--our
forests; we will have taken a step to protect and preserve our rural
areas in America; we will have done much to protect our great
firefighters, many of whom gave their lives this year, and in previous
years, in trying to protect our forests and our communities; we will
have put statutory protection in place for old-growth forests in our
Nation; we will have worked to develop small-diameter timber and other
uses of those parts of our forests that need thinning; we will have
taken steps to make sure that rural communities such as Elk City, ID--
literally at the end of the road--do not face the potential devastation
a wildfire could cause not only to their economy but to their safety
and the community at large; we will have protected the wildland urban
interface, where so many of the people who now live in urban areas find
their homes and lives and property threatened by the danger of
uncontrolled wildfire.
All of these things will be brought together because we were
successful today and, over the past few years, in bringing together the
kind of politics that America wants, the kind of politics that is good
and beneficial, that helps us to cross the divisions and eliminate
those conflicts that so often bring us to a stalemate or a stall on the
floor of the Senate or on the floor of the House.
Mr. President, again, I thank all Senators and all of the House
Members who have done so much to look past their own individual
concerns and to work together for the collective good of the whole as
we built this strong bipartisan solution to a critical issue facing our
Nation.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the conference
report on the Healthy Forest initiative.
The question of how we effectively and efficiently deal with the
threat of wildfire is a complex one, and I have been committed to
finding a solution that will provide the Forest Service with additional
tools, can win approval in the Senate, and can become law. This
bipartisan compromise meets that test.
As I toured the Black Hills National Forest this August, it was clear
that the Forest Service needs additional tools to address the
increasing fire risk to South Dakota communities. There are currently
over 460,000 acres of the Black Hills National Forest that are in
moderate to high fire risk. And, it is increasing. The Forest Service
estimates that over 550,000 acres will fall into this category in the
next 10 years if we do nothing to address it.
It is clear that we must find a way to allow Forest Service personnel
to spend less time in the office planning, and more time in the forest
actually clearing high fuel loads.
This legislation takes major steps to do just that. The legislation
provides communities more flexibility in defining what should be
considered priority areas as well as incentives to work near
communities. It clarifies how much detail is needed for environmental
analysis of fuel reduction projects. The conference report adopts the
Senate-passed streamlined appeals process, expediting decisions for
fuel-reduction projects while ensuring that the public has an
opportunity to be heard early in the developmental stages forest
restoration projects. And, it includes Senate-passed language
encouraging speedy disposition of any projects that are challenged in
court without giving undue deference to any party.
While the legislation is not exactly how I would have written it, I
think it is the best shot we have to get something meaningful enacted
into law this year. I am please the House has passed
[[Page S15370]]
this legislation and encourage my colleagues to pass it, and hope the
President will quickly sign it into law.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. This bill is extremely
important to the west and to my constituents as we look for ways to
reduce the risk of large and dangerous wildfires that threaten our
homes and communities. You just have to look at the devastating fire
season Montana went through this past summer to understand why we feel
so strongly about this issue.
I have said 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 principals underlying the federal judicial system. And
finally, it must protect special and sensitive places.
We have achieved that with this legislation.
My one disappointment is that the conference committee stripped out
the Rural Community Forestry Enterprise Program. I worked together with
Senators Crapo and Leahy to include this program in the Senate bill,
first in the Agriculture Committee and then as part of the Senate-
passed bill.
The Rural Community Forestry Enterprise Program would bring much
needed support for building and maintaining a thriving forest industry
in rural communities.
Just as this industry is important to maintaining the economic
vitality of these small and often remote communities, it is vital to
meeting the objectives of this legislation. We cannot afford to lose
more mills and highly skilled forest industry workers in Montana. We
cannot accomplish needed hazardous fuel reduction work without them.
I would like to share with you concerns I heard today about the
removal of the Community Enterprise Program from a friend, Jim Hurst,
the owner and operator of a small family-owned mill called Owens and
Hurst, in Eureka, Montana.
He said:
Small mill owners like myself and Ron Buentemeier, the
General Manager of F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber Company in
Columbia Falls, told you we needed this type of help to make
the Small Business Set-Aside program more responsive to the
needs of small, independent and mostly family-owned mills
across Montana. You responded with the Community Enterprise
program.
This is an important program and should be put back into
the Healthy Forests Bill. Independents have been under long-
time family ownership and because of that my family and the
other families who own mills know that we each have one heck
of a responsibility to our communities. This Community
Enterprise program would help the independents who have been
impacted the hardest by reduced federal timber supply. They
have shown their mettle and have been courageous. We need to
keep fighting for small mill owners, operators and the rural
communities who depend on these small mills for their
livelihood.
While I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to ensure a thriving forest industry in our rural communities, it
is imperative to pass this legislation now. I believe we do have a
serious problem with the buildup of hazardous forest fuels and that we
need to do a better job of addressing it now.
The legislation has the elements necessary to allow local citizens
and leaders to make wise decisions that address this problem
efficiently and effectively and I urge my colleagues to support it. I
would like to thank several Senators for their hard work on this bill,
including Senators Wyden, Feinstein, Crapo, Lincoln and Cochran.
Without their dedicated efforts and leadership that I was very pleased
to support, we would not be the close to passing this bill today.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President: I rise today in strong support of the
conference report for the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003.
I especially thank my colleagues--Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici,
Senator Crapo, Senator Craig, Senator Lincoln, Senator Wyden, and
Senator Feinstein for the leadership they demonstrated in addressing
this national crisis that affects all Americans, particularly those who
live in the urban-wildland interface.
The conference report is a major step forward toward preventing the
severe wildland forest and rangeland fires that have become an annual
event. What is more important is that the human tragedy associated with
wildfires the heartbreak of losing one's home and possessions, the
economic losses, and the dangers that wildfires pose to our devoted
wildland firefighters will be reduced through the sound forest
management practices provided for in this legislation.
The 2002 and 2003 fire seasons have been some of the worst on record
nationally. Forest fires continue to create extensive problems for many
Americans, predominantly for those living and working in the West. In
2002, Alaska alone experienced fires that burned more than one million
acres.
These catastrophic wildfires caused great damage to our forested
lands; many were already vulnerable as a result of unaddressed insect
and disease damage.
Deteriorating forest and rangeland health now affects more than 190
million acres of public land, an area twice the size of California.
In my home State of Alaska, the damage caused by the spruce bark
beetle, especially on the Kenai Peninsula has been devastating. Over 5
million acres of trees in south central and interior Alaska have been
lost to insects over the last 10 years.
I am particularly enthusiastic that this legislation authorizes and
expedites fuel reduction treatment on Federal land on which the
existence of disease or insect infestation has occurred, such as those
on the Kenai Peninsula. Federal land managers will now be able to
manage these dead and dying tree stands.
The key to long-term forest management on the Kenai Peninsula is to
manage the forested landscape for a variety of species compositions,
structures and age classes; not simply unmanaged stands. The
legislation before us will do just that, and will prevent a
reoccurrence of the type of spruce bark beetle mortality we have
experienced in Alaska.
I firmly believe that this conference report is a comprehensive plan
focused on giving Federal land managers and their partners the tools
they need to respond to a national forest health crisis. The
legislation directs the timely implementation of scientifically
supported management activities to protect the health and vibrancy of
Federal forest ecosystems as well as the communities and private lands
that surround them.
Under this legislation, the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture will conduct authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act with a
critical, streamlined process.
Additionally, for those authorized fuel reduction projects proposed
to be conducted in the wildland-urban interface, the Secretaries will
be able to expedite such projects without the need to analyze and
describe more than the proposed agency action and one alternative
action. In other words, we can now get the work on the ground done
quickly.
Still, the Secretaries must continue to provide for public comment
during the preparation of any environmental assessment or EIS for these
authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. The public process is not
undermined in this legislation.
I also support the proposed new administrative review process
associated with these authorized fuel reduction projects. Too often we
have become mired in administrative appeal gridlock in this country at
the expense of communities at risk to wildland fire. We saw such
devastation recently in the State of California.
This legislation will establish a fair and balanced predecisional
review process. Specific, written comments must be submitted during the
scoping or public comment period.
Additionally, civil actions may be brought in Federal district court
only if the person has exhausted his/her administrative review process.
The legislation will foreclose venue-shopping.
It encourages the courts to weigh the environmental consequences of
management inaction when the potential devastation from fires could
occur. This provision is important public policy and demonstrates to
the American people that the risk of catastrophic
[[Page S15371]]
wildfire must be known, understood and respected in our judicial system
and acted upon quickly.
I am also excited about title 2 of the legislation which will
encourage the production of energy from biomass. Developing energy from
biomass could provide a tremendous boost to the local economy on the
Kenai Peninsula while reducing the dangerous wildland fire risks that
exists there. That is a win-win solution. The biomass provision is
innovative, environmentally sound and a good approach in achieving
healthy forests.
The bipartisan legislation before us is good for the nation and good
for Alaska. I will enthusiastically support its passage today.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, southern California has recently
experienced the devastating impacts of wildfire first-hand. More than
750,000 acres burned, and 24 people died. We have seen how important it
is to take the appropriate steps to protect our vulnerable communities
from the threat of wildfire, and that is why I am supporting this bill.
The bill before us invests in preventing wildfires, rather than just
trying to fight them after the fact. Each year, $760 million is
authorized for wildfire prevention projects, such as tree and brush
removal, thinning, and prescribed burning. In total, the bill would
allow treatment of 20 million acres. Priority is given to projects that
protect communities and watersheds, and at least 50 percent of the
funds must be used near at-risk communities. The other 50 percent will
be spent on projects near municipal water supply systems and on lands
infested with disease or insects. This is a good start at preventing
fires.
I do, however, have to mention my deep disappointment with the House
Republican conferees for removing my amendment to help firefighters who
battle the biggest fires. I am almost speechless that the House
Republicans would turn their backs on our brave firefighters.
My amendment, which passed the Senate 94 to 3, would have required
long-term health monitoring of firefighters who fought fires in a
Federal disaster area. These firefighters are exposed to several toxins
known to be harmful to long-term health, including fine particulates,
carbon monoxide, sulfur, formaldehyde, mercury, heavy metals, and
benzene. This amendment was important to the firefighters in my State
and was supported by the International Association of Firefighters.
I pledge to the firefighters, this is not over. I will be back to
continue fighting on behalf of all firefighters who are put at risk in
Federal disasters.
I am also disappointed that the conferees dropped another amendment
of mine, which was included in the Senate-passed bill. My amendment
required the EPA to provide each of its regional offices a mobile air
pollution monitoring network, so that in the event of a catastrophe,
toxic emissions could be monitored and the public could know the health
risks.
Despite the fact that the conferees dropped my two amendments, I
believe this bill will help protect communities from the threat of
wildfires, which is why I am supporting it.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today's vote to pass the Healthy
Forests legislation is a major bipartisan victory. This is not just
because it is the first major forest bill in 27 years.
Much more significantly, we have nourished the middle ground in the
forest debate that is so often lost in the partisan rhetoric.
We actually can create good rural jobs, protect our communities, and
restore our forest environment at the same time.
Let me repeat this: we can create rural jobs, protect our
communities, and take action to restore the health of our forests at
the same time.
Ever since I cosponsored the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group
Act 5 years ago, I have been working to bring together the rural,
forest-dependent communities--rather than unnecessarily dividing them.
This bill goes a long way to that end throughout the West and the
Nation.
There are many people who deserve credit for this bill, but there are
a few Senators in particular to whom I want to give special thanks.
Senators Pete Domenici and Larry Craig were the best bipartisan allies
I could ever ask for in terms of how they approached this issue.
Even though they are in the majority, Senators Domenici and Craig
realized that a forestry bill needed a bipartisan coalition. They
worked in good faith with me and Senator Wyden from start to finish,
and I am deeply grateful for it.
I also want to thank Senator Cochran, the chairman of the conference
on this bill, for his leadership throughout the process. Senator
Cochran ably and skillfully represented the Senate position in the
negotiations. I particularly want to emphasize that his staff conducted
the conference in a fine and fair manner throughout, and it's a credit
to his leadership.
There are many others Senators who played critical roles in this
process, including Senators Crapo, Kyl, Lincoln, McCain, Baucus, and
Bingaman.
I finally want to thank Senator Wyden, the ranking member on the
Forestry Subcommittee of the Energy Committee. He is as good a ranking
member and as good a leader on forestry as the Democrats could ever
have.
I also want to say that I second his views on the meaning of the
different parts of the bill in his statement today. As the two
principal Democratic negotiators of this bill, he and I are in complete
accord as to the meaning of its contents.
This legislation H.R 1904, approved by a House-Senate conference
committee today is very similar to a bill passed by the Senate last
month, with priority given toward removing dead and dying trees and
dangerously thick underbrush in areas nearest communities as well as
targeting areas where insects have devastated forests. This is
especially important in California, where hundreds of thousands of
trees have been killed by the bark beetle, creating tinderbox
conditions.
While the recent wildfires in Southern California have been
contained, these deadly fires consumed a total of 738,158 acres, killed
23 people, and destroyed approximately 3,626 residences and 1,184 other
structures. Clearly, we must do everything we can to avert such a
catastrophe in the future. The National Forest Service estimates that
57 million acres of Federal land are at the highest risk of
catastrophic fire, including 8.5 million in California, so it is
critical that we protect our forests and nearby communities.
More than 57 million acres of Federal land at the highest risk of
catastrophic fire, including 8.5 million in California. In the past 5
years alone, wildfires have raged through over 27 million acres,
including nearly 3 million acres in California. It is critical that
Congress acts to protect our forests and nearby communities.
The House-Senate agreement both speeds up the process for reducing
hazardous fuels and provides the first legal protection for old growth
in our nation's history.
Let me describe what the legislation would do.
Critically, it would establish an expedited process so the Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior can get to work on brush-
clearing projects to minimize the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
Up to 20 million acres of lands near communities, municipal
watersheds and other high-risk areas can be treated. This includes
lands that have suffered from serious wind damage or insect epidemics,
such as the bark beetle.
We made an important change to the bill's language in section
102(a)(4) in the conference report. In the Senate-passed bill, the
insect and disease exception was related to infestations, whereas in
the conference bill, the exception has been clarified to apply only
where there is a presence of an epidemic of insects or disease. By its
own terms, an insect or disease-related event of ``epidemic''
proportions is different from ``endemic'' insects and disease, which
are present in a naturally functioning forest ecosystem.
Under the final bill, only epidemics are given special treatment.
This is an important distinction.
A total of $760 million annually for hazardous fuel reduction is
authorized by the legislation, a $340 million increase over current
funding.
At least 50 percent of the funds would be used for fuels reduction
near communities.
The legislation also requires that large, fire-resilient, old-growth
trees be protected from logging immediately.
[[Page S15372]]
It mandates that forest plans that are more than 10 years old and
most in need of updating must be updated with old growth protection
consistent with the national standard within 2 to 3 years.
Without this provision in the amendment, we would likely have to wait
a decade or more to see improved old-growth protection. And even then
there would be no guarantee that this protection--against the threat of
both logging and catastrophic fire--would be very strong.
In California, the amendment to the Sierra Nevada Framework that is
currently in progress will have to comply with the new national
standard for old-growth protection.
Let me explain how the agreement improves and shortens the
administrative review process and makes it more collaborative and less
confrontational. It is critical that the Forest Service can spend the
scarce dollars in the federal budget in doing vital work on the ground,
rather than being mired in endless paperwork.
The legislation fully preserves multiple opportunities for meaningful
public involvement. People can attend a public meeting on every
project, and they can submit comments during both the preparation of
the environmental impact statement and during the administrative review
process. I guarantee you the public will have a meaningful say in these
projects.
The legislation changes the environmental review process so the
Forest Service still considers the effects of the proposed project in
detail, but can focus its analysis on the project proposal, one
reasonable alternative that meets the project's goals and the
alternative of not doing the project, instead of the 5-9 alternatives
now often required.
In the highest priority areas within 1\1/2\ miles of communities, the
Forest Service need only study the proposed action and not
alternatives. There is no relaxation from current law, however, in how
closely the Forest Service must study the environmental effects of the
project it is proposing to undertake.
The legislation replaces the current Forest Service administrative
appeals with an administrative review process that will occur after the
Forest Service finishes its environmental review of a project, but
before it reaches its decision. This new approach is similar to a
process adopted by the Clinton administration in 2000 for review of
forest plans and amendments to those plans. The process will be
speedier and less confrontational than the current administrative
appeal process.
Next I want to turn to judicial review. I want to emphasize that
cases will be heard more quickly under the legislation and abuses of
the process will be checked, but nothing alters citizens' opportunity
for fair and thorough court review.
Parties can sue in Federal court only on issues raised in the
administrative review process. This is a commonsense provision that
allows agencies the opportunity to correct their own mistakes before
everything gets litigated.
Lawsuits must be filed in the same jurisdiction as the proposed
project.
Courts are encouraged to resolve the case as soon as possible.
Preliminary injunctions are limited to 60 days, although they can be
extended if appropriate. This provision sends a signal to courts not to
delay important brush-clearing projects indefinitely unless there
really is a good reason to do so.
The court must weigh the environmental benefit of doing a given
project against its environmental risks as it reviews the case.
In closing, I want to say that my colleagues and I have been trying
to come to an agreement on a forest bill for several years. We finally
broke through the deadlock.
I am deeply pleased that we are enacting this legislation to give the
residents of southern California and elsewhere a better chance against
the fires that will come next time.
Section 105(c)(3)(B)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have a question for the Senator from Oregon as to
the meaning of one specific provision of the conference report on the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. This provision is section
105(c)(3)(B), which sets forth an exception to the general requirement
that parties must participate in the administrative review process
before raising claims in Federal court. I don't understand the
conference report and statement of the managers as doing anything to
change the parties' preexisting obligations as to environmental review
except as explicitly provided in the statute. Do you agree, as the
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources?
Mr. WYDEN. I have the same understanding of this matter as the
Senator from California.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will oppose the conference report on H.R.
1904, the so-called Healthy Forests Act. While I have several
substantive concerns about this legislation, let me first speak about
the process by which this legislation has come before the Senate.
As my colleagues know, there has been a significant and growing
concern about the way the other side is operating conference
committees. In fact this conference was delayed several weeks because
the minority has continually been excluded from conferences.
However, in good faith, I, along with interested Members and their
staffs, worked out an agreement on the first six titles of the bill.
Coincidentally, there were only six titles in the House version of the
bill. An agreement was reached on those first six titles, and while I
still had serious concerns about the substance of the agreement, I did
not object to the process moving forward. I did so because I was given
commitments that we would work out an agreement between the House and
Senate on the remaining three titles that were passed by the Senate.
But what happened next is absolutely astounding. One half hour before
the conference committee was scheduled to meet, I was informed that the
conference would only consider the first six titles of the bill, and
that the remaining titles that were passed by the Senate were ``off the
table.''
Yet another backroom deal was cut by the other side to exclude the
minority from any real conference proceedings.
These were highly important provisions that were passed by the
Senate. Of particular importance to me was the Rural Community Forestry
Enterprise Program, which I authored with Senators Crapo and Baucus. In
my State of Vermont we have a good deal of small-diameter trees for
which we need help finding markets. This program would build on the
existing expertise of the Forest Service by providing technical
assistance, cooperative marketing and new product development to small
timber-dependent communities. Whether it is producing furniture,
pallets, or other creative new markets, this program would help small
forest-dependent communities expand economically.
Back room deals summarily excluded this, and several other important
initiatives in the Senate-passed bill, from consideration in the
conference committee. That is why I declined to sign this conference
report.
I will not vote for this conference report because this bill before
us remains 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.
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.
The bill 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, withholds important
information from the public.
[[Page S15373]]
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. This bill
makes other significant changes to judicial review. It 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 proponents of H.R. 1904 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.
This bill does not achieve that, but, with these provisions that
minimize the public's input, 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 plays a bait-and-switch trick on communities
threatened by wildfires. It is not fair to roll back environmental
laws, public oversight, or judicial review under the guise of reacting
toe devastating wildfires. It will do nothing to help or to prevent the
kid of devastation that southern California recently faced. It is a
special interest grab-bag shrouded behind a smokescreen.
We should be offering real help and real answers, instead of allowing
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.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. I understand we can proceed to adopt the conference
report on a voice vote since there is no objection to that. First, I am
happy to yield to the assistant majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will not object. I simply came to the
floor to congratulate the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and
the Senator from Idaho for an extraordinary job on a very difficult
subject on which they have worked for years. I commend them both so
much for this very important piece of legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAPO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________