[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13337-13341]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             HAPPY FORESTS

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes about 
a pending national disaster.
  Mr. President, I want to discuss something that is unfortunately not 
part of this fire package. For over a month, I have been working 
intensely with other Members and the Clinton Administration trying to 
begin to address a serious problem that in the West has been 
highlighted in stark terms by the events that happened to the community 
of Los Alamos in my state, as just one example. What happened to the 
homes and families of Los Alamos is unfortunately going to happen again 
unless we, as a Congress, can convince the Clinton Administration to 
join us in bold and deliberate actions. Throughout the United States 
there is an increasing amount of land in what natural resource 
scientists and firefighting experts call the ``wildland/urban 
interface.'' With more people moving into the West, and more homes 
being built in communities surrounded by federal lands, neighborhoods 
like those that burned in Los Alamos are becoming more numerous.
  At the same time, as a consequence of decades of fire suppression as 
well as years of increasing drought, many millions of acres--by the 
General Accounting Office's estimate, 39 million or more acres--of 
national forests are at high risk of wildfires. They are in this 
situation because fuel loads have risen to dangerous levels and forest 
management has been dramatically curtailed at the same time. The escape 
of the prescribed fire in Bandelier National Monument, and its 
subsequent effect on the town of Los Alamos make it clear, as Secretary 
Babbitt has already conceded, that in many places prescribed fire is 
not a viable management tool to reduce fuel loads. It is particularly 
risky to use in the wildland/urban interface because of the presence of 
homes and families.

[[Page 13338]]

  Therefore, joined by others Members on both sides of the aisle, I 
worked over the last few weeks to provide the Administration with both 
the resources and the tools to begin an accelerated program of fuel 
reduction in wildland/urban interface areas for communities that are at 
risk throughout the West. We suggested a number of proposals that the 
Administration found too hot to handle. For instance, we asked whether 
the Council on Environmental Quality would designate this an emergency 
situation and expedite NEPA compliance for hazard fuel reduction 
activities in the wildland/urban interface. The Administration 
representatives said no. They felt that this would be too controversial 
with national environmental special interest groups. They pleaded with 
us not to pursue this option.
  We asked whether they could suspend administrative appeals for these 
hazard fuel reduction projects. That would eliminate one source of 
delay. Anyone who wanted to stop one of these projects could still go 
directly to federal court. Here again, the Administration said no. They 
urged us not to propose suspending appeals because it would be met with 
opposition by national environmental special interest groups.
  We suggested the use of stewardship contracts to do fuel reduction 
work. A stewardship contract is one where the government can trade the 
value of any merchantable material removed through a fuel reduction 
project against the cost to the government of the fuel reduction 
activity. This is an authority that would be very useful, but that the 
federal government presently lacks. Here again, the Administration felt 
that there was too much national environmental special interest group 
opposition to stewardship contracting. They urged us not to pursue this 
option.
  Throughout this discussion we told the Administration that we would 
be sensitive to their concerns, as long as they would commit to us that 
they would not treat this crisis in a ``business as usual'' fashion. We 
weren't simply going to give them more money and say we had resolved 
the problem when we know that isn't true.
  Finally, Senator Bingaman and I came to an agreement on the 
additional tools and resources that we would provide the Administration 
while being sensitive to their concerns. We wanted to increase fuel 
reduction activity by $240 million. In the course of doing that, we 
were going to direct the Secretary of the Interior and Agriculture to 
use all available contracting and hiring authorities under existing law 
to do this work. We were also going to provide the Secretaries with 
authority which they now lack to do some of this work using grants and 
cooperative agreements. We asked the Secretaries, at their sole 
discretion, to do this work in a way that would provide jobs to local 
people, opportunities to private, non-profit, or cooperating entities, 
such as youth conservation corps, and opportunities for small and micro 
businesses.
  We must begin a serious dialogue throughout the West about the 
severity of the problem that we face. In order to accomplish this, we 
directed the Secretaries by September 30 of this year to produce a list 
of all of the urban/wildland interface communities, within the vicinity 
of federal lands that are at risk from wildfire. In that list, we asked 
the Secretaries to identify those communities where hazard reduction 
activities were already underway, or could be commenced by the end of 
the calendar year. We further asked the Secretaries to describe by May 
of next year, the roadblocks to beginning hazardous fuel reduction work 
in the remaining communities on the list.
  It was our view that this would provide an opportunity to commence a 
very necessary dialogue: (1) among communities at risk, and (2) between 
the affected communities and the federal land management agencies to 
gain some consensus on approaching this problem. That was the intent of 
directing the Secretaries to produce these lists.
  It was also our hope that, as communities recognized the degree of 
risk, they would match some of the federal contributions with their own 
money and effort. This would get the work done even more quickly.
  Regrettably, I must inform the Senate, including Members from western 
states who have communities at risk, and some burning now, that the 
Administration rejected our proposal because they thought that ``it 
might encourage logging.'' Now remember we weren't talking about 
wilderness areas. And we weren't talking about roadless areas either. 
Nor were we talking about areas of special significance for ecological 
or wildlife values. We were just talking about the federal lands 
adjacent to communities. We were talking about the woods next to 
subdivisions. We were talking about places like the city of Los Alamos, 
or people burned out of the Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico. We 
could have easily have been talking about Santa Fe, New Mexico, or 
Bend, Oregon, or Sedona, Arizona, or Missoula, Montana. We could have 
been talking about neighborhoods in each of those cities, and many 
dozen more scattered throughout the semi-arid, western states.
  Even though we were talking about these kinds of areas, the 
Administration was much too concerned with offending environmental 
special interest groups to move aggressively and effectively to reduce 
fire risks because it might involve encouraging logging.
  Well this is a tragedy. And it's a tragedy that will be repeated as 
the summer progresses. It is a tragedy that will probably occur each 
week until the snow falls later this year.
  I want to advise the Senate that when you next look at footage of 
forest fires on CNN, just remember that the Administration didn't want 
to address this problem because they were afraid it might encourage 
logging. When you look at footage on CNN of burned out forests, dead 
and dying wildlife, and devastated watersheds, just remember that the 
Administration didn't want to address this problem because they were 
afraid it might encourage logging. When you see footage on CNN of 
burned-out neighborhoods, destroyed homes, devastated families and 
ruined lives, just remember that the Administration didn't want to 
prevent this problem because they were afraid that by doing so they 
might encourage logging. And next winter, when you see the first CNN 
footage of dramatic flash floods in watersheds that were burned-over 
the previous summer, and you see homes buried in the mud, just remember 
that the Administration didn't want to prevent that problem because 
they were afraid it might encourage logging.
  And finally, when you're forced to see it up close, when it affects a 
community in your state, when you're not just watching it on TV, but 
actually meeting with the citizens of your state who have been burned 
out of their homes and their neighborhoods--just tell them that the 
Administration didn't want to prevent the problem from occurring 
because they were afraid it might encourage too much logging. Just tell 
them that the Administration didn't want to prevent the problem from 
occurring because they were afraid of the national environmental groups 
who claim to want to save the environment. Maybe then the 
Administration will realize that they should have been afraid of what 
would happen if they did listen to the national environmental special 
interest groups.
  The publicly owned forests of America are not very happy today. I 
intended to put on the supplemental bill a provision that I was going 
to call ``happy forests.'' That is a strange name. But it is either 
happy forests or it is what we have today. What we have today is a 
philosophy that seems to say to the forests of our land: Burn, baby, 
burn. That is the theme.
  The administration fears logging and it is frightened to death when 
anyone suggests something that might sound like ``logging.'' It is all 
right if they keep their policy not to cut anything going, but it is 
not all right where the forests of America come in contact with 
communities. The interface between communities, buildings, churches, 
and the forests of America is just

[[Page 13339]]

crying out while waiting for a forest fire that will devour communities 
and burn down buildings.
  I have a city in my state called Santa Fe. Everybody knows of Santa 
Fe because it is a great place to go. The mayor recently has taken many 
people to see the forests around Santa Fe and the community. Santa Fe 
is frightened that their watershed is going to burn down. It is right 
up against the community and provides its water. That watershed will 
burn down while the U.S. Government sits in its ivory tower and says 
don't do a thing that might look like logging, might smell like 
logging.
  Even on this bill that we have before the Senate, which provides 
emergency fire relief, the administration ended up rejecting, after 
negotiating for weeks, language that would have helped thin forests to 
protect communities. This was a small, but very necessary, program. 
Before we are finished this year, the American people are going to have 
such a fear about the forests burning down they will support a policy 
across this land of thinning these forests in the interface with 
communities and buildings.
  We had a fire that cost the Government over $1 billion in Los Alamos, 
affecting our laboratory and the people that work there, because the 
Interior Department started a fire, a ``controlled burn'', on a 
national monument right next to Los Alamos. They didn't follow the 
right rules, didn't have the right weather; they did everything wrong. 
The little fire got to be a big fire and the U.S. Government burned 
down 48,000 acres, put 400-plus families out of their homes by burning 
them to the ground. The Cerro Grande fire burned almost $200 million 
worth of Los Alamos scientific buildings. We are lucky that the whole 
community didn't burn to the ground.
  Sooner or later, we are going to have to get serious and pass the 
kind of legislation which would have been on this bill. The 
administration called it a rider. The distinguished newspaper, the 
Washington Post, today argues against riders on this pending bill. They 
said one of riders removed encouraged ``timbering.'' I ask the editors 
to read the language. It did not encourage timbering. It said thin the 
dangerous forests where communities are at risk, and it provided great 
limitations. It encourages the use of locals in rural communities, and 
give jobs to their young people, to clean out the forests in the 
summer.
  This committee of appropriations is willing to get it the program 
started. This administration said we will veto this whole bill, even as 
far as defense of our Nation goes, if you put something in that changes 
the way we are doing things on federal land.
  A panel of experts recently visited the watershed of Santa Fe, NM. 
They made a statement. They are frightened that watershed will burn 
down because the area hasn't been thinned and nothing is being done to 
the forest land to keep it from turning into a tinderbox.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial 
from the Washington Post and an article from the Santa Fe New Mexican.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 30, 2000]

                          A Dirty Water Rider

       Senior congressional Republicans slid a provision into the 
     supplemental appropriations bill late Wednesday night that 
     would have the effect of blocking a major new clean water 
     regulation. The notion was that the president would have to 
     accept the provision, since the alternative would be to veto 
     a long-delayed bill that he badly wants. The supplemental 
     request, which he sent to Congress last winter, includes the 
     administration's proposed aid to Colombia, support for the 
     military operation in Kosovo and a backlog of domestic 
     disaster relief, including help for victims of Hurricane 
     Floyd, which occurred a year ago.
       But our sense is that, if the offending language can't be 
     removed--discussions were continuing last night--the 
     president should veto the bill. Let the onus for the delay in 
     these funds--for support of U.S. troops abroad, for people 
     who have been waiting in line for up to a year for disaster 
     aid--be placed where it belongs, at the doorstep of members 
     of Congress who would hold the money hostage to a furtive 
     cause. The president can make that speech--and should. The 
     administration made a big thing last year of the clean water 
     step it was taking, and it's the right step. In recent days, 
     administration negotiators have knocked four other retrograde 
     environmental riders out of the supplemental bill, having to 
     do with hard-rock mining, timbering, reform of the Corps of 
     Engineers and the opening of a wildlife refuge to 
     development. Four for four is nifty. Make it five.
       The regulation in question involves something called total 
     maximum daily loads, or TMDLs. The Clean Water Act has mainly 
     been enforced over the years through a permit system that has 
     reduced pollution from particular major sources--factories, 
     sewage treatment plants, etc. The permitting effort has been 
     a success, but many bodies of water in the country are still 
     dirty--too dirty to fish or swim in, for example. They either 
     have too many sources of pollution nearby or are afflicted by 
     generalized urban and agricultural runoff, which up to now 
     the government has done little to regulate and which is said 
     to account for the majority of remaining pollution.
       Where bodies of water are still too dirty, states would be 
     instructed to determine the maximum daily loads they can 
     tolerate and develop plans to ratchet down pollution 
     accordingly. The process would be gradual, and indeed, until 
     recently, some environmental groups were fighting the 
     proposed regulation on grounds it was too weak. Democrats on 
     the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee sent a 
     letter to Senate leaders of both parties yesterday, 
     protesting the late-night insertion of the rider and urging 
     instead an open debate ``in clear public view.'' That's just 
     what ought to happen.
                                  ____


             [From the Sante Fe New Mexican, June 28, 2000]

     Experts Urge Immediate Action To Ease Fire Threat in Watershed

                              (Ben Neary)

       The federal government should act fast to try to avert 
     catastrophic fire on the watershed that provides nearly half 
     of Santa Fe's city's water supply, a panel of experts 
     reported on Tuesday.
       ``We've got the fuels, we've got the topography and we've 
     got the ignition sources. It's just a matter of them coming 
     together at the same time,'' Bill Armstrong of the Santa Fe 
     National Forest told a packed auditorium at the State Land 
     Office on Tuesday night.
       Armstrong escorted a panel of watershed experts to inspect 
     the 18,000-acre watershed Tuesday. The group ten reported 
     their findings.
       ``There's nothing like a couple of large clouds of smoke to 
     make everyone scurry around,'' Armstrong said. ``I feel like 
     a rodent on amphetamines here.''
       Armstrong had just finished preparing an environmental 
     study calling for thinning the forest in the Jemez Mountains 
     before the catastrophic Cerro Grande fire burned through the 
     area last month and went on to destroy hundreds of homes in 
     Los Alamos.
       The Cerro Grande fire was followed closely by the Viveash 
     fire, which narrowly missed burning the Gallinas River 
     watershed, which supplies the city of Las Vegas, N.M., with 
     the bulk of its water supply.
       Those fires, with their huge smoke columns visible from 
     Santa Fe, have sparked both city and Forest Service officials 
     to try to step up action on a plan to reduce the danger of 
     fire destroying the Santa Fe watershed.
       The Forest Service and the city are working together on a 
     study of how thinning work should proceed.
       Actual thinning of trees probably couldn't start until next 
     year at the earliest and likely will continue for five to 10 
     years, Armstrong said.
       Thomas W. Swetnam, director of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring 
     Research at the University of Arizona, was among those who 
     toured the watershed.
       Studies of three rings over the past 400 years or so show 
     that fires of low intensity used to burn every 10 years or 
     so. With flames only a few feet high, such fires burned away 
     the grass and underbrush without harming the large trees.
       In the 20th century, however, Swetnam said, a new pattern 
     emerged. Heavy grazing by domesticated animals reduced the 
     grass cover in the forests so low-intensity fires no longer 
     were common.
       The Santa Fe watershed probably hasn't burned in the past 
     150 to 200 years, Swetnam said. Such lack of fire has led to 
     unnaturally heavy buildup of dead trees and other material in 
     the forest.
       When such an overgrown forest burns--such as in the Cerro 
     Grande fire--the huge flames travel through the tops of the 
     trees, killing them and leaving the landscape denuded.
       ``The Santa Fe watershed may not burn up tomorrow, or next 
     year or the next five years or so,'' Swetnam said. ``But the 
     Santa Fe watershed is one of the places on the landscape of 
     the Southwest where there is a fairly high urgency.''
       Daniel Neary, a soil scientist with the U.S. Forest 
     Service, said catastrophic fire results in soil that for the 
     first year or so won't absorb water. This causes heavy runoff 
     and erosion--both of which would likely hurt the

[[Page 13340]]

     city's water supply and possibly threaten flooding 
     downstream.
       Mark Dubois, an assistant professor of Forestry and 
     Wildlife Sciences at Auburn University, said conditions in 
     the Santa Fe watershed are such that it will take a combined 
     approach of carefully controlled burns, thinning and other 
     means to try to reduce the fire danger.
       ``The central observation I walked away with today is there 
     is not one-size-fits-all,'' Dubois said of the watershed.
       Regis Cassidy of the Sante Fe National Forest said there 
     would probably be enough work in thinning the watershed to 
     keep contractors employed for five to 10 years. He said there 
     are perhaps 600 acres where trees could be easily cut, 
     another 2,000 acres where extremely steep terrain would make 
     work difficult and perhaps another 4,500 acres where the 
     terrain is too steep to cut at all.
       Some local environmental groups have said they intend to 
     fight the Forest Service plan to thin the watershed, saying 
     they believe the plan amounts to an inappropriate plan to log 
     in sensitive areas along the river. No representative from 
     such groups spoke at Tuesday's meeting, although officials 
     said they had been invited.

  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank Senator Domenici for spelling out so clearly the 
crisis on the Nation's public lands today.
  Yesterday, I held a hearing and I had two regional foresters: A 
regional forester that largely is in charge of all the forests in 
Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington; the other forester in charge of 
all the forests along the Sierra Nevada in California. They admitted 
yesterday that this President's roadless policy is going to jeopardize 
21 million acres of forested lands that are now at high risk to 
catastrophic wildfires, the very thing the Senator is talking about. 
Yet this President's policy is to lock it up, walk away, and hope it 
doesn't burn.
  We are talking, as the Senator so clearly spelled out, about thinning 
and cleaning--not extensive logging--but clearly changing the 
environment in a way that fire would not be as destructive as it has 
been at Los Alamos.
  I cannot forget the picture on television, the DA Cat rolling along 
the fire line in the forests of New Mexico, rolling along the dirt, 
right down through a riparian area. Why? To put out the fire.
  Now, if the proper action had happened the way the Senator spelled it 
out, that would never have occurred at Los Alamos, with 21 million 
acres now at risk of catastrophic wildfires as a result of this 
President's policy.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I, too, want to comment briefly on the 
comments of the Senator from New Mexico. We will have a lot more to say 
about this in the future because this is a national crisis.
  For today, let me simply acknowledge that what Senator Domenici and 
Senator Craig have said represents a huge challenge to this Nation. 
According to the GAO, 38 million acres of forests in the United States 
are in jeopardy of either dying or burning unless they are quickly 
treated. We have less than 20 years to accomplish this treatment. It is 
not only the risk of catastrophic forest fires, including the danger to 
communities around which these forests are located, but also the 
prospect that they will die of disease or malnutrition because they are 
so crowded together that they are competing for the nutrients and the 
water which, at least in the Southwest, are so scarce.
  In the area of Arizona where there has been research into this--now 
at least half a dozen years of experience--we find that when the areas 
are thinned and then prescribed burning is introduced, you don't get 
the catastrophic fire. You do get much better tree growth, more pitch 
content, so that they are not subject to the beetle infestation, for 
example, and higher protein content so the grasses can grow on the 
floor. This brings in more mammals and birds into the area. And the 
forest returns to the park-like condition that existed at the turn of 
the century.
  There have been a lot of bad policies since then, and a century of 
activity which resulted in the destruction of the national forests of 
this country.
  The task is huge. We need to get started. I will be supporting the 
efforts of the Senator from New Mexico and others in trying to ensure 
that we can literally save our beautiful national forests.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from New Mexico is not only speaking about 
the forests, but people forget that the forests contaminate the private 
lands nearby. We warned the Forest Service about the beetle infestation 
in Alaska and urged that the areas be sprayed and be thinned to prevent 
that from spreading. I regret to tell the Senate just yesterday I had 
to have people come and cut down two of our beautiful spruce trees on 
the little lot I own because I and my neighbors, who are adjacent to 
the national forest, are totally infested--the trees are totally 
invested by beetles. The beetles are killing the trees.
  All of this could have been prevented. This is the same as wildfires. 
In fact, beetle kill is worse than wildfires because it totally 
consumes the future, and it is very difficult to remove these trees.
  I commend the Senator. I hope he will reinitiate his proposal. He is 
correct. Because of the basic problem, all the editorial backlash that 
was built up against his legislation, we were unable to include that in 
this bill. But I look forward to working with him this year on this 
subject to try to force this administration to recognize their 
responsibility in protecting these national forests and, in doing so, 
to protect the private property owners nearby.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to have printed in the Record the 
statutory language Senator Bingaman and I worked on that we wanted to 
incorporate here to get started, which language was denied by threat of 
the veto. I am not suggesting Senator Bingaman agrees with every 
statement I made on the floor, but one can read the proposed 
legislation and see that it is very reasonable.
  I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Fuels Reduction

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . PROTECTING COMMUNITIES FROM RISK OF WILDLAND FIRE.

       (a) In expending the emergency funds provided in any Act 
     with respect to any fiscal year for hazardous fuels 
     reduction, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may hereafter conduct fuel reduction treatments 
     on Federal lands using all contracting and hiring authorities 
     available to the Secretaries. Notwithstanding Federal 
     government procurement and contracting laws, the Secretaries 
     may conduct fuel reduction treatments on Federal lands using 
     grants and cooperative agreements. Notwithstanding Federal 
     government procurement and contracting laws, in order to 
     provide employment and training opportunities to people in 
     rural communities, the Secretaries may hereafter, at their 
     sole discretion, limit competition for any contracts, with 
     respect to any fiscal year, including contracts for 
     monitoring activities, to:
       (1) local private, non-profit, or cooperative entities;
       (2) Youth Conservation Corps crews or related partnerships 
     with state, local, and non-profit youth groups;
       (3) Small or micro-businesses; or
       (4) other entities that will hire or train a significant 
     percentage of local people to complete such contracts.
       (b) Prior to September 30, 2000, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly 
     publish in the Federal Register a list of all urban wildland 
     interface communities, as defined by the Secretaries, within 
     the vicinity of Federal lands that are at risk from wildfire. 
     This list shall include:
       (1) an identification of communities around which hazardous 
     fuel reduction treatments are ongoing; and
       (2) an identification of communities around which the 
     Secretaries are preparing to begin treatments in calendar 
     year 2000.
       (c) Prior to May 1, 2001, the Secretary of Agriculture and 
     the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly publish in the 
     Federal Register a list of all urban wildland interface 
     communities, as defined by the Secretaries, within the 
     vicinity of Federal lands and at risk from wildfire that are 
     included in the list published pursuant to subsection (b) but 
     that are not included in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), along 
     with an identification of reasons, not limited to lack of 
     available funds,

[[Page 13341]]

     why there are not treatments ongoing or being prepared for 
     these communities.
       (d) Within 30 days after enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall publish in the Federal 
     Register the Forest Service's Cohesive Strategy for 
     Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted 
     Ecosystems, and an explanation of any differences between the 
     Cohesive Strategy and other related ongoing policymaking 
     activities including: proposed regulations revising the 
     National Forest System transportation policy; proposed 
     roadless area protection regulations; the Interior Columbia 
     Basin Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; and 
     the Sierra Nevada Framework/Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Draft 
     Environmental Impact Statement. The Secretary shall also 
     provide 30 days for public comment on the Cohesive Strategy 
     and the accompanying explanation.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my friends who have spoken to 
this, there is a novel position in this legislation I think you will 
like. I am not sure it was not what brought certain environmentalists 
to the White House, along with some others. There are so many people 
such as mayors and councilmen in communities who ask us: Look. Right 
over there are all these dead trees, thousands of dead trees. They say: 
Why do we leave them there dead? The longer we leave them in that 
position, they are going to turn more and more into additional fodder 
for fires. What good do we get out of dead trees, just sitting there?
  Actually, what we are going to say when we finally get around to 
passing this is that the U.S. Government, which owns that property has 
to, in writing, tell that community why they cannot thin that forest, 
and what is holding up action. It is going to be interesting. This 
should become law because, sooner or later, I am going to ask the 
Senate to vote on it. We ask something that is very understandable and 
makes common sense.
  But you see, if you are holding fuel reduction up for a year and a 
half for a NEPA statement on land that just has dead trees on it, 
somebody is going to say: Why don't we hurry up? Why does it take so 
long?
  Getting that information is going to be part of this process of 
trying to get action. We should be saying to our forests and the 
communities abutting them: We want you to live together. We don't want 
one to burn the other one out. And you cannot promise them that if you 
do not thin those forests.
  With that, I am finished, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum in the 
absence of a leader. He has asked for a quorum until he returns. 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. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded so I may simply make a statement as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded so that I may speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue to 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________