[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25192-25194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             FOREST HEALTH

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a moment on the Healthy 
Forests bill which, as we just heard from previous discussion, will not 
be brought up. I understand the points made by the Senator from Nevada 
with regard to the importance of the appropriations bills. None of us 
deny the fact that we have important work to do with regard to our 
budget and the appropriations process. However, there are other 
critical pieces of legislation this Senate must consider. Among the 
most critical of those is the Healthy Forests bill. I serve as chairman 
of the subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee which handles forestry 
issues. It was that committee to which this legislation was referred 
when it came to the Senate. Our distinguished chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, Senator Cochran, has worked closely with me as 
we have crafted bipartisan legislation to bring before the Senate. We 
have also worked closely with the Energy Committee, Senator Domenici, 
and Senator Craig, my colleague from Idaho, who happens by coincidence 
to chair the forestry subcommittee of the Energy Committee, and other 
Senators on the Republican side of the aisle as we worked to craft a 
meaningful piece of legislation.
  We also reached out and worked closely in a bipartisan fashion with 
Senators from the Democratic side of the aisle because we knew this 
important legislation should not be stalled as a result of partisan 
politics. The result of those efforts, the initial effort in committee 
and subcommittee, was bipartisan legislation which Democratic Senator 
Blanche Lambert Lincoln from Arkansas and I cosponsored to bring before 
the full Committee on Agriculture. The Agriculture Committee then made 
several amendments to the legislation, working in a bipartisan fashion 
with other Senators on the committee, and brought that legislation out 
to the floor. At that time there were still concerns being raised and, 
therefore, our leader, Senator Cochran, brought together a group of 
Republican and Democratic Senators with concerns about our forests and 
the conditions they face, and for several months we negotiated--again, 
on a bipartisan basis--to address the needs of our forests and the 
concerns raised by those who wanted to be sure we had a bipartisan, 
balanced bill.

[[Page 25193]]

  We achieved that support. We came forward in a group of bipartisan 
Senators, Republicans and Democrats, with legislation that expanded the 
number of Democrats who would join with us on the legislation, 
including our minority leader and other leaders in the west from areas 
where serious forest fire problems are facing us.
  Now after that long period and working in a bipartisan fashion, as we 
are prepared to bring the legislation forward, we are told it cannot be 
brought forward because there is objection to the unanimous consent 
request. We don't want to have a filibuster fight. We don't want to 
have a cloture vote. We have been working to build a balanced approach 
which can achieve support in the Senate.
  It is my concern that what we see now is further delay, coming at a 
late time in the session, when we will jeopardize the ability of the 
Senate to meet its time considerations to address critical issues.
  Our forests need support and help now. All anyone has to do with 
regard to the threat of fire danger is look back at the last 3 or 4 or 
5 months to see the kind of threat our forests face. In addition, we 
expanded the legislation to deal not simply with fire threats but also 
threats from insect infestation--some of the most critical needs facing 
our forests in America today.
  This legislation, as Senator Cochran indicated, is balanced. It is 
fair. It protects old-growth forests. It makes certain that public 
participation in the process of decisionmaking is preserved. It assures 
that the implementation of management plans by experts on the forests 
has a meaningful chance to proceed so we aren't tied up in litigation 
paralysis, and it gives us an opportunity to move forward and develop a 
plan that will help us achieve our objective, which is healthy forests.
  I commend all Senators who have been working together on this issue, 
Republicans and Democrats. I particularly thank my colleague from 
Idaho, Senator Craig, and our colleague from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici, as they have worked so closely with us at the Energy 
Committee level; and especially my chairman, Senator Cochran, who also 
worked closely with us; Senator Lincoln, who has worked with us from 
the start, Senators Wyden, Feinstein, Baucus, and others; Senator Kyl, 
Senator McCain. Many Senators have come together to work with us.
  I am hopeful this critical, bipartisan, balanced legislation will not 
fall prey to the loss of time we face on the Senate floor at these late 
days in the session as we are moving forward. I urge Senators to come 
forward and help us find a path by which we can bring this legislation 
before the Senate and achieve its early consideration.
  Mr. REID. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, over 6 weeks ago, the Senate appointed 
13 conferees to the conference with the House on the Energy bill. Six 
of those conferees are Democrats. They were appointed to represent the 
49 Democrats who serve in this body.
  The day after our appointment, there was one meeting of the 
conference to allow for opening statements. Since then, there has been 
no opportunity for Democratic conferees to actually act as conferees. 
Some of the proposed text for the conference report, which was written 
without our involvement, has been circulated to us for comment by our 
staff.
  On the most important issues before the conference--that being 
electricity and ethanol--we have not yet seen a draft text. Our concern 
about the way the conference has been conducted is not new information 
to this body. I have conveyed those concerns directly to the chairman 
of the conference. I have been joined publicly in expressing those 
concerns by other Democratic conferees, both in the Senate and House.
  The blackout on information about the conference became even more 
complete during this past weekend. We understand there are agreements 
on most of the issues involved with the Energy bill. In fact, the 
settled energy provisions probably represent well over 500 pages of 
legislative text.
  This text contains many details and it is important that we be able 
to view the text before we are called into a final conference meeting 
for an up-or-down vote. Our staff was standing by all weekend in hopes 
of getting to see this text. We were not able to do so. I personally 
cannot think of any valid reason why the completed text--those portions 
that have been completed by the Republican conferees--should not be 
distributed to the rest of the conferees immediately.
  There are numerous new sections on topics that have not been yet 
dealt with, as we understand it. We need to see those. Some of those 
may be provisions that were neither in the House nor the Senate bill. 
Others may entail spending of which we previously have not been 
informed.
  I have spoken to the chairman of the conference in the last few 
minutes. He has informed me that he and our majority leader are 
insisting that this conference not be concluded until we are given the 
full text of this bill and until we have at least 24 hours to review 
the text and have a final meeting at which we can raise objections and 
offer amendments. I appreciate that courtesy.
  This is far short of what I think would be required in an appropriate 
conference, but it is certainly some effort to accommodate, which I 
very much appreciate.
  I do believe the sections that have not yet been released--that being 
the sections on electricity and ethanol--need to be released at the 
earliest possible moment, and hopefully today. These are very important 
sections. They are going to affect Americans in their pocketbook in 
very real ways. It is very important we get the provisions out so we 
can understand them, debate them, and consider them before we are 
called upon to finally pass on this conference.
  The right thing to do is to make the documents--that is, the text of 
this proposed Energy legislation--public as soon as possible. There is 
no doubt in anybody's mind that this is what the Democratic conferees 
continue to ask for. I hope this is the course of action that will be 
taken by the leadership of the House and Senate at the earliest 
possible moment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi is 
recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bingaman spoke to an issue to which I would 
like to respond.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from New Mexico be granted 2 minutes, not to be taken from my time. I 
think it is critical that he speak to the issue of the energy 
conference.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, whose time is it taken from?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority's time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Bingaman that I heard 
what he said. He and I have talked a number of times. I would like to 
share with him the following so there is no misunderstanding. I have 
taken the position--although I have not been able to tell him every day 
and I have not issued a release about it every day--that the Senator 
must have the bill for 24 full hours prior to markup. We have taken 
that position with our leadership and with everyone who has to do with 
the hierarchy of this bill. That is where we are. That will be 
enforced. I now have the support I need for that to happen.
  Secondly, I will do my very best to get you the portion of the bill 
that you would like to see on electricity even before that. I am 
working very hard on seeing if I can do that. There are a whole lot of 
people who want to look at that provision, and I want to get it to you 
as soon as possible.
  I thank the Senator for his comments, and I understand his concern. I 
hope that, in the end, whatever your concerns are for that bill--let's 
hope you are for it, but I hope you will conclude that you have had a 
chance to review everything and offer amendments. I thank the Senator 
for yielding.

[[Page 25194]]

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I had hoped that today I would be on the 
floor debating with my colleagues the issue of Healthy Forests and H.R. 
1904. When the chairman of the Agriculture Committee brought the bill 
to the floor today asking unanimous consent to move forward, there was 
an objection heard from the other side. I must tell you it is 
phenomenally frustrating to me that we have worked on this issue in a 
totally bipartisan mode since the day it came from the House and, yet, 
there is still objection from the other side on this issue.
  The bill brought to the floor today, chaired and lead-sponsored by 
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Cochran, has Senator 
Daschle, Senator Domenici, Senator Wyden, my colleague from Idaho, 
Senator Crapo, who chairs the Forestry Subcommittee on Agriculture, 
Senators Feinstein, Lincoln, Burns, Johnson, McCain, and Craig, who 
chairs the Forestry Subcommittee in the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, together on this issue.
  Yet the other side is saying no. Is it because the fire season is 
over? Is it because of the rains starting to hit the forests of the 
Great Basin West, and the smoke clouds that filled the air of the West 
this summer are depleted? Is that why there is objection now to this 
legislation?
  I and others have been on this floor for the last 3 years pleading 
with the Congress of the United States, and especially this body, to 
craft a forest health bill that allows us to begin some active 
management of our forests, to change the character of our forests, and 
to improve their health. The House acted this year. The bill came to 
the Agriculture Committee. My colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo, 
chaired the subcommittee, and the work began under the leadership of 
Senator Cochran. They produced a very good bill. We looked at it in the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It is not that our committee 
has not seen it. You darn right we have seen it; for 3 years, this 
issue has been before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and my 
forestry subcommittee. Now the ranking member, Senator Wyden of Oregon, 
and I--myself chairing--have agreed this is the bill that ought to come 
to the floor. Yet we are still being told that, no, somehow it hasn't 
been vetted enough and somehow there is no understanding of this issue.
  There is a lot of understanding of this issue. There is a fundamental 
disagreement between those who want the forests left alone to burn, to 
let Mother Nature take her course, and those of us who have said the 
economies of the West, the watersheds of the West, the wildlife of the 
West, and of all of our public land forests deserve a policy of active 
management so our forests can return to a state of good health, so our 
watersheds can produce clear and valuable water for our urban 
environments, and so the wildlife can flourish; they deserve that. Yet 
it is being denied by a select few who would see it in an entirely 
different way.
  The President began to speak out on this issue a couple of years ago. 
He stood in the ashes hip deep in Oregon, where fires ravaged nearly a 
million acres, and said that somehow this country has to change its 
policy.
  Guess what. Eighty-seven percent of Americans in a recent poll agree 
that something is wrong in our national forests. It looks something 
like this: 79 percent of the folks in the West say: Got to fix it. In 
the Midwest, 82 percent say: Got a problem, ought to fix it. In the 
South, 84 percent say--and this is the area the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee is from--got a problem in our public forests, 
ought to fix it. And the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator 
Cochran, set out to do that, along with the Senator from Idaho, Mr. 
Crapo, and myself.
  This is a national issue today. It is not an issue of the elitist or 
the select few of the environmental community who say nothing should 
happen on our public lands; that they should be a preserve only managed 
by Mother Nature. We have seen what Mother Nature has done in the last 
5 years. She has burned 3 million to 5 million acres a year. She has 
destroyed watersheds. She has destroyed wildlife. In many instances, 
she has destroyed thousands of homes, and she has cost Americans their 
lives. Many Americans have died in the last few years just trying to 
fight these unusually hot and devastatingly damaging wildfires that 
have swept the West.
  Here are the facts. The American public understands these fires are 
destroying our forests. They understand that we need to do more 
thinning.
  Eighty-three percent of the wildland firefighters have told this 
Congress and the public that the most important step we can take to 
increase their safety--is to thin these forests.
  Because the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society and other radical 
environmental groups want no timber harvesting in our Federal forests, 
we are destroying 6 to 7 million acres of land each year--6 to 7 
million acres of wildlife habitat are being destroyed each year.
  The bipartisan amendment that was reached as a compromise with 13 of 
my colleagues responds to the needs of the American public. It responds 
to those who are concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat. It 
responds to the wildland firefighters who tell us we need to increase 
the number of acres thinned each year. And, most importantly it 
responds to the needs of our forests.
  We have seen communities destroyed by fire and important wildlife 
habitats destroyed. Yet we, in this Senate, fiddle.
  I am tired of our fiddling around. We all know that this body must 
address this issue. We all know the that the bipartisan amendment is a 
good one that is fair and balanced and good for our forests.
  Last year, all we asked for was an up-or-down vote on our amendment, 
but the minority would not allow that.
  This year, a few Members seem to be saying no debate, no vote, and 
yes to the destruction of or forests. This simply has to stop.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, that is the issue before us today. It is an 
issue that this Senate ought to debate. I plead with my colleagues on 
the other side to work with us to get this bill to the floor for 
purposes of debate and passage.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time on this 
side to the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes 9 
seconds.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________