[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26153-26203]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1904, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1904) to improve the capacity of the Secretary 
     of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and 
     conduct hazardous 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.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported 
from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, with an 
amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu 
thereof the following:

       (Strike the part shown in black brackets and insert the 
     part shown in italic.)

                               [H.R. 1904

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     [SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       [(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy 
     Forests Restoration Act of 2003''.
       [(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

[Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
[Sec. 2. Purpose.

          [TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

[Sec. 101. Definitions.
[Sec. 102. Authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
[Sec. 103. Prioritization for communities and watersheds.
[Sec. 104. Environmental analysis.
[Sec. 105. Special Forest Service administrative review process.
[Sec. 106. Special requirements regarding judicial review of authorized 
              hazardous fuels reduction projects.

[[Page 26154]]

[Sec. 107. Injunctive relief for agency action to restore fire-adapted 
              forest or rangeland ecosystems.
[Sec. 108. Rules of construction.

                           [TITLE II--BIOMASS

[Sec. 201. Findings.
[Sec. 202. Definitions.
[Sec. 203. Grants to improve the commercial value of forest biomass for 
              electric energy, useful heat, transportation fuels, and 
              petroleum-based product substitutes.
[Sec. 204. Reporting requirement.

               [TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

[Sec. 301. Findings and purpose.
[Sec. 302. Establishment of watershed forestry assistance program.

                     [TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS

[Sec. 401. Definitions, findings, and purpose.
[Sec. 402. Accelerated information gathering regarding bark beetles, 
              including Southern pine beetles, hemlock woolly adelgid, 
              emerald ash borers, red oak borers, and white oak borers.
[Sec. 403. Applied silvicultural assessments.
[Sec. 404. Relation to other laws.
[Sec. 405. Authorization of appropriations.

               [TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

[Sec. 501. Establishment of healthy forests reserve program.
[Sec. 502. Eligibility and enrollment of lands in program.
[Sec. 503. Conservation plans.
[Sec. 504. Financial assistance.
[Sec. 505. Technical assistance.
[Sec. 506. Safe harbor.
[Sec. 507. Authorization of appropriations.

                  [TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

[Sec. 601. Forest stands inventory and monitoring program to improve 
              detection of and response to environmental threats.

     [SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       [The purpose of this Act is--
       [(1) to reduce the risks of damage to communities, 
     municipal water supplies, and some at-risk Federal lands from 
     catastrophic wildfires;
       [(2) to authorize grant programs to improve the commercial 
     value of forest biomass for electric energy, useful heat, 
     transportation fuels, petroleum-based product substitutes and 
     other commercial purposes;
       [(3) to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address 
     threats to forest and rangeland health, including 
     catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape;
       [(4) to promote systematic information gathering to address 
     the impact of insect infestations on forest and rangeland 
     health;
       [(5) to improve the capacity to detect insect and disease 
     infestations at an early stage, particularly with respect to 
     hardwood forests; and
       [(6) to protect, restore, and enhance degraded forest 
     ecosystem types in order to promote the recovery of 
     threatened and endangered species as well as improve 
     biological diversity and enhance carbon sequestration.

          [TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

     [SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

       [In this title:
       [(1) Authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.--The 
     term ``authorized hazardous fuels reduction project'' means a 
     hazardous fuels reduction project described in subsection (a) 
     of section 102, subject to the remainder of such section, 
     that is planned and conducted using the process authorized by 
     section 104.
       [(2) Condition class 2.--The term ``condition class 2'', 
     with respect to an area of Federal lands, refers to the 
     condition class description developed by the Forest Service 
     Rocky Mountain Research Station in the general technical 
     report entitled ``Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data 
     for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management'' (RMRS-87), dated 
     April 2000, under which--
       [(A) fire regimes on the lands have been moderately altered 
     from their historical range;
       [(B) there exists a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem 
     components from fire;
       [(C) fire frequencies have departed (either increased or 
     decreased) from historical frequencies by one or more return 
     interval, which results in moderate changes to fire size, 
     frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape patterns; and
       [(D) vegetation attributes have been moderately altered 
     from their historical range.
       [(3) Condition class 3.--The term ``condition class 3'', 
     with respect to an area of Federal lands, refers to the 
     condition class description developed by the Rocky Mountain 
     Research Station in the general technical report referred to 
     in paragraph (2), under which--
       [(A) fire regimes on the lands have been significantly 
     altered from their historical range;
       [(B) there exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem 
     components from fire;
       [(C) fire frequencies have departed from historical 
     frequencies by multiple return intervals, which results in 
     dramatic changes to fire size, frequency, intensity, 
     severity, or landscape patterns; and
       [(D) vegetation attributes have been significantly altered 
     from their historical range.
       [(4) Day.--The term ``day'' means a calendar day, except 
     that, if a deadline imposed by this title would expire on a 
     nonbusiness day, the deadline will be extended to the end of 
     the next business day.
       [(5) Decision document.--The term ``decision document'' 
     means a decision notice or a record of decision, as those 
     terms are used in applicable regulations of the Council on 
     Environmental Quality and the Forest Service Handbook.
       [(6) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means--
       [(A) National Forest System lands; and
       [(B) public lands administered by the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management.
       [(7) Hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term 
     ``hazardous fuels reduction project'' refers to the measures 
     and methods described in the definition of ``appropriate 
     tools'' contained in the glossary of the Implementation Plan.
       [(8) Implementation plan.--The term ``Implementation Plan'' 
     means the Implementation Plan for the 10-year Comprehensive 
     Strategy for a Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland 
     Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment, dated May 
     2002, which was developed pursuant to the conference report 
     for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (House Report 106-646).
       [(9) Interface community and intermix community.--The terms 
     ``interface community'' and ``intermix community'' have the 
     meanings given those terms on page 753 of volume 66 of the 
     Federal Register, as published on January 4, 2001.
       [(10) Municipal water supply system.--The term ``municipal 
     water supply system'' means the reservoirs, canals, ditches, 
     flumes, laterals, pipes, pipelines, or other surface 
     facilities and systems constructed or installed for the 
     impoundment, storage, transportation, or distribution of 
     drinking water for a community.
       [(11) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary 
     concerned'' means the Secretary of Agriculture with respect 
     to National Forest System lands and the Secretary of the 
     Interior with respect to public lands administered by the 
     Bureau of Land Management. Any reference in this title to the 
     ``Secretary concerned'', the ``Secretary of Agriculture'', or 
     the ``Secretary of the Interior'' includes the designee of 
     the Secretary concerned.
       [(12) Threatened and endangered species habitat.--The term 
     ``threatened and endangered species habitat'' means Federal 
     lands identified in the listing decision or critical habitat 
     designation as habitat for a threatened species or an 
     endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

     [SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

       [(a) Authorized Projects.--Subject to the remainder of this 
     section, the Secretary concerned may utilize the process 
     authorized by section 104 to plan and conduct hazardous fuels 
     reduction projects on any of the following Federal lands:
       [(1) Federal lands located in an interface community or 
     intermix community.
       [(2) Federal lands located in such proximity to an 
     interface community or intermix community that there is a 
     significant risk that the spread of a fire disturbance event 
     from those lands would threaten human life and property in 
     the interface community or intermix community.
       [(3) Condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal lands 
     located in such proximity to a municipal water supply system, 
     or to a perennial stream feeding a municipal water supply 
     system, that a significant risk exists that a fire 
     disturbance event would have substantial adverse effects on 
     the water quality of the municipal water supply, including 
     the risk to water quality posed by erosion following such a 
     fire disturbance event.
       [(4) Condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal lands 
     identified by the Secretary concerned as an area where 
     windthrow or blowdown, or the existence or threat of disease 
     or insect infestation, pose a significant threat to forest or 
     rangeland health or adjacent private lands.
       [(5) Federal lands not covered by paragraph (1), (2), (3), 
     or (4) that contain threatened and endangered species 
     habitat, but only if--
       [(A) natural fire regimes on such lands are identified as 
     being important for, or wildfire is identified as a threat 
     to, an endangered species, a threatened species, or its 
     habitat in a species recovery plan prepared under section 4 
     of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) or in 
     a decision document under such section determining a species 
     to be an endangered species or a threatened species or 
     designating critical habitat;
       [(B) the project will provide enhanced protection from 
     catastrophic wildfire for the species or its habitat; and
       [(C) the Secretary complies with any applicable guidelines 
     specified in the species recovery plan prepared under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

[[Page 26155]]

       [(b) Relation to Agency Plans.--An authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project shall be planned and conducted in a 
     manner consistent with the land and resource management plan 
     or land use plan applicable to the Federal lands covered by 
     the project.
       [(c) Acreage Limitation.--Not more than a total of 
     20,000,000 acres of Federal lands may be included in 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
       [(d) Exclusion of Certain Federal Lands.--The Secretary 
     concerned may not plan or conduct an authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project that would occur on any of the 
     following Federal lands:
       [(1) A component of the National Wilderness Preservation 
     System.
       [(2) Federal lands where, by Act of Congress or 
     Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is 
     prohibited or restricted.
       [(3) Wilderness Study Areas.

     [SEC. 103. PRIORITIZATION FOR COMMUNITIES AND WATERSHEDS.

       [As provided for in the Implementation Plan, the Secretary 
     concerned shall give priority to authorized hazardous fuel 
     reduction projects that provide for the protection of 
     communities and watersheds.

     [SEC. 104. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

       [(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     title, the Secretary concerned shall plan and conduct 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects in accordance 
     with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4331 et seq.) and any other applicable laws. The Secretary 
     concerned shall prepare an environmental assessment or an 
     environmental impact statement for each authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project.
       [(b) Discretionary Authority To Eliminate Alternatives.--In 
     the case of an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, 
     the Secretary concerned is not required to study, develop, or 
     describe any alternative to the proposed agency action in the 
     environmental assessment or environmental impact statement 
     prepared for the proposed agency action pursuant to section 
     102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4332(2)).
       [(c) Public Notice and Meeting.--
       [(1) Public notice.--The Secretary concerned shall provide 
     notice of each authorized hazardous fuels reduction project 
     in accordance with applicable regulations and administrative 
     guidelines.
       [(2) Public meeting.--During the planning stage of each 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, the Secretary 
     concerned shall conduct a public meeting at an appropriate 
     location proximate to the administrative unit of the Federal 
     lands in which the authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     project will be conducted. The Secretary concerned shall 
     provide advance notice of the date and time of the meeting.
       [(d) Public Collaboration.--In order to encourage 
     meaningful public participation in the identification and 
     development of authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects, 
     the Secretary concerned shall facilitate collaboration among 
     governments and interested persons during the formulation of 
     each authorized fuels reduction project in a manner 
     consistent with the Implementation Plan.
       [(e) Environmental Analysis and Public Comment.--In 
     accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) and the applicable 
     regulations and administrative guidelines in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned 
     shall provide an opportunity for public input during the 
     preparation of any environmental assessment or environmental 
     impact statement for proposed agency action for an authorized 
     hazardous fuels reduction project.
       [(f) Decision Document.--The Secretary concerned shall sign 
     a decision document for each authorized hazardous fuels 
     reduction project and provide notice of the decision 
     document.
       [(g) Project Monitoring.--As provided for in the 
     Implementation Plan, the Secretary concerned shall monitor 
     the implementation of authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects.

     [SEC. 105. SPECIAL FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 
                   PROCESS.

       [(a) Development of Administrative Process.--Not later than 
     90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall issue final regulations to 
     establish an administrative process that will serve as the 
     sole means by which a person described in subsection (b) can 
     seek administrative redress regarding an authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project.
       [(b) Eligible Persons.--To be eligible to participate in 
     the administrative process developed pursuant to subsection 
     (a) regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     project, a person must have submitted specific and 
     substantive written comments during the preparation stage of 
     that authorized hazardous fuels reduction project. The 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall ensure that, during the 
     preparation stage of each authorized hazardous fuels 
     reduction project, notice and comment is provided in a manner 
     sufficient to permit interested persons a reasonable 
     opportunity to satisfy the requirements of this subsection.
       [(c) Relation to Appeals Reform Act.--Section 322 of the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612 
     note), does not apply to an authorized hazardous fuels 
     reduction project.

     [SEC. 106. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF 
                   AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

       [(a) Filing Deadline.--
       [(1) Time limit established for filing.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, to be timely, an action in a 
     court of the United States challenging an authorized 
     hazardous fuels reduction project shall be filed in the court 
     before the end of the 15-day period beginning on the date on 
     which the Secretary concerned publishes, in the local paper 
     of record, notice of the final agency action regarding the 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction project. This time 
     limitation supersedes any notice of intent to file suit 
     requirement or filing deadline otherwise applicable to a 
     challenge under any provision of law.
       [(2) Waiver prohibited.--The Secretary concerned may not 
     agree to, and a district court may not grant, a waiver of the 
     requirements of this subsection.
       [(b) Duration of Preliminary Injunction.--
       [(1) Duration; extension.--Any preliminary injunction 
     granted regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     project shall be limited to 45 days. A court may renew the 
     preliminary injunction, taking into consideration the goal 
     expressed in subsection (c) for the expeditious resolution of 
     cases regarding authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects.
       [(2) Submission of information.--As part of a request to 
     renew a preliminary injunction granted regarding an 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, the parties 
     shall present the court with an update on any changes that 
     may have occurred during the period of the injunction to the 
     forest or rangeland conditions that the authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project is intended to address.
       [(3) Congressional notification.--In the event of the 
     renewal of a preliminary injunction regarding an authorized 
     hazardous fuels reduction project, the Secretary concerned 
     shall submit notice of the renewal to the Committee on 
     Resources and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
     Forestry of the Senate.
       [(c) Expeditious Completion of Judicial Review.--Congress 
     intends and encourages any court in which is filed a lawsuit 
     or appeal of a lawsuit concerning an authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project to expedite, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the proceedings in such lawsuit or appeal with 
     the goal of rendering a final determination on jurisdiction, 
     and if jurisdiction exists, a final determination on the 
     merits, within 100 days from the date the complaint or appeal 
     is filed.

     [SEC. 107. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR AGENCY ACTION TO RESTORE 
                   FIRE-ADAPTED FOREST OR RANGELAND ECOSYSTEMS.

       (a) Covered Projects.--This section applies with respect to 
     a motion for an injunction in an action brought against the 
     Secretary concerned under section 703 of title 5, United 
     States Code, that involves an agency action on Federal lands, 
     including an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, 
     that is necessary to restore a fire-adapted forest or 
     rangeland system.
       [(b) Injunctive Relief.--When considering a motion 
     described in subsection (a), in determining whether there 
     would be harm to the defendant from the injunction and 
     whether the injunction would be in the public interest, the 
     court reviewing the agency action shall--
       [(1) balance the impact to the ecosystem of the short-term 
     and long-term effects of undertaking the agency action 
     against the short-term and long-term effects of not 
     undertaking the agency action; and
       [(2) give weight to a finding by the Secretary concerned in 
     the administrative record of the agency action concerning the 
     short-term and long-term effects of undertaking the agency 
     action and of not undertaking the agency action, unless the 
     court finds that the finding was arbitrary and capricious.

     [SEC. 108. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       [(a) Relation to Other Authority.--Nothing in this title 
     shall be construed to affect, or otherwise bias, the use by 
     the Secretary concerned of other statutory or administrative 
     authorities to plan or conduct a hazardous fuels reduction 
     project on Federal lands, including Federal lands identified 
     in section 102(e), that is not planned or conducted using the 
     process authorized by section 104.
       [(b) Relation to Legal Action.--Nothing in this title shall 
     be construed to prejudice or otherwise affect the 
     consideration or disposition of any legal action concerning 
     the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, part 294 of title 36, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, as amended in the final rule and 
     record of decision published in the Federal Register on 
     January 12, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244).

[[Page 26156]]



                           [TITLE II--BIOMASS

     [SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

       [Congress finds the following:
       [(1) Thousands of communities in the United States, many 
     located near Federal lands, are at risk to wildfire. 
     Approximately 190,000,000 acres of land managed by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior 
     are at risk of catastrophic fire in the near future. The 
     accumulation of heavy forest and rangeland fuel loads 
     continues to increase as a result of disease, insect 
     infestations, and drought, further raising the risk of fire 
     each year.
       [(2) In addition, more than 70,000,000 acres across all 
     land ownerships are at risk to higher than normal mortality 
     over the next 15 years from insect infestation and disease. 
     High levels of tree mortality from insects and disease result 
     in increased fire risk, loss of old growth, degraded 
     watershed conditions, and changes in species diversity and 
     productivity, as well as diminished fish and wildlife habitat 
     and decreased timber values.
       [(3) Preventive treatments such as removing fuel loading, 
     ladder fuels, and hazard trees, planting proper species mix 
     and restoring and protecting early successional habitat, and 
     other specific restoration treatments designed to reduce the 
     susceptibility of forest and rangeland to insect outbreaks, 
     disease, and catastrophic fire present the greatest 
     opportunity for long-term forest and rangeland health by 
     creating a mosaic of species-mix and age distribution. Such 
     prevention treatments are widely acknowledged to be more 
     successful and cost effective than suppression treatments in 
     the case of insects, disease, and fire.
       [(4) The by-products of preventive treatment (wood, brush, 
     thinnings, chips, slash, and other hazardous fuels) removed 
     from forest and rangelands represent an abundant supply of 
     biomass for biomass-to-energy facilities and raw material for 
     business. There are currently few markets for the 
     extraordinary volumes of by-products being generated as a 
     result of the necessary large-scale preventive treatment 
     activities.
       [(5) The United States should--
       [(A) promote economic and entrepreneurial opportunities in 
     using by-products removed through preventive treatment 
     activities related to hazardous fuels reduction, disease, and 
     insect infestation; and
       [(B) develop and expand markets for traditionally underused 
     wood and biomass as an outlet for by-products of preventive 
     treatment activities.

     [SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       [In this title:
       [(1) Biomass.--The term ``biomass'' means trees and woody 
     plants, including limbs, tops, needles, and other woody 
     parts, and by-products of preventive treatment, such as wood, 
     brush, thinnings, chips, and slash, that are removed--
       [(A) to reduce hazardous fuels; or
       [(B) to reduce the risk of or to contain disease or insect 
     infestation.
       [(2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).
       [(3) Person.--The term ``person'' includes--
       [(A) an individual;
       [(B) a community (as determined by the Secretary 
     concerned);
       [(C) an Indian tribe;
       [(D) a small business, micro-business, or a corporation 
     that is incorporated in the United States; and
       [(E) a nonprofit organization.
       [(4) Preferred community.--The term ``preferred community'' 
     means--
       [(A) any town, township, municipality, or other similar 
     unit of local government (as determined by the Secretary 
     concerned) that--
       [(i) has a population of not more than 50,000 individuals; 
     and
       [(ii) the Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of 
     the Secretary concerned, determines contains or is located 
     near land, the condition of which is at significant risk of 
     catastrophic wildfire, disease, or insect infestation or 
     which suffers from disease or insect infestation; or
       [(B) any county that--
       [(i) is not contained within a metropolitan statistical 
     area; and
       [(ii) the Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of 
     the Secretary concerned, determines contains or is located 
     near land, the condition of which is at significant risk of 
     catastrophic wildfire, disease, or insect infestation or 
     which suffers from disease or insect infestation.
       [(5) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
     means--
       [(A) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to National 
     Forest System lands; and
       [(B) the Secretary of the Interior with respect to Federal 
     lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior 
     and Indian lands.

     [SEC. 203. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF FOREST 
                   BIOMASS FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY, USEFUL HEAT, 
                   TRANSPORTATION FUELS, AND PETROLEUM-BASED 
                   PRODUCT SUBSTITUTES.

       [(a) Biomass Commercial Use Grant Program.--
       [(1) In general.--The Secretary concerned may make grants 
     to any person that owns or operates a facility that uses 
     biomass as a raw material to produce electric energy, 
     sensible heat, transportation fuels, or substitutes for 
     petroleum-based products to offset the costs incurred to 
     purchase biomass for use by such facility.
       [(2) Grant amounts.--A grant under this subsection may not 
     exceed $20 per green ton of biomass delivered.
       [(3) Monitoring of grant recipient activities.--As a 
     condition of a grant under this subsection, the grant 
     recipient shall keep such records as the Secretary concerned 
     may require to fully and correctly disclose the use of the 
     grant funds and all transactions involved in the purchase of 
     biomass. Upon notice by a representative of the Secretary 
     concerned, the grant recipient shall afford the 
     representative reasonable access to the facility that 
     purchases or uses biomass and an opportunity to examine the 
     inventory and records of the facility.
       [(b) Value Added Grant Program.--
       [(1) In general.--The Secretary concerned may make grants 
     to persons to offset the cost of projects to add value to 
     biomass. In making such grants, the Secretary concerned shall 
     give preference to persons in preferred communities.
       [(2) Selection.--The Secretary concerned shall select a 
     grant recipient under paragraph (1) after giving 
     consideration to the anticipated public benefits of the 
     project, opportunities for the creation or expansion of small 
     businesses and micro-businesses, and the potential for new 
     job creation.
       [(3) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection may not 
     exceed $100,000.
       [(c) Relation to Other Endangered Species and Riparian 
     Protections.--The Secretary concerned shall comply with 
     applicable endangered species and riparian protections in 
     making grants under this section. Projects funded using grant 
     proceeds shall be required to comply with such protections.
       [(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
     2004 through 2008 to carry out this section.

     [SEC. 204. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       [(a) Report Required.--Not later than October 1, 2010, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of the Interior, shall submit to the Committee on Resources 
     and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
     Forestry of the Senate a report describing the results of the 
     grant programs authorized by section 203.
       [(b) Contents of Report.--The report shall include the 
     following:
       [(1) An identification of the size, type, and the use of 
     biomass by persons that receive grants under section 203.
       [(2) The distance between the land from which the biomass 
     was removed and the facility that used the biomass.
       [(3) The economic impacts, particularly new job creation, 
     resulting from the grants to and operation of the eligible 
     operations.

               [TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

     [SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       [(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       [(1) There has been a dramatic shift in public attitudes 
     and perceptions about forest management, particularly in the 
     understanding and practice of sustainable forest management.
       [(2) It is commonly recognized that the proper stewardship 
     of forest lands is essential to sustaining and restoring the 
     health of watersheds.
       [(3) Forests can provide essential ecological services in 
     filtering pollutants, buffering important rivers and 
     estuaries, and minimizing flooding, which makes its 
     restoration worthy of special focus.
       [(4) Strengthened education, technical assistance, and 
     financial assistance to nonindustrial private forest 
     landowners and communities, relating to the protection of 
     watershed health, is needed to realize the expectations of 
     the general public.
       [(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to--
       [(1) improve landowner and public understanding of the 
     connection between forest management and watershed health;
       [(2) encourage landowners to maintain tree cover on their 
     property and to utilize tree plantings and vegetative 
     treatments as creative solutions to watershed problems 
     associated with varying land uses;
       [(3) enhance and complement forest management and buffer 
     utilization for watersheds, with an emphasis on urban 
     watersheds;
       [(4) establish new partnerships and collaborative watershed 
     approaches to forest management, stewardship, and 
     conservation;
       [(5) provide technical and financial assistance to States 
     to deliver a coordinated program that enhances State forestry 
     best-management practices programs, as well as conserves and 
     improves forested lands and potentially forested lands 
     through technical, financial, and educational assistance to 
     qualifying individuals and entities; and
       [(6) maximize the proper management and conservation of 
     wetland forests and to assist in their restoration as 
     necessary.

[[Page 26157]]



     [SEC. 302. ESTABLISHMENT OF WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM.

       [The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 is amended 
     by inserting after section 5 the following new section:

     [``SEC. 6. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE.

       [``(a) General Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary, 
     acting through the Forest Service, may provide technical, 
     financial, and related assistance to State foresters and 
     equivalent State officials for the purpose of expanding State 
     forest stewardship capacities and activities through State 
     forestry best-management practices and other means at the 
     State level to address watershed issues on non-Federal 
     forested lands and potentially forested lands.
       [``(b) Technical Assistance To Protect Water Quality.--
       [``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     State foresters or equivalent State officials, shall engage 
     interested members of the public, including nonprofit 
     organizations and local watershed councils, to develop a 
     program of technical assistance to protect water quality, as 
     described in paragraph (2).
       [``(2) Purpose of program.--The program under this 
     subsection shall be designed--
       [``(A) to build and strengthen watershed partnerships that 
     focus on forested landscapes at the local, State, and 
     regional levels;
       [``(B) to provide State forestry best-management practices 
     and water quality technical assistance directly to 
     nonindustrial private forest landowners;
       [``(C) to provide technical guidance to land managers and 
     policy makers for water quality protection through forest 
     management;
       [``(D) to complement State and local efforts to protect 
     water quality and provide enhanced opportunities for 
     consultation and cooperation among Federal and State agencies 
     charged with responsibility for water and watershed 
     management; and
       [``(E) to provide enhanced forest resource data and support 
     for improved implementation and monitoring of State forestry 
     best-management practices.
       [``(3) Implementation.--The program of technical assistance 
     shall be implemented by State foresters or equivalent State 
     officials.
       [``(c) Watershed Forestry Cost-Share Program.--
       [``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     watershed forestry cost-share program to be administered by 
     the Forest Service and implemented by State foresters or 
     equivalent State officials. Funds or other support provided 
     under such program shall be made available for State forestry 
     best-management practices programs and watershed forestry 
     projects.
       [``(2) Watershed forestry projects.--The State forester or 
     equivalent State official of a State, in coordination with 
     the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee 
     established under section 19(b) for that State, shall 
     annually make awards to communities, nonprofit groups, and 
     nonindustrial private forest landowners under the program for 
     watershed forestry projects described in paragraph (3).
       [``(3) Project elements and objectives.--A watershed 
     forestry project shall accomplish critical forest 
     stewardship, watershed protection, and restoration needs 
     within a State by demonstrating the value of trees and 
     forests to watershed health and condition through--
       [``(A) the use of trees as solutions to water quality 
     problems in urban and rural areas;
       [``(B) community-based planning, involvement, and action 
     through State, local and nonprofit partnerships;
       [``(C) application of and dissemination of monitoring 
     information on forestry best- management practices relating 
     to watershed forestry;
       [``(D) watershed-scale forest management activities and 
     conservation planning; and
       [``(E) the restoration of wetland (as defined by the 
     States) and stream-side forests and the establishment of 
     riparian vegetative buffers.
       [``(4) Cost-sharing.--Funds provided under this subsection 
     for a watershed forestry project may not exceed 75 percent of 
     the cost of the project. Other Federal funding sources may be 
     used to cover a portion of the remaining project costs, but 
     the total Federal share of the costs may not exceed 90 
     percent. The non-Federal share of the costs of a project may 
     be in the form of cash, services, or other in-kind 
     contributions.
       [``(5) Prioritization.--The State Forest Stewardship 
     Coordinating Committee for a State shall prioritize 
     watersheds in that State to target watershed forestry 
     projects funded under this subsection.
       [``(6) Watershed forester.--Financial and technical 
     assistance shall be made available to the State Forester or 
     equivalent State official to create a State best-management 
     practice forester to lead statewide programs and coordinate 
     small watershed-level projects.
       [``(d) Distribution.--
       [``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall devote at least 75 
     percent of the funds appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant 
     to the authorization of appropriations in subsection (e) to 
     the cost-share program under subsection (c) and the remainder 
     to the task of delivering technical assistance, education, 
     and planning on the ground through the State Forester or 
     equivalent State official.
       [``(2) Special considerations.--Distribution of these funds 
     by the Secretary among the States shall be made only after 
     giving appropriate consideration to--
       [``(A) the acres of nonindustrial private forestland and 
     highly erodible land in each State;
       [``(B) each State's efforts to conserve forests;
       [``(C) the acres of forests in each State that have been 
     lost or degraded or where forests can play a role in 
     restoring watersheds; and
       [``(D) the number of nonindustrial private forest 
     landowners in each State.
       [``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $15,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008.''.

                     [TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS

     [SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE.

       [(a) Definitions.--In this title:
       [(1) Applied silvicultural assessment.--The term ``applied 
     silvicultural assessment'' means any vegetative or other 
     treatment, for the purposes described in section 402, 
     including timber harvest, thinning, prescribed burning, and 
     pruning, as single treatment or any combination of these 
     treatments.
       [(2) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means--
       [(A) National Forest System lands; and
       [(B) public lands administered by the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management.
       [(3) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
     means--
       [(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the 
     Forest Service, with respect to National Forest System lands; 
     and
       [(B) the Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
     appropriate offices of the United States Geological Survey, 
     with respect to federally owned land administered by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       [(4) 1890 institutions.--The term ``1890 Institution'' 
     means a college or university eligible to receive funds under 
     the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), including 
     Tuskegee University.
       [(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       [(1) High levels of tree mortality due to insect 
     infestation result in--
       [(A) increased fire risk;
       [(B) loss of old growth;
       [(C) loss of threatened and endangered species;
       [(D) loss of species diversity;
       [(E) degraded watershed conditions;
       [(F) increased potential for damage from other agents of 
     disturbance, including exotic, invasive species; and
       [(G) decreased timber values.
       [(2) Bark beetles destroy hundreds of thousands of acres of 
     trees each year. In the West, over 21,000,000 acres are at 
     high risk of bark beetle infestation and in the South over 
     57,000,000 acres are at risk across all land ownerships. 
     Severe drought conditions in many areas of the South and West 
     will increase risk of bark beetle infestations.
       [(3) The hemlock woolly adelgid is destroying streamside 
     forests throughout the mid-Atlantic and Appalachian region, 
     threatening water quality and sensitive aquatic species, and 
     posing a potential threat to valuable commercial timber lands 
     in Northern New England.
       [(4) The emerald ash borer is a nonnative, invasive pest 
     that has quickly become a major threat to hardwood forests as 
     a emerald ash borer infestation is almost always fatal to the 
     affected trees. This pest threatens to destroy over 
     692,000,000 ash trees in forests in Michigan and Ohio alone, 
     and between five and ten percent of urban street trees in the 
     Upper Midwest.
       [(5) Epidemic populations of Southern pine beetle are 
     ravaging forests in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 
     Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
     Tennessee, and Virginia. In 2001, Florida and Kentucky 
     experienced 146 percent and 111 percent increases, 
     respectively, in beetle populations.
       [(6) These epidemic outbreaks of Southern pine beetle have 
     forced private landowners to harvest dead and dying trees, in 
     both rural areas and increasingly urbanized settings.
       [(7) According to the Forest Service, recent outbreaks of 
     the red oak borer in Arkansas have been unprecedented, with 
     almost 800,000 acres infested at population levels never seen 
     before.
       [(8) Much of the damage from the red oak borer has taken 
     place in National forests, and the Federal response has been 
     inadequate to protect forest ecosystems and other ecological 
     and economic resources.
       [(9) Previous silvicultural assessments, while useful and 
     informative, have been limited in scale and scope of 
     application, and there has not been sufficient resources 
     available to adequately test a full array of individual and 
     combined applied silvicultural assessments.
       [(10) Only through the rigorous funding, development, and 
     assessment of potential

[[Page 26158]]

     applied silvicultural assessments over specific time frames 
     across an array of environmental and climatic conditions can 
     the most innovative and cost effective management 
     applications be determined that will help reduce the 
     susceptibility of forest ecosystems to attack by forest 
     pests.
       [(11) Funding and implementation of an initiative to combat 
     forest pest infestations should not come at the expense of 
     supporting other programs and initiatives of the Secretary 
     concerned.
       [(c) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title--
       [(1) to require the Secretary concerned to develop an 
     accelerated basic and applied assessment program to combat 
     infestations by bark beetles, including Southern pine 
     beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak 
     borers, and white oak borers;
       [(2) to enlist the assistance of universities and forestry 
     schools, including Land Grant Colleges and Universities and 
     1890 Institutions, to carry out the program; and
       [(3) to carry out applied silvicultural assessments.

     [SEC. 402. ACCELERATED INFORMATION GATHERING REGARDING BARK 
                   BEETLES, INCLUDING SOUTHERN PINE BEETLES, 
                   HEMLOCK WOOLLY ADELGIDS, EMERALD ASH BORERS, 
                   RED OAK BORERS, AND WHITE OAK BORERS.

       [(a) Information Gathering.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     establish, acting through the Forest Service and United 
     States Geological Survey, as appropriate, an accelerated 
     program--
       [(1) to plan, conduct, and promote comprehensive and 
     systematic information gathering on bark beetles, including 
     Southern pine beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash 
     borers, red oak borers, and white oak borers, including an 
     evaluation of--
       [(A) infestation prevention and control methods;
       [(B) effects of infestations on forest ecosystems;
       [(C) restoration of the forest ecosystem efforts;
       [(D) utilization options regarding infested trees; and
       [(E) models to predict the occurrence, distribution, and 
     impact of outbreaks of bark beetles, including Southern pine 
     beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak 
     borers, and white oak borers;
       [(2) to assist land managers in the development of 
     treatments and strategies to improve forest health and reduce 
     the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to severe 
     infestations of bark beetles, including Southern pine 
     beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak 
     borers, and white oak borers on Federal lands and State and 
     private lands; and
       [(3) to disseminate the results of such information 
     gathering, treatments, and strategies.
       [(b) Cooperation and Assistance.--The Secretary concerned 
     shall establish and carry out the program in cooperation with 
     scientists from universities and forestry schools, State 
     agencies, and private and industrial land owners. The 
     Secretary concerned shall designate universities and forestry 
     schools, including Land Grant Colleges and Universities and 
     1890 Institutions, to assist in carrying out the program.

     [SEC. 403. APPLIED SILVICULTURAL ASSESSMENTS.

       [(a) Assessment Efforts.--For information gathering 
     purposes, the Secretary concerned may conduct applied 
     silvicultural assessments on Federal lands that the Secretary 
     concerned determines, in the discretion of the Secretary 
     concerned, is at risk of infestation by, or is infested with, 
     bark beetles, including Southern pine beetles, hemlock woolly 
     adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak borers, and white oak 
     borers. Any applied silvicultural assessments carried out 
     under this section shall be conducted on not more than 1,000 
     acres per assessment.
       [(b) Limitations.--
       [(1) Exclusion of certain areas.--Subsection (a) does not 
     apply to--
       [(A) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation 
     System;
       [(B) Federal lands where, by Act of Congress or 
     Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is 
     restricted or prohibited; or
       [(C) congressionally designated wilderness study areas.
       [(2) Certain treatment prohibited.--Subsection (a) does not 
     authorize the application of insecticides in municipal 
     watersheds and associated riparian areas.
       [(3) Acreage limitation.--Applied silvicultural assessments 
     may be implemented on not more than 250,000 acres using the 
     authorities provided by this title.
       [(4) Peer review.--Each applied silvicultural assessment 
     under this title, prior to being carried out, shall be peer 
     reviewed by scientific experts selected by the Secretary 
     concerned, which shall include non-Federal experts. The 
     Secretary concerned may use existing peer review processes to 
     the extent they comply with the preceding sentence.
       [(c) Public Notice and Comment.--
       [(1) Public notice.--The Secretary concerned shall provide 
     notice of each applied silvicultural assessment proposed to 
     be carried out under this section in accordance with 
     applicable regulations and administrative guidelines.
       [(2) Public comment.--During the planning stage of each 
     applied silvicultural assessment proposed to be carried out 
     under this section, the Secretary concerned shall provide an 
     opportunity for public input.
       [(d) Categorical Exclusion.--Applied silvicultural 
     assessments carried out under this section are deemed to be 
     categorically excluded from further analysis under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.). The Secretary concerned need not make any findings as 
     to whether the project, either individually or cumulatively, 
     has a significant effect on the environment.

     [SEC. 404. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

       [The authorities provided to the Secretary concerned by 
     this title are supplemental to their respective authorities 
     provided in any other law.

     [SEC. 405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       [There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 
     2004 through 2008 such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this title.

               [TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

     [SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM.

       [(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish the healthy forests reserve program as a program 
     within the Forest Service for the purpose of protecting, 
     restoring, and enhancing degraded forest ecosystems to 
     promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species as 
     well as improve biodiversity and enhance carbon 
     sequestration.
       [(b) Cooperation.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall carry 
     out the healthy forests reserve program in cooperation with 
     the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service.

     [SEC. 502. ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT OF LANDS IN PROGRAM.

       [(a) Eligible Lands.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall 
     designate rare forest ecosystems to be eligible for the 
     healthy forests reserve program. The following lands are 
     eligible for enrollment in the healthy forests reserve 
     program:
       [(1) Private lands whose enrollment will protect, restore, 
     enhance, or otherwise measurably increase the likelihood of 
     recovery of an endangered species or threatened species in 
     the wild.
       [(2) Private lands whose enrollment will protect, restore, 
     enhance, or otherwise measurably increase the likelihood of 
     the recovery of an animal or plant species before the species 
     reaches threatened or endangered status, such as candidate, 
     State-listed species, rare, peripheral, and special concern 
     species.
       [(b) Other Considerations.--In enrolling lands that satisfy 
     the criteria in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall give additional consideration 
     to those lands whose enrollment will also improve biological 
     diversity and increase carbon sequestration.
       [(c) Enrollment by Willing Owners.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall enroll lands in the healthy forests reserve 
     program only with the consent of the owner of the lands.
       [(d) Maximum Enrollment.--The total number of acres 
     enrolled in the healthy forests reserve program shall not 
     exceed 1,000,000 acres.
       [(e) Methods of Enrollment.--Lands may be enrolled in the 
     healthy forests reserve program pursuant to a 10-year cost-
     share agreement, a 30-year easement, or a permanent easement 
     with buyback option. The extent to which each enrollment 
     method is used shall be based on the approximate proportion 
     of owner interest expressed in that method in comparison to 
     the other methods.
       [(f) Enrollment Priority.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall give priority to the enrollment of lands that, in the 
     sole discretion of the Secretary, will provide the best 
     opportunity to resolve conflicts between the presence of an 
     animal or plant species referred to in paragraph (1) or (2) 
     of subsection (a) and otherwise lawful land use activities.

     [SEC. 503. CONSERVATION PLANS.

       [(a) Plan Required.--Lands enrolled in the healthy forests 
     reserve program shall be subject to a conservation plan, to 
     be developed jointly by the land owner and the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service. The conservation plan shall 
     include a description of the land-use activities that are 
     permissible on the enrolled lands.
       [(b) Involvement by Other Agencies and Organizations.--A 
     State fish and wildlife agency, State forestry agency, State 
     environmental quality agency, and other State conservation 
     agencies and nonprofit conservation organizations may assist 
     in providing technical or financial assistance, or both, for 
     the development and implementation of conservation plans.
       [(c) Cost Effectiveness.--The conservation plan shall 
     maximize the environmental benefits per dollar expended.

     [SEC. 504. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

       [(a) Permanent Easement With Buyback Option.--
       [(1) Payment amount.--In the case of land enrolled in the 
     healthy forests reserve program using a permanent easement 
     with a buyback option, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay 
     the owner of the land an amount equal to--

[[Page 26159]]

       [(A) the fair market value of the enrolled land less the 
     fair market value of the land encumbered by the easement; 
     plus
       [(B) the actual costs of the approved conservation 
     practices or the average cost of approved practices, as 
     established by the Secretary.
       [(2) Buyback option.--Beginning on the 50th anniversary of 
     the enrollment of the land, and every 10th-year thereafter, 
     the owner shall be able to purchase the easement back from 
     the United States at a rate equal to the fair market value of 
     the easement plus the costs, adjusted for inflation, of the 
     approved conservation practices.
       [(b) 30-Year Easement.--In the case of land enrolled in the 
     healthy forests reserve program using a 30-year easement, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the owner of the land an 
     amount equal to--
       [(1) 75 percent of the fair market value of the land less 
     the fair market value of the land encumbered by the easement; 
     plus
       [(2) 75 percent of the actual costs of the approved 
     conservation practices or 75 percent of the average cost of 
     approved practices, as established by the Secretary.
       [(c) 10-Year Agreement.--In the case of land enrolled in 
     the healthy forests reserve program using a 10-year cost-
     share agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the 
     owner of the land an amount equal to--
       [(1) 75 percent of the actual costs of the approved 
     conservation practices; or
       [(2) 75 percent of the average cost of approved practices, 
     as established by the Secretary.
       [(d) Acceptance of Contributions.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture may accept and use contributions of non-Federal 
     funds to make payments under this section.

     [SEC. 505. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       [The Forest Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service shall provide landowners with technical assistance to 
     comply with the terms of agreements and easements under the 
     healthy forests reserve program and conservation plans.

     [SEC. 506. SAFE HARBOR.

       [In implementing the healthy forests reserve program, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall provide safe harbor or 
     similar assurances, through section 7 or other authorities 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.), consistent with the implementing regulations of the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to landowners who 
     enroll land in the healthy forests reserve program when such 
     enrollment will result in a net conservation benefit for 
     listed species.

     [SEC. 507. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       [There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to carry out this 
     title.

                  [TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     [SEC. 601. FOREST STANDS INVENTORY AND MONITORING PROGRAM TO 
                   IMPROVE DETECTION OF AND RESPONSE TO 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS.

       [(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall carry 
     out a comprehensive program to inventory, monitor, 
     characterize, assess, and identify forest stands (with 
     emphasis on hardwood forest stands) and potential forest 
     stands--
       [(1) in units of the National Forest System (other than 
     those units created from the public domain); and
       [(2) on private forest land, with the consent of the owner 
     of the land.
       [(b) Issues To Be Addressed.--In carrying out the program, 
     the Secretary shall address issues including--
       [(1) early detection, identification, and assessment of 
     environmental threats (including insect, disease, invasive 
     species, fire, and weather-related risks and other episodic 
     events);
       [(2) loss or degradation of forests;
       [(3) degradation of the quality forest stands caused by 
     inadequate forest regeneration practices;
       [(4) quantification of carbon uptake rates; and
       [(5) management practices that focus on preventing further 
     forest degradation.
       [(c) Early Warning System.--In carrying out the program, 
     the Secretary shall develop a comprehensive early warning 
     system for potential catastrophic environmental threats to 
     forests to increase the likelihood that forest managers will 
     be able to--
       [(1) isolate and treat a threat before the threat gets out 
     of control; and
       [(2) prevent epidemics, such as the American chestnut 
     blight in the first half of the twentieth century, that could 
     be environmentally and economically devastating to forests.
       [(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008.]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy 
     Forests Restoration Act of 2003''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

           TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LAND

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
Sec. 103. Prioritization for communities and watersheds.
Sec. 104. Environmental analysis.
Sec. 105. Special Forest Service administrative review process.
Sec. 106. Special requirements regarding judicial review of authorized 
              hazardous fuels reduction projects.
Sec. 107. Standard for injunctive relief for agency action to restore 
              fire-adapted forest or rangeland ecosystems.
Sec. 108. Effect of title.

                           TITLE II--BIOMASS

Sec. 201. Findings.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Grants to improve commercial value of forest biomass for 
              electric energy, useful heat, transportation fuels, 
              compost, value-added products, and petroleum-based 
              product substitutes.
Sec. 204. Reporting requirement.
Sec. 205. Improved biomass use research program.
Sec. 206. Rural revitalization through forestry.

                TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

Sec. 301. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 302. Watershed forestry assistance program.
Sec. 303. Tribal watershed forestry assistance.

           TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS AND RELATED DISEASES

Sec. 401. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 402. Definitions.
Sec. 403. Accelerated information gathering regarding forest-damaging 
              insects.
Sec. 404. Applied silvicultural assessments.
Sec. 405. Relation to other laws.
Sec. 406. Authorization of appropriations.

                TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

Sec. 501. Establishment of healthy forests reserve program.
Sec. 502. Eligibility and enrollment of lands in program.
Sec. 503. Restoration plans.
Sec. 504. Financial assistance.
Sec. 505. Technical assistance.
Sec. 506. Protections and measures
Sec. 507. Involvement by other agencies and organizations.
Sec. 508. Authorization of appropriations.

                      TITLE VI--PUBLIC LAND CORPS

Sec. 601. Purposes.
Sec. 602. Definitions.
Sec. 603. Public Land Corps.
Sec. 604. Nondisplacement.
Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations.

         TITLE VII--RURAL COMMUNITY FORESTRY ENTERPRISE PROGRAM

Sec. 701. Purpose
Sec. 702. Definitions.
Sec. 703. Rural community forestry enterprise program.

                  TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. Forest inventory and management.
Sec. 802. Program for emergency treatment and reduction of nonnative 
              invasive plants.
Sec. 803. USDA National Agroforestry Center.
Sec. 804. Upland Hardwoods Research Center.
Sec. 805. Sense of Congress regarding enhanced community fire 
              protection.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to reduce the risks of damage to communities, municipal 
     water supplies, and certain at-risk Federal land from 
     catastrophic wildfires;
       (2) to authorize grant programs to improve the commercial 
     value of forest biomass (that otherwise contributes to the 
     risk of catastrophic fire or insect or disease infestation) 
     for producing electric energy, useful heat, transportation 
     fuels, and petroleum-based product substitutes, and for other 
     commercial purposes;
       (3) to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address 
     threats to forest and rangeland health, including 
     catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape;
       (4) to promote systematic gathering of information to 
     address the impact of insect and disease infestations and 
     other damaging agents on forest and rangeland health;
       (5) to improve the capacity to detect insect and disease 
     infestations at an early stage, particularly with respect to 
     hardwood forests; and
       (6) to protect, restore, and enhance forest ecosystem 
     components--
       (A) to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered 
     species;
       (B) to improve biological diversity; and
       (C) to enhance productivity and carbon sequestration.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
       (A) land of the National Forest System (as defined in 
     section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
     Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C 1609(a))) administered by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the 
     Forest Service; and
       (B) public lands (as defined in section 103 of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C 1702)), the 
     surface of which is administered by the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management.

[[Page 26160]]

       (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).

           TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LAND

     SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term 
     ``authorized hazardous fuels reduction project'' means a 
     hazardous fuels reduction project on Federal land described 
     in section 102(a) conducted in accordance with sections 103 
     and 104.
       (2) Condition class 2.--The term ``condition class 2'', 
     with respect to an area of Federal land, means the condition 
     class description developed by the Forest Service Rocky 
     Mountain Research Station in the general technical report 
     entitled ``Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for 
     Wildland Fire and Fuel Management'' (RMRS-87), dated April 
     2000 (including any subsequent revision to the report), under 
     which--
       (A) fire regimes on the land have been moderately altered 
     from historical ranges;
       (B) there exists a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem 
     components from fire;
       (C) fire frequencies have increased or decreased from 
     historical frequencies by 1 or more return intervals, 
     resulting in moderate changes to--
       (i) the size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires; 
     or
       (ii) landscape patterns; and
       (D) vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from 
     the historical range of the attributes.
       (3) Condition class 3.--The term ``condition class 3'', 
     with respect to an area of Federal land, means the condition 
     class description developed by the Rocky Mountain Research 
     Station in the general technical report referred to in 
     paragraph (2) (including any subsequent revision to the 
     report), under which--
       (A) fire regimes on land have been significantly altered 
     from historical ranges;
       (B) there exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem 
     components from fire;
       (C) fire frequencies have departed from historical 
     frequencies by multiple return intervals, resulting in 
     dramatic changes to--
       (i) the size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires; 
     or
       (ii) landscape patterns; and
       (D) vegetation attributes have been significantly altered 
     from the historical range of the attributes.
       (4) Day.--The term ``day'' means--
       (A) a calendar day; or
       (B) if a deadline imposed by this title would expire on a 
     nonbusiness day, the end of the next business day.
       (5) Decision document.--The term ``decision document'' 
     means a decision notice or record of decision, as those terms 
     are used in applicable regulations of the Council on 
     Environmental Quality and the Forest Service Handbook.
       (6) Hazardous fuels.--The term ``hazardous fuels'' means 
     vegetation (dead or alive) in the forest or rangeland 
     ecosystem that--
       (A) is in excess of historic conditions or management 
     goals; and
       (B) can cause wildfires.
       (7) Hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term 
     ``hazardous fuels reduction project'' means the measures and 
     methods described in the definition of ``appropriate tools'' 
     contained in the glossary of the Implementation Plan.
       (8) Implementation plan.--The term ``Implementation Plan'' 
     means the Implementation Plan for the 10-year Comprehensive 
     Strategy for a Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland 
     Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment, dated May 
     2002, which was developed pursuant to the Department of the 
     Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 
     (Public Law 106-291) (including any subsequent revision to 
     the Plan).
       (9) Interface community.--The term ``interface community'' 
     has the meaning given the term in the notice published at 66 
     Fed. Reg. 751 (January 4, 2001) (including any subsequent 
     revision to the notice).
       (10) Intermix community.--The term ``intermix community'' 
     has the meaning given the term in the notice published at 66 
     Fed. Reg. 751 (January 4, 2001) (including any subsequent 
     revision to the notice).
       (11) Municipal water supply system.--The term ``municipal 
     water supply system'' means the source watersheds, 
     reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes, laterals, pipes, 
     pipelines, and other surface facilities and systems 
     constructed or installed for the collection, impoundment, 
     storage, transportation, or distribution of drinking water 
     for a community.
       (12) Resource management plan.--The term ``resource 
     management plan'' means--
       (A) a land and resource management plan prepared for 1 or 
     more units of land of the National Forest System described in 
     section 3(1)(A) under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland 
     Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604); or
       (B) a land use plan prepared for 1 or more units of the 
     public land described in section 3(1)(B) under section 202 of 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1712).
       (13) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to land of 
     the National Forest System described in section 3(1)(A); and
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to public 
     lands described in section 3(1)(B).
       (14) Threatened and endangered species habitat.--The term 
     ``threatened and endangered species habitat'' means Federal 
     land identified in--
       (A) a determination that a species is an endangered species 
     or a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
       (B) a designation of critical habitat of the species under 
     that Act; or
       (C) a recovery plan prepared for the species under that 
     Act.

     SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

       (a) Authorized Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may conduct hazardous fuels 
     reduction projects on--
       (A) Federal land located in an interface community or 
     intermix community;
       (B) Federal land located in such proximity to an interface 
     community or intermix community that there is a significant 
     risk that the spread of a fire disturbance event from that 
     land would threaten human life or property in proximity to or 
     within the interface community or intermix community;
       (C) condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal land 
     located in such proximity to a municipal watershed, water 
     supply system or a stream feeding a municipal water supply 
     system that a significant risk exists that a fire disturbance 
     event would have adverse effects on the water quality of the 
     municipal water supply or the maintenance of the system, 
     including the risk to water quality posed by erosion 
     following such a fire disturbance event;
       (D) condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal land on 
     which windthrow or blowdown, ice storm damage, or the 
     existence or threat of disease or insect infestation, poses a 
     significant threat to an ecosystem component, or forest or 
     rangeland resource, on the Federal land or adjacent private 
     land;
       (E) Federal land not covered by subparagraph (A), (B), (C), 
     or (D) that contains threatened and endangered species 
     habitat, if--
       (i) natural fire regimes on that land are identified as 
     being important for, or wildfire is identified as a threat 
     to, an endangered species, a threatened species, or habitat 
     of an endangered species or threatened species in a species 
     recovery plan prepared under section 4 of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533), or a notice published 
     in the Federal Register determining a species to be an 
     endangered species or a threatened species or designating 
     critical habitat;
       (ii) the project will provide enhanced protection from 
     catastrophic wildfire for the endangered species, threatened 
     species, or habitat of the endangered species or threatened 
     species; and
       (iii) the Secretary complies with any applicable guidelines 
     specified in any recovery plan described in clause (i).
       (2) Classification.--The Secretary shall classify 
     appropriate land described in paragraph (1)(D) impacted by 
     windthrow or blowdown, ice storm damage, or the existence or 
     threat of disease or insect infestation as condition class 3 
     or condition class 2 Federal land.
       (b) Relation to Agency Plans.--An authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project shall be conducted in a manner 
     consistent with the resource management plan applicable to 
     the Federal land covered by the project.
       (c) Acreage Limitation.--Not more than a total of 
     20,000,000 acres of Federal land may be included in 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
       (d) Exclusion of Certain Federal Land.--The Secretary may 
     not conduct an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project 
     that would occur on--
       (1) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation 
     System;
       (2) Federal land on which, by Act of Congress or 
     Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is 
     prohibited or restricted; or
       (3) a Wilderness Study Area.

     SEC. 103. PRIORITIZATION FOR COMMUNITIES AND WATERSHEDS.

       As provided for in the Implementation Plan, the Secretary 
     shall give priority to authorized hazardous fuel reduction 
     projects that provide for the protection of communities and 
     watersheds.

     SEC. 104. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

       (a) Hazardous Fuels Reduction Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     title, the Secretary shall conduct authorized hazardous fuels 
     reduction projects in accordance with--
       (A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4331 et seq.); and
       (B) other applicable laws.
       (2) Environmental assessment or impact statement.--The 
     Secretary shall prepare an environmental assessment or an 
     environmental impact statement (pursuant to section 102(2) of 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4332(2))) for each authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     project.
       (b) Alternatives.--The Secretary is not required to study, 
     develop, or describe any alternative to the proposed agency 
     action in the environmental assessment or environmental 
     impact statement prepared in accordance with subsection 
     (a)(2).
       (c) Public Notice and Meeting.--
       (1) Public notice.--The Secretary shall provide notice of 
     each authorized hazardous fuels reduction project in 
     accordance with applicable regulations and administrative 
     guidelines.

[[Page 26161]]

       (2) Public meeting.--During the preparation stage of each 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (A) conduct a public meeting at an appropriate location 
     proximate to the administrative unit of the Federal land on 
     which the authorized hazardous fuels reduction project will 
     be conducted; and
       (B) provide advance notice of the location, date, and time 
     of the meeting.
       (d) Public Collaboration.--In order to encourage meaningful 
     public participation during preparation of authorized 
     hazardous fuels reduction projects, the Secretary shall 
     facilitate collaboration among State and local governments 
     and Indian tribes, and participation of interested persons, 
     during the preparation of each authorized fuels reduction 
     project in a manner consistent with the Implementation Plan.
       (e) Environmental Analysis and Public Comment.--In 
     accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) and the applicable 
     regulations and administrative guidelines, the Secretary 
     shall provide an opportunity for public input during the 
     preparation of any environmental assessment or environmental 
     impact statement for an authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     project.
       (f) Decision Document.--The Secretary shall sign a decision 
     document for authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects 
     and provide notice of the final agency actions.
       (g) Project Monitoring.--In accordance with the 
     Implementation Plan, the Secretary shall monitor the 
     implementation of authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects.

     SEC. 105. SPECIAL FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 
                   PROCESS.

       (a) Development of Administrative Review Process.--Not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate final 
     regulations to establish an administrative review process 
     that will serve as the sole means by which a person described 
     in subsection (b) can seek administrative review regarding a 
     proposed hazardous fuels reduction project.
       (b) Eligible Persons.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to participate in the 
     administrative review process established under subsection 
     (a), a person shall submit specific and substantive written 
     comments during the notice and comment stage of the 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.
       (2) Notice and comment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     ensure that, during the preparation stage of each authorized 
     hazardous fuels reduction project, notice and comment is 
     provided in a manner sufficient to permit interested persons 
     a reasonable opportunity to comply with this subsection.
       (c) Relation to Appeals Reform Act.--Section 322 of the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612 
     note), does not apply to an authorized hazardous fuels 
     reduction project.

     SEC. 106. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF 
                   AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

       (a) Filing Deadline.--
       (1) Time limit established for filing.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, to be timely, an action in a court of the United States 
     challenging an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project 
     shall be filed in the court before the end of the 15-day 
     period beginning on the date on which the Secretary provides 
     notice of the final agency action regarding the authorized 
     hazardous fuels reduction project.
       (B) Applicability.--The time limitation under subparagraph 
     (A) supersedes any requirement regarding notice of intent to 
     file a lawsuit, or filing deadline, otherwise applicable to 
     an action challenging an authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     project under any provision of law.
       (2) Waiver prohibited.--The Secretary may not agree to, and 
     a court of the United States may not grant, a waiver of the 
     requirements of this subsection.
       (b) Duration of Preliminary Injunction.--
       (1) Duration; extension.--
       (A) Duration.--Any preliminary injunction, or injunction 
     pending appeal, granted by a court of the United States 
     regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project 
     shall be limited to 45 days.
       (B) Extension.--A court may renew the preliminary 
     injunction or injunction pending appeal, taking into 
     consideration the goal expressed in subsection (c) for the 
     expeditious resolution of cases regarding authorized 
     hazardous fuels reduction projects.
       (2) Submission of information.--As part of a request to 
     renew a preliminary injunction, or injunction pending appeal, 
     granted regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     project, the parties involved shall present to the court a 
     description of any changes that may have occurred during the 
     period of the injunction to the forest or rangeland 
     conditions that the authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     project is intended to address.
       (3) Congressional notification.--In the event of the 
     renewal of a preliminary injunction, or injunction pending 
     appeal, regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     project, the Secretary shall submit notice of the renewal 
     to--
       (A) the Committee on Resources and the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate.
       (c) Expeditious Completion of Judicial Review.--Congress 
     intends and encourages any court in which is filed an action 
     challenging an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project 
     to expedite, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     proceedings in the lawsuit or appeal with the goal of 
     rendering, not later than 100 days after the date on which 
     the complaint or appeal is filed--
       (1) a final determination on jurisdiction; and
       (2) if jurisdiction exists, a final determination on the 
     merits.

     SEC. 107. STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR AGENCY ACTION TO 
                   RESTORE FIRE-ADAPTED FOREST OR RANGELAND 
                   ECOSYSTEMS.

       If a civil action brought against the Secretary under 
     section 703 of title 5, United States Code, involves an 
     agency action on Federal land on which the Secretary found 
     that the agency action is necessary to restore a fire-adapted 
     forest or rangeland ecosystem (including an authorized 
     hazardous fuels reduction project), the court reviewing the 
     agency action, in considering a request for a prohibitory or 
     mandatory injunction against the agency action, shall--
       (1) balance the impact to the ecosystem likely affected by 
     the project of the short- and long-term effects of 
     undertaking the agency action against the short- and long-
     term effects of not undertaking the agency action; and
       (2) give weight to a finding by the Secretary in the 
     administrative record of the agency action concerning the 
     short- and long-term effects of undertaking the agency action 
     and of not undertaking the agency action, unless the court 
     finds that the finding was arbitrary and capricious.

     SEC. 108. EFFECT OF TITLE.

       (a) Relation to Other Authority.--Nothing in this title 
     affects, or otherwise biases, the use by the Secretary of 
     other statutory or administrative authority to conduct a 
     hazardous fuels reduction project on Federal land (including 
     Federal land identified in section 102(d)) that is not 
     conducted using the process authorized by section 104.
       (b) Relation to Legal Action.--Nothing in this title 
     prejudices or otherwise affects the consideration or 
     disposition of any legal action concerning the Roadless Area 
     Conservation Rule contained in part 294 of title 36, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, and amended in the final rule and record 
     of decision published in the Federal Register on January 12, 
     2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244).

                           TITLE II--BIOMASS

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1)(A) thousands of communities in the United States, many 
     located near Federal land, are at risk of wildfire;
       (B) more than 100,000,000 acres of land managed by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior 
     are at risk of catastrophic fire in the near future; and
       (C) the accumulation of heavy forest and rangeland fuel 
     loads continues to increase as a result of fire exclusion, 
     disease, insect infestations, and drought, further raising 
     the risk of fire each year;
       (2)(A) more than 70,000,000 acres across all land 
     ownerships are at risk of higher than normal mortality during 
     the 15-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act because of insect infestation and disease; and
       (B) high levels of tree mortality from insects and disease 
     result in--
       (i) increased fire risk;
       (ii) loss of older trees and old growth;
       (iii) degraded watershed conditions;
       (iv) changes in species diversity and productivity;
       (v) diminished fish and wildlife habitat;
       (vi) decreased timber values; and
       (vii) increased threats to homes, businesses, and community 
     watersheds;
       (3)(A) preventive treatments (such as reducing fuel loads, 
     crown density, ladder fuels, and hazard trees), planting 
     proper species mix, restoring and protecting early 
     successional habitat, and completing other specific 
     restoration treatments designed to reduce the susceptibility 
     of forest and rangeland to insect outbreaks, disease, and 
     catastrophic fire present the greatest opportunity for long-
     term forest and rangeland health, maintenance, and 
     enhancement by creating a mosaic of species-mix and age 
     distribution; and
       (B) those vegetation management treatments are widely 
     acknowledged to be more successful and cost-effective than 
     suppression treatments in the case of insects, disease, and 
     fire;
       (4)(A) the byproducts of vegetative management treatment 
     (such as trees, brush, thinnings, chips, slash, and other 
     hazardous fuels) removed from forest and rangeland represent 
     an abundant supply of--
       (i) biomass for biomass-to-energy facilities; and
       (ii) raw material for business; and
       (B) there are currently few markets for the extraordinary 
     volumes of by-products being generated as a result of the 
     necessary large-scale preventive treatment activities; and
       (5) the United States should--
       (A) promote economic and entrepreneurial opportunities in 
     using by-products removed through vegetation treatment 
     activities relating to hazardous fuels reduction, disease, 
     and insect infestation;
       (B) develop and expand markets for traditionally underused 
     wood and biomass as an outlet for by-products of preventive 
     treatment activities; and
       (C) promote research and development to provide, for the 
     by-products, economically and environmentally sound--

[[Page 26162]]

       (i) management systems;
       (ii) harvest and transport systems; and
       (iii) utilization options.

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Biomass.--The term ``biomass'' means trees and woody 
     plants (including limbs, tops, needles, other woody parts, 
     and wood waste) and byproducts of preventive treatment (such 
     as wood, brush, thinnings, chips, and slash) that are 
     removed--
       (A) to reduce hazardous fuels;
       (B) to reduce the risk of or to contain disease or insect 
     infestation; or
       (C) to improve forest health and wildlife habitat 
     conditions.
       (2) Person.--The term ``person'' includes--
       (A) an individual;
       (B) a community (as determined by the Secretary);
       (C) an Indian tribe;
       (D) a small business, microbusiness, or a corporation that 
     is incorporated in the United States; and
       (E) a nonprofit organization.
       (3) Preferred community.--The term ``preferred community'' 
     means--
       (A) any town, township, municipality, Indian tribe, or 
     other similar unit of local government (as determined by the 
     Secretary) that--
       (i) has a population of not more than 50,000 individuals; 
     and
       (ii) the Secretary, in the sole discretion of the 
     Secretary, determines contains or is located near, or with a 
     water supply system that contains or is located near, land 
     that--

       (I) is at significant risk of catastrophic wildfire, 
     disease, or insect infestation; or
       (II) suffers from disease or insect infestation; or

       (B) any area or unincorporated area represented by a 
     nonprofit organization approved by the Secretary, that--
       (i) is not wholly contained within a metropolitan 
     statistical area; and
       (ii) the Secretary, in the sole discretion of the 
     Secretary, determines contains or is located near, or with a 
     water supply system that contains or is located near, land--

       (I) the condition of which is at significant risk of 
     catastrophic wildfire, disease, or insect infestation; or
       (II) that suffers from disease or insect infestation.

       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National 
     Forest System land; and
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to Federal 
     land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior 
     (including land held in trust for the benefit of an Indian 
     tribe).

     SEC. 203. GRANTS TO IMPROVE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF FOREST 
                   BIOMASS FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY, USEFUL HEAT, 
                   TRANSPORTATION FUELS, COMPOST, VALUE-ADDED 
                   PRODUCTS, AND PETROLEUM-BASED PRODUCT 
                   SUBSTITUTES.

       (a) Biomass Commercial Utilization Grant Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants to any 
     person that owns or operates a facility that uses biomass as 
     a raw material to produce electric energy, sensible heat, 
     transportation fuels, substitutes for petroleum-based 
     products, wood-based products, pulp, or other commercial 
     products to offset the costs incurred to purchase biomass for 
     use by the facility.
       (2) Grant amounts.--A grant under this subsection may not 
     exceed $20 per green ton of biomass delivered.
       (3) Monitoring of grant recipient activities.--
       (A) In general.--As a condition of a grant under this 
     subsection, the grant recipient shall keep such records as 
     the Secretary may require to fully and correctly disclose the 
     use of the grant funds and all transactions involved in the 
     purchase of biomass.
       (B) Access.--On notice by a representative of the 
     Secretary, the grant recipient shall afford the 
     representative--
       (i) reasonable access to the facility that purchases or 
     uses biomass; and
       (ii) an opportunity to examine the inventory and records of 
     the facility.
       (b) Value-Added Grant Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary--
       (A) may make grants to persons to offset the cost of 
     projects to add value to biomass; and
       (B) in making a grant under subparagraph (A), shall give 
     preference to persons in preferred communities.
       (2) Selection.--The Secretary shall select a grant 
     recipient under paragraph (1)(A) after giving consideration 
     to--
       (A) the anticipated public benefits of the project;
       (B) opportunities for the creation or expansion of small 
     businesses and microbusinesses resulting from the project; 
     and
       (C) the potential for new job creation as a result of the 
     project.
       (3) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not 
     exceed $100,000.
       (c) Relation to Other Endangered Species and Riparian 
     Protections.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall comply with applicable 
     endangered species and riparian protections in making grants 
     under this section.
       (2) Projects.--Projects funded using grant proceeds shall 
     be required to comply with the protections.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

     SEC. 204. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than October 1, 2008, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of the Interior, shall submit to the Committee on Resources 
     and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
     Forestry of the Senate a report describing the results of the 
     grant programs authorized by section 203.
       (b) Contents of Report.--The report shall include--
       (1) an identification of the source, size, type, and the 
     end-use of biomass by persons that receive grants under 
     section 203;
       (2) the haul costs incurred and the distance between the 
     land from which the biomass was removed and the facilities 
     that used the biomass;
       (3) the economic impacts, particularly new job creation, 
     resulting from the grants to and operation of the eligible 
     operations; and
       (4) the environmental effects of the activities described 
     in this section.

     SEC. 205. IMPROVED BIOMASS USE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) Uses of Grants, Contracts, and Assistance.--Section 
     307(d) of the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 (7 
     U.S.C. 7624 note; Public Law 106-224) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) research to integrate silviculture, harvesting, 
     product development, processing information, and economic 
     evaluation to provide the science, technology, and tools to 
     forest managers and community developers for use in 
     evaluating forest treatment and production alternatives, 
     including--
       ``(A) to develop tools that would enable land managers, 
     locally or in a several-State region, to estimate--
       ``(i) the cost to deliver varying quantities of wood to a 
     particular location; and
       ``(ii) the amount that could be paid for stumpage if 
     delivered wood was used for a specific mix of products;
       ``(B) to conduct research focused on developing appropriate 
     thinning systems and equipment designs that are--
       ``(i) capable of being used on land without significant 
     adverse effects on the land;
       ``(ii) capable of handling large and varied landscapes;
       ``(iii) adaptable to handling a wide variety of tree sizes;
       ``(iv) inexpensive; and
       ``(v) adaptable to various terrains; and
       ``(C) to develop, test, and employ in the training of 
     forestry managers and community developers curricula 
     materials and training programs on matters described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B).''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 310(b) of the Biomass Research and 
     Development Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7624 note; Public Law 106-
     224) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$49,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$54,000,000''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, of which not less than $5,000,000 shall be 
     used for each fiscal year to carry out section 307(d)(5)''.

     SEC. 206. RURAL REVITALIZATION THROUGH FORESTRY.

       Section 2371 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6601) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(d) Rural Revitalization Technologies.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
     through the Chief of the Forest Service, in consultation with 
     the State and Private Forestry Technology Marketing Unit at 
     the Forest Products Laboratory, and in collaboration with 
     eligible institutions, may carry out a program--
       ``(A) to accelerate adoption of technologies using biomass 
     and small-diameter materials;
       ``(B) to create community-based enterprises through 
     marketing activities and demonstration projects; and
       ``(C) to establish small-scale business enterprises to make 
     use of biomass and small-diameter materials.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.''.

                TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) there has been a dramatic shift in public attitudes and 
     perceptions about forest management, particularly in the 
     understanding and practice of sustainable forest management;
       (2) it is commonly recognized that the proper stewardship 
     of forest land is essential to sustaining and restoring the 
     health of watersheds;
       (3) forests can provide essential ecological services in 
     filtering pollutants, buffering important rivers and 
     estuaries, and minimizing flooding, which makes forest 
     restoration worthy of special focus; and
       (4) strengthened education, technical assistance, and 
     financial assistance for nonindustrial private forest 
     landowners and communities, relating to the protection of 
     watershed health, is needed to realize the expectations of 
     the general public.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to improve landowner and public understanding of the 
     connection between forest management and watershed health;

[[Page 26163]]

       (2) to encourage landowners to maintain tree cover on 
     property and to use tree plantings and vegetative treatments 
     as creative solutions to watershed problems associated with 
     varying land uses;
       (3) to enhance and complement forest management and buffer 
     use for watersheds, with an emphasis on community watersheds;
       (4) to establish new partnerships and collaborative 
     watershed approaches to forest management, stewardship, and 
     conservation;
       (5) to provide technical and financial assistance to States 
     to deliver a coordinated program that enhances State forestry 
     best-management practices programs, and conserves and 
     improves forested land and potentially forested land, through 
     technical, financial, and educational assistance to 
     qualifying individuals and entities; and
       (6) to maximize the proper management and conservation of 
     wetland forests and to assist in the restoration of those 
     forests.

     SEC. 302. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 is amended 
     by inserting after section 5 (16 U.S.C. 2103a) the following:

     ``SEC. 6. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definition of Nonindustrial Private Forest Land.--In 
     this section, the term `nonindustrial private forest land' 
     means rural land, as determined by the Secretary, that--
       ``(1) has existing tree cover or that is suitable for 
     growing trees; and
       ``(2) is owned by any nonindustrial private individual, 
     group, association, corporation, or other private legal 
     entity, that has definitive decisionmaking authority over the 
     land.
       ``(b) General Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Chief of the Forest Service, may provide 
     technical, financial, and related assistance to State 
     foresters, equivalent State officials, and officials of the 
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
     for the purpose of expanding State forest stewardship 
     capacities and activities through State forestry best-
     management practices and other means at the State level to 
     address watershed issues on non-Federal forested land and 
     potentially forested land.
       ``(c) Technical Assistance To Protect Water Quality.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with State 
     foresters, officials of the Cooperative State Research, 
     Education, and Extension Service, or equivalent State 
     officials, shall engage interested members of the public, 
     including nonprofit organizations and local watershed 
     councils, to develop a program of technical assistance to 
     protect water quality described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Purpose of program.--The program under this 
     subsection shall be designed--
       ``(A) to build and strengthen watershed partnerships that 
     focus on forested landscapes at the State, regional, and 
     local levels;
       ``(B) to provide State forestry best-management practices 
     and water quality technical assistance directly to owners of 
     nonindustrial private forest land;
       ``(C) to provide technical guidance to land managers and 
     policymakers for water quality protection through forest 
     management;
       ``(D) to complement State and local efforts to protect 
     water quality and provide enhanced opportunities for 
     consultation and cooperation among Federal and State agencies 
     charged with responsibility for water and watershed 
     management; and
       ``(E) to provide enhanced forest resource data and support 
     for improved implementation and monitoring of State forestry 
     best-management practices.
       ``(3) Implementation.--The program of technical assistance 
     shall be implemented by State foresters or equivalent State 
     officials.
       ``(d) Watershed Forestry Cost-Share Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     watershed forestry cost-share program--
       ``(A) which shall be--
       ``(i) administered by the Forest Service; and
       ``(ii) implemented by State foresters or equivalent State 
     officials; and
       ``(B) under which funds or other support provided shall be 
     made available for State forestry best-management practices 
     programs and watershed forestry projects.
       ``(2) Watershed forestry projects.--The State forester, 
     State Research, Education and Extension official, or 
     equivalent State official of a State, in coordination with 
     the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee 
     established under section 19(b) (or an equivalent committee) 
     for that State, shall make awards to communities, nonprofit 
     groups, and owners of nonindustrial private forest land under 
     the program for watershed forestry projects described in 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Project elements and objectives.--A watershed 
     forestry project shall accomplish critical forest 
     stewardship, watershed protection, and restoration needs 
     within a State by demonstrating the value of trees and 
     forests to watershed health and condition through--
       ``(A) the use of trees as solutions to water quality 
     problems in urban and rural areas;
       ``(B) community-based planning, involvement, and action 
     through State, local and nonprofit partnerships;
       ``(C) application of and dissemination of monitoring 
     information on forestry best-management practices relating to 
     watershed forestry;
       ``(D) watershed-scale forest management activities and 
     conservation planning; and
       ``(E)(i) the restoration of wetland (as defined by the 
     States) and stream-side forests; and
       ``(ii) the establishment of riparian vegetative buffers.
       ``(4) Cost-sharing.--
       ``(A) Federal share.--
       ``(i) Funds under this subsection.--Funds provided under 
     this subsection for a watershed forestry project may not 
     exceed 75 percent of the cost of the project.
       ``(ii) Other federal funds.--The percentage of the cost of 
     a project described in clause (i) that is not covered by 
     funds made available under this subsection may be paid using 
     other Federal funding sources, except that the total Federal 
     share of the costs of the project may not exceed 90 percent.
       ``(B) Form.--The non-Federal share of the costs of a 
     project may be provided in the form of cash, services, or 
     other in-kind contributions.
       ``(5) Prioritization.--The State Forest Stewardship 
     Coordinating Committee for a State, or equivalent State 
     committee, shall prioritize watersheds in that State to 
     target watershed forestry projects funded under this 
     subsection.
       ``(6) Watershed forester.--Financial and technical 
     assistance shall be made available to the State Forester or 
     equivalent State official to create a State watershed or 
     best-management practice forester position to--
       ``(A) lead statewide programs; and
       ``(B) coordinate watershed-level projects.
       ``(e) Distribution.--
       ``(1) In general.--Of the funds made available for a fiscal 
     year under subsection (g), the Secretary shall use--
       ``(A) at least 75 percent of the funds to carry out the 
     cost-share program under subsection (d); and
       ``(B) the remainder of the funds to deliver technical 
     assistance, education, and planning, at the local level, 
     through the State Forester or equivalent State official.
       ``(2) Special considerations.--Distribution of funds by the 
     Secretary among States under paragraph (1) shall be made only 
     after giving appropriate consideration to--
       ``(A) the acres of agricultural land, nonindustrial private 
     forest land, and highly erodible land in each State;
       ``(B) the miles of riparian buffer needed;
       ``(C) the miles of impaired stream segments and other 
     impaired water bodies where forestry practices can be used to 
     restore or protect water resources;
       ``(D) the number of owners of nonindustrial private forest 
     land in each State; and
       ``(E) water quality cost savings that can be achieved 
     through forest watershed management.
       ``(f) Willing Owners.--
       ``(1) In general.--Participation of an owner of 
     nonindustrial private forest land in the watershed forestry 
     assistance program under this section is voluntary.
       ``(2) Written consent.--The watershed forestry assistance 
     program shall not be carried out on nonindustrial private 
     forest land without the written consent of the owner of, or 
     entity having definitive decisionmaking over, the 
     nonindustrial private forest land.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.''.

     SEC. 303. TRIBAL WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Secretary''), acting through the 
     Chief of the Forest Service, shall provide technical, 
     financial, and related assistance to Indian tribes for the 
     purpose of expanding tribal stewardship capacities and 
     activities through tribal forestry best-management practices 
     and other means at the tribal level to address watershed 
     issues on land under the jurisdiction of or administered by 
     the Indian tribes.
       (b) Technical Assistance To Protect Water Quality.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with Indian 
     tribes, shall develop a program to provide technical 
     assistance to protect water quality, as described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Purpose of program.--The program under this subsection 
     shall be designed--
       (A) to build and strengthen watershed partnerships that 
     focus on forested landscapes at the State, regional, tribal, 
     and local levels;
       (B) to provide tribal forestry best-management practices 
     and water quality technical assistance directly to Indian 
     tribes;
       (C) to provide technical guidance to tribal land managers 
     and policy makers for water quality protection through forest 
     management;
       (D) to complement tribal efforts to protect water quality 
     and provide enhanced opportunities for consultation and 
     cooperation among Federal agencies and tribal entities 
     charged with responsibility for water and watershed 
     management; and
       (E) to provide enhanced forest resource data and support 
     for improved implementation and monitoring of tribal forestry 
     best-management practices.
       (c) Watershed Forestry Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a watershed 
     forestry program to be administered by Indian tribes.
       (2) Programs and projects.--Funds or other support provided 
     under the program shall be made available for tribal forestry 
     best-management practices programs and watershed forestry 
     projects.
       (3) Annual awards.--The Secretary shall annually make 
     awards to Indian tribes to carry out this subsection.
       (4) Project elements and objectives.--A watershed forestry 
     project shall accomplish critical forest stewardship, 
     watershed protection,

[[Page 26164]]

     and restoration needs within land under the jurisdiction of 
     or administered by an Indian tribe by demonstrating the value 
     of trees and forests to watershed health and condition 
     through--
       (A) the use of trees as solutions to water quality 
     problems;
       (B) application of and dissemination of monitoring 
     information on forestry best-management practices relating to 
     watershed forestry;
       (C) watershed-scale forest management activities and 
     conservation planning;
       (D) the restoration of wetland and stream-side forests and 
     the establishment of riparian vegetative buffers; and
       (E) tribal-based planning, involvement, and action through 
     State, tribal, local, and nonprofit partnerships.
       (5) Prioritization.--An Indian tribe that participates in 
     the program under this subsection shall prioritize watersheds 
     in land under the jurisdiction of or administered by the 
     Indian tribe to target watershed forestry projects funded 
     under this subsection.
       (6) Watershed forester.--The Secretary may provide to 
     Indian tribes under this section financial and technical 
     assistance to establish a position of tribal forester to lead 
     tribal programs and coordinate small watershed-level 
     projects.
       (d) Distribution.--The Secretary shall devote--
       (1) at least 75 percent of the funds made available for a 
     fiscal year under subsection (e) to the program under 
     subsection (c); and
       (2) the remainder of the funds to deliver technical 
     assistance, education, and planning on the ground to Indian 
     tribes.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

           TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS AND RELATED DISEASES

     SEC. 401. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) high levels of tree mortality resulting from insect 
     infestation (including the interaction between insects and 
     diseases) may result in--
       (A) increased fire risk;
       (B) loss of old trees and old growth;
       (C) loss of threatened and endangered species;
       (D) loss of species diversity;
       (E) degraded watershed conditions;
       (F) increased potential for damage from other agents of 
     disturbance, including exotic, invasive species; and
       (G) decreased timber values;
       (2)(A) forest-damaging insects destroy hundreds of 
     thousands of acres of trees each year;
       (B) in the West, more than 21,000,000 acres are at high 
     risk of forest-damaging insect infestation, and in the South, 
     more than 57,000,000 acres are at risk across all land 
     ownerships; and
       (C) severe drought conditions in many areas of the South 
     and West will increase the risk of forest-damaging insect 
     infestations;
       (3) the hemlock woolly adelgid is--
       (A) destroying streamside forests throughout the mid-
     Atlantic and Appalachian regions;
       (B) threatening water quality and sensitive aquatic 
     species; and
       (C) posing a potential threat to valuable commercial timber 
     land in northern New England;
       (4)(A) the emerald ash borer is a nonnative, invasive pest 
     that has quickly become a major threat to hardwood forests 
     because an emerald ash borer infestation is almost always 
     fatal to affected trees; and
       (B) the emerald ash borer pest threatens to destroy more 
     than 692,000,000 ash trees in forests in Michigan and Ohio 
     alone, and between 5 and 10 percent of urban street trees in 
     the Upper Midwest;
       (5)(A) epidemic populations of Southern pine beetles are 
     ravaging forests in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 
     Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
     Tennessee, and Virginia; and
       (B) in 2001, Florida and Kentucky experienced 146 percent 
     and 111 percent increases, respectively, in Southern pine 
     beetle populations;
       (6) those epidemic outbreaks of Southern pine beetles have 
     forced private landowners to harvest dead and dying trees, in 
     rural areas and increasingly urbanized settings;
       (7) according to the Forest Service, recent outbreaks of 
     the red oak borer in Arkansas and Missouri have been 
     unprecedented, with more than 1,000,000 acres infested at 
     population levels never seen before;
       (8) much of the damage from the red oak borer has taken 
     place in national forests, and the Federal response has been 
     inadequate to protect forest ecosystems and other ecological 
     and economic resources;
       (9)(A) previous silvicultural assessments, while useful and 
     informative, have been limited in scale and scope of 
     application; and
       (B) there have not been sufficient resources available to 
     adequately test a full array of individual and combined 
     applied silvicultural assessments;
       (10) only through the full funding, development, and 
     assessment of potential applied silvicultural assessments 
     over specific time frames across an array of environmental 
     and climatic conditions can the most innovative and cost 
     effective management applications be determined that will 
     help reduce the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to attack 
     by forest pests;
       (11)(A) often, there are significant interactions between 
     insects and diseases;
       (B) many diseases (such as white pine blister rust, beech 
     bark disease, and many other diseases) can weaken trees and 
     forest stands and predispose trees and forest stands to 
     insect attack; and
       (C) certain diseases are spread using insects as vectors 
     (including Dutch elm disease and pine pitch canker); and
       (12) funding and implementation of an initiative to combat 
     forest pest infestations and associated diseases should not 
     come at the expense of supporting other programs and 
     initiatives of the Secretary.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to require the Secretary to develop an accelerated 
     basic and applied assessment program to combat infestations 
     by forest-damaging insects and associated diseases;
       (2) to enlist the assistance of colleges and universities 
     (including forestry schools, land grant colleges and 
     universities, and 1890 Institutions), State agencies, and 
     private landowners to carry out the program; and
       (3) to carry out applied silvicultural assessments.

     SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Applied silvicultural assessment.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``applied silvicultural 
     assessment'' means any vegetative or other treatment carried 
     out for a purpose described in section 403.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``applied silvicultural 
     assessment'' includes (but is not limited to) timber 
     harvesting, thinning, prescribed burning, pruning, and any 
     combination of those activities.
       (2) 1890 institution.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``1890 Institution'' means a 
     college or university that is eligible to receive funds under 
     the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.).
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``1890 Institution'' includes 
     Tuskegee University.
       (3) Forest-damaging insect.--The term ``forest-damaging 
     insect'' means--
       (A) a Southern pine beetle;
       (B) a mountain pine beetle;
       (C) a spruce bark beetle;
       (D) a gypsy moth;
       (E) a hemlock woolly adelgid;
       (F) an emerald ash borer;
       (G) a red oak borer;
       (H) a white oak borer; and
       (I) such other insects as may be identified by the 
     Secretary.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest 
     Service, with respect to National Forest System land; and
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
     appropriate offices of the United States Geological Survey, 
     with respect to federally owned land administered by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.

     SEC. 403. ACCELERATED INFORMATION GATHERING REGARDING FOREST-
                   DAMAGING INSECTS.

       (a) Information Gathering.--The Secretary, acting through 
     the Forest Service and United States Geological Survey, as 
     appropriate, shall establish an accelerated program--
       (1) to plan, conduct, and promote comprehensive and 
     systematic information gathering on forest-damaging insects 
     and associated diseases, including an evaluation of--
       (A) infestation, prevention, and suppression methods;
       (B) effects of infestations and associated disease 
     interactions on forest ecosystems;
       (C) restoration of forest ecosystem efforts;
       (D) utilization options regarding infested trees; and
       (E) models to predict the occurrence, distribution, and 
     impact of outbreaks of forest-damaging insects and associated 
     diseases;
       (2) to assist land managers in the development of 
     treatments and strategies to improve forest health and reduce 
     the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to severe 
     infestations of forest-damaging insects and associated 
     diseases on Federal land and State and private land; and
       (3) to disseminate the results of the information 
     gathering, treatments, and strategies.
       (b) Cooperation and Assistance.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) establish and carry out the program in cooperation 
     with--
       (A) scientists from colleges and universities (including 
     forestry schools, land grant colleges and universities, and 
     1890 Institutions);
       (B) Federal, State, and local agencies; and
       (C) private and industrial landowners; and
       (2) designate such colleges and universities to assist in 
     carrying out the program.

     SEC. 404. APPLIED SILVICULTURAL ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) Assessment Efforts.--For information gathering and 
     research purposes, the Secretary may conduct applied 
     silvicultural assessments on Federal land that the Secretary 
     determines is at risk of infestation by, or is infested with, 
     forest-damaging insects.
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) Exclusion of certain areas.--Subsection (a) does not 
     apply to--
       (A) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation 
     System;
       (B) any Federal land on which, by Act of Congress or 
     Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is 
     restricted or prohibited;
       (C) a congressionally-designated wilderness study area; or
       (D) an area in which activities under subsection (a) would 
     be inconsistent with the applicable land and resource 
     management plan.
       (2) Certain treatment prohibited.--Nothing in subsection 
     (a) authorizes the application of insecticides in municipal 
     watersheds or associated riparian areas.

[[Page 26165]]

       (3) Peer review.--
       (A) In general.--Before being carried out, each applied 
     silvicultural assessment under this title shall be peer 
     reviewed by scientific experts selected by the Secretary, 
     which shall include non-Federal experts.
       (B) Existing peer review processes.--The Secretary may use 
     existing peer review processes to the extent the processes 
     comply with subparagraph (A).
       (c) Public Notice and Comment.--
       (1) Public notice.--The Secretary shall provide notice of 
     each applied silvicultural assessment proposed to be carried 
     out under this section.
       (2) Public comment.--The Secretary shall provide an 
     opportunity for public comment before carrying out an applied 
     silviculture assessment under this section.
       (d) Categorical Exclusion.--
       (1) In general.--Applied silvicultural assessment and 
     research treatments carried out under this section on not 
     more than 1,000 acres for an assessment or treatment may be 
     categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental 
     impact statement and environmental assessment under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).
       (2) Administration.--Applied silvicultural assessments and 
     research treatments categorically excluded under paragraph 
     (1)--
       (A) shall not be carried out in an area that is adjacent to 
     another area that is categorically excluded under paragraph 
     (1) that is being treated with similar methods; and
       (B) shall be subject to the extraordinary circumstances 
     procedures established by the Secretary pursuant to section 
     1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (3) Maximum categorical exclusion.--The total number of 
     acres categorically excluded under paragraph (1) shall not 
     exceed 250,000 acres.
       (4) No additional findings required.--In accordance with 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not be required to make 
     any findings as to whether an applied silvicultural 
     assessment project, either individually or cumulatively, has 
     a significant effect on the environment.

     SEC. 405. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

       The authority provided to each Secretary under this title 
     is supplemental to, and not in lieu of, any authority 
     provided to the Secretaries under any other law.

     SEC. 406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this title for each of fiscal years 
     2004 through 2008.

                TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

     SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish the healthy forests reserve program for the purpose 
     of restoring and enhancing forest ecosystems--
       (1) to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered 
     species;
       (2) to improve biodiversity; and
       (3) to enhance carbon sequestration.
       (b) Coordination.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall carry 
     out the healthy forests reserve program in coordination with 
     the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce.

     SEC. 502. ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT OF LANDS IN PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of Commerce, shall describe and define forest 
     ecosystems that are eligible for enrollment in the healthy 
     forests reserve program.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible for enrollment in the 
     healthy forests reserve program, land shall be--
       (1) private land the enrollment of which will restore, 
     enhance, or otherwise measurably increase the likelihood of 
     recovery of a species listed as endangered or threatened 
     under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533); and
       (2) private land the enrollment of which will restore, 
     enhance, or otherwise measurably improve the well-being of 
     species that--
       (A) are not listed as endangered or threatened under 
     section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1533); but
       (B) are candidates for such listing, State-listed species, 
     or special concern species.
       (c) Other Considerations.--In enrolling land that satisfies 
     the criteria under subsection (b), the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall give additional consideration to land the 
     enrollment of which will--
       (1) improve biological diversity; and
       (2) increase carbon sequestration.
       (d) Enrollment by Willing Owners.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall enroll land in the healthy forests reserve 
     program only with the consent of the owner of the land.
       (e) Maximum Enrollment.--The total number of acres enrolled 
     in the healthy forests reserve program shall not exceed 
     2,000,000 acres.
       (f) Methods of Enrollment.--
       (1) In general.--Land may be enrolled in the healthy 
     forests reserve program in accordance with--
       (A) a 10-year cost-share agreement;
       (B) a 30-year agreement; or
       (C) a long-term easement with a buyback option.
       (2) Proportion.--The extent to which each enrollment method 
     is used shall be based on the approximate proportion of owner 
     interest expressed in that method in comparison to the other 
     methods.
       (g) Enrollment Priority.--
       (1) Species.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall give 
     priority to the enrollment of land that provides the greatest 
     conservation benefit to--
       (A) primarily, species listed as endangered or threatened 
     under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533); and
       (B) secondarily, species that--
       (i) are not listed as endangered or threatened under 
     section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1533); but
       (ii) are candidates for such listing, State-listed species, 
     or special concern species.
       (2) Cost-effectiveness.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     also consider the cost-effectiveness of each agreement and 
     easement, and their associated restoration plans, so as to 
     maximize the environmental benefits per dollar expended.

     SEC. 503. RESTORATION PLANS.

       (a) In General.--Land enrolled in the healthy forests 
     reserve program shall be subject to a restoration plan, to be 
     developed jointly by the landowner and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       (b) Practices.--The restoration plan shall require such 
     restoration practices as are necessary to restore and enhance 
     habitat for--
       (1) species listed as endangered or threatened under 
     section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1533); and
       (2) animal or plant species before the species reach 
     threatened or endangered status, such as candidate, State-
     listed species, and special concern species.

     SEC. 504. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Long-Term Easement With Buyback Option.--
       (1) Payment amount.--In the case of land enrolled in the 
     healthy forests reserve program using a long-term easement 
     (with a minimum length of 99 years) with a buyback option, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the owner of the land 
     an amount equal to not less than 75 percent, nor more than 
     100 percent, of (as determined by the Secretary)--
       (A) the fair market value of the enrolled land during the 
     period the land is subject to the easement, less the fair 
     market value of the land encumbered by the easement; and
       (B) the actual costs of the approved conservation practices 
     or the average cost of approved practices carried out on the 
     land during the period the land is subject to the easement.
       (2) Buy-back option.--In the case of land enrolled in the 
     healthy forests reserve program using a long-term easement 
     with a buyback option, beginning on the date that is 50 years 
     after the date of enrollment of the land, and every 10 years 
     thereafter, the owner of the land shall be permitted to 
     purchase the easement back from the United States for an 
     amount equal to not more than (as determined by the 
     Secretary)--
       (A) the percentage of the fair market value the owner 
     received for the easement under paragraph (1); and
       (B) the costs, adjusted by the Secretary to reflect changes 
     in the Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers, as 
     published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the approved 
     conservation practices necessary for establishment of the 
     easement.
       (3) Funds.--All funds returned to the United States under 
     this subsection shall be used to carry out the healthy 
     forests reserve program.
       (b) 30-Year Agreement.-- In the case of land enrolled in 
     the healthy forests reserve program using a 30-year 
     agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the owner 
     of the land an amount equal to not more than (as determined 
     by the Secretary)--
       (1) 75 percent of the fair market value of the land, less 
     the fair market value of the land encumbered by the 
     agreement; and
       (2) 75 percent of the actual costs of the approved 
     conservation practices or 75 percent of the average cost of 
     approved practices.
       (c) 10-Year Agreement.--In the case of land enrolled in the 
     healthy forests reserve program using a 10-year cost-share 
     agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the owner 
     of the land an amount equal to not more than (as determined 
     by the Secretary)--
       (1) 50 percent of the actual costs of the approved 
     conservation practices; or
       (2) 50 percent of the average cost of approved practices.
       (d) Acceptance of Contributions.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture may accept and use contributions of non-Federal 
     funds to make payments under this section.

     SEC. 505. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide 
     landowners with technical assistance to assist the owners in 
     complying with the terms of plans (as included in agreements 
     and easements) under the healthy forests reserve program.
       (b) Technical Service Providers.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture may request the services of, and enter into 
     cooperative agreements with, individuals or entities 
     certified as technical service providers under section 1242 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3842), to assist 
     the Secretary in providing technical assistance necessary to 
     develop and implement the healthy forests reserve program.

     SEC. 506. PROTECTIONS AND MEASURES

       (a) Protections.--In the case of a landowner that enrolls 
     land in the program and whose conservation activities result 
     in a net conservation benefit for listed, candidate, or other 
     species, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make available to 
     the landowner safe harbor or similar assurances and 
     protection under--

[[Page 26166]]

       (1) section 7(b)(4) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4)); or
       (2) section 10(a)(1) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)).
       (b) Measures.--If protection under subsection (a) requires 
     the taking of measures that are in addition to the measures 
     covered by the applicable restoration plan agreed to under 
     section 503, the cost of the additional measures, as well as 
     the cost of any permit, shall be considered part of the 
     restoration plan for purposes of financial assistance under 
     section 504.

     SEC. 507. INVOLVEMENT BY OTHER AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS.

       In carrying out this title, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     may consult with--
       (1) nonindustrial private forest landowners;
       (2) other Federal agencies;
       (3) State fish and wildlife agencies;
       (4) State forestry agencies;
       (5) State environmental quality agencies;
       (6) other State conservation agencies; and
       (7) nonprofit conservation organizations.

     SEC. 508. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title--
       (1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2008.

                      TITLE VI--PUBLIC LAND CORPS

     SEC. 601. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to carry out, in a cost-effective and efficient manner, 
     rehabilitation, enhancement, and beautification projects;
       (2) to offer young people, ages 16 through 25, particularly 
     those who are at-risk or economically disadvantaged, the 
     opportunity to gain productive employment and exposure to the 
     world of work;
       (3) to give those young people the opportunity to serve 
     their communities and their country; and
       (4) to expand educational opportunities by rewarding 
     individuals who participate in the Public Land Corps with an 
     increased ability to pursue higher education or job training.

     SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Alaska native corporation.--The term ``Alaska Native 
     Corporation'' means a Regional Corporation or Village 
     Corporation, as defined in section 101(11) of the National 
     and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12511(11)).
       (2) Corps.--The term ``Corps'' means the Public Land Corps 
     established under section 603(a).
       (3) Hawaiian home lands.--The term ``Hawaiian home lands'' 
     means that term, within the meaning of the National and 
     Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.).
       (4) Indian lands.--The term ``Indian lands'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 101 of the National and 
     Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12511).
       (5) Secretaries.--The term ``Secretaries'' means--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture; and
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior.
       (6) Service and conservation corps.--The term ``service and 
     conservation corps'' means any organization established by a 
     State or local government, nonprofit organization, or Indian 
     tribe that--
       (A) has a demonstrable capability to provide productive 
     work to individuals;
       (B) gives participants a combination of work experience, 
     basic and life skills, education, training, and support 
     services; and
       (C) provides participants with the opportunity to develop 
     citizenship values through service to their communities and 
     the United States.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means--
       (A) a State;
       (B) the District of Columbia;
       (C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
       (D) Guam;
       (E) American Samoa;
       (F) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
       (G) the Federated States of Micronesia;
       (H) the Republic of the Marshall Islands;
       (I) the Republic of Palau; and
       (J) the United States Virgin Islands.

     SEC. 603. PUBLIC LAND CORPS.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a Public Land 
     Corps.
       (b) Participants.--The Corps shall consist of individuals 
     who are enrolled as members of a service or conservation 
     corps.
       (c) Contracts or Agreements.--The Secretaries may enter 
     into contracts or cooperative agreements--
       (1) directly with any service and conservation corps to 
     perform appropriate rehabilitation, enhancement, or 
     beautification projects; or
       (2) with a department of natural resources, agriculture, or 
     forestry (or an equivalent department) of any State that has 
     entered into a contract or cooperative agreement with a 
     service and conservation corps to perform appropriate 
     rehabilitation, enhancement, or beautification projects.
       (d) Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretaries may use the members of a 
     service and conservation corps to perform rehabilitation, 
     enhancement, or beautification projects authorized by law.
       (2) Included land.--In addition to Federal and State lands, 
     the projects may be carried out on--
       (A) Indian lands, with the approval of the applicable 
     Indian tribe;
       (B) Hawaiian home lands, with the approval of the relevant 
     State agency in the State of Hawaii; and
       (C) Alaska native lands, with the approval of the 
     applicable Alaska Native Corporation.
       (e) Preference.--In carrying out this title, the 
     Secretaries shall give preference to projects that will--
       (1) provide long-term benefits by reducing hazardous fuels 
     on Federal land;
       (2) instill in members of the service and conservation 
     corps--
       (A) a work ethic;
       (B) a sense of personal responsibility; and
       (C) a sense of public service;
       (3) be labor intensive; and
       (4) be planned and initiated promptly.
       (f) Supportive Services.--The Secretaries may provide such 
     services as the Secretaries consider necessary to carry out 
     this title.
       (g) Technical Assistance.--To carry out this title, the 
     Secretaries shall provide technical assistance, oversight, 
     monitoring, and evaluation to--
       (1) State Departments of Natural Resources and Agriculture 
     (or equivalent agencies); and
       (2) members of service and conservation corps.

     SEC. 604. NONDISPLACEMENT.

       The nondisplacement requirements of section 177(b) of the 
     National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12637(b)) shall apply to activities carried out by the Corps 
     under this title.

     SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

         TITLE VII--RURAL COMMUNITY FORESTRY ENTERPRISE PROGRAM

     SEC. 701. PURPOSE

       The purpose of this title is to assist in the economic 
     revitalization of rural forest resource-dependent communities 
     through incentives to promote investment in private 
     enterprise and community development by--
       (1) the Department of Agriculture;
       (2) the Department of the Interior;
       (3) the Department of Commerce;
       (4) the Small Business Administration;
       (5) land grant colleges and universities; and
       (6) 1890 Institutions.

     SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) 1890 institution.--The term ``1890 Institution'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 
     U.S.C. 7601).
       (2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
       (A) a unit of State or local government;
       (B) an Indian tribe;
       (C) a nonprofit organization;
       (D) a small forest products business;
       (E) a rural forest resource-dependent community;
       (F) a land grant college or university; or
       (G) an 1890 institution.
       (3) Eligible project.--The term ``eligible project'' means 
     a project described in section 703 that will promote the 
     economic development in rural forest resource-dependent 
     communities based on--
       (A) responsible forest stewardship;
       (B) the production of sustainable forest products; or
       (C) the development of forest related tourism and 
     recreation activities.
       (4) Forest products.--The term ``forest products'' means--
       (A) logs;
       (B) lumber;
       (C) chips;
       (D) small-diameter finished wood products;
       (E) energy biomass;
       (F) mulch; and
       (G) any other material derived from forest vegetation or 
     individual trees or shrubs.
       (5) Nonprofit organization.--The term ``nonprofit 
     organization'' means an organization that is--
       (A) described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986; and
       (B) exempt from taxation under 501(a) of that Code.
       (6) Program.--The term ``program'' means the rural 
     community forestry enterprise program established under 
     section 703.
       (7) Small forest products business.--The term ``small 
     forest products business'' means a small business concern (as 
     defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632)) that is classified under subsector 113 or code number 
     115310 of the North American Industrial Classification 
     System.
       (8) Rural forest resource-dependent community.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``rural forest resource-dependent 
     community'' means a community located in a rural area of the 
     United States that is traditionally dependent on forestry 
     products as a primary source of community infrastructure.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``rural forest resource-dependent 
     community'' includes a community described in subparagraph 
     (A) located in--
       (i) the northern forest land of Maine;
       (ii) New Hampshire;
       (iii) New York;
       (iv) Vermont;
       (v) the Upper Peninsula of Michigan;
       (vi) northern California;
       (vii) eastern Oregon;
       (viii) the Bitterrroot Valley of Montana;
       (ix) the northern panhandle of Idaho; and
       (x) other areas, as determined by the Secretary.
       (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest 
     Service.

[[Page 26167]]



     SEC. 703. RURAL COMMUNITY FORESTRY ENTERPRISE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish within 
     the Forest Service a program to be known as the ``Rural 
     Community Forestry Enterprise Program''.
       (2) Coordination.--In carrying out the program, the 
     Secretary shall coordinate with--
       (A) the Small Business Administration;
       (B) the Economic Development Administration;
       (C) land grant colleges and universities;
       (D) 1890 institutions; and
       (E) other agencies of the Department of Agriculture that 
     administer rural development programs.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program are--
       (1) to enhance technical and business management skills 
     training;
       (2) to organize cooperatives and marketing programs;
       (3) to establish and maintain timber worker skill pools;
       (4) to establish and maintain forest product distribution 
     networks and collection centers;
       (5) to facilitate technology transfer for processing small 
     diameter trees and brush into useful products;
       (6) to develop, where support exists, a program to promote 
     science-based technology implementation and technology 
     transfer that expands the capacity for small forest product 
     businesses to work within market areas;
       (7) to promote forest-related tourism and recreational 
     activities;
       (8) to enhance the rural forest business infrastructure 
     needed to reduce hazardous fuels on public and private land; 
     and
       (9) to carry out related programs and activities, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (c) Forest Enterprise Centers.--The Secretary shall 
     establish at least 1 Forest Enterprise Center at each 
     Research Station of the Forest Service, to be located at a 
     forest science laboratory--
       (1) to carry out eligible projects; and
       (2) to coordinate assistance provided to small forest 
     products businesses with--
       (A) the Small Business Administration, including the timber 
     set-aside program carried out by the Small Business 
     Administration;
       (B) the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing Service, 
     and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service of the Department 
     of Agriculture; and
       (C) the Economic Development Administration, including the 
     local technical assistance program of the Economic 
     Development Administration.
       (d) Forest Enterprise Technical Assistance and Grant 
     Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Forest 
     Enterprise Centers established under subsection (c), shall 
     establish a program to provide technical assistance and 
     grants to eligible entities to carry out eligible projects.
       (2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall work with each Forest 
     Enterprise Center to develop appropriate program review and 
     prioritization criteria for each Research Station.
       (3) Matching funds.--Grants under this section shall--
       (A) not exceed 50 percent of the cost of an eligible 
     project; and
       (B) be made on the condition that non-Federal sources pay 
     for the remainder of the cost of an eligible project 
     (including payment through in-kind contributions of services 
     or materials).
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $15,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

                  TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 801. FOREST INVENTORY AND MANAGEMENT.

       Section 17 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101 note; Public Law 95313) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 17. FOREST INVENTORY AND MANAGEMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program 
     using geospatial and information management technologies 
     (including remote sensing imaging and decision support 
     systems) to inventory, monitor, characterize, assess, and 
     identify forest stands and potential forest stands (with 
     emphasis on hardwood forest stands) on--
       ``(1) in units of the National Forest System; and
       ``(2) on private forest land, with the consent of the owner 
     of the land.
       ``(b) Means.--The Secretary shall carry out the program 
     through the use of--
       ``(1) remote sensing technology of the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration and the United States Geological 
     Survey;
       ``(2) emerging geospatial capabilities in research 
     activities;
       ``(3) validating techniques using application 
     demonstrations; and
       ``(4) integration of results into pilot operational 
     systems.
       ``(c) Issues To Be Addressed.--In carrying out the program, 
     the Secretary shall address issues including--
       ``(1) early detection, identification, and assessment of 
     environmental threats (including insect, disease, invasive 
     species, fire, acid deposition, and weather-related risks and 
     other episodic events);
       ``(2) loss or degradation of forests;
       ``(3) degradation of the quality forest stands caused by 
     inadequate forest regeneration practices;
       ``(4) quantification of carbon uptake rates; and
       ``(5) management practices that focus on preventing further 
     forest degradation.
       ``(d) Early Warning System.--In carrying out the program, 
     the Secretary shall develop a comprehensive early warning 
     system for potential catastrophic environmental threats to 
     forests to increase the likelihood that forest managers will 
     be able to--
       ``(1) isolate and treat a threat before the threat gets out 
     of control; and
       ``(2) prevent epidemics, such as the American chestnut 
     blight in the first half of the twentieth century, that could 
     be environmentally and economically devastating to forests.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.''.

     SEC. 802. PROGRAM FOR EMERGENCY TREATMENT AND REDUCTION OF 
                   NONNATIVE INVASIVE PLANTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Interface community.--The term ``interface community'' 
     has the meaning given the term in the notice published at 66 
     Fed. Reg. 751 (January 4, 2001) (including any subsequent 
     revision to the notice).
       (2) Intermix community.--The term ``intermix community'' 
     has the meaning given the term in the notice published at 66 
     Fed. Reg. 751 (January 4, 2001) (including any subsequent 
     revision to the notice).
       (3) Plant.--The term ``plant'' includes--
       (A) a tree;
       (B) a shrub; and
       (C) a vine.
       (4) Program.--The term ``program'' means the program for 
     emergency treatment and reduction of nonnative invasive 
     plants established under subsection (b)(1).
       (5) Secretaries.--The term ``Secretaries'' means the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, 
     acting jointly.
       (b) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretaries shall establish a program 
     for emergency treatment and reduction of nonnative invasive 
     plants to provide to State and local governments and 
     agencies, conservation districts, tribal governments, and 
     willing private landowners grants for use in carrying out 
     hazardous fuel reduction projects to address threats of 
     catastrophic fires that have been determined by the 
     Secretaries to pose a serious threat to--
       (A) property;
       (B) human life; or
       (C) the ecological stability of an area.
       (2) Coordination.--In carrying out the program, the 
     Secretaries shall coordinate with such Federal agencies, 
     State and local governments and agencies, and conservation 
     districts as are affected by projects under the program.
       (c) Eligible Land.--A project under the program shall--
       (1) be carried out only on land that is located--
       (A) in an interface community or intermix community; or
       (B) in such proximity to an interface community or intermix 
     community as would pose a significant risk in the event of 
     the spread of a fire disturbance event from the land 
     (including a risk that would threaten human life or property 
     in proximity to or within the interface community or intermix 
     community), as determined by the Secretaries;
       (2) remove fuel loads determined by the Secretaries, a 
     State or local government, a tribal government, or a private 
     landowner to pose a serious threat to--
       (A) property;
       (B) human life; or
       (C) the ecological stability of an area; and
       (3) involve the removal of nonnative invasive plants.
       (d) Use of Funds.--Funds made available for a project under 
     the program shall be used only for--
       (1) the removal of plants or other potential fuels that 
     are--
       (A) adjacent to or within the wildland urban interface; or
       (B) adjacent to a municipal watershed, river, or water 
     course;
       (2) the removal of erosion structures that impede the 
     removal of nonnative plants; or
       (3) the replanting of native vegetation to reduce the 
     reestablishment of nonnative invasive plants in a treatment 
     area.
       (e) Revolving Fund.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of a grant provided to a 
     willing owner to carry out a project on non-Federal land 
     under this section, the owner shall deposit into a revolving 
     fund established by the Secretaries any proceeds derived from 
     the sale of timber or biomass removed from the non-Federal 
     land under the project.
       (2) Use.--The Secretaries shall use amounts in the 
     revolving fund to make additional grants under this section.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section, to remain available until expended.

     SEC. 803. USDA NATIONAL AGROFORESTRY CENTER.

       (a) In General.--Section 1243 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1642 note; 
     Public Law 101-624) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1243. USDA NATIONAL AGROFORESTRY CENTER.'';

     and

[[Page 26168]]

       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Semiarid'' and inserting ``USDA 
     National''; and
       (B) by striking ``Semiarid'' and inserting ``USDA 
     National''.
       (b) Program.--Section 1243(b) of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1642 note; 
     Public Law 101-624) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``local governments, community 
     organizations, the Institute of Tropical Forestry and the 
     Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry of the Forest 
     Service,'' after ``entities,'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``on semiarid lands'';
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``from semiarid land'';
       (4) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) collect information on the design, installation, and 
     function of forested riparian and upland buffers to--
       ``(A) protect water quality; and
       ``(B) manage water flow;'';
       (5) in paragraphs (6) and (7), by striking ``on semiarid 
     lands'' each place it appears;
       (6) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
       ``(8) provide international leadership in the worldwide 
     development and exchange of agroforestry practices;'';
       (7) in paragraph (9), by striking ``on semiarid lands'';
       (8) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (9) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (10) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) quantify the carbon storage potential of 
     agroforestry practices such as--
       ``(A) windbreaks;
       ``(B) forested riparian buffers;
       ``(C) silvopasture timber and grazing systems; and
       ``(D) alley cropping; and
       ``(13) modify and adapt riparian forest buffer technology 
     used on agricultural land for use by communities to manage 
     stormwater runoff.''.

     SEC. 804. UPLAND HARDWOODS RESEARCH CENTER.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish an Upland Hardwood Research Center.
       (b) Location.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall locate 
     the Research Center in an area that, as determined by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, would best use and study the upland 
     hardwood resources of the Ozark Mountains and the South.
       (c) Duties.--The Upland Hardwood Research Center shall, in 
     conjunction with the Southern Forest Research Station of the 
     Department of Agriculture--
       (1) provide the scientific basis for sustainable management 
     of southern upland hardwood forests, particularly in the 
     Ozark Mountains and associated mountain and upland forests; 
     and
       (2) conduct research in all areas to emphasize practical 
     application toward the use and preservation of upland 
     hardwood forests, particularly--
       (A) the effects of pests and pathogens on upland hardwoods;
       (B) hardwood stand regeneration and reproductive biology;
       (C) upland hardwood stand management and forest health;
       (D) threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic and 
     terrestrial fauna;
       (E) ecological processes and hardwood ecosystem 
     restoration; and
       (F) education and outreach to nonindustrial private forest 
     landowners and associations.
       (d) Research.--In carrying out the duties under subsection 
     (c), the Upland Hardwood Research Center shall--
       (1) cooperate with the Center for Bottomland Hardwood 
     Research of the Southern Forest Research Station of the 
     Department of Agriculture, located in Stoneville, 
     Mississippi; and
       (2) provide comprehensive research in the Mid-South region 
     of the United States, the Upland Forests Ecosystems Unit of 
     the Southern Forest Research Station of the Department of 
     Agriculture, located in Monticello, Arkansas.
       (e) Participation of Private Landowners.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall encourage and facilitate the participation 
     of private landowners in the program under this section.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

     SEC. 805. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ENHANCED COMMUNITY FIRE 
                   PROTECTION.

       It is the sense of Congress to reaffirm the importance of 
     enhanced community fire protection program, as described in 
     section 10A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2106c) (as added by section 8003(b) of the 
     Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 
     107-171; 116 Stat. 473)).
       Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to improve the 
     capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 
     the Interior to 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.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on July 24, the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry reported to the Senate H.R. 1904, the Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act. This bill, which is now before the Senate, 
reflects a comprehensive effort to improve forest health on both public 
and private lands. The bill provides Federal land managers the tools to 
implement scientifically supported management practices on Federal 
forests, in consultation with local communities, while establishing new 
conservation programs to improve water quality and regenerate declining 
forest ecosystem types on private lands.
  The legislation will reduce the amount of time and expense required 
to conduct hazardous fuels projects, but it also will require rigorous 
environmental analysis of those projects.
  Over the past few years, we have seen many communities destroyed and 
many firefighters' lives lost due to forest fires that could have been 
prevented. We are all deeply saddened by the tragic events occurring 
now in California. At least 17 people, we are told, have lost their 
lives; 1,600 homes have been destroyed, and 520,000 acres have burned.
  The fires continue to wreak havoc in that State. Thousands of 
Californians have had to leave their homes, and more communities are 
being evacuated at this very moment.
  On Monday, President Bush declared the region a disaster area. The 
cost resulting from these fires is estimated in the billions of 
dollars. The tools and resources this legislation provides land 
managers will assist in preventing the devastation resulting from 
forest fires.
  In the past, the U.S. Forest Service has been forced to spend great 
amounts of time and resources battling lawsuits instead of managing the 
forests. The result has been months and even years of delays in fuel 
reduction projects. Our forests have continued to suffer, and they have 
continued to burn.
  I have filed, along with 13 cosponsors, an amendment to title I of 
the bill which contains several modifications to the bill the committee 
reported.
  I offer that amendment to the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1828

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself, 
     Mr. Crapo, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Craig, Mr. Wyden, 
     Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. McCain, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. 
     Thomas, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Johnson, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1828.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment embodies recommendations 
made by a bipartisan group of Senators who are committed getting this 
legislation passed and signed by the President. The amendment 
establishes a predecisional administrative review process. It allows an 
additional analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. It 
directs the Secretary of Agriculture to give priority to communities 
and watersheds and hazardous fuel reduction projects. It contains new 
language protecting old-growth stands, and it encourages the courts to 
expedite the judicial review process.
  The underlying legislation also contains a biomass title authorizing 
grant programs to encourage utilization of forest waste material. 
Another title provides financial and technical assistance to private 
forest land owners to encourage better management techniques to protect 
water quality. The pest and remote sensing titles would authorize 
funding for the U.S. Forest Service, land grant institutions, and 1890 
institutions to plan, conduct, and promote the gathering of information 
about insects that have caused severe damage to forest ecosystems.
  Title V, the Healthy Forest Reserve Program, is a private forest land 
conservation initiative that would support

[[Page 26169]]

the restoration of declining forest ecosystem types that are critical 
to the recovery of threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species.
  Two additional titles were added to the House-passed bill by our 
committee. One would establish a public land corps to provide 
opportunities to young people for employment and, at the same time, 
provide a cost-effective and efficient means to implement 
rehabilitation and enhancement projects in local communities. The other 
new title will promote investment in forest resource-dependent 
communities.
  This legislation provides new legal authority to help us manage the 
Nation's forests in a safe and effective manner. The bill will help us 
do a better job of safeguarding these priceless national resources.
  I urge the Senate to support the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Daschle.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues 
in supporting the bipartisan forest health legislation. Catastrophic 
wildfires raging in California today underscore the urgent need for 
action. We must reduce the risk that other communities and other States 
will face with regard to the devastation that Californians are 
experiencing today.
  In South Dakota we also know from experience how destructive forest 
fires can be. In the Black Hills, we have experienced five major fires 
in the last 3 years. We are committed to finding a solution that will 
enable the Forest Service to reduce the threat of wildfire effectively 
and efficiently and that can become law. We must do more to expedite 
hazardous fuels reduction activities, and I believe this compromise 
will help the Forest Service to do so.
  This past August I toured the Black Hills with Dale Bosworth, chief 
of the U.S. Forest Service. It is clear that the Forest Service needs 
additional tools to address the increasing fire risk to South Dakota 
and other State communities. Today more than 460,000 acres of the Black 
Hills National Forest are in moderate to high fire risk. If we do 
nothing, the Forest Service warns the number of acres at risk in the 
Black Hills will grow dramatically to more than 550,000 acres. That is 
unacceptable.
  During our visit, Chief Bosworth asked that any reforms we undertake 
allow Forest Service personnel to spend less time in the office 
planning and more time in the forest actually clearing high fuel load.
  This bipartisan compromise meets that standard, and it helps in other 
ways as well.
  First, this legislation clarifies how much detail is needed for 
environmental analysis of fuel reduction projects.
  Instead of analyzing anywhere from 5 to 10 alternatives--as is 
current practice--this bill specifies that the Forest Service must 
consider only three alternatives: The preferred alternative, a ``no-
action'' alternative, and an ``additional-action alternative.''
  The Forest Service currently spends over 50 percent of its time and 
money planning a given project. This will help reduce the costs of the 
environmental analysis and allow the Forest Service to treat more acres 
each year.
  Second, this legislation streamlines the appeals process within the 
Forest Service by mirroring what is already done at the Bureau of Land 
Management.
  In talking with Forest Service personnel in the Black Hills, one of 
the figures that struck me most is that 100 percent of proposed 
projects are appealed.
  This legislation will help streamline the appeals process while still 
protecting the public's right to be heard before final decisions are 
made.
  A third strength of this legislation--the pending amendment--is that 
it encourages speedy disposition of any projects that are challenged in 
court, without giving undue deference to any party.
  The bottom line is that this bipartisan compromise will enable the 
Forest Service to spend more time conducting on-the-ground fuels-
reduction projects, which is the key to reducing the risk of fire risk 
in America's forests and the communities that surround them.
  While this compromise is not exactly the plan I would have crafted, I 
believe we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this 
situation.
  I am committed to working with all of my colleagues to pass a forest 
health bill this year. I believe this bipartisan compromise can be 
enacted into law and I am hopeful that the administration will be 
helpful in convincing the House to join us in making that happen.
  As we see today in California, the risks of delay are simply too 
high.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. I commend 
the managers and the bipartisan group who worked on this bill. It is 
vitally needed, and I rise in strong support of it.
  Mr. President, this long overdue piece of legislation will finally 
bring some common sense to forest management in our Nation.
  Currently, conditions in our Nation's forests are terrible. The poor 
state of our forests is due in large part to a lack of active forest 
management efforts to reduce undergrowth and remove dead and dying 
trees to restore forest health. According to the Society of American 
Foresters, ``As a result of 80 years of fuels accumulation and several 
years of drought, the potential for catastrophic wildfire is at an all 
time high in many regions of the United States.''
  An estimated 190 million acres of Federal forests and rangelands in 
the United States, an area twice the size of California, face a high 
risk of catastrophic wildfire. Decades of an accumulation of dense 
undergrowth and brush, along with drought, insect infestation and 
disease, and the presence of invasive exotic species have made our 
forests vulnerable to these environmentally destructive wildfires.
  According to Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Venman, last year was the 
second worst fire season in modern history with over 7.2 million acres 
burned--an area larger than Maryland and Rhode Island combined. The 
States of Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon registered their largest and 
most destructive wildfires ever. It was also the most expensive fire 
season ever costing Federal taxpayers $1.6 billion. When the season 
ended, 23 firefighters were dead, tens of thousands of people fled 
their homes and more than 2,000 buildings were destroyed. This 
devastation was only eclipsed by the 2000 fire season where more than 8 
million acres of forests burned at a Federal cost of $1.4 billion.
  This year, as of the first week in October, we have had a total of 
67,500 fires that have burned over 3.2 million acres at a cost of over 
$550 million. Worse than that, over 20 wildland firefighters have lost 
their lives this year.
  The time for addressing the problem of our unhealthy forests is long 
overdue. Current efforts to reduce excessive fuel loads, underbrush, 
and dead and dying trees are taking for too long due to senseless 
bureaucratic delay. According to the U.S. Forest Service, it can take 
up to 8 years to plan and execute relatively routine fuels reduction 
projects--8 years. Does anyone here believe that this is responsible 
forest management?
  In May of this year, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) released 
the results of a survey that confirms that the large numbers of appeals 
filed by environmental interest groups are delaying efforts to restore 
the health of our Nation's forests through the thinning of overgrown 
and diseased areas. These delays increase the threat of severe forest 
fires which threaten human life, old growth trees, habitat for 
endangered species and private property. These endless and meritless 
appeals result in nothing but inaction and increased bureaucratic 
costs.
  If we do not address this problem now, we risk losing many of 
America's most pristine forests to wildfire devastation. Congress needs 
to pass legislation to streamline and expedite these forest thinning 
and fuels reduction efforts.
  I believe the H.R. 1904 will accomplish this goal. The Senate 
compromise to H.R. 1904 is designed to cut through

[[Page 26170]]

unnecessary red tape and speed up the review and approval process for 
forest health restoration projects, while at the same time preserving 
the appropriate environmental review process.
  Specifically this bill establishes procedures to expedite forest and 
rangeland restoration projects focusing on lands near communities in 
the wildland urban interface; that are in condition class 3 (high fire 
risk) areas located in proximity to a municipal watershed or water 
supply system; that provide important habitat for endangered species 
where the risk of catastrophic wildfire threatens these species; and 
where insect infestation, disease and old age are destroying forests 
and increasing the chance of wildfire.
  The Senate compromise also contains language for the protection of 
old growth or large trees in the implementation of hazardous fuels 
reduction projects. This legislation requires authorized hazardous 
fuels reduction projects to be consistent with the applicable forest 
and resource management plans, along with other administrative policies 
or decisions applicable to Federal land. The amount of acreage eligible 
for authorized fuels reduction projects under this legislation is 
limited to 20 million acres.
  In addition to allowing for an environmental assessment and expedited 
administrative appeals, this legislation does allow for judicial 
review. As a part of this review, this bill requires lawsuits to be 
filed in the district court where the project is located. It limits 
temporary injunctions to 60-days, subject to renewal. Finally, this 
legislation directs the courts to balance the short- and long-term 
environmental effects of undertaking a project versus those of not 
undertaking a project.
  The problem of excessive forest fuels build is not just a Western 
problem. It is a National problem. The expedited reduction of forest 
fuels and the thinning of underbrush would greatly improve the health 
of Missouri's forests. There has been a significant increase in the 
buildup of these fuels in National and State Forest land in the State 
of Missouri as a result of recent tornadoes, several years of drought, 
oak decline and oak mortality.
  Oak mortality is the most pressing problem in Missouri's forests. As 
of January 2003, oak mortality due to drought, insects, and fungi have 
affected 41 percent of the Mark Twain National Forest's 1.5 million 
acres, and caused an estimated loss of more than 30 million dollars' 
worth of red oak timber. Dead limbs and debris in this area also reduce 
food for wildlife, and contribute to fuels buildups, which increases 
the dangers of wildfires. In turn, these wildfires endanger wildlife 
habitat areas, healthy watersheds and neighboring private lands.
  Missouri also has huge volume of dying forest land throughout 
southern Missouri as a result of infestation by an insect known as the 
red oak stem bore.
  According to Dr. Gene Garrett of the University of Missouri School of 
Natural Resources, who has studied and taught forestry for over 33 
years, ``Roughly 33 percent of the 23 million acres of the interior 
highlands in the scenic Missouri Ozarks are infested by this red oak 
stem bore. Dr. Garrett goes on to say that ``this insect and 
associative disease complex is by far the greatest threat to the oak 
component of the interior highlands.'' This has resulted in over $1.1 
billion worth of timber at risk and an increased threat of wildfire in 
this area.
  H.R. 1904 will address most of the forest health issues in Missouri 
and prioritize them for expedited cleanup. Section 102(a)(4) of this 
health forest legislation will specifically address this problem of red 
oak stem bore and oak decline.
  The first of Missouri's two fire seasons is now underway. The most 
recent high wildfire season in Missouri occurred in 2000 when over 
8,700 acres of wooded lands burned--more than 3,000 acres over the 10-
year average. By expediting the cleanup or thinning of our forests, 
Missouri and the rest of the Nation can expect to see the risk of these 
catastrophic wildfires reduced.
  In closing, I believe that H.R. 1904 represents a commonsense 
approach to forest management based on sound science. I have talked 
with forest scientists all over the country, including several from my 
own State, and they believe that this legislation takes the right 
approach to restoring the health of our Nation's forests. These are 
actual forest scientists who know what they are talking about--not big 
city newspaper editorial writers.
  If we do not act on this problem right now, vast acres of old growth 
trees and wildlife habitat will remain at a high risk of catastrophic 
wildfire. Once these areas are destroyed by fire, there will be very 
little, if anything, that we can do to restore them to health. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1904, the Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act of 2003. It is time to put some common sense 
back into forest management.
  It is long past time that we get this done. I really thank the 
bipartisan group that came together for this extremely important and 
most needed forest health measure. Again, I urge my colleagues to 
support it and move it expeditiously.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, forestry can often make Middle East 
politics seem noncontroversial. I think it is fair to say that today it 
would be hard to find a topic that is more emotionally flammable than 
the one that has come to the Senate today.
  I begin by saying that right now, my home State--and I see my good 
friend, Senator Smith, on the Senate floor as well--is sending 
resources to California to help deal with the horrendous fires. But I 
think it ought to be noted, as we begin this discussion, that just over 
a year ago the State of California was sending resources to my home 
State--the State that Senator Smith and I are proud to represent. Just 
over a year ago, we were on the Senate floor speaking about the huge 
forest fires that raged in our State. At that time, over 500,000 acres 
were burning. We had a dozen fires raging at any given time. Seventeen 
thousand people in one of our valleys alone were on a 24-hour 
evacuation notice, and 2,500 structures were threatened.
  So I think we ought to note, as we begin this discussion, that the 
legislation before us today is critical, not because of last year's 
tragedies, or even the tragedies that we are seeing in California 
today; this legislation is critical to address the tragedies and 
destruction that, as sure as the night follows the day, will be in the 
news tomorrow if the Senate doesn't start taking reasonable steps to 
address forest health policy. It seems to me that is the approach 
before the Senate today.
  Mr. President, this is the bill that is going to go to the President 
of the United States. For many months now, a group of us--and Chairman 
Cochran has referenced this--have been involved in the negotiations. 
They are difficult negotiations because passions do run so strong on 
this issue. But I want to make it clear, for myself and the others who 
have signed the letter, that we cannot accept an unraveling of this 
compromise; that this is the bill that is going to go to the 
President's desk, and we are very hopeful the President will sign that 
legislation into law.
  It is absolutely critical that the Senate come together on a 
reasonable plan that is going to help our forests become healthy again 
and secure the well-being of the families who call these beautiful 
areas their home.
  I believe this bill provides an opportunity to remove fire-prone 
materials from the forests, boost rural economies, and create family-
wage jobs, while at the same time protecting the extraordinary 
treasures--the land and the environment of the West and our Nation--for 
future generations.
  Let me outline for a few minutes why I think this is the approach 
that needs to be signed into law. First, this is the only bill--unlike 
the one in the other body--that authorizes a significant increase in 
funding for the hazardous fuels reduction projects that need to be 
undertaken. The other body doesn't authorize a single dollar--not one--
for the projects that need to be pursued. As a result, there is 
tremendous concern across the country that if you

[[Page 26171]]

were to go the route of the other body, the only people that would 
really be able to afford to get into the thinning work would be 
commercial logging companies. That would be a huge mistake. Under the 
bipartisan compromise that has been crafted, that is not going to 
happen.
  Second, the other body doesn't make an effort to target the dollars 
in a flexible way so that the work gets done in the communities that 
most need it in our Nation. The Senate compromise goes to bat for our 
rural communities by directing that 50 percent of the funding be spent 
inside the wildland/urban interface where populations are great, but at 
the same time we can deal with these infernos, these enormous fires 
that so often start way out in the country and then come into the more 
urbanized areas.
  The other body is silent on this issue. The Senate, after many hours 
of negotiation--my friend from Idaho and I have literally been talking 
about this issue for almost 5 years now--strikes a reasonable balance 
with respect to targeting money for the wildland/urban interface while 
recognizing that so many of these huge fires start in sparsely 
populated areas out in the country.
  Third, this bill is the only one that makes a historic step forward 
to protect our old growth, our treasures of the West about which our 
citizens feel so strongly. The other body has no language at all to 
protect old growth or the large trees and doesn't limit how projects 
can be executed.
  What the Senate has said is, yes, there are more than 100 definitions 
of what constitutes ``old growth.'' We recognize that, but throughout 
the bill we reference the priority to focus on the trees that are not 
old growth--the smaller trees, the brush--that contribute to this 
problem. And then, to ensure that there is actually an incentive to 
protect our old growth, we offer what I think is a creative approach, 
the kind of approach Senator Craig and I offered when we broke the 
gridlock on the county payments bill years ago so our communities could 
get revenue for schools and roads. Here, to make sure that the old 
growth work is a top priority, that protecting old growth is not an 
afterthought, we say that with respect to the old forest plans, the 
Forest Service would have to go back and revise the old forest plans to 
make sure there is actual old growth protection that is going to go 
forward before the thinning gets put in place.
  We have an actual incentive, beyond the statutory language, which is 
a historic first and would protect old growth. We have a policy that 
would actually create incentives to prioritize old growth protection 
because it has to be done first under the old forest plans for thinning 
work to go forward.
  Next, the bipartisan compromise effort keeps the current standard for 
judicial review of projects and ensures that what we have as a result 
of the changes in the judicial area, in the appeals area, sends a 
message across this country that citizens have a right of access with 
respect to their concerns about timber sales, but they don't have a 
constitutional right to a 5-year delay on every single timber sale.
  The bipartisan group spent a great deal of time on this effort. In my 
view, the legislation that comes out of the other body would actually 
change the outcomes of these lawsuits that would rob the judiciary of 
the independent ability to weigh the evidence put before them. In the 
bipartisan compromise that was crafted, we strike a reasonable balance. 
Citizens are going to have a right that is undiluted with respect to 
access to the judicial system, but we will not set up a litigation 
derby that goes on for years and years and keeps the essential work 
from going forward.
  Next, the Senate legislation ensures that the public will always be 
in the debate, will always be in the process and at the table. The 
Senate compromise allows the public to actually propose alternatives 
under the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill in the other body 
basically drives the public out of the process by predetermining these 
National Environmental Policy Act alternatives.
  The Senate compromise preserves all current opportunities for public 
input and appeal while streamlining the process and eliminating some of 
the most frustrating and exasperating aspects of bureaucracy. But it is 
clear, and I want to make this point early in the debate, that not one 
current opportunity--not one--for public comment would be lost under 
this compromise.
  The compromise requires the Forest Service to rewrite their appeals 
process using a process that has been used by the Bureau of Land 
Management since 1984, and the sponsors of this compromise believe this 
will change a process that is now confrontational to one that is vastly 
more collaborative.
  Finally, much of the argument made against this compromise is very 
similar to the arguments that were made in 1999 when I and Senator 
Craig and others got together and put before the Senate the Secure 
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. They said that was 
going to restrict the opportunities for citizens to be heard. There 
were some, when I offered that legislation, who said I was proposing a 
clear cut for kids program, and we had pickets before our office for 
over a year. We have some of that same sort of activity going on right 
now.
  That did not happen in 1999 when the Senate moved forward with its 
first substantive forestry bill in more than a decade, and it is not 
going to happen again under this legislation if this bill actually 
becomes law.
  I say to my colleagues that this legislation is needed. Some have 
asked, Why can't the issue of healthy forests simply be addressed by 
investing in the fire plan? They have said the national Governors made 
some recommendations, so why don't we just go ahead with those 
recommendations?
  Their suggestions were very useful, but the Governors even 
acknowledge that simply spending more money, the heart of their 
proposal, was not the entire answer. How that money is spent is as 
important as simply offering more dollars.
  I have made it clear that I think additional funds are critically 
important. That is why the Senate bill authorizes an 80-percent 
increase in funding for these thinning projects, but we also need to 
make some changes in terms of the endless paperwork and redtape to 
actually get the real work on the ground that is so important in 
communities across the West.
  A number of Senators have said this is as far as they can go in terms 
of forestry policy. I know colleagues in the Senate and certainly in 
the other body feel strongly about it. But I reemphasize, as the 
Senator who organized that letter, that if there is an effort to 
unravel the compromise that will be voted on in the Senate, that will, 
in my view, kill the effort to pass this critically important 
legislation. It was an urgent priority before the tragic events in 
California. I think it is urgent not just because the Senate needs to 
respond in a heartfelt way to the tragedies in California, but if this 
legislation is not passed, I think we will see what happened in Oregon 
a little over a year ago and what has happened in California in the 
last week repeated again and again. I am not willing to see these 
communities and the people who live in them turned into residents of 
sacrifice zones. It is urgent this legislation be passed.
  I close by expressing my thanks to those who have been part of this 
5-year odyssey and, first, to Senator Craig. I served as chairman of 
the subcommittee when he was a ranking minority member. It is vice 
versa now. Suffice it to say there are a lot of people in the country 
who would say: What in the world can Larry Craig and Ron Wyden find 
common ground on? And we have said again and again in this area that if 
people are willing to look at what is practical, what is a priority in 
terms of the thinning work that needs to be done and in protecting our 
old growth treasures, we can do it. That was accomplished in the county 
payments bill.
  It can be accomplished now. Before I wrap up my remarks, I will read 
into the Record part of a statement today that the administration has 
issued. It states that the administration strongly supports Senate 
passage of H.R. 1904, the bipartisan managers' amendment;

[[Page 26172]]

it opposes any further amendment to assure quick resolution with the 
House.
  I ask unanimous consent that statement be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Statement of Administration Policy

       The Administration commends the Senate Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry Committee for reporting H.R. 1904, 
     which would provide authorities and authorizations for 
     appropriations that in large part are consistent with the 
     President's Healthy Forests Initiative. The Administration 
     strongly supports Senate passage of H.R. 1904 and the 
     bipartisan manager's amendment (SA 1828), but opposes any 
     further amendment, to assure quick resolution with the House. 
     The Healthy Forests Restoration Act will provide the 
     Administration with the needed flexibility to manage public 
     lands wisely, and implement the kind of active forest 
     management that is good for both the environment and our 
     economy. This bill would further equip Federal land managers 
     with the additional tools they need to restore forest health, 
     safeguard habitat and watersheds, combat disease and insects, 
     and protect lives and communities. The Administration is 
     concerned that the authorization level in the Senate bill is 
     well above recently enacted funding levels and above the 
     increased funding levels the Administration requested and 
     continues to support for FY 2004.
       The Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes procedures 
     to expeditiously implement hazardous fuels reduction projects 
     on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands: (1) 
     near communities in the wildland urban interface; (2) on high 
     risk lands in the proximity of municipal water sources; (3) 
     on high risk lands that encompass habitat for threatened and 
     endangered species where federal wildlife officials have 
     identified catastrophic wildfire as a threat to the viability 
     of the species; and (4) on high risk landscapes particularly 
     susceptible to disease or insect infestation. Additionally, 
     the bill would: (1) facilitate the utilization of wood, 
     brush, residue, and other biomass removed in conjunction with 
     forest health projects in the production of biomass energy; 
     (2) authorize federal programs to support community-based 
     watershed forestry partnerships that address critical forest 
     stewardship, watershed protection, and restoration needs at 
     the state and local level (3) direct additional research 
     focused on the early detection and containment of insect and 
     disease infestations; and (4) establish a voluntary private 
     forestland easement program focused on recovering forest 
     ecosystem types in decline.

  Mr. WYDEN. I am pleased to see what is the first formal statement of 
the administration saying that the Senate bill is the way to go. It is 
an acknowledgment of the fact that a number of us said we cannot have 
this compromise unravel, and it is a constructive statement from the 
administration today. I commend them for it.
  In addition to Senator Craig, who has worked with me on this for 
literally 5 years, Senator Smith and I cannot go anywhere in our home 
State without people asking, when is the Senate going to respond to 
this? I thank him for his efforts, as well as those of Senator Crapo, 
who is in the Chamber. I see Senator Bingaman, who has been so helpful 
to me as I have had to wrestle with these issues that come up in my 
home State day after day.
  We have not agreed on every single bit of this debate for 5 years, 
but Senator Bingaman has performed an extraordinarily important 
service. He has some ideas on a matter that has been documented in our 
hearings with respect to how these funds get moved around, almost 
manipulated, from one account to another when there is underfunding of 
the thinning work that needs to be done. I thank him for all of his 
help over the last 5 years. We have spent many hours on this.
  With the statement that I have just put into the Record that the 
administration wants this legislation and is opposed to efforts to 
alter it, I think we are in a position to show the country the Senate 
can find common ground on an issue that is about as contentious as any 
imaginable. I look forward to seeing the amendments of our colleagues 
and getting this critically important legislation passed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, it is an honor for me to participate in 
this debate, not only because of the importance of this legislation, 
which I will talk about in a minute, but because of the process which 
has brought us here and what the public is now observing.
  As for the last little while, they have observed leaders on both 
sides of the aisle talk in support of a highly contentious issue that 
we have been trying to bring to resolution in this country for years. 
Today, we have before the Senate a bipartisan solution, one that is the 
result of literally years of effort by a number of Senators who I will 
mention, and the result of a collaborative effort to bring together the 
Senators from various perspectives and negotiate an outcome that would 
have the common ground to build positive solutions for the future and 
much more benefit to all sides than the conflict which has been so much 
a part of this issue over the last few years.
  I hope as this debate proceeds that the public will notice what is 
happening in the Senate today, as we see strong leadership from both 
sides of the aisle stepping forward, reaching a compromise that 
probably none of us would have crafted ourselves but which moves the 
issue much more further forward than anything we have seen in the past.
  I will speak for a minute about how this came about. We have already 
heard several comments today about those who have worked on this from 
the past. It just so happens that Idaho--Senator Craig was on the floor 
and will be back in a moment--has two Senators who happen, just by 
circumstance, to be the chairmen of the two forestry committees in the 
Senate. Senator Craig chairs the forestry subcommittee of the Energy 
Committee. Senator Wyden from Oregon, who just spoke, is his ranking 
member. I chair the forestry subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee. 
My ranking member is Blanche Lambert Lincoln, who is a cosponsor of the 
base legislation, which was initially put forward in the Agriculture 
Committee and which became the vehicle around which these negotiations 
centered.
  Senator Craig, Senator Wyden, Senator Smith from Oregon, myself, 
Blanche Lambert Lincoln, Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Energy 
Committee, Senator Cochran, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, 
both of the Senators from Arizona, Mr. Kyl and Mr. McCain, along with 
Senator Feinstein from California, Senator Baucus from Montana, and 
other Senators came together and said: We must find a way to get past 
the intense battles that always bring this legislation down and find a 
way to build a path forward, one that protects the environment, 
protects the natural resource-based economy, protects our urban and 
rural communities, and protects the world from the environmental 
impacts of the devastation of these forest fires. It is that which we 
have before us today.
  I thank my chairman, Senator Cochran in particular, for the strong 
leadership he has provided; and Senator Domenici and Senator Craig from 
the Energy Committee who have provided such strong and consistent 
leadership on this issue.
  Why is it that I say this is such an important and critical issue to 
America? Everybody in America who is looking at the news right now is 
watching what is happening in California. In California, fires are 
raging. The death toll is mounting. The devastation to the environment 
is obvious. What is happening there now is an example of what has been 
happening across America for years, as we have fallen into an inability 
to implement forest management decisions in America on our public 
lands. I do not have the exact statistic in front of me, but I believe 
the 10-year average is that we have seen something in the neighborhood 
of 4 million acres of forest ground burn a year. For the last 4 years 
the numbers were approximately 3.3 million acres this year, 7 million 
acres last year, 3.3 or 3.7 million acres the year before, and then 
another 7-plus million acres the year before that.
  These acres burn in devastating ways, destroying wildlife and 
habitat, destroying our forests, and causing other significant damage 
to rural and urban communities, to natural resource-based economies in 
States such as Idaho, where we rely on a timber economy.

[[Page 26173]]

  Another aspect that is not often noticed is it is delivering to the 
atmosphere immense amounts of carbon dioxide. In fact, I am looking for 
some of the statistics on this, but the amount of gas that is put into 
the atmosphere, in terms of the kinds of debates we are having over 
greenhouse gases and global warming, is phenomenal. To give one 
example, the Hayman fire in Colorado recently was analyzed and it was 
determined that in 1 day of that fire's burning, it put enough 
CO2 in the atmosphere to equal the amount of CO2 that all of 
the cars in the United States put into the atmosphere on that day.
  If we multiply that times the number of fires we have been having 
over the years, the load of CO2 or greenhouse gases into the 
environment that is caused by the forest fires becomes a monumentally 
large issue in relationship to our efforts to control global warming.
  Forest fires go from the broad issues of global warming to the narrow 
issues of a small community such as the community in Idaho that I 
recently visited, Elk City, which I at that time said was ground zero 
for this debate, a little community that is literally at the end of the 
road, in the middle of a tremendously beautiful forest in which the 
fuel load has been building year after year and now has a higher fuel 
load by several factors than the fuel load in Yellowstone when the 
Yellowstone fire started a few years ago.
  This community has only one road in and one road out. They have been 
crying for support from the Federal system, to have some kind of 
protection of their community in terms of just what the threat is to 
loss of life, let alone the threat of the loss to their economy that 
would be caused by a forest fire. This little city, Elk City, ID, is as 
much involved and interested in this issue as are those who are 
battling over global warming issues. It is for that reason this 
legislation is so critical to our Nation.
  I want to go over a little bit about the compromise, because the 
compromise we have reached today is a very broad-based critical 
compromise. It brings together a number of important pieces of the 
debate that have been counterpoints in conflict in the past and have 
now come together as part of a commonsense solution.
  First, resources are provided in this bill for forest management at a 
significant level and in a significant way. One of the things we know 
is that prevention is critical. Madam President, $760 million in annual 
funding for fuels reduction on Federal lands has been provided in this 
legislation and that can be used also in related grants for State and 
private forestry programs. Fifty percent of these resources are 
required to be used in the wildland/urban interface, one of the 
critical areas we are now watching as the fires burn in California.
  This critical wildland/urban interface is defined by local 
communities. We implement and follow the recommendations of the Western 
Governors Association as they talk about the collaborative process that 
needs to be put into place so citizen involvement can be enhanced in 
defining and implementing the protection plans for protecting our 
forests and the related communities, both rural and urban.
  Second, this legislation for the first time in legislation proposes 
specific protection for old growth in the forests. Where there are old-
growth stands in the forest, this legislation provides those who are 
implementing fuel reduction programs must protect those old-growth 
stands to the maximum extent they can. Conversely, it also provides 
that hazardous fuel reduction projects are intended to focus on small-
diameter trees, thinning, and strategic fuel breaks, and should retain 
the large trees as appropriate for resilient stands. The point is the 
focus on small-diameter timber in these fuel reduction programs is 
going to provide opportunities for some of the communities that have 
been hit so hard by the reduction of logging and timber activities to 
find alternative sources for their economy to grow.
  In Cascade, ID, we have a company that is trying to get started now, 
which is providing unique new ways of utilizing small-diameter timber 
to help in restoring and protecting our environment after fires have 
gone through, using the very small-diameter timber we are talking about 
in these forest fire prevention plans.
  I should make clear, the focus on small-diameter timber is not to 
turn our back on the need to reform and solve the problems with regard 
to timber activity and logging activity. We can and should have a 
strong, healthy, natural-resource-based environment as well as strong, 
healthy forests. We can achieve those objectives. This bill is going to 
help us implement a number of the important provisions that will 
achieve those objectives.
  Next, as the Senator from Oregon has already indicated, it protects 
public involvement. One of the things it does is it limits the number 
of alternatives the Forest Service must consider. Our minority leader, 
Senator Daschle, already indicated the expense and the time delay that 
is caused by the drive, under our current system, to force endless 
analysis but delaying getting to the implementation part of forest 
management decisions. This bill requires that in addition to the 
proposed fuel reduction program that is adopted by the Forest Service, 
the Forest Service must also consider the ``no action'' alternative, 
and at least one other alternative, if it becomes appropriate under the 
collaborative process that is moving forward, allowing for citizens to 
propose alternatives and have the Forest Service consider those 
alternatives as the process moves forward, but providing some relief so 
the Forest Service can get on with the decisionmaking.
  In addition, what I have called litigation paralysis is addressed. 
One of the problems we face in forest management decisions today, 
possibly the biggest one, is that under our current system, no matter 
how much evaluation and study is put in, no matter how many 
alternatives are considered, at the end of the day the proposal that is 
adopted is litigated and we end up in paralysis through continuous 
litigation that simply stops the process from moving forward.
  Let me give an example. A couple of years ago I went to a forest in 
Idaho. I was taken there by the Forest Service employees who had 
proposed a thinning project to address an insect infestation problem. 
They explained to me why this forest, both in terms of forest fire and 
in terms of its health and safety against insect infestation, needed to 
have this thinning project proceed.
  I was impressed with what they taught me. I went away thinking this 
forest is going to have some improvement. I went back to the same 
forest several years later. No thinning activity had taken place. I was 
there with the same people. I asked them what had happened. They 
advised me they had their decision challenged in court and, although 
they had ultimately prevailed in the litigation, it was now 2 years 
later and it was too late. The insect infestation had gone too far; 
there was no point in doing the thinning project. The forest for that 
purpose had been lost. It is now a fire hazard, not to mention the fact 
the health of the forest itself has been sacrificed.
  The Forest Service won the litigation, but the delay of the 
litigation stopped the ability to implement the management decision. 
That is just one example of the kind of thing we are talking about.
  By the way, in that case I said, What was the issue? They explained 
to me the issue that was litigated.
  I said, Why didn't you just concede that. It was not that big of an 
issue.
  They said, The way we won the litigation is to basically concede that 
point and then ask permission from the court to go on because it really 
wasn't central to our efforts.
  The response they gave me was: This issue was never raised as we were 
putting together the alternatives, going through the NEPA project. We 
didn't know we were going to get challenged on this or we could have 
accommodated it as we were moving along.
  My point is that an entity, a group that wanted to stop this thinning 
project, sat back and let the entire process proceed without ever 
raising their concerns in the citizen involvement process. They waited 
until that

[[Page 26174]]

entire process had come to a conclusion and then filed a lawsuit. The 
first time the Forest Service found out about this issue was then.
  These kinds of issues are addressed in this bill. For example, we are 
requiring the Forest Service to develop a new appeals process that is 
similar to the predecisional appeals process the Department of Interior 
now uses. This is important, because it gives those who are concerned 
about good decisionmaking at the Forest Service, and who are already 
involved in the public process, the ability to challenge that through 
an appeal before the final decision is made, a predecisional appeal 
process. Then if they still do not like the outcome, nothing stops them 
from filing a lawsuit at the end of the process. We are expanding and 
enhancing the ability of involvement here by the public.
  However, we are saying to individuals and groups who want to 
challenge these decisions you must get involved at the beginning. Those 
who want to challenge these decisions must show they have been involved 
in the process and participated in the public involvement process from 
the beginning. They also must show they have exhausted their 
administrative efforts, their administrative remedies. If they have a 
remedy with the Forest Service, they should go to the Forest Service 
through its appeals process, and exhaust that process first before 
simply filing a lawsuit and moving the whole process into litigation 
paralysis. With the enhanced citizen involvement we have provided, once 
a decision gets made, if there are those who are still unhappy, they 
have a right to file a lawsuit under this legislation.
  What the courts must do at that point is expeditiously move the 
litigation. In the legislation the courts are encouraged to expedite 
these cases.
  Second, this legislation limits the injunction that the court can 
issue to 60 days and allows continuous unlimited 60-day renewals but 
requires those who would come into court to simply stop anything from 
happening to show the court at 60-day intervals updated information 
that the grounds for stopping the action still exist and they haven't 
been resolved in some way.
  Finally, it requires the court to balance the harms of what would 
happen if we don't do the thinning project or the proposed fuel 
reduction project, future harms that could come as a result of that 
against the current harm of what the injunction is proposed to stop. It 
simply requires a court to balance those harms as they evaluate whether 
to issue an injunction.
  There are those who say the injunction should be issued no matter 
what because once a tree is thinned or cut it can never be put back. 
The response to that is, as true as that is, if you look to the future 
and to the future harms, once the insects take the forest, you can't 
bring it back easily, and those trees are dead, too. Once the forest 
burns, you can't then rebuild a healthy forest that you would have been 
able to do had you implemented these decisions.
  All we are saying in this legislation is that the court must balance 
the harms from inaction against the harms of the proposed action in 
terms of issuing the injunction.
  These are important factors that will help us break the litigation 
paralysis but still provide significant public input and significant 
public support and the rights of the public to challenge the decisions 
made by the Forest Service.
  There are a number of other important parts of this legislation. 
There are critics of this legislation, and I assume that at some point 
throughout the debate today and tomorrow--as long as it goes--there 
will be an opportunity and a need to respond to some of the charges 
about this legislation. I will not go into all of that now.
  I will simply conclude by saying again what we have before us today 
is a bill that is probably different than any one of the Senators who 
came together from both sides of the aisle would have drafted if they 
had drafted it on their own. But it represents a bill that goes to 
every issue that has been the cause for stalling which has stopped us 
from being able to get the legislation through, and it has resulted in 
compromising to move us forward in every one of those areas. We provide 
the resources. We provide protection for old growth. We provide 
protection for public and citizen involvement. We assure that the 
process for litigation is streamlined but is still meaningful. And, 
most importantly, we make it so that once our forest managers--those 
who have studied, the scientists who know what our forests need--have 
come up with a plan and have made it through the public process and 
through litigation they will actually have a real meaningful 
opportunity to implement forest management decisions.
  This legislation is critical for Americans. It is unfortunate that we 
have to be debating it while we are watching California burn. But 
nevertheless the pressure from the forest fires over the last few years 
has shown us across America that it is time for us to come together as 
we have on this legislation and take this important step to protect our 
forests, to protect our natural resource base economy, to protect our 
communities, and to protect the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the 
H.R. 1904 title I compromise reached by many of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle. I commend them for their work. The issue we take up 
today is vital. It is important to our ecology and it is important to 
our economy.
  When I first entered public life as an Oregon State Senator in 1992, 
the Pacific Northwest was embroiled in the spotted-owl wars. There was 
a great debate--and there has been ever since--about what to do with 
our public resources and how they ought best be managed.
  In the course of this debate, I have through my public office tried 
to weigh in on the side of those who elected me to public trust. I come 
from a part of my State that is rural. I have as my neighbors farmers 
and foresters. I have seen in their eyes the desperation that comes 
from watching the slow undoing of their industry and in recent times 
the destruction of even their homes. I watch with great sadness as we 
view many of our fellow citizens from California view the ashes of 
their lives as a result of catastrophic fires that surround their 
communities and burn up their homes. Their cries are heart wrenching. I 
expect because they are heard so clearly in this body that we are now 
taking up this legislation that has long been overdue for our country's 
sake. But long before I heard the cries of Californians, I heard the 
cries of Oregonians.
  In the State of Oregon, from the spotted-owl wars we have laid off 
tens of thousands of workers. We have watched their lives be undone in 
rural communities. We have closed our mills, and we have since watched 
our forests burn. Now my State leads this country in both hunger and in 
unemployment, and it has much to do with the forest policy of this 
country.
  Timber is a renewable resource. It is the one natural resource that 
grows back constantly. It is safe to say--indeed even provable to say--
that in the State of Oregon today there is more timber growing than 
when Lewis and Clark went there 200 years ago. That is because for a 
century while we have harvested trees, we have replanted what has been 
harvested. But if you listen to the great newspapers of this country, 
the New York Times and the Washington Post, and you actually believe 
what they purport to represent about my State, you would come away with 
the impression that we are about to cut down the last pine tree in the 
Pacific Northwest. But, again, the truth is much different.
  What we see in California--and so often in the Pacific Northwest, 
Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington--is that these fires, which are 
a normal occurrence in forests, are now on a scale that is truly 
haunting. We are leaving millions of acres no longer as old-growth 
forest but as literally moonscapes.
  What I want my colleagues to understand as we go into this debate is 
that many of the forests which environmental groups have pled that we 
protect are in large part gone or in serious

[[Page 26175]]

jeopardy. They are not gone because of logging. They are not gone 
because of road building. They are not gone because of development. 
They are gone because of bureaucracy, bugs, and burning. Now we find 
that so many of our forests have carbon dioxide in the air and charcoal 
match sticks on the ground.
  Here is a visual which shows a fire this summer around the Bend, OR, 
area. This is a fire the previous summer, the Biscuit Fire in the 
Siskiyou National Forest.
  What we are finding in places such as this fire is trees aren't 
growing back; rather, brush is growing back so that, particularly, new 
trees can't grow. Yet we are not allowed to go in there and manage the 
soil. It is growing so thick that it may be a long time before trees 
ever begin to manifest themselves. The Biscuit fire was the largest in 
Oregon recorded history. It is also a monument to the mistaken notion 
that wrapping redtape around our forests will save them from wildfires. 
Wildfires do not stop at lines drawn on a map. This we see clearly in 
California today.
  Another area is the Rogue, Siskiyou National Forest. So the public 
understands the extent of this devastation, this fire was larger than 
the State of Rhode Island. It was four times the size of the District 
of Columbia. In this forest, 85 percent of the roadless area that was 
designated is gone; 77 percent of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness in the same 
fire is gone; 68 percent of the wild and scenic river corridor is gone; 
over 70 percent of the spotted owl habitat in this enormous area is 
gone. Those birds have been burned up.
  The message from the ground could not be clearer: Catastrophic 
wildfire, not logging, not roadbuilding, not development, is killing 
forests in Oregon. I like the words of Oregon's former Governor, John 
Kitzhaber, who, after seeing the fires, said: If we burn down the 
forests, we are not going to have a resource to argue over.
  He was right. And we are right to pursue this legislation today.
  I say to my colleagues that there may be some doing the bidding of 
environmental organizations that will come to the Senate and will offer 
amendments designed to kill this legislation, so that the health of our 
forests cannot be ensured.
  Many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have shown enormous 
courage. Chief among them is my colleague, Ron Wyden, in coming up with 
a compromise.
  I plead with all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, that they 
hold to this agreement that the Democratic leader has now endorsed. 
This has to happen for our country's sake. It is literally a life-and-
death issue. I plead with those who have amendments to think again 
about it. This legislation truly needs to pass.
  I was struck by a comment on the Web site of the Sierra Club. I 
understand one of the amendments may be a roadless initiative. That may 
be fine to debate in isolation or as part of a separate piece of 
legislation, but if presented to frustrate this agreement, it is truly 
unfortunate. The Sierra Club Web site tells us that roadless forests 
``provide sources of clean water to millions of Americans, essential 
habitat for wildlife, and special places to hike, hunt, camp and 
fish.'' That is true, unless what can be seen in this picture happens 
to the roadless area.
  We have every reason to pass this moderate legislation. Many on the 
Republican side would have crafted something that goes even further 
than this legislation. We would have done something like the House of 
Representatives, which I endorsed. We are now holding to this 
agreement. We will be voting against amendments, even ones we may like, 
that are designed to kill this legislation. I hope everyone will hold 
to the deal. If we hold to the deal here, we will hold to the deal in 
conference, and that will leave America's forests and America's 
foresters the better.
  For the sake of our ecology and the sake of our economy, I urge the 
passage of this bill and thank all of my colleagues, Republican and 
Democrat, who have had a hand in crafting this Senate compromise. They 
have done their work and will leave our Nation better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I will talk about the bill pending and 
share some thoughts and concerns I have about the bill.
  This is not a matter of light substance that is before the Senate. 
This is not a bill that we can take a wink and a nod and let it go 
because everyone agrees this is a unanimous consent bill. It is true 
that it did come out of our committee, the Agriculture Committee, on a 
voice vote. We reached agreements to go ahead and get it to the floor.
  There are a lot of things in the bill I can agree with, that I think 
are good and necessary; there are some other things about which I have 
concerns and a lot of Senators have concerns. This is a bill that is 
open for amendment. There will be a number of amendments offered to 
this bill to try to strengthen it and to answer some concerns people 
have.
  I am somewhat amazed when we come out with legislation and it deals 
with sensitive environmental issues and we are told certain 
environmental groups have concerns and we will hear about the 
environmental issues so that somehow, if you are a member of an 
environmental organization, you are opposed to progress, you are 
opposed to jobs, you are opposed to doing things that might make life 
better for some people in certain areas. It is almost as if 
``environmentalist'' is a bad word. I don't think it is. I think being 
pro-environment and being an environmentalist is a positive attribute.
  I compliment those in our country, many of whom work for nonprofit 
organizations. I have a number of letters from them that I will have 
printed in the Record. They toil endlessly, tirelessly, sometimes for 
no pay, sometimes for little pay, to ensure that future generations of 
Americans have a good, healthy environment, that those who like to hunt 
have areas in which we can hunt, where we have healthy wildlife areas.
  I am proud of the fact that in our last farm bill we had the biggest 
increase ever in conservation, an 80 percent increase. To me, this is 
not only pro-environment; it is pro-economy; it is pro-jobs; it is pro-
growth but growth in a way that is sustainable, not just for our time 
and our place but for future generations.
  That is why the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 is not 
something that can be lightly passed through. We have to look at it and 
talk about it. I compliment those who have worked hard to reach 
agreements and tried to reach compromises on this legislation. That is 
all well and good. I compliment Members on both sides of the aisle. 
They have worked very hard to get to a point where we have a bill that 
has broad support. I don't deny the bill has broad support. That does 
not mean those who have some concerns about certain aspects of the bill 
could be stopped from talking about it and offering amendments. That is 
what the legislative process is all about.
  We will proceed in that regard deliberately, not in a way to stop 
anything. This is not a method of slowing down the bill or taking an 
undue amount of time, but it is ensuring that we do look at the bill 
carefully; that the public is generally aware of what is in the bill; 
that those who perhaps do not spend a lot of time looking at these 
things--and I am the first to admit this is not an area of my 
expertise, but as the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, 
charged with the responsibility of legislation that impinges upon our 
national forests that comes under our jurisdiction, I make sure I have 
good staff who understand the impact of forest legislation. And I have 
taken the time to study it myself to the extent I have had the time to 
do so.
  I do not pretend to know all the ins and outs of forest legislation 
as much as my friend from Oregon, for example, who has spent his adult 
life working on this, or the Senator from Idaho and others who I know 
have put a great deal of time in this. But that does not lessen my 
concern about certain aspects of the bill and its impact on our

[[Page 26176]]

environment. So we will have a discussion and we will have amendments.
  Preventing damage and injury to communities is of paramount concern 
to all of us, especially now with the tragic wildfires in California 
that show clearly the dangers these communities face. Of course, our 
hearts and our thoughts go out to all those families in those 
communities that are affected by these wildfires.
  Now, again I point out that this bill passed by a voice vote to allow 
us more time in order to reach a consensus on this agreement, and that 
is the substitute amendment offered by Chairman Cochran. The vote out 
of the committee was not--and I wish to state this very clearly--any 
kind of unanimous endorsement of the bill as a whole. It was merely our 
agreement to move the process forward.
  The legislation before us purports to focus the Federal Government's 
efforts to reduce the dangers of wildfire and improve forest health. 
Now, of course, all of us want to achieve this goal so that our 
communities out west can be better protected from catastrophic 
wildfires, so that forest areas around the country can better cope with 
the onset of disease and insect infestation, and so that we can improve 
the overall health of our national forests and public lands.
  I am heartened that several Senators from both sides of the aisle 
have endorsed a legislative compromise to title I of the bill. This, of 
course, is the title that has drawn the most focus because it covers 
hazardous fuel reductions on Federal lands, and, as such, it is also 
the most controversial portion of the legislation. I believe it is a 
step in the right direction. I believe it comes up a little short, and 
that is why we will have some amendments in that area.
  Again, I will say that much of the bill is worthy of support. In 
addition to title I, there are seven other titles, ranging from 
watershed forestry assistance to rural community forest enterprise 
programs, with others, and again the bulk of these provisions are non--
I will not say not debatable, but they raise no really contentious 
issues. But I would like to take this time to talk a little more about 
title I.
  Simply put, I still continue to have some serious concerns about this 
section. For one, the bill lacks sufficient targeting to conduct 
hazardous fuel work in the areas that need it the most, which likely 
might waste limited Government dollars. The Forest Service's own 
research has concluded that the areas immediately surrounding homes and 
structures are where the fuel cleanup should be done, as it is the most 
effective and cost-efficient method for reducing fire risk.
  The language in the bill requires that only 50 percent of the 
hazardous fuel dollars be spent in what is known as the wildland/urban 
interface. Again, because of the bill's loose definition of the 
interface or of the community protection zone, land miles away from 
homes and other structures could qualify. Ensuring that a higher 
percentage of this work would be done in the areas at risk to human 
life and property would vastly enhance our community protection 
efforts.
  Again, there is no definition of the size of a community. So one has 
to ask: Just what kind of communities are we talking about? Well, I 
happen to come from a town of 150 people. I live there. To me, that is 
a community. Two or three houses out someplace, to me, is not.
  As I was saying to my friend from Oregon earlier, if someone wants to 
build a house out in an area that is on the ocean, that is subject to 
hurricanes and tidal waves and weather such as that, they take their 
own risk. If they want to do that, they are at risk. If they want to go 
where the floods happen and a hurricane comes up and wipes a house 
away, well, it is not primarily the Federal Government's 
responsibility, it is not primarily the taxpayers' responsibility to go 
out and build seawalls to protect that house. If someone wants to build 
a house in an area where there are mud slides all the time, it is not 
our responsibility to come in and build up structures to protect that 
house from a mud slide. If they want to build it on the side of a 
cliff, God love them. If they can get the insurance for it, fine, but 
it should not be the taxpayers' responsibility.
  So if someone wants to build a house out in a wilderness area, fine, 
I have no problem with that. They can do that. But I do not know that 
we then have the responsibility as taxpayers to come in and say we are 
going to spend millions of dollars to protect your house from a 
wildfire. Now, where that cutoff is, I do not know. I am not here to 
say the cutoff is 150 people or 200, but there has to be some better 
definition of structure for communities.
  The way the bill is right now, we could spend a lot of money going 
out and cleaning out the brush. And, by the way, I will have something 
to say about that. We are not talking about brush. We are talking about 
trees. It could be miles, tens of hundreds of miles, away from any 
community. So again I question whether that is where we want to put our 
resources.
  I understand there may be an amendment, or there will be an amendment 
offered to raise that 50 percent threshold to something more akin to 70 
or 75 percent, which I think is maybe more where we ought to focus our 
resources, with the very few dollars that we have.
  Secondly, the bill could also be interpreted to allow logging on 
virtually all Federal lands other than wilderness or wilderness study 
areas. This means national monuments and other areas could be logged in 
the name of wildfire prevention. The old growth language contains 
numerous exceptions so large that even ancient trees, trees that were 
around before our country was a country, could be logged.
  The President traveled around the West this summer arguing that we 
need to remove small trees and brush from damaged forests. The 
scientific community agrees with him. But these same scientists tell us 
that cutting bigger and older trees can actually make fire risks worse. 
Logging, after all, is a part of what created the fire conditions that 
this bill is supposed to address.
  Now, you might say: Well, how can that be? If you cut down trees, how 
can you have forest fires? Well, by logging, by taking out certain 
trees, you leave a lot of brush, you leave a lot of stuff on the 
ground; plus, you take out some of the overhang of the ancient trees 
that tend to keep the risk of brushfires down; plus the fact, when you 
do logging, of course, you put in roads. Whenever you have a road, then 
you have people coming in. When you have people coming in, they are 
building campfires and doing things such as that, and that also 
increases the risk of fire.
  Another problem I have with this legislation is the lack of 
protection for roadless areas, those areas of our national forests that 
have wisely been left free from most logging and roadbuilding to ensure 
their protection. In fact, this bill does not restrict roadbuilding at 
all--at all. So you could have permanent roads built anywhere under 
this bill.
  If we did restrict some of this roadbuilding, we would have less fire 
risk, and greater ecosystem benefits. This is because the forests in 
these undeveloped areas have experienced less damage by past management 
practices. They are much less in need of remedial work themselves. And 
they tend to be the furthest away from homes and communities. Moreover, 
scientists tell us that fires are more common and larger in developed 
forests. As I said earlier, roads bring people. People bring accidents 
that start fires.
  While I am a strong believer in access to public lands, it depends on 
what kind of access we are talking about. We have to realize building 
roads to reduce fire risks can be very self-defeating. So I am 
concerned about a lack of protection from the building of roads in 
currently roadless areas.
  Some people say this is a contentious issue. It is an important 
issue. It is one that concerns a number of environmentalists and other 
people around the country, especially those who have tried to protect 
our natural forests that have been left free from logging.
  The bill also limits the reach of what may have been called the heart 
of NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. I know there are some 
who would like to get rid of NEPA completely, just get it off the 
books. There

[[Page 26177]]

are some who would like to see that happen. But NEPA is the heart of 
our environmental policy. Simply put, it requires the Federal 
Government to look at a reasonable range of alternatives to any 
proposed course of action. Yet the language in this bill arbitrarily 
restricts a full and robust environmental analysis to only the agency's 
preferred alternative, a no-action alternative--which is really not an 
alternative because a no-action alternative means you don't do 
anything--and possibly one additional alternative.
  It boils down to the fact that NEPA would be required to look at two 
alternatives, not a reasonable range of alternatives but two. The one 
alternative doesn't even have to be environmentally preferable. It 
could be a proposal for more and heavier logging of big trees. Again, 
this effectively undermines what has been called the heart of NEPA; 
that is, to look at a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed 
agency course of action.
  What this bill basically could leave us with is one alternative. That 
is not what NEPA was intended to do. It calls for a reasonable range of 
alternatives. This effectively undermines a landmark law of immense 
value--a landmark law that has been in existence for about 30 years.
  We will hear from some who say that the NEPA analysis takes time; it 
costs money. What we won't hear is how important this time and money is 
for realizing better outcomes.
  NEPA analysis is designed to ensure that more effective or more 
efficient approaches are considered before an agency reaches a final 
decision on how to proceed with a project. Too little attention has 
been paid to date to the fact that thinning may or may not be effective 
in reducing fire risk. The scientists tell us that it needs to be 
designed carefully and in light of many site-specific factors, if it is 
likely to succeed.
  There is the general perception that if we just go out and clear out 
all that underbrush and take out trees, certain trees, it is going to 
protect us from forest fires. That may or may not be true, depending 
upon the site and the specificity of what they are doing. That is 
exactly why we need good, solid NEPA--National Environmental Policy 
Act--analysis for this work, particularly the larger the projects and 
trees involved and the more sensitive the places. Otherwise, if we 
don't consider alternatives, we will be wasting time and taxpayers' 
money that we can't spare on projects that don't help and may even hurt 
in terms of protecting against wildfire.
  We ought to look more closely at the Forest Service and Bureau of 
Land Management inefficiencies in carrying out their NEPA obligations 
rather than attacking what has been referred to as the Magna Carta of 
environmental law. Routine forest health projects can confidently 
proceed without lengthy environmental review, as long as they stick to 
small trees and brush, developed forests, and no new roads. Once you 
get into that, that is when we need the environmental review.
  I also want to make clear from the beginning that you will hear a lot 
of talk about small trees and brush. It is my understanding that these 
small trees can go up to 12 inches or greater in diameter and that 
these are the trees that loggers want now. These seem to be what is in 
demand. I am not a contractor. I don't build houses and stuff like 
that. But I am to understand that these are the ones most in demand 
right now, trees up to 12 inches and greater in diameter. That is a 
pretty good size tree. That is not brush. But that is what we are 
talking about here, going out and clearing those trees. That is why we 
need a good, healthy NEPA analysis of what we are talking about, what 
the alternatives could be.
  The bill before us also exempts hazardous fuel projects from the 
normal administrative appeals process for what we are told will be 
something similar to the BLM's appeals process. This predecisional 
process, it is argued, will help expedite projects toward their 
completion by making projects more collaborative and less 
confrontational.
  But this new, undefined process threatens to cut out or unfairly 
limit citizen participation in agency decisions. The bill currently 
does not have meaningful standards for the new process to ensure that 
all the talk we hear about preserving public participation is 
fulfilled.
  Let me repeat that. The bill before us does not have meaningful 
standards to ensure that we preserve public participation to the 
fullest. This is not good public policy. These national forests belong 
to us all. They belong to you and they belong to me. They belong to you 
and they belong to our kids and our grandkids and future generations. 
The public ought to be participating and should be heard and should 
have meaningful participation in agency decisions regarding forest 
policy. The bill should spell out the Forest Service appeals process. 
It does not do that. So we don't really know how the public is going to 
be involved. The language may provide too much discretion and too 
little accountability to the public. This needs to be cleared up.
  Let me say a few words about the judicial review provisions of the 
legislation. I do not believe they represent a major response to the 
situation. Among other things, the bill limits preliminary injunctions 
to 60 days. You do have the right to renew, but it limits it to 60 days 
and stipulates that courts balance the short- and long-term effects of 
undertaking and not undertaking a hazardous fuels reduction project.
  The limit on injunctions will make additional work for judges that 
could actually slow them down in reaching a final decision. The 
balance-of-harms language in the bill is unnecessary and intrusive, as 
courts have always done this. Moreover, the presence in this bill of 
that language could be read as implying direction to change the current 
process in some way. This could tilt the scales to one side or another 
regardless of the facts in a particular case.
  Again, let me point out something else we hear about: the flood of 
lawsuits. There is no flood of lawsuits clogging up the courts and 
preventing us from moving ahead in hazardous rules reduction projects. 
The GAO study of hazardous fuel reduction projects found that only 3 
percent of all fuels cases were litigated in 2000 and 2001, covering 
only 100,000 acres.
  I will repeat that. Our GAO--our investigator--found only 3 percent 
of the hazardous fuels cases were litigated in 2000 and 2001, and 
plaintiffs were often not environmental groups but local communities, 
outdoor enthusiasts, and timber interests. Of the 762 cases, only 4 
were delayed by court order during the litigation. Again, out of 762 
cases, only 4 were delayed by court order during the litigation, and 
that is about five-tenths of a percent of all the cases.
  Yet we are told we have to do something here to clean up the plugging 
up of our courts by all these environmentalists, that litigate and come 
to court to stop the agency from proceeding. Nonsense.
  With regard to appeals of agency decisions, the argument that there 
is some sort of crisis holding up these projects simply doesn't hold 
water. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management's own 
database lists about 3,500 fuels reduction projects they conducted 
between 1998 and 2002. About 250 were appealed. Out of 3,500 projects, 
250 were appealed. This is about 7 percent. There is a 7-percent 
appeals rate for all of their fuels reduction projects nationwide. In 
other words, by the agencies' own count, 93 percent of their projects 
went through with no appeal whatsoever. Yet we are told there is some 
sort of ``appeal crisis.'' Well, the facts just don't support that.
  The GAO and similar studies have found the main reasons that projects 
could not proceed were weather related and the diversion of funds to 
fight wildfires. Now we are getting to the crux of it. Roughly a third 
of the delays were due to a shift in money from preventative projects 
to firefighting, which last year cost more than $1 billion. That is why 
we need more resources out there--not to shift the resources we have 
now but to have more resources out there for preventative projects.

[[Page 26178]]

  Again, the main reason the projects could not proceed, according to 
the GAO, is weather related and the diversion of funds for wildfires. 
Other reasons include public resistance, regulatory demands, 
unpredictable funding, and inadequate staffing within the agencies.
  Yet the administration and some of my colleagues would have us 
believe the agencies cannot get the work done due to appeals and 
litigation by environmentalists and environmental organizations. This 
simply is not true.
  Well, are there some problems getting the work done? Yes, there are. 
Does this bill have provisions, including new programs, that are 
worthwhile? Yes, I have already stated that to be the case. There are a 
lot of good aspects to this bill. Is this bill the best way to protect 
our at-risk communities and the environment from wildfire, disease, and 
pest infestation? Well, I don't think so. I think there could be some 
changes made to this bill that would make it even better.
  What is even more troubling about the legislation is that it comes on 
the heels of some very harmful actions recently taken by the 
administration and the Forest Service to weaken environmental 
protections, weaken public participation or public scrutiny of agency 
action--the cumulative effect of which could be to seriously degrade 
the health of our national forests and public lands that the bill's 
proponents seek to protect.
  The Administration, through regulation, has ``categorically excluded 
timber'' sales up to 1,000 acres from NEPA analysis as long as trees 
are cut in the name of fire prevention. So you can go in--a thousand 
acres would be pretty substantial in some areas. You can go in and cut 
down 12-inch or greater diameter trees in the name of fire prevention. 
No NEPA analysis is needed. They are shelving administrative appeals 
for these projects under NEPA; they are curtailing environmental 
analysis for entire forest management plans and ending public appeals 
of the plans. Proponents of this bill are even cutting out endangered 
or threatened species consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, and preparing to 
jettison protections for roadless areas.
  In other words, the administration has taken a largely one-sided view 
of Federal forest management. That is, thin or cut first and minimize 
environmental protections and public input through the regulatory and 
legislative process.
  The upshot is that, combined with this bill as it now stands, we 
could see widespread, heavy logging of mature trees, even in pristine 
roadless areas, without the benefit of public environmental review, 
pursuant to overarching plans that also lack NEPA compliance, bereft of 
interagency consultation or meaningful public appeals, and subject only 
to modified judicial review. In this scenario, there could be a major 
increase in Federal timber sales with little public understanding or 
input and even less agency accountability. I believe this is bad 
governing, bad policy, pure and simple.
  Now, while I recognize the legislation probably has the votes to 
pass, I believe we can and should do better. There will be amendments 
to attempt to do this. We have seen several alternative bills offered 
in the past several months. We should better target funds to have work 
done in this wildland/urban interface, as it is called, or the 
community protection zones. We should vastly increase funding for 
hazardous fuels work on Federal and non-Federal lands. That is the crux 
of it. We should have more comprehensive protection of old-growth and 
large fire-resistance trees. We should avoid unnecessary and largely 
unprecedented attacks to our independent judiciary. And we must 
maintain full and vigorous public participation in the care of our 
national forests and public lands, while expediting projects to reduce 
wildfire risks to at-risk communities.
  As I have said before, these public lands and these national forests 
belong to us all, not to a timber company, not to someone who builds a 
beautiful home out in the middle of a wilderness area and wants us to 
spend taxpayer dollars to protect them from a wildfire. These national 
forests belong to all of us, and public participation and agency 
decisions dealing with public lands and public forests ought to be in 
the forefront, not in the background.
  Otherwise, if we move ahead in this manner, we are inviting the waste 
of limited time and resources that it is our responsibility to ensure 
are directed at stated priorities of community protection and removal 
of small trees and brush. As drafted, I am concerned that this bill 
will not accomplish that urgent goal, will not ensure adequate public 
participation, and will not help to end the controversy and gridlock 
that has plagued this issue for some years.
  I hope we will have a reasonable debate on this bill. Certainly, 
there will be amendments to it; I don't know how many and who will 
offer them. Some have come to me saying they had amendments to offer. I 
think they will take some time to dispense with, which is appropriate 
given the significance of the policy changes proposed in H.R. 1904. We 
must carefully scrutinize what is in the bill and see if there are ways 
to improve it.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides to wait and see how these 
amendments proceed before judging the ultimate merit of this 
legislation.
  Madam President, in closing, I wish to have printed in the Record 
some material. First is an editorial that appeared this morning in the 
Washington Post called ``Fire Damage.'' I ask unanimous consent that 
the editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Fire Damage

       With terrifying intensity, fires are burning across 
     Southern California and Mexico this week, proving once again 
     that natural disasters can be no less devastating than the 
     man-made kind. They have already killed more than a dozen 
     people, destroyed more than 1,500 homes and burned half a 
     million acres. A staggering 50,000 more homes are thought to 
     be under threat, as the fires, fanned by desert winds, move 
     into the Los Angeles and San Diego suburbs. It's a genuine 
     national tragedy--and one that shouldn't be misused for 
     political purposes.
       Unfortunately, that is a distinct possibility. The fires 
     happen to have arrived just as the Senate is wrestling with a 
     bill, already passed by the House, which is supposedly 
     designed to help prevent catastrophic fires. In theory, the 
     bill would address the environmental imbalance that has 
     developed over the past several decades from the Forest 
     Service's misguided policy of preventing all forest fires, 
     even the low-level fires that once cleared away brush and 
     young trees from old forests. Without these periodic fires, 
     forests have become much denser, and big fires are far more 
     damaging than they used to be.
       But although foresters and scientists now recognize this 
     problem, brush is still not being cleared away fast enough. 
     Why? The House Republican authors of the forest bill blame 
     overly bureaucratic environmental regulations. Accordingly, 
     their bill attempts to loosen the procedures that the Forest 
     Service must go through before it can carry out ``fuel 
     reduction activity''--a change that would also help the 
     timber industry dodge objections to the cutting down of older 
     forests. This explanation does not stand up to close 
     scrutiny. Last week, the General Accounting Office released 
     the final results of its study on fuel reduction activity and 
     discovered that of the Forest Service's 818 applications to 
     cut brush, only one-quarter were appealed. Of these, 79 
     percent were processed within 90 days. What is hampering the 
     process is not environmental litigators but finances. To 
     carry out more brush-clearing operations, the Forest Service 
     needs more resources.
       But the Forest Service is unlikely to get significantly 
     more resources anytime soon. It would therefore make sense 
     for Congress, instead of passing laws that appear to be 
     largely of benefit to the timber industry, to encourage the 
     Forest Service to spend whatever money it does have on brush-
     clearing projects closer to human communities. Sen. Dianne 
     Feinstein (D-Calif.) has helped write a compromise bill that 
     would instruct the Forest Service to spend at least 50 
     percent of its fuel reduction resources on precisely that. 
     Although this is the right approach, Ms. Feinstein has 
     received no guarantee that her bill won't be completely 
     rewritten by a Republican conference committee, as has lately 
     become common practice.
       In the absence of such a guarantee--which would have to 
     come from the White House--it's probably better to pass no 
     bill at all. We retain just the slimmest hope that the 
     California blazes might cause members of Congress to redirect 
     their energy toward saving

[[Page 26179]]

     people and homes, and away from helping loggers cut down 
     mature trees.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the editorial basically states that what 
is happening in California is a genuine national tragedy and one that 
shouldn't be misused for political purposes. But, unfortunately, that 
is a distinct possibility, the editorial says. It says the fires 
happened to arrive just as the Senate is wrestling with a bill 
supposedly designed to help prevent catastrophic fires.
  The editorial goes on to question whether or not the bill before us 
really does accomplish that goal.
  Also, I have a series of letters from different environmental groups. 
When I say ``environmental groups,'' I do not use it in a pejorative 
sense. I use it in a very supportive sense. First is a letter from 
about 200 different environmental groups alphabetically from the Alaska 
Wilderness League to the Yosemite Area Audubon, California--from A to 
Z--that basically are opposed to this version of the bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Dear Senator: The Senate is poised to take up H.R. 1904, 
     the Bush Administration's Healthy Forests Initiative. You may 
     have heard that a bipartisan compromise has been struck, 
     reputedly brokered by the Bush Administration. Even with the 
     new language, the bill still seeks to interfere with our 
     independent judiciary, cuts the heart out of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and undermines the public's 
     legal rights to meaningfully participate in decisions 
     affecting our public lands. Not only will this bill set 
     dangerous precedents by weakening environmental laws and 
     judicial independence, it also fails to require agencies to 
     prioritize protection of homes and communities. Furthermore, 
     the Bush Administration and its allies in the House are 
     likely to insist on a much worse, anti-environmental bill in 
     conference committee.
       Impact on our independent judiciary: H.R. 1904, as passed 
     by the House, undermines a fundamental, century-old legal 
     principle--the rights of Americans to seek fair and equitable 
     redress in the courts for grievances involving the federal 
     government. The Senate substitute also interferes with how 
     judges manage their courtrooms by ordering courts to lift 
     preliminary injunctions and stays after 60 days, unless they 
     are affirmatively renewed by the court. Moreover, the bill 
     could provide agencies a new tool to slam the courthouse door 
     on citizens by requiring all legal issues to be raised during 
     the administrative review process.
       Public input: The Senate substitute seeks to replace the 
     current statutorily-established appeals process with a new 
     process that does not allow appeals of final agency 
     decisions, making it more difficult for Americans to 
     challenge damaging projects and have a meaningful say in 
     public land management.
       Environmental protection: The Senate substitute seeks to 
     weaken the most important part of NEPA--the requirement that 
     agencies consider a full range of alternatives to agency 
     proposals with environmental impacts such as logging and road 
     building. The amendment invites gamesmanship by agencies that 
     would effectively nullify the alternatives requirement, which 
     the courts have called the very ``heart of NEPA.'' In 
     addition, Title IV eliminates environmental review for a 
     category of logging projects up to 1,000 acres in size--an 
     area approximately the size of 1,000 football fields--which 
     would exclude all public review, comment and participation.
       Community protection: The Senate bill does not ensure any 
     increased protections for homes at risk of wildfire and does 
     not ensure any funding for work on local, state or tribal 
     lands for methods proven by the Forest Service Fire Research 
     Lab to protect homes. Furthermore, it is not consistent with 
     the Western Governors Association's Ten-Year Strategy for 
     reducing wildland fire risks. Communities need and deserve 
     real protection, which requires fuel reduction focused close 
     to homes and communities.
       Old growth and roadless forests: The Senate bill attempts 
     to safeguard our old growth forests, but the language offers 
     an open invitation to abuse. Furthermore, the amendment fails 
     to protect roadless areas.
       The Bush Administration's ``Healthy Forests Initiative'' 
     fails to deliver on community protection. Please oppose the 
     Senate version of H.R. 1904: uphold our independent judiciary 
     and our environmental protections.


                         National Organizations

       20/20 Vision.
       Alaska Wilderness League.
       Alaska Coalition.
       Alaska Rainforest Campaign.
       Americans for Democratic Action.
       American Lands Alliance.
       Conservation Leaders Network.
       Center for Biological Diversity.
       Co-op America.
       Defenders of Wildlife.
       EARTHJUSTICE.
       Friends of the Earth.
       Greenpeace USA.
       Herpetologists' League.
       John Muir Project.
       National Environmental Trust.
       National Forest Protection Alliance.
       Natural Resources Defense Council.
       National Wildlife Federation.
       Pacific Rivers Council.
       Sierra Club.
       Sierra Student Coalition.
       U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
       The Rewilding Institute.
       The Wilderness Society.
       Wildlands Project.
       World Wildlife Fund.


                          County Commissioners

       Supervisor David Colfax, Mendocino County, CA.
       Supervisor M. Byng Hunt, Mono County, CA.
       Board Member Carol Calabresa, Lake County, IL.
       Commissioner Peter Sorenson, Lane County, OR.
       Commissioner Farley Toothman, Greene County, PA.
       Commissioner Ed Tinsley, Lewis and Clark County, MT.
       Supervisor Paul Newman, Cochise County, AZ.
       Council Chairman Guy Guzzone, Howard County, MD.
       Commissioner Katy Sorenson, Miami-Dade County, FL.
       Council Member Bob Jacobson, Hawaii County, HI.
       Chairman Don Bennetts, Gogebic County, MI.
       Commissioner Larry Sufredin, Cook County, IL.
       Commissioner Donna Massey, Pulaski County, AR.
       Commissioner Doug Coward, St. Lucie County, FL.
       Supervisor John Woolley, Humboldt County, CA.
       Commissioner Ron Stewart, Boulder County, CO.
       Commissioner Bill Carey, Missoula County, MT.
       Supervisor Barbara Green, Nevada County, CA.
       Council Member Dan McShane, Whatcom County, WA.
       Supervisor Janet K. Beautz, Santa Cruz County, CA.


                        Religious Organizations

       Religious Campaign for Forest Conservation.
       United Church of Christ, Network for Environmental & 
     Economic Responsibility.
       World Stewardship Institute.


             Regional and Local Conservation Organizations

       Advocates for the West, ID.
       American Wildlands, MT.
       Alaska Center for the Environment, AK.
       Alliance for the Wild Rockies, MT.
       Aspen Wilderness Workshop, CO.
       Audubon Society of Corvallis, OR.
       Audubon Minnesota, MN.
       BARK, OR.
       Brown Environmental Action Network, RI.
       Buckeye Forest Council, OH.
       Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, CA.
       Californians for Western Wilderness, CA.
       California Wilderness Coalition, CA.
       Cascadia Fire Ecology Education Project, OR.
       Center For Native Ecosystems, CO.
       Central New Mexico Audubon Society, NM.
       Central New Mexico Audubon Society, NM.
       Citizens of Lee Environmental Action Network, VA.
       Citizens For Better Forestry, CA.
       Citizens for Public Resources, Inc., OR.
       Clearwater Biodiversity Project, ID.
       Coalition for Jobs and the Environment, VA.
       Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers, MT.
       Coast Range Association, OR.
       Colorado Environmental Coalition.
       Concerned Friends of Ferry County, WA
       Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice, TN.
       Devil's Fork Trail Club, VA.
       Dogwood Alliance, NC.
       Drew Environmental Action League, NJ.
       Duckdaotsu Media Service, CO.
       EarthCare, IA.
       EcoTours of Oregon Day Tours, OR.
       EcoWatch.
       Environment Council, RI.
       Environmental Protection Information Center, CA.
       Environmental Law Society, NM.
       Family Farm Defenders, WI.
       Fargo-Moorhead Audubon Society, ND.
       Friends of Blackwater Canyon, WV.
       Friends of Hope Valley, CA.
       Friends of Living Oregon Waters (FLOW), OR.
       Friends of the Bitterroot, MT.
       Friends of Del Norte, CA.
       Forests.org, Inc., WI.
       Forest Guardians, NM.
       Forest Issues Group, CA.
       Forest Forever, CA.
       Forestry Monitoring Project, CA.
       Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, MN.

[[Page 26180]]

       Friends of the Clearwater, ID.
       Gifford Pinchot Task Force, WA.
       Greater Wyoming Valley Audubon Society, PA.
       Greater Yellowstone Coalition, MT.
       Headwaters, OR.
       Heartwood, IL.


             Regional and Local Conservation Organizations

       Hells Canyon Preservation Council, OR.
       Helping Expressions, CO.
       High Country Citizens' Alliance, CO.
       Hoosier Environmental Council, IN.
       International Society for Preservation of Tropical 
     Rainforests, CA.
       Idaho Conservation League, ID.
       Illinois Student Environmental Network, IL.
       Indiana Forest Alliance, IN.
       International Primate Protection League.
       Izaak Walton League, Breckenridge Chapter, MN.
       John Wesley Powell Audubon Society, IL.
       Keep Sespe Wild, OR.
       Kentucky Heartwood, KY.
       Kettle Range Conservation Group. WA.
       Klamath Forest Alliance, CA.
       Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, OR.
       Kootenai Environmental Alliance, ID.
       Lake Superior Alliance, WI.
       Lake Superior Greens, WI.
       Last Refuge Campaign, MT.
       Leavenworth Audubon Adopt-a-Forest, WA.
       Living Earth: Gatherings for Deep Change, OR.
       Lone Tree, MI.
       Main Natural Resources Council, ME.
       Magic, CA.
       Mattole Salmon Group, CA.
       McKenzie Guardians, OR.
       Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, MN.
       Minnesota River Valley Audubon Chapter, MN.
       Missouri Forest Alliance, MO.
       Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, CA.
       Mountain Defense League, CA.
       Native Forest Network, MT.
       New Mexico Audubon Council, NM.
       New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, NM.
       Northcoast Environmental Center, CA.
       Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, MN.
       Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, WA.
       Northwoods Wilderness Recovery, MI.
       Obed Watershed Association, TN.
       Okanogan Highlands Alliance, WA.
       Oregon Natural Resources Council, OR.
       Oregon Wildlife Federation, OR.
       Quachita Watch League, AR.
       Pacific Environment, CA.
       Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, CA.
       Prescott National Forest Friends, AZ.
       PA Wildlands Recovery Project, PA.
       Patrick Environmental Awareness Group, VA.
       Rainier Audubon Society, WA.
       Regional Assn. of Concerned Environmentalists, IL.
       REP America, IL.
       RESTORE: The North Woods, MA.


             Regional and Local Conservation Organizations.

       SAFE: Save Our Ancient Forest Ecology, CA.
       Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment, CA.
       Save our Forest Environment (SAFE), CA.
       Salem Audubon Society, OR.
       San Bruno Mountain Watch, CA.
       San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, CO.
       Selkirk Conservation Alliance, ID.
       Serpentine Art and Nature Commons, Inc., NY.
       Sinapu, CO.
       Sitka Conservation Society, AK.
       Siskiyou Regional Education Project, OR.
       Sisters Forest Planning Committee, OR.
       Sequoia ForestKeeper, CA.
       Sky Island Alliance, AZ.
       Soda Mountain Wilderness Council, OR.
       South Fork Mountain Defense, CA.
       Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, NC.
       Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition.
       Southern Environmental Law Center.
       Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, CO.
       Southwest Forest Alliance.
       Southwestern New Mexico Audubon Society, NM.
       St. Louis Audubon Society, MO.
       State Forest Organizing Initiative, OR.
       Student Environmental Action Coalition-ISU, IL.
       Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, NC.
       Students for Environmental Awareness, NJ.
       Sun Mountain, CA.
       Superior Wilderness Action Network, MN.
       Sustainable Forestry Project, OR.
       Taking Responsibility for the Earth and Environment, VA.
       T & E, Inc., AZ.
       The Clinch Coalition, VA.
       The Forest Trust, NM.
       The Lands Council, WA.
       The Olympic Forest Coalition, WA.
       Town Hall Coalition, CA.
       Umpqua Watersheds, Inc., OR.
       Virginia Forest Watch, VA.
       Voices for the Forest, OH.
       West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, WV.
       Western Colorado Congress, CO.
       Western Montana Mycological Assn., MT.
       Western North Carolina Alliance, NC.
       Wild Alabama, AL.
       Wild Virginia, VA.
       WildLaw, AL.
       Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, MT.
       Wild Wilderness, OR.
       Wilderness Study Group, CO.
       Wisconsin Society for Ornithology, WI.
       Whidbey Environmental Action Network, WA.
       Yosemite Area Audubon, CA.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the Forest Stewards 
Guild urging a vote against the Senate version of the bill, H.R. 1904. 
I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Forest Stewards Guild,

                                   Santa Fe, NM, October 20, 2003.
     Hon. Senator,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The Forest Stewards Guild, a national 
     organization of over 500 foresters, urges you to vote against 
     the Senate version of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 
     2003 (H.R. 1904). This is a momentous time for public 
     forestry and we, as professionals, cannot stand by in 
     silence. Despite the negotiation of a bipartisan compromise 
     on H.R. 1904, the end result will set back the course of 
     excellent forestry for years to come.
       There is no doubt that the frequency and severity of 
     wildfire has increased in the last 10 years. The catastrophic 
     fires result, in part, from a century of narrowly prescribed 
     forest practices applied to a wide variety of forest 
     ecosystems. The composition, function and structure of most 
     forests were simplified by past management, and today's 
     forests are more susceptible to insect epidemics and 
     vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire. The situation calls for 
     action that addresses the root causes, not the symptoms, and 
     that prevents further simplification of forest ecosystems.
       Members of the Forest Stewards Guild are experienced 
     managers of over 6 million acres of public and private 
     forests in places as diverse as the Pacific Coast, Southeast, 
     Lake States and East. Public forest management in the United 
     States has always benefited from the experience of foresters 
     who work on private lands, starting with Gifford Pinchot as 
     the first Forest Service Chief. By constricting opportunities 
     for forest decisions to be appealed and narrowing the 
     consideration of alternatives, H.R. 1904 will cut experienced 
     private-sector foresters out of decision-making. the 
     exclusion of these experienced voices will make it more 
     difficult to achieve the high standards of forestry that 
     should exemplify public forest management.
       After deep consideration we find that the Healthy Forests 
     Restoration Act does not address the key problems causing 
     destructive wildfire. H.R. 1904 focuses on removing perceived 
     barriers in administrative and judicial processes, yet offers 
     no vision of public stewardship to restore fire-adapted 
     forests. For example, H.R. 1904 paves the way for harvesting 
     in old growth forests to avert the impacts of natural 
     processes, such as ice storms and insect infestations, 
     despite the important role of these processes in creating old 
     growth structure. H.R. 1904 also falls short in establishing 
     meaningful monitoring requirements to help managers assess 
     the effectiveness of fuel reduction projects at moderating 
     fire behavior. The policies in H.R. 1904 favor intensive 
     harvesting in the short-term without addressing the long-term 
     maintenance of healthy forests that will ensure control of 
     new fuel accumulation.
       The current structure of forest legislation, including the 
     National Forest Management Act, was specifically designed to 
     address the gridlock that crystallized in the 1960s over 
     clearcutting and type conversion of public forests. Senator 
     Hubert Humphrey championed a program of civic discourse and 
     debate over forest management--policies that will be reversed 
     by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Legislation 
     that suppresses public debate will only make the gridlock 
     stronger. We urge you to vote against the Senate compormise 
     of H.R. 1904.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the League of 
Conservation Voters urging opposition to H.R. 1904. I ask unanimous 
consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                                 October 15, 2003,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is 
     the political voice of the national environmental community. 
     Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental 
     Scorecard, which details the voting records of Members of 
     Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is 
     distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide, and 
     the press.

[[Page 26181]]

       LCV urges you to oppose H.R. 1904, the Bush 
     Administration's Healthy Forests initiative, when it comes to 
     the Senate floor. Although the Senate bill differs in some 
     respects from the bill that passed the House earlier this 
     year, it still fails to require agencies to prioritize 
     protection of homes and communities. The bill would also 
     interfere with our independent judiciary, weaken the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and undermine the public's 
     legal rights to meaningfully participate in decisions 
     affecting our public lands.
       The Senate bill fails to ensure any increased protections 
     for homes at risk of wildfire or funding for work on local, 
     state or tribal lands to use home protection methods proven 
     by the Forest Service Fire Research Lab. Furthermore, the 
     bill is not consistent with the Western Governors 
     Association's Ten-Year Strategy for reducing wildland fire 
     risks. Communities need and deserve real protection, which 
     requires fuel reduction focused close to homes and 
     communities.
       The Senate bill would weaken the NEPA requirement that 
     agencies consider a full range of alternatives to agency 
     proposals with environmental impacts, such as logging and 
     road building, and would effectively nullify the alternatives 
     requirement, which the courts have called the very ``heart of 
     NEPA.'' In addition, the bill would eliminate environmental 
     review for a category of logging projects up to 1,000 acres 
     in size, excluding all public review, comment and 
     participation for these projects.
       The Senate bill would interfere with how judges manage 
     their courtrooms by ordering courts to lift preliminary 
     injunctions and stays after 60 days, unless the court 
     affirmatively renews them. Moreover, the bill could provide 
     agencies a new tool to restrict citizen access to the courts 
     by requiring all legal issues to be raised during the 
     administrative review process. Moreover, it would replace the 
     current appeals process with a new process that does not 
     allow appeals of final agency decisions, making it more 
     difficult for Americans to challenge damaging projects and 
     have a meaningful say in public land management.
       Finally, although the Senate bill attempts to safeguard our 
     old growth forests, the language offers an open invitation to 
     abuse, and the bill fails to protect roadless areas.
       For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1904. LCV's 
     Political Advisory Committee will consider including votes on 
     these issues in compiling LCV's 2003 Scorecard. If you need 
     more information, please call Betsy Loyless or Mary Minette 
     in my office at (202) 785-8683.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Deb Callahan,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have another letter from the American 
Sportfishing Association, the American Fisheries Society, the Izaak 
Walton League of America, Orion: The Hunter's Institute, Trout 
Unlimited, Wildlife Forever, and the Wildlife Society. The letter is 
dated July 16, 2003. I will be clear to point out they did not say they 
were opposed to the bill, but they have serious concerns about some 
areas of the bill. I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         The American Sportfishing Association, The American 
           Fisheries Society, The Izaak Walton League of America, 
           Orion: The Hunter's Institute, Trout Unlimited, 
           Wildlife Forever, The Wildlife Society,
                                                    July 16, 2003.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Ranking Member, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 
         Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
       Dear Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Cochran, and Harkin: We 
     write to express our concerns regarding restoring healthy 
     forests on public land (Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 
     2003, HR 1904). While we support the expeditious treatment of 
     hazardous fuels on public land, the rush to implement an 
     aggressive hazardous fuel management program may preclude 
     considerations for other resources, particularly fish and 
     wildlife habitat conservation. We believe that hazardous fuel 
     management decisions should be based on deliberative and 
     science-based protocols. By setting forth an open and 
     collaborative process for such decisions, broader 
     participation will be achieved and better decisions made.
       Treatment of hazardous fuels where significant threats 
     exist to human health or safety should be of paramount 
     importance to the Forest Service. These treatments may 
     include thinning, brush removal, or use of prescribed fire. 
     It is important to note, however, that the Forest Service has 
     only recently begun using timber harvest as a tool to reduce 
     hazardous fuel. The paucity of research and evaluation as to 
     treatment efficacy is a cause for concern. Congressional 
     direction to focus on the wildland urban interface will 
     enable us to keep our communities safer, while we learn 
     through experience what types of hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects work best, those that do not, and why.
       Careful planning, analysis, and field-testing of various 
     hazardous fuels treatments would allow the agencies to build 
     support for hazardous fuels reduction, make communities safer 
     and forests healthier, and provide a more stable and 
     predictable supply of wood fiber from the National Forests.
       Given that an estimated 75 percent of Forest Service timber 
     sales currently are classified as hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects, we would hope that Congress keep the public and 
     environmental analyses processes for these sales as open as 
     possible to ensure that interested citizens, scientists, 
     sportsmen, and state agencies have significant involvement in 
     their planning and implementation.
       We endorse the prohibition of constructing new permanent 
     roads in conducting fuel management projects. It is equally 
     important that Congress recognize the possible deleterious 
     effects of temporary roads on fish, wildlife, and water 
     resources, especially if they become permanent travel-ways 
     for unauthorized or unregulated off-road vehicle travel.
       We are concerned that under congressionally proposed and 
     agency-offered fuel treatment authorities, private citizens, 
     sportsmen, and biologists will no longer be provided a 
     reasonable opportunity to comment on or appeal decisions 
     concerning fuel management activities. The 10-Year 
     Conservation Strategy for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to 
     Communities and the Environment, for example, prescribes 
     vague public involvement procedures and requirements on the 
     agencies at the state, regional and national levels.
       Legislation should make clear the purpose of emergency 
     hazardous fuels treatments is to enhance forest health 
     through activities that reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, 
     insect infestations and disease, invasive plants, enhance 
     fish and wildlife habitat, and protect watersheds. We 
     recommend that project proposals be developed through an 
     interdisciplinary planning process. The sale of marketable 
     forest and rangeland products should be allowed only when 
     such sale is incidental to emergency treatments. Wood fiber 
     derived from fuels treatments should be sold separately as a 
     byproduct of the restoration activity.
       Finally, we note that a recently released General 
     Accounting Office (GAO) analysis found that three-fourths of 
     the 762 Forest Service projects to diminish wildfire risk in 
     the past two years proceeded without appeals, litigation, or 
     other challenge. Hazardous fuels treatments, such as 
     mechanical thinning or prescribed fire, proceeded on 3.8 
     million acres of National Forests. Projects that were 
     appealed or challenged moved forward generally within the 90-
     day period prescribed by agency regulations.
       The GAO analysis demonstrates what is most needed by 
     federal fire legislation is funding and a clear assignation 
     of agency priorities to protect human communities. We hope 
     this is where you will focus your efforts as a first 
     priority. Thank you for considering our views. If you have 
     any questions, please contact Chris Wood of Trout Unlimited 
     at (703) 284-9403. We are available to discuss our concerns 
     and recommendations at your convenience.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have another letter from a number of 
individuals who basically represent firefighters, smokejumpers--12 
individuals who have written urging opposition to H.R. 1904 which they 
say is misnamed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and instead support 
S. 1453, the Forestry and Community Assistance Act. I ask unanimous 
consent this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Dear Member of Congress: As current and former wildland 
     firefighters, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1904, the misnamed 
     ``Healthy Forests Restoration Act,'' and instead, support S. 
     1453, the ``Forestry and Community Assistance Act'' as the 
     best available legislative plan for the interconnected goals 
     of improving the health, safety and working conditions of 
     wildland firefighters, protecting communities, and restoring 
     forests.
       Protecting homes and structures is one of the most 
     dangerous assignments for wildland firefighters. We are 
     basically forced to make a stand between the often 
     unstoppable force of wildfire burning under extreme 
     conditions, and the immovable objects of homes and 
     structures. Added to the dangers is the fact that the area 
     adjacent to homes and communities often have the highest fire 
     risks and fuel hazards. And yet we must still protect these 
     homes.

[[Page 26182]]

       In wildland areas, firefighters face a number of 
     unacceptable safety risks and health hazards due to the 
     legacy of past management, such as: 1) high hazardous fuel 
     loads in logged and roaded areas from untreated or 
     ineffectively treated logging slash; 2) flammable brush, 
     moisture deprived vegetation, and invasive weeds that rapidly 
     grow in the wake of logging and grazing; 3) densely-stocked 
     young timber plantations that can cause wildfires to blow-up 
     and burn severely even from low-intensity fires; 4) a maze of 
     abandoned or neglected logging roads that pose hazardous 
     driving conditions for firefighters, or provide access for 
     human-caused wildfires.
       These degraded forests health conditions resulting from 
     past management activities on public lands are part and 
     parcel of the degraded working conditions and elevated safety 
     risks and health hazards affecting wildland firefighters. The 
     interests of wildland firefighters in a safer, healthier 
     working environment, the interests of homeowners and 
     communities in protection from wildfires, and the interests 
     of the public in the protection and restoration of forest 
     ecosystems, can be one and the same. Unfortunately, H.R. 
     1904, is heading down the wrong path.
       First, H.R. 1904 fails to target fuels treatments to the 
     areas that need it most: the community protection zone and 
     low-elevation dry forest types. The wildlands/urban interface 
     zone has some of the highest fire risks and fuel hazards, yet 
     is neglected by H.R. 1904 because the majority of rural 
     communities are surrounded by private, State, or Tribal owned 
     lands, not federal lands. Hazardous fuels treatments need to 
     be prioritized and targeted in the front country community 
     protection zone in dry forest ecosystems. Instead, H.R. 1904 
     would authorize logging projects in remote backcountry areas 
     including roadless areas, high-elevation moist forests, and 
     other areas where fires may be natural or beneficial for the 
     ecosystem.
       Second, H.R. 1904 fails to target treatments to the kinds 
     of fuels that pose the highest hazards. Hazardous fuels 
     treatments need to target the surface layers of dead needles 
     and limbs, small-diameter understory trees and brush, 
     densely-stocked young timber plantations, old untreated 
     logging slash. These surface and ladder fuels pose the 
     highest risk of ignition and rapid fire spread. Instead H.R. 
     1904 would authorize logging of commercially-valuable mature 
     and old-growth overstory trees, which are naturally resistant 
     to fires and help moderate fire behavior by shading the 
     ground surface from the sun and wind. Some of the most 
     hazardous sites for wildland firefighters are hot, dry, windy 
     logged units full of slash.
       Third, H.R. 1904 fails to allocate necessary funds to pay 
     for hazardous fuels treatments. In general, hazardous fuel 
     loads have little or no commercial value. It will require 
     appropriated money from Congress to pay for treatment of 
     these kinds of fuels. H.R. 1904 fails to allocate any funds 
     for hazardous fuels treatments, essentially forcing forest 
     managers to sell large-diameter trees in order to pay for 
     reducing fuels.
       Fourth, H.R. 1904 fails to foster agency-community 
     collaboration and social consensus around fire and fuels 
     management projects. The enormous task of protecting fire-
     prone communities and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems will 
     require an unprecedented level of collaboration among land 
     managers and the public they serve. It is a matter of common 
     sense to begin this task where we have common ground: 
     prioritize fuels treatments around communities. This way we 
     can increase public and firefighter safety in suppressing 
     unwanted wildfires, and increase the opportunities for safely 
     implementing prescribed fires. Instead, H.R. 1904 is 
     guaranteed to generate increased public controversy and 
     conflict, as the voices of citizens in public land management 
     decisions are diminished, and legal accountability is eroded 
     or eliminated.
       We don't want to have our ability to comment on or 
     challenge projects taken away--firefighters are citizens, 
     too! In fact, citizens who work as wildland firefighters have 
     the most at stake when fuels projects are planned and 
     implemented. We want to be a complete part of the projects 
     that will reduce the fuel hazard around at-risk communities, 
     from planning through implementation, monitoring, and 
     protection.
       We want our working conditions, health and safety improved, 
     but not at the expense of degrading the forests that we are 
     dedicated to protecting. We believe that it is only through 
     genuine restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems that 
     firefighter and public safety will be improved, but H.R. 1904 
     is about forest restoration in name only, and is a recipe for 
     further ecosystem degradation and public conflict and 
     controversy.
       In contrast, S. 1453, expedites projects to be done around 
     communities most at risk of wildfire, regardless of whether 
     or not they are bordered by Federal lands, appropriates 
     funding for hazardous fuels treatments and watershed 
     restoration projects, protects old-growth and roadless areas 
     and currently healthy forests from inappropriate logging, and 
     protects existing environmental laws and full citizens rights 
     to engage in decisions affecting our own public lands.
       As wildland fire fighters, we believe the protection of 
     forests, communities and our health and safety are 
     interconnected. We support efforts to make the working 
     environment for wildland firefighters safer. But this does 
     not have to imperil the very forests we seek to protect. Nor 
     should it imperil the democratic rights of citizens to 
     participate in land management decisions. Most of all, 
     Congress should not use the issue of firefighter safety as an 
     excuse to sanction inappropriate or illegal logging projects 
     to proceed under the guise of fuels reduction or forest 
     restoration.
           Sincerely,
       Joseph Fox, 25 years wildland firefighting experience; 
     positions: smokejumper, Interagency Hotshot (crewboss 
     certified).
       Patrick Withen, 24 years wildland firefighting experience; 
     positions: smokejumper, Interagency Hotshot, helitack.
       David Calahan, 23 years municipal firefighting experience; 
     positions: engineer on wildland/urban interface zone fires.
       Michael Beasley, 16 years wildland firefighting experience; 
     positions: Interagency Hotshot, Fire Management Officer, 
     Prescribed Fire Specialist.
       Rich Fairbanks, 14 years wildland firefighting experience; 
     positions: Interagency Hotshot (foreman and squad leader), 
     Division Supervisor.
       Erin Ely, 10 years wildland firefighting experience; 
     positions: Interagency Hotshot (crewboss certified), 20-
     person Type II fire crew, fire salvage timber sale planner.
       Timothy Ingalsbee, 8 years wildland firefighting 
     experience; positions: helitack, engine, 20 person Type II 
     fire crew (squad boss), Interagency Hotshot resource advisor.
       Mei Lin Lantz, 5 years wildland firefighting experience; 
     positions: Interagency Hotshot (squad boss), helirappeller, 
     engine crew, fire/fuels management planner.
       Ric Bailey, 3 years wildland firefighting experience; 
     positions: helitack, engine crew (foreman).
       Shawnti Johnson, 3 years wildland firefighting experience; 
     positions: Interagency Hotshot.
       Nalita Kendall Baumback, 2 years wildland firefighting 
     experience; positions: initial attack engine crew.
       Colby Whitenack, 2 years wildland firefighting experience; 
     positions: Interagency Hotshot.

  Mr. HARKIN. Lastly, the Forest Roads Working Group, which includes 
Wildlife Forever, Trout Unlimited, Wildlife Management Institute, Izaak 
Walton League of America, Outdoor Industry Association, the Wildlife 
Society, and International Paper, also wrote a letter dated October 28, 
2003. It is not in total opposition, but it expresses their concerns 
about certain parts of the bill saying the ``fire legislation should 
endorse the prohibition of new roads into inventoried roadless areas.'' 
I ask unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Forest Roads Working Group,

                                                 October 28, 2003.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Ranking Member, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 
         Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Cochran, and Harkin: We 
     write to express our concerns regarding restoring healthy 
     forests on public land (Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 
     2003, H.R. 1904). The Forest Roads Working Group was 
     established to bring together a wide range of organizations 
     with a strong interest in ensuring that roadless area 
     protections are crafted and implemented in a workable and 
     effective manner.
       The FRWG supports the expeditious treatment of hazardous 
     fuels on public lands. The need to implement an aggressive 
     hazardous fuel management program should not, however, 
     preclude considerations for other resources, particularly 
     fish and wildlife habitat conservation, outdoor recreation 
     opportunities, and the protection of inventoried roadless 
     areas.
       In light of scarce resources, treatment of hazardous fuels 
     should be of paramount importance to the Forest Service where 
     significant threats exist to human health or safety and 
     adjacent private lands. Given that an estimated 75 percent of 
     Forest Service timber sales currently are classified as 
     hazardous fuels reduction projects, we hope that Congress 
     will keep the public and environmental analyses processes for 
     these sales as open as possible to ensure that interested 
     citizens, scientists, sportsmen, recreationists and state 
     agencies have significant involvement in their planning and 
     implementation.
       Fire legislation should endorse the prohibition of new 
     roads into inventoried roadless

[[Page 26183]]

     areas. Given the now $10 billion maintenance and 
     reconstruction backlog of existing Forest Service roads, it 
     is important that Congress recognize the potentially 
     deleterious effects of roads on fish, wildlife, and water 
     resources, especially if they become travelways for 
     unauthorized or unregulated off-road vehicle travel.
       Thank you for considering our views. If you have any 
     questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 202/508-
     3400. We are available to discuss our concerns and 
     recommendations at your convenience.
           Sincerely,
                                                        J.T. Banks
                                             (For James D. Range).

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, these are the concerns that I and many 
others have with the legislation before us, and I hope those who have 
amendments will come to the floor and offer them. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HAGEL). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before the ranking member of the 
Agriculture Committee sits down, I would be more than happy to include 
the protection of all the old growth in the Federal forests of Iowa in 
this bill, if it existed. Or maybe we could put a prohibition against 
wildfires in Iowa on public lands in this bill. And that is something 
we could accomplish because those two issues--the old growth, which I 
am sure the State of Iowa wished it had, and wildfires, which I know 
they would not want--do not exist in Iowa because no Federal forest 
lands exist there.
  In my State of Idaho, in the great State of Oregon, and in the Great 
Basin, West, as much as 60 and 70 percent of our lands within our State 
borders are public lands and are subject to this legislation. That is 
why I am on the Senate floor. That is why my colleague from Missouri is 
on the Senate floor. That is why my colleague from California is on the 
Senate floor because it is the heart and soul of our States. Be it our 
water quality or our wildlife habitat or our environment in general, 
our forested lands make up that dynamic symphony of lands of which our 
States are proud, and we want to protect them.
  To suggest this bill does not is not a fact. Let me give a point the 
Senator from Iowa just made. He said you could log in 1,000-acre 
increments across the landscape. Not true. Nowhere in the bill does it 
exist. Let's go back to California today where fires are burning.
  Let's go to Lake Arrowhead in the San Bernardino forest where there 
is a complex of dead and dying trees of about 400,000 acres. You could 
log 1,000 acres there, and then if you chose to do another 1,000 acres 
near it, you get into the cumulative effect beyond the categorical 
exclusion and you have to do a NEPA process. That is what this 
legislation says. That is what the Senator from Iowa did not suggest. 
He cannot suggest something that does not exist. Yes, it is true you do 
1,000-acre logging increments, but when you get to a cumulative effect 
beyond the categorical exclusion, NEPA takes over. Therefore, you do 
the full public process that he admires and I admire because we believe 
the public ought to have a right to participate, but not ad nauseam 
through lawsuit after lawsuit for the purpose of delaying activity on 
the ground when there is bug kill and fuel loading and the public is at 
risk and the resources are at risk. That is what this debate must be 
about.
  He implied that you could road on forever because this bill does not 
prohibit roading. You can't road today unless you go through a full 
NEPA process. It is not to suggest if you prohibit roading here or you 
do not prohibit it, therefore, roading will exist. That is not true. It 
does not exist today in current law. So do not imply that it does. That 
is a false accusation, in my opinion.
  There are a good many other areas we will debate at length, I am 
sure, as the amendments come up. I am going to step out of my State of 
Idaho, which I know best, and step into California for a moment because 
California is at issue and it is in play.
  My colleague from Oregon, who his other colleague from Oregon said 
was brave in taking the stand he is taking, is a brave soul, but he is 
also a person who recognizes the balance of good management on our 
public lands that protects water quality and wildlife habitat. He is 
the one who argued staunchly that we protect old growth. I didn't think 
it was necessary, but I agreed with him.
  He and I have worked together very closely on what we believe to be 
balanced public forest policies for a good number of years, but what is 
not in balance is a policy that allows forests to burn at will simply 
because we deny the right of limited management to reduce fuel loading, 
to stop bug kill, and to slow the dead and dying trees.
  So let us go to San Bernardino National Forest in southern California 
where fires are raging as we speak. We know that forest, because of 
environmental interests and because of the increase of the public 
living in that forest, in the 1970s stopped any form of logging. In the 
mid 1970s, it stopped. That became an inactively managed forest.
  About 2 years ago, it was recognized as a forest that was in critical 
condition. The fuel loading was so great, the bug kill was so great, 
that the intermittent State lands within the San Bernardino forests 
were declared a state of emergency by the Governor of California, but 
it is almost impossible to save them if they are surrounded by lands 
where nothing is going on, where the bug kill is great, and where a 
fire is clearly a situation that creates a high risk.
  We have known, and I have said on this floor for over 2 years, that 
the San Bernardino National Forest was the perfect firestorm waiting to 
happen, and yet we talked on and on in a formally inactive way not to 
do anything about it. It is now burning. That is a phenomenal tragedy 
that we could have done at least something about, but we chose inactive 
management on the San Bernardino nearly three decades ago.
  Let me speak for a few moments about why and what is different in 
California today than 50 years ago. If one listens today to news 
commentators covering the fires in California, they will say that that 
area burned about 50 years ago, and it probably did. It is a 
Mediterranean-type climate. It is largely a scrub oak climate except 
when one gets up in the San Bernardinos where one begins to get 
conifers and it did probably burn. Maybe it has burned every 50 or 60 
years for the last thousands of years, but what was different today 
than 50 years ago is that there are now people living in the canyons, 
in the valleys, and in the suburbs that did not exist 50 years ago in 
that area. So the landscape is dramatically different and the risk is 
substantially higher, but we have done little about it.
  We have not insisted that there be firebreaks, that there be 
thinning, that there be a way to protect the urban/wildland interface. 
H.R. 1904 begins to address that, at least on the Federal forested 
lands. If those firebreaks had been present, if that scrub oak had been 
pulled back 100 or 200 yards from those homes, grass had been planted, 
foliage had been kept down, it would not have been 1,500 homes burned 
now; it would have been considerably fewer. We all know that. That is a 
fact.
  The world of the forest has changed dramatically in the last 50 
years. The Senator from Iowa is right. Wherever there was a piece of 
private property within a Federal forested area, a home was built. Why? 
Because it is a very desirable place to live. We all love to live 
within the forested landscapes of our country, but if we do not treat 
them properly, it is like living inside a kindling box. It is like 
living near a fire that is ready to burn. All one has to do is drop a 
match, because the fuel loading that has gone on in these forested 
landscapes over the last 30 years is dramatic. Why? Because we put fire 
out. We got awfully good at eliminating fire and we did not replace the 
natural ecosystem's activities of fire with manmade activity. It is 
quite simple.
  Along came the environmental movement in the 1960s. Along came the 
National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Act in the 
mid-1970s, and we began progressively to slow our activities on the 
public lands that were offsetting nature's activities in some instances 
and the fuel load began to build.
  In the mid 1980s, a group of forest scientists from all over the 
United States

[[Page 26184]]

met in Sun Valley, ID, to explore the health of our national forests. 
They concluded that our forests in the Great Basin West were sick, 
dead, and dying, and that if we did not develop some form of activity 
to emulate fire, to thin and clean, we would someday in the near future 
begin to experience dramatic wildfires that would change the character 
of the landscape of the West. They were right. We did not listen. We 
could not listen. Why? Because there was a louder voice out there 
saying: Do nothing, do nothing, stay away; the only way to treat the 
public lands is to withdraw man from the lands, unless he or she 
tramples lightly upon them.
  We did just that, and all of our policies have driven us in that 
direction. During the Clinton years, we reduced logging on public lands 
by nearly 80 percent. We did not change any laws, just reused the 
regulations, headed in another direction with a different philosophy.
  Aside from that, there is another interesting statistic. Instead of 
the average of 1\1/2\ million to 2 million acres a year in wildfires on 
our forested public land, we began to see 3, then 3\1/2\, then 4, then 
5, then 6, and last year 7 million acres, and that graph is going 
straight up as more of these lands burn because the fuel load that 
builds on them is so great that all of our forested public lands have 
become like a kindling box, ready to burn with the touch of a match.
  It started in California last Saturday. It could have been manmade in 
this instance--it probably was--and, of course, we know the end result. 
It is not over yet. It has destroyed millions of acres of property and 
human life.
  Now, this is dramatic. Guess what is about to start in California. 
The Senator from California is in the Chamber and she can tell us 
better than anybody else. But when the Santa Ana winds quit, when those 
great air patterns that sweep down out of the West shift and change the 
cycling of the wind and it reverses the sweep down off the mountains, 
it starts coming in off the ocean, and rains begin. This 500,000 acres 
of now denuded land, with no vegetation on it, will be subject to the 
winter rains.
  What we are going to be hearing, almost as dramatic as the fires 
were, will be the mud slides and the erosion and the land movements 
that are going to occur in California simply within the next month or 
two or three. Can we not understand that? Cannot environmental 
organizations understand that there has to be a little bit of a 
balance, that somehow there is a way to ebb and flow, for us to exist, 
to protect our environment and at the same time balance it in a way 
that does not in the end destroy it?
  In the year 2000, in Idaho, we lost 1 million acres to wildfire. That 
winter and the next spring, great slides of mud, rock, and debris 
flowed down out of the canyons and some of them into the beautiful 
pristine Salmon River that is a great fish habitat, a great salmon 
habitat. In some instances, it probably damaged it. In one instance, 
there was a great alluvial flow of debris out into the river that was 
not swept away, and this last year when the waters hit it, the water 
diverted across the river and knocked out a highway and knocked out a 
road and put more silt into the river, all a product of the fire of the 
year 2000.
  So fires have lots of consequences. We ought to try to manage our 
forests in a way that somehow diminishes the overall ability of those 
forests to burn, to protect our wildlife habitat, our water quality, 
our scenic beauty, and our recreational opportunities. That, in part, 
is what this bill is about. This is no major dramatic step forward. 
This is no assault on the environment. This is a positive but 
relatively small step in the areas we have so designated to suggest we 
adjust the appeals process ever so slightly, that we adjust the NEPA 
process ever so slightly, that we establish funding priorities in the 
wildland/urban interface, that we recognize and protect old-growth, and 
that we create a judicial review process that is streamlined so those 
who would chose no action cannot lock up reasonable, responsible action 
in the courts of our country.
  That is what H.R. 1904 is all about. My colleague from Oregon is 
still on the floor. He, I, and a good many others, my colleague from 
Idaho, Mike Crapo, who chairs the forestry subcommittee in 
Agriculture--I chair the subcommittee in Energy and Natural Resources, 
the Senator from Oregon is the ranking member of that forestry 
subcommittee--have spent years and years on this issue, try to find a 
balance, working with environmental groups--outreach.
  Let me thank the Senator from California, who is on the floor, who 
has demonstrated phenomenal leadership in this area. She has taken the 
time to understand the ecosystems and the health of the Sierras and she 
knows some form of limited action has to occur to save this beautiful 
landscape. That is what this legislation is all about. Yet some would 
paint it as dramatic and sweeping and destructive. It is simply not 
that at all. It is a small step forward in our effort to bring 
reasonable balance and management only in those areas designated as 
fire prone, as loaded with fuel, and the urban/wildland interface 
dominantly, and in sick and dying areas where the bugs have ravaged it 
and it is simply standing there dead, waiting for Mother Nature to take 
her course.
  That is what H.R. 1904 is all about. Don't let anyone paint this in 
any other dramatic fashion or form, for if they were to do so, it would 
simply be untrue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his 
comments and for his support. I have worked with him on this issue now 
for a long, long time.
  As you know, California has great and challenging forests. As I 
delved into the issue and became more and more involved and traveled 
over forests on helicopters and walked through forests, I realized how 
much they had changed from the time I was a child in California.
  I also thank the bipartisan group of Senators who have tirelessly 
negotiated this legislation, particularly the Senator from Oregon, Ron 
Wyden. He and I, on our side, have worked with a group of Republicans, 
knowing that both of us face States that are deeply challenged by 
forest fire. The need to develop a piece of legislation was crystal 
clear to both of us.
  This is very difficult, I think, for both of us because the 
prevailing environmental view has always been not to touch our forests, 
and that is what fire suppression was all about. Senator Wyden has been 
stalwart. It has been a great pleasure for me to work with him and his 
staff. I know my staff has also very much appreciated the collegiality 
and also the exchange of ideas. I thank him very much.
  Also, Senators Baucus, Craig, Crapo, Cochran, Domenici, Kyl, Lincoln, 
and McCain--we were all partners in forging this compromise consensus 
bill.
  With what is happening in California, I don't think I need to tell 
anybody that there has been an alarming increase in catastrophic 
wildfires that have raged through our forests and neighboring 
communities all across this great land, because nearly 27 million acres 
have burned nationally in the past 5 years alone, and 2.1 million of 
those acres are in California. There are 57 million acres of Federal 
land at the highest risk of catastrophic fire, including 8.5 million in 
my State alone.
  People in California don't realize that much of our forest is in what 
is called the highest risk of catastrophic fire--for many, many 
different reasons. But that is where they are today. This is far from 
the natural condition of our forests. It is because this century-old 
policy of suppressing ground fires has allowed so much flammable brush 
to accumulate so dangerously in many of our forests, especially in dry 
areas at low to moderate elevations.
  This legislation is not a logging bill, as some would typify it--I 
think falsely. This legislation would allow the brush to be cleaned out 
and it would also provide the first statutory protection for old-growth 
stands and large

[[Page 26185]]

trees ever in the history of this Nation. I have heard people fault it, 
saying it is not this and it is not that--but it is, and no one has 
submitted legislation prior to our doing so in this particular area.
  I want to be very clear. This is pro-environment legislation and it 
seeks to reverse some of the damage we have done to our forests and 
restore their healthy condition.
  Pictures show the story, I think more powerfully than words. Like the 
old adage, a photo is worth a thousand words. That is really true. Let 
me show you this first picture. This picture goes back to 1909, and it 
reminds me a little bit of the conditions of the Sierras when I used to 
ride through them as a child. You didn't have to go on trails; you used 
to ride through the forest.
  This is a picture of Grandview Point at Grand Canyon National Park in 
Arizona in 1909. You see the buggy and horses, and you see the open 
nature of the forest. You don't see much ground fuel. You don't see 
brush.
  Let me show you the next photo. It shows the forest closing in, due 
to fire suppression. From 1909, in the top picture, you will see it 
open. This is all the same identical forest. You will see the openness 
all throughout this forest as far back as you can see. Then you will 
see the next one, 1942. Look at these little juniors, look at them 
popping up all over the forest. Then you will see in the last picture 
in 1992, following a fire.
  This is the problem increasingly with these forests. This picture is 
from the Pearson Natural Area in the Coconino National Forest in 
Arizona.
  Now, look at another picture. This is the crowded, unthinned area, 
Ponderosa Pine in California. You will see one of these problems. This 
picture is not following a forest fire. This is the natural condition 
of this forest. It is just awaiting a catastrophic fire.
  Now, let me show you where fire suppression doesn't just exist in 
pines. I would like to show you a photo of some of California's most 
magnificent trees. This is the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoias in the 
southern Sierra Mountains. It is interesting to look at it. This is a 
man right here. This will show you how big those giant sequoias are. 
This was taken in 1890. Look at the clear space around those sequoias.
  Now go to 1970. This is the same tree and look at what has happened. 
This is a catastrophic fire waiting to happen.
  What will happen if there were fire back here, let's say, involving 
these two trees? It would not necessarily be catastrophic, because it 
would not burn hot enough on the fuel to take out the canopy. The 
sequoias are basically fire resistant and it would resist it. Fires 
today run the risk--because of the underbrush, because of the nonnative 
species, and because of the fuel ladder--of really taking out the 
canopy of old majestic and great trees.
  We had a fire in the Sequoias, and we were just lucky that where the 
fire took place, it didn't reach these trees.
  I would like to show you a picture of a fire in a Ponderosa pine 
forest that has been altered by decades of fire suppression. Look how 
this fire is burning. It is not confined to the ground. It is rising up 
into the trees and doing substantial damage.
  Look at this photo of fire in a stand where the brush and smaller 
trees have been cleared out. Note that the fire, unlike this fire, is 
confined to the ground.
  That is what we are trying to achieve in this bill so that when a 
fire does occur it is confined to the ground and does not do damage to 
old-growth trees, to other trees in the area, and to property and life.
  Finally, this is a picture showing how thinning can protect the 
forests. This is the 2000 Clear Creek Fire in the State of Idaho. The 
upper area in the photo was unmanaged, and it burned severely. You can 
see that right through here where the fire burned. Now you can see 
where the fire stopped. The lower area survived the fire and remained 
green and healthy because of one reason: It had been thinned.
  This is elegant testimony to what happens when it isn't managed. 
Where fuel is not removed, it burns fiercely. It stops where it is 
managed and there are fuel breaks, and the forest is cleared of fuel.
  I want to emphasize that not all of our forests have been affected by 
fire suppression. Many of our forests--particularly those in the wetter 
areas and higher mountain elevations--have changed little, if at all, 
from fire suppression. Fires in these forests occur only rarely. In 
some cases, hundreds of years can pass between fires. But fire 
suppression has changed these forests little.
  We can largely leave them alone under the legislation. The only 
exception is forest areas near communities where we want to reduce the 
hazardous fuel to ensure public safety.
  This is how our amendment would work. The bipartisan amendment 
directly addresses these threats to our forest health and our 
communities.
  We established an expedited hazardous fuels reduction program for 20 
million acres at the highest risk of catastrophic fire.
  Some opponents of this bill are saying everything is up for this 
project--wrong.
  This project is confined to 20 million acres of the highest risk of 
catastrophic fire among the 54 million acres which the Forest Service 
has identified at highest risk of catastrophic fire.
  It would authorize $760 million annually for the removal of fuel. 
That is a $340 million increase over current funding.
  The House bill has no money for title I to do this in that bill. It 
leaves 50 percent of the funds to be used for fuel reduction near 
communities.
  This is a compromise that Senator Wyden and I made to be able to 
provide incentives for others who may not have as many populated areas 
as some of us do to also have an opportunity to have fires thinned near 
urban watersheds, municipal watersheds, areas of infestation, and other 
critical areas that are in need of thinning to prevent catastrophic 
fire. And the remainder of funding is for municipal watersheds or 
endangered species habitat or areas that have suffered just as I have 
said.
  The legislation also requires that large fire-resistant old-growth 
trees be protected from logging immediately. Most people do not know 
that. But there is immediate protection for large fire-resistant old-
growth trees. 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. 
Within that 20 million acres there is a real effort to say that old 
forest plans must be brought to the fore and dealt with quickly within 
2 or 3 years.
  While forest-specific old growth is being developed, large and fire-
resilient trees would be immediately protected in the new project 
authorized by this legislation.
  The bill prevents logging of the largest most fire-resistant trees in 
the guise of fuel reduction. Where old-growth forests have not been 
altered by fire suppression, existing old-growth conditions must be 
maintained. And in other old-growth stands where brush and other highly 
flammable fuels have accumulated through this century-old policy of 
suppressing ground fires, brush will be cleared out to protect the 
stands from catastrophic fire.
  And local forest managers will write specific prescriptions for their 
forests. All of these prescriptions will be consistent with the more 
general national old-growth protection standards in the bill.
  Additionally, the agreement improves and shortens the administrative 
review process.
  I want to talk about this. There has been a lot of things said. A lot 
of things were just plain wrong. We have been trying to correct them 
wherever we can. Where we tried to shorten the process, we tried to 
make it more collaborative and less confrontational.
  It is critical that the Forest Service be able to spend scarce 
dollars as it is doing vital work on the ground rather than being mired 
in endless paperwork.
  The legislation we have submitted fully preserves multiple 
opportunities for meaningful public involvement. People can attend a 
public meeting on every single project. They can submit comments during 
both the preparation

[[Page 26186]]

of the environmental impact statement and during the administrative 
review process. I guarantee that the public will have a meaningful say 
in these projects.
  The legislation changes the environmental review process in this way. 
It does this so that the Forest Service still considers the effect of 
the proposed project. But it does it in a way so that the Forest 
Service can focus its analysis on the project proposal.
  One reasonable alternative is required--I want to explain this--that 
meets the project goals and the alternative of not doing the project, 
instead of the five to nine alternatives now required.
  We are not talking about a freeway or a highway being located where 
you might want to look at five to nine different alternatives. We are 
talking about one specific project that has been designated for 
hazardous fuels reduction and how you carry out that hazardous fuel 
reduction.
  There might be debate on whether it should be mechanical thinning, or 
burning, or a combination of the two. There might be a debate on 
exactly which trees people want to remain inviolate. All of that is 
possible. But the requirement, in addition to the alternative of doing 
nothing, is reduce one alternative--one sound alternative--that can be 
considered.
  This legislation replaces the current Forest Service administrative 
appeal with an administration review process that will occur after the 
Forest Service finishes its environmental review of the project but 
before it reaches its decision.
  This new approach is similar to the process adopted by the Clinton 
administration in 2000 for review of forest lands and amendments to 
those plans. The process will be speedier and less confrontational than 
the current administrative appeal process and have more information 
available to those who want to know more about the project.
  Perhaps the most controversial area is the area of judicial review. I 
will turn to that. I emphasize that cases will be heard more quickly 
under the legislation, abuses of the process will be checked, but 
nothing alters the citizen's opportunity for a fair and thorough court 
review. Parties can sue in Federal court only on issues raised in the 
environmental review process. We believe 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. This was in-house 
language. This has been supported. It is a good idea. We go to the 
Federal court in the area where the hazardous fuels project is 
proposed, not to a Federal court in New York City or somewhere else.
  Courts are encouraged to resolve the case as soon as possible. This 
is not mandatory language, it is suggested language. It means that any 
judge reading the bill will understand how seriously we take this. We 
urge them to conclude their deliberations expeditiously.
  A preliminary injunction would be limited to 60 days, not going on 
and on and on. An individual who gets a preliminary injunction can come 
back before the court and make an argument as to why the injunction 
should be continued, and the judge has the ability and the prerogative 
to continue that injunction if he or she sees fit.
  This provision, we believe, sends a signal to the courts not to delay 
important brush-clearing projects indefinitely unless there is a good 
reason to do so.
  Then there is what is called balance-of-harm language in the bill 
that says the court must weigh the environmental benefit of doing a 
given project against its environmental risk as it reviews the case.
  I deeply believe this amendment is balanced, that it is a significant 
improvement from the House-passed bill. I cannot support the House-
passed bill. Senator Wyden cannot support the House-passed bill. The 
Democrats who are on this bill cannot support and will not support the 
House-passed bill. Ergo, in this Chamber, the House-passed bill will 
not have the 60 votes required to move it along.
  There are many ways in which this amendment improves on the House-
passed bill. I know Senator Wyden went into that in great detail. I 
will mention three of them.
  First, this bill is focused on the highest priority language where we 
need to undertake brush-clearing projects to restore forest health. As 
I said, it is limited to 20 million of the 54 million acres at highest 
risk of catastrophic fire. These lands include the wildland/urban 
interface as defined by the communities needing protection, lands where 
fires would significantly threaten municipal water supply, lands 
significantly harmed by insect, disease, or wind throw and endangered 
species habitat.
  Second, we have protected both old-growth stands and large trees 
across the landscape. The projects expedited by this act, I believe, 
will truly restore forest health.
  Finally, the Senate agreement removed a provision of the House-passed 
bill that could have threatened the fair and impartial judicial review 
of Forest Service actions. This provision would have tilted the playing 
field in forestry litigation by requiring a court to defer to the 
Federal agency's views in deciding whether to issue an injunction.
  So for these three reasons alone, I believe our bipartisan amendment 
to title I significantly improves the bill which I otherwise could not 
support.
  Now, many people have said this bill would not do anything in 
California. That is just not right. I will speak to that for a minute 
because we have terrible fires burning, 10 huge fires, 3 huge major 
fires: Every day, burning homes; every day, the victim of excess 
vegetation and hazardous fuel that has built up over many years and has 
not been removed.
  The fires in southern California are burning in two basic vegetation 
types: chaparral and the pine forests in the San Bernardino Mountains. 
The exclusion to that is the fire burning up north, east of Redding. In 
both of these vegetation types, treatments of fuels will reduce the 
risk.
  The first area where the southern California fires are burning is the 
pine forests of the San Bernardino Mountains. I want you to take a look 
at these forests and look at the homes in the middle of this forest: 
House, house, house, house, house, house, house, house, house, house, 
house, house, house.
  Do you notice the yellow forest? That is all dead and dying and 
infested bark beetle forest. There are 44,000 homes located in the Big 
Bear/Arrowhead area where this fire is now on two sides, moving. Look 
at these homes. Look at the dead and dying trees. Does anyone believe 
they have a chance of surviving if this forest is not cleaned?
  We have tried in appropriations bills to get more money--and we have 
been able to get some money in this year and last year for more removal 
of bark beetle-infected forests--but clearly this is an exact area of 
urban interface that is in catastrophic, highest risk of fire. No one 
could tell me that if a hazardous fuels mitigation project had been 
carried out around this area, these homes and tens of thousands like 
them would not have been saved in this fire.
  Everyone, look at this. That is what this bill means. If you are 
going to vote against this bill, just know that. This is correct and 
elegant testimony. About 474,000 acres in this forest. The San 
Bernardino/San Jacinto, often both private and public lands, were 
experiencing severe tree loss ranging from 10 percent of all the trees 
in a given area to 100 percent. That has been known for quite some 
time. It has had years of drought. It has bark beetles. It has root 
disease. It has dwarf mistletoe. They have all reached epidemic 
proportions. The cost assessment by the County Assessor's Office of 
these homes and those surrounding them is $8 billion.
  A century ago, this forest was fairly open, with mostly larger trees. 
Experts estimate there were likely 40 to 50 trees per acre back then. 
The difference today is staggering. The Forest Service estimates there 
are now 500 trees per acre in much of the San Bernardino Mountains--40 
trees before fire suppression; 500 trees today.

[[Page 26187]]

  That is also eloquent testimony to what happens with the fuel ladders 
that are generated by the overcrowded forests. This is more than 10 
times the density of trees that existed a century ago. It is startling, 
it is dramatic, and it is a huge difference. So this is what we have 
created with a century of ``do not cut a tree'' fire suppression: 
extremely dense, unhealthy forests.
  The Senate agreement would get projects moving quickly to thin these 
forests and restore them to health. The San Bernardino Forest would be 
among the highest priority areas to receive hazardous fuel treatments 
under the legislation. All the insect-infested areas would fall within 
the priority areas for treatment.
  With the expedited administrative review process, we could treat 
these acres more quickly. Environmental analysis would focus on the 
work that needs to be done, not multiple theoretical alternatives. We 
know we need to thin these forests. We do not need to study 6 or 12 
different ways to do it.
  The expedited administrative review process would also help us past 
the confrontational delays caused in the current appeals process, and 
the additional funding the bill authorizes would also help.
  Finally, we have spoken to Republican colleagues who have agreed to 
add a $50 million authorization for emergency grants to States and 
localities for dealing with situations exactly like those in the San 
Bernardino Mountains today. So there is money to help communities do 
their wildfire plans to help them move to develop areas they believe 
need this thinning, and these grants help additionally.
  Communities could clear evacuation routes from mountain areas, like 
the Lake Arrowhead region, to ensure that people have a chance to 
escape in the event of a catastrophic fire. One family trying to escape 
with two children in their car was burned to death because the car 
could not move faster than the fire.
  Brush would be cleared around shelter-in-place locations like schools 
in case people do not have the opportunity to escape in time. 
Communities would obtain funding for evacuation drills and other 
advanced planning. I am very grateful the other side agreed to add this 
$50 million segment.
  The Senate bill will also help prevent chaparral fires. Some have 
said: Oh, no, it won't. Here is Scripps Ranch. This is a large 
subdivision outside San Diego. You see the fire--miles of fire line 
approaching the ranch.
  The legislation authorizes significantly more money for hazardous 
fuel reduction efforts. We authorize a total of $760 million. That is 
$340 million above current funding. Again, the House bill has no 
dollars for this kind of public land mitigation. Our bill does.
  Moreover, there is an understanding that the bill's sponsors will 
work to continue to increase funding substantially. Let there be no 
misunderstanding on this point, these funds are available to be used in 
brush areas like chaparral as well as in forested areas.
  Second, the legislation requires at least 50 percent of the funding 
goes to community protection. This is a significant improvement over 
current law which does not require any set amount of hazardous fuel 
reduction go for community protection.
  Perhaps most importantly, the legislation calls for communities to 
plan their own defense through community wildlife protection plans. 
That is a problem. People who live in dry Southern California areas 
want the trees, want the bushes, want the fuels on the ground. 
Historically they have resisted putting together community fire 
protection plans. That is folly. They have to do it. In chaparral, it 
is important to get community support behind prescribed fires to clear 
out the brush. So far, as I said, many communities have been reluctant 
to support prescribed fires because of the perceived risks of these 
fires. But community wildfire plans will give the community the ability 
to choose whether it wants the risks of prescribed fire--or some 
cutting or thinning--or the much greater risks of wildfire.
  Community wildfire plans will play an important role in gaining 
popular support for a workable way to defend these dry communities.
  Another key issue--I am just about through--in chaparral is reducing 
the risk of homes burning on private land. The community wildfire plans 
provided for in this bill will help in this area, too, because they are 
required to include recommendations to reduce homes igniting throughout 
the community.
  We owe it to our communities to do the best we can to protect them 
from catastrophic fire. I wish--I truly do, from the bottom of my 
heart--the California wildfires would be quickly extinguished and 
controlled. We need to do everything we possibly can.
  I might report the regional forester called this morning. We have 
been pushing the White House and the Defense Department to lend every 
piece of available equipment--C-130s, Sea Stallion helicopters with 
buckets, tankers--everything they have. For the first time, I got the 
report that they have everything they need now to fight these big 
fires. I am very grateful for that and express my gratitude.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief.
  I have one question for the Senator from California, but first I want 
to thank her for the exceptional work she and her staff have done on 
this issue for over 4 years.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WYDEN. I have chaired the subcommittee. I have been the ranking 
minority member. I do not think my knowledge on this subject compares 
to that of the knowledge of the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator is very kind.
  Mr. WYDEN. She has thrown herself into this, and we thank her for all 
her efforts. We all empathize with what your constituents are going 
through. The people of California, a year ago, helped my constituents. 
We are trying to help yours. We thank you for it.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I just say, thank you for the help that has come 
from Oregon. It is a long way away. But we are very grateful. New 
Mexico is sending help. Nevada--the Senator from Nevada is on the 
floor--sent help. Arizona has sent help. We are very grateful for that.
  Thank you.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague.
  One very brief question. I have sensed from the beginning of the 
debate that probably the most contentious issue coming up is this 
question of making sure the public is still involved in the process, 
the whole question of what is called NEPA, the National Environmental 
Policy Act.
  The Senator is so correct in saying we have made it clear that the 
Senate bill is not something we are going to allow to be unraveled. But 
I think one of the reasons for it is because the Senate bill differs 
very dramatically with what the other body is talking about with 
respect to keeping the public in the process.
  The other body, in effect, takes the public out of the process by 
predetermining these NEPA alternatives. What we have said in our 
compromise would be to say the public can actually offer an 
alternative. The public has a right to go into this process, known as 
scoping, and actually come to the table and offer an alternative.
  The Senator has made the point that not one current opportunity for 
public comment would be lost under this compromise.
  I would be interested in the Senator's analysis of how the public 
stays involved, because I think this is probably the most contentious 
question we may be faced with as we try to wrap up this bill, hopefully 
today.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator is correct, through the Chair, if I may. 
We have discussed this and both of us wanted to protect the 
collaborative process. We wanted to protect the ability of individuals 
to go to meetings, to state their issues, to have those issues 
considered.
  The only change I see in this is twofold. The first is that they will 
have the environmental review to look at, which is important in 
understanding

[[Page 26188]]

what you differ with in the environmental review and then being able to 
make the case.
  Secondly, the number of alternatives is reduced from five to nine to 
one. There is a good reason for that. As I pointed out earlier, if we 
were talking about a network of highways or something like that, you 
may want five to nine alternatives to be considered. We are talking 
about an area which has been designated in the highest risk of 
catastrophic fire. Therefore, the alternative would be one. For 
example, do you believe there is too much thinning? Do you believe 
there is too much burning? Would you do mechanical in what proportion 
to burning to thin this area out? There would be the ability to come in 
with one precise alternative.
  Of course, the other alternative that some might argue for is to do 
nothing. They would have that ability as well.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague and again tell her how much I have 
appreciated a chance to be her partner.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. You have been a great ranking member and I have 
enjoyed every minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to Senator Reid.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have listened to the statements here 
today. They are all very good. People have worked hard on their 
statements. But I want to simply say this: We have a bill to complete, 
and we want everyone who has any interest in it to come and give their 
statements. When that time has come, we will start the amendment 
process.
  We have worked on this bill now 3 hours, and the only amendment 
offered is the one by the chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran. 
What I wanted to do is ask unanimous consent--he already has the floor, 
the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--that 
following the statement of Senator Domenici, the ranking member of the 
committee, Senator Bingaman, would be recognized to give a statement. 
It is my understanding the Senator from Alaska wishes to give a 
statement. Following Senator Bingaman, the Senator from Alaska be 
recognized to give a statement on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator seeking consent for that 
sequence?
  Mr. REID. I am.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank the Senate for allowing a 
lengthy debate this morning about a very serious issue. I am looking 
across the Senate to the distinguished junior Senator from Alaska, a 
new Member of the Senate. She has behind her a very big picture. She 
will explain it in more detail. But might I ask, that is a picture of a 
totally infested forest in your State; correct?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would you mind answering a couple of questions? We have 
been hearing about fires in California moving in the direction now, if 
they have not already, of an area that is highly infested.
  Last night on television we heard various announcers talk about it. 
They described it from the field, for those who were there. They said: 
This forest is like Christmas trees many months after Christmas, just 
standing there like dried pieces of wood. And they said that we know 
what happens to those after Christmas when you put a match to them.
  That is what we are talking about in this forest you have there.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. That is correct. It is not just a small patch we are 
talking about. We have over 5 million acres of infested and dead timber 
standing there just waiting, as the Senator indicated, to crumble and 
act as fuel for any fire. It is as the Senator described. It is like 
that Christmas tree. There is absolutely no life to it with the needles 
just crumbling in your hands. It is that dry.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Before Senator Feinstein leaves on her way out, I will 
not ask you anything; I am just going to speak about you.
  First, I thank you for your leadership in this regard. Some people 
think that it is only New Mexico and Utah and Wyoming that have forest 
fire problems and that have forests that are clogged to the gills 
because we have not maintained and cleaned them. Some think the only 
infested forests are in Alaska.
  As I understand it, you have all of those and probably in larger 
quantities than most of us combined. I say, for those of us who have 
been trying desperately to get a bill that treated these situations in 
a way that could be solved, it was truly a Godsend that we got some 
powerful and thinking Democrats who decided to join us. You are one of 
them.
  Senator Wyden, I thank you. There are more than the two of you. But 
every time we needed a voice, you were there. I don't know what they 
said about you at home. I don't know what those people who don't want 
to do anything said about you. But I assumed they didn't say all nice 
things because every time you try to modify the law, there is somebody 
back home who runs an ad that you are trying to log all the forests in 
the State or that you don't care about preserving the beauty of your 
State, that you have just turned yours over to the logging industry.
  I see the Senator nodding. You must have had some of that already. 
And Senator Wyden, you must have, although you have already felt the 
wrath of not being able to log anything in your State, and you have 
seen what happened to thousands of workers.
  I just wanted to, as part of my opening remarks, thank you.
  We will also have to take up, as part of the Iraq bill, the Domenici-
Feinstein bill on proper notice and opening up all the decisions that 
are going to be made over there to the public and in a regular order 
manner. We will do that later in the day and maybe have another 
victory.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair, if I may, I would like to thank 
you, Senator. I appreciate the chairmanship of this committee, your 
working with Senator Wyden and I. I am delighted to hear what you have 
said about the emergency supplemental and getting the report language 
back in. Thank you very much.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have an array of Senators, not just Republicans--not 
the few who have been fighting for years about this issue of the 
failure to maintain our forests--we have a lot of Senators who have 
come around to our way of thinking, Democrat and Republican. It almost 
is unbelievable to see that forest in Alaska, which is no longer a 
forest other than by name, to see what is happening in California as 
brush fires move quickly toward an entire forest that is dried, dead 
trees, and then to ask the question: Why is that so? Wouldn't it be 
rational that we cut them down? Wouldn't it be rational that rather 
than leave them there as natural incendiaries, ready to literally blow 
up, just poof, and they go right up in the sky as these kind of trees 
burn, wouldn't it be logical to do something about it?
  Well, the truth is, we have not been able to do anything about it for 
one of the most ridiculous reasons anybody could have in mind, but it 
has worked until today. That is, anything you try to do is logging 
forests. Anything you try to do is turning the forests over to the 
loggers. Would you believe year after year after year that has 
prevailed? I don't know what we could have done when we passed 
legislation, when we begged these same groups, let's write in something 
about logging, let's talk about the size of the trees, let's do 
anything reasonable, as we talked about what has happened to American 
forests.
  I don't know if the distinguished occupant of the chair knows what 
forests looked like 20 years ago in our public forests, and what they 
look like today; but I can tell you they don't look like the same 
forests. They used to be cleaned: there used to be spacing; it used to 
be that the trees--I nicknamed what we were trying to do one time on 
the Senate floor--what we are trying to do is make the forests 
``happy'' again. I meant that they could see the sun, and they would 
probably smile, instead of being clogged up together

[[Page 26189]]

where they grow straight up. But nobody dare touch that forest and 
clean it up and make it a forest like it used to be because they will 
be sued and things will be delayed, a judge will take over, and the 
judge will say: Every ``t'' has not been crossed, every ``i'' has not 
been dotted. You cannot do it.
  One day in 1998, after we had our share of fires, after a huge fire 
in my State--I think it was the second most serious fire to the 
California fires in terms of burning down homes--450 houses at Los 
Alamos. Incidentally, if you are looking at what things might cost, 
that was done by the Federal Government that messed up and burned it by 
mistake and we had to pay. That one cost over a half billion dollars to 
the town and the people for what they lost, including houses and 
streets that were broken and torn up. I would not even want to guess 
what the California fire will cost. I hope that the houses are insured.
  Nonetheless, if you add it all up, it is costs. I don't see how it is 
going to be less than $5 billion or $6 billion, based on the little bit 
I know that I am sharing with you. The truth is that there is no reason 
under the Sun to delay moving ahead with that forest in Alaska, and 
moving ahead quickly, get it cut down; and whatever utility there is in 
the trees, use it. If there is none, have planned burns so you can give 
way to some growth that will be healthy again. That is why we have 
called this now the Healthy Forests Act.
  Might I quickly say that while we weren't able to expedite everything 
the way some of us wanted, although everything is expedited in this 
bill, at least cleaning up forests such as the one in Alaska, huge 
acres of infested trees, in this bill that will move quickly in the 
future. It can be delayed and go to court once. But the overall thrust 
of the bill is that it won't be delayed for years as in the past. So 
the distinguished Senator from Alaska hopes to see some of that removed 
soon, during her first elected term in the Senate.
  Now, I began by thanking Senator Cochran and his staff for moving 
ahead with this legislation. It was determined that it was their 
jurisdiction because of the way it was written, not the jurisdiction of 
my committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. They did a 
great job. I am not going to bother the Senate with a lot of statistics 
about the health of our national forests, but there are some facts of 
importance.
  Our Federal agencies tell us that 190 million acres are at risk to 
catastrophic fires or attack from insects and disease--190 million 
acres. This is an area equal to the size of Maine, Vermont, New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and most of Maryland. It means that much land 
covered by forests is no longer real forest, it is insect-riddled 
forest like that in the photo of Alaska, most of which should be 
removed so good trees can grow, and so we can eliminate catastrophic 
fires that can occur quickly, simply, and easily and go through and 
scourge the area--worse than Attila the Hun--leaving nothing.
  In the last 5 years, we have burned--including what we have burned 
this year--24 million acres; 24 million acres have been scorched. That 
is an area as large as Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. I am 
not here saying we will never have forest fires and we should never 
have them. What I am saying is they should not be occurring where 
improvements exist, homes exist, National Laboratories exist, where 
businesses exist because we already know we ought to clean around them 
so they will not burn.
  As a matter of fact, the principal reason for the bill I introduced, 
which I said we called ``happy forests,'' was to get at this issue we 
called urban interface. We still have not done a great deal. In fact, I 
am just learning that of the $250 million that we put in that bill back 
then, there is still over $100 million in both the BLM and Forest 
Service that has not been spent on happy forests. So maybe when we get 
this bill finished, we can finally get an organized plan for funding 
that will see us making some headway. We have seen insects destroy the 
forests in a dozen Western States, severely impacting forests in 
Eastern States.
  One such outbreak in southeastern California has destroyed 450,000 
acres, half the national forest that it is located on, in an area 
almost as large as the State of Rhode Island.
  Let me put the forest health disaster in context. During that same 
period, the Forest Service has only thinned or harvested 1.4 million 
acres, which is slightly larger than Delaware. We have burned 17 times 
more rangeland in the last 5 years than we have attempted to manage--
land that we know should be managed, cleaned up, unclogged, and we 
should get rid of the waste on the ground that is a fire trap. We have 
burned 17 times more than we have attempted to clean up and manage.
  So this bill is going to improve forest health, if we can ever get it 
passed. I hope those who have delayed it in the Senate will let us get 
on with it. I have been amazed to hear the reason some have said--that 
they are holding this bill up because they could not understand it. 
Well, I don't know how all these Senators, from the ones I mentioned on 
the other side of the aisle to the ones on this side, could all say it 
is a meaningful bill, and then we can have one or two Senators, or 
their staffs, saying they are against it because they don't know what 
it means. Maybe they should ask or let us bring it up, and if they 
think it is not clear, offer an amendment.
  I think it is clear, and I think it is a good bill. I don't think in 
some areas it goes far enough, but you have to do what you can. Now we 
have a great bipartisan coalition and we will have to work with the 
House, which wants to go more in the direction of expediting matters. 
But this is going to result in improving the health of our forests over 
time. It will result in a more public expedited process for moving 
hazardous fuels projects through the NEPA process. I didn't say 
``without'' the NEPA process, as we are being accused of out in the 
hinterland. It is going to provide that that would be expedited. There 
is nothing in the NEPA law that says you cannot do that. It prioritizes 
the treatment of 20 million acres in the wildland/urban interface. I 
described that.
  Twenty million acres are supposed to receive high-priority treatment 
to clean this stuff that is around urbaness, and make it less volatile 
from the standpoint of burning. When we had our Los Alamos fire, which 
I alluded to, it came perilously close to burning some very important 
laboratory buildings. Suffice it to say that most of them were saved 
because the laboratory had cleaned up 200 or 300 feet around each one 
and left no trees, so they had to jump all the way over that to get 
some buildings.
  On the other hand, the fire got a few buildings that were not so 
important and where there had been no cleaning and burned them. We 
spent a lot of money replacing a few of the buildings.
  This bill says 20 million of this wildland/urban interface, as well 
as outside the wildland/urban interface is at highest risk, and they 
are called that: high-risk areas.
  This bill calls for court cases on hazardous fuels projects to be 
heard within the district in which they are located, encouraging the 
courts to deal with these cases in a timely manner, and directs that 
all preliminary injunctions be reviewed every 60 days, with an 
opportunity for the parties to update the judges on the conditions 
about which courts should know.
  Finally, the bill reminds the courts that when weighing the equities, 
they should balance the impacts to the ecosystem of the short- and 
long-term effects of undertaking a project against the short- and long-
term effects of not undertaking a project. That is very important. It 
cannot be one-sided. There is always somebody who can say there is a 
bad side to it, but the judges now will have to look at and balance the 
short- and long-term effects of not doing the project with undertaking 
the project. They are going to find that a lot more than in the past, 
it will not be subject to the court holding them up.
  What is the difference in the House bill and this bill?
  First, we have restricted the use of this authority under this act to 
only the highest risk areas.

[[Page 26190]]

  We have emphasized the importance of working within the wildland 
urban interface by requiring 50 percent of the funds nationally be 
spent within the wildland urban interface.
  We have emphasized the importance of quickly dealing with insect and 
disease epidemics and the salvage of wind-thrown or ice-damaged timber 
due to their suseptability to insects and disease.
  We have increased the amount of up-front public input to project 
development and NEPA by adding a process for communities to develop a 
community fire protection plan to help inform the Federal land managers 
of a community's priorities and by requiring all projects to be 
developed through the collaborative process developed by the western 
Governors group.
  We have added the authority for the agencies, in cooperation with 
State and local government, to treat community escape routes as part of 
the wildland urban interface. This is a major improvement over the 
House-passed bill.
  Until the community fire protection plans are completed, we have laid 
out criteria for how far from the wildland urban interface the 
community protection projects may be undertaken. These criteria are 
flexible enough to take advantage of geographic features, such as 
ridge-tops, rivers, or roads, but restrictive enough to ensure projects 
undertaken in the wildland urban interface will really protect the 
community.
  We clarified what Congress wants in terms of a new pre-decisional 
protest process by requiring the Secretary to establish such a process 
while ensuring the public will play a part in the development of the 
new appeals process.
  Unlike the House version, we have limited the use of this new appeals 
process to just projects authorized by this act, rather than having it 
apply to all Forest Service activities.
  We have, for the first time, included language designed to protect 
old growth and fire resistant large trees. This protection is based on 
forest plans.
  Where those forest plans are old, or outdated, we require the 
Secretary to complete a plan revision or amendment to address old 
growth and large fire resilient trees, while at the same time including 
enough flexibility to ensure work need to improve fire resiliency can 
be carried out.
  We have narrowed the scope of changes under judicial review to just 
those projects undertaken under the authority of this act.
  We have also included all of the judicial review provisions from the 
Wyden-Feinstein proposal, S. 1352.
  Finally, we have authorized $760 million annually for hazardous fuel 
reduction work, including the projects authorized under this act, which 
is more than double what is currently being requested.
  I thank the Senate for listening. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, is to be recognized at this 
time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, even if we were not having the catastrophic fires we 
are seeing every day in southern California right now, the forest 
health issue is of vital importance to us in the West, and many of the 
speeches that have been given here underscore that.
  I am glad the Senate is considering a forest health bill with the 
opportunity for us to offer amendments. I will not go through all of my 
statement because I know we want to get to those amendments. There has 
been a lot of time used already in discussing the bill in general 
terms. We need to get down to some of the specific amendments.
  Let me make a few general statements about the bill because I do 
think it is good to at least give our perspective on the situation.
  Some have tried to portray the issue as one of support for the 
concept of active management of our national forests on the one hand as 
opposed to simply allowing nature to take its course. Let me be clear 
that I do not agree with that portrayal of the debate taking place in 
the Congress. I have always viewed active forest management as not only 
a desirable policy but one that is absolutely necessary. In my opinion, 
support for active and responsible forest management does not equate 
with support necessarily for all the provisions in this substitute 
amendment that will be coming before us.
  I want to be sure that whatever legislative language we pass provides 
meaningful new authority to Federal land managers, that it is focused 
on the communities that are most threatened by wildfire, and that it 
does not unduly restrict the public's ability to participate in the 
oversight of public lands management.
  In addition, I believe commercial timber operations are an important 
part of our national forest policy. It is important that legislation 
dealing with forest health not be a pretext for accomplishing that 
purpose as well.
  I wish to discuss some of the concerns with the forest health issue 
based on the initial reading I have done of the amendment we are going 
to be debating and amending.
  Let me begin by stating the obvious. That is, the health of our 
Nation's forests is absolutely critical at this point due to 
generations of misguided forest management policies. Many forests are 
overcrowded with unhealthy buildup of underbrush and tree overcrowding. 
I think all the experts in this field recognize that. We see evidence 
of that not only with the California fires, but we see evidence of it 
throughout the country.
  The effect of these large wildfires can be catastrophic, as we all 
can see. We have, as Senator Domenici indicated, seen some of this 
catastrophe in my home State of New Mexico. He made reference to the 
Cerro Grande fire at Los Alamos where a substantial number of homes 
were destroyed and a great amount of the forest was also destroyed.
  Clearly, we need to take proactive steps to improve forest health. In 
my view, the proposed forest health amendment does some things right 
but, in some respects, I think it misses that opportunity. It does not 
provide any meaningful new authority for funding to help Federal land 
managers, but it does add new restrictions on the public's ability to 
participate and restrictions on the Federal courts' ability to review 
what is done.
  There is a basic disagreement among some of us in Congress and among 
those who are most ardently supporting this amendment, and that is a 
disagreement about what is the most significant public policy issue we 
are faced with in trying to come to grips with these catastrophic 
fires.
  The amendment we are going to be debating seems to be based on the 
premise that the underlying and essential problem that needs fixing is 
that we have too much public participation in the decisionmaking 
process, in management decisions, administrative appeals, and lawsuits.
  One of the speakers earlier today talked about a litigation 
paralysis, saying that is the problem, that is why these forests are 
burning up. That is what we need to change most quickly. I say this 
because the major new authorities provided in the amendment are ones 
that limit appeals of agency decisions, limit judicial review, and 
require courts to follow new standards. I don't really think the facts 
support this assumption that litigation is the major and most 
significant problem we face.
  I recently asked the General Accounting Office to study whether the 
National Environmental Policy Act compliance requirements, the agency 
appeals, and the litigation that has occurred were causing significant 
delays in hazardous fuel reduction projects.
  The GAO issued a preliminary report in May. They just completed a 
final report last Friday. The GAO in that report reviewed 818 Forest 
Service management decisions over a 2-year period, fiscal years 2001 
and 2002, and these 818 forest management decisions involving fuel 
reduction activities on 4.8 million acres of land. These were the first 
2 years of the so-called national fire plan which we have all been 
trying to see implemented.
  It is worthwhile to take just a minute to summarize what the GAO 
found. The GAO found that the vast

[[Page 26191]]

majority of acres treated were categorically excluded by the Forest 
Service from NEPA review. That is a term of art, ``categorically 
excluded.'' That means this is authority in the law for the Forest 
Service to say: We are going to exclude certain areas from NEPA review, 
and we have the authority to do that.
  The GAO found the vast majority of acres that were treated were, in 
fact, categorically excluded. None of these projects were appealed, 
none were litigated, none were subject to appeal, and none were subject 
to litigation.
  Only 25 of the 818 were litigated. That represents about 3 percent of 
all projects. That involved about 100,000 acres. Again, this is out of 
the 4.8 million acres that was studied by the GAO for those 2 years.
  Significantly, the GAO found of those 25 cases that were litigated, 
23 involved commercial timber sales. Of the 25 cases that were 
litigated, the courts found the Forest Service lost on all but one of 
those cases. So to the extent litigation was involved, the vast 
majority of the time the Forest Service was found to have been in 
violation of the law.
  In my opinion, litigation is not the major problem. I am not saying 
we cannot do some things to streamline the appeals process and to be 
sure any frivolous litigation is eliminated, but I do think we need to 
recognize the GAO made a study that shed some light on what we are 
doing.
  The majority of forest-thinning projects were categorically excluded 
from NEPA. In my State, in region 3 of the Forest Service, which 
included Arizona and New Mexico, the GAO found 78 percent of the 
projects were excluded, and that covered 91 percent of the affected 
acreage. So 91 percent of the affected acreage was never subject to 
appeal, never subject to litigation.
  This is a useful report. There is a one-page summary of it. I ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The only other report we have analyzing empirical data 
of the Forest Service appeals involved a 2003 study by a political 
science professor at Northern Arizona University. Contrary to the 
assertions of the Bush administration, the Northern Arizona University 
study found the number of appeals had been decreasing since 1998.
  I will speak a little bit about what I do see as a major issue as 
part of this legislation. Based on our experience with forest health 
issues in my State, the real issue has not been judicial appeals, 
judicial review, but instead has been providing adequate funding for 
forest health projects and stopping the Forest Service's harmful 
practice of borrowing funds from fire prevention accounts in order to 
pay for the cost of fighting forest fires. I will offer an amendment on 
that in a few minutes. I wanted to flag that as an essential problem I 
think needs to be dealt with. It is not dealt with in the amendment 
coming to the floor now, but I will give the Senate the opportunity to 
deal with it. I hope the Senate will agree with me this is something we 
need to fix.
  I commend Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan, the chairman and ranking 
member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for their efforts 
to secure $400 million last month to repay the accounts the agencies 
borrowed in order to fight fires. I also appreciate Senator Burns's 
comment that the $400 million is not the final word, especially since 
the estimates those agencies have given is they actually had to borrow 
over $600 million from other programs so far this year.
  However, the year-to-year approach we have followed of borrowing 
funds from other accounts in order to deal with forest fires is just 
not adequate. Even when our Senate Appropriations colleagues were able 
to obtain supplemental funding to repay these other Forest Service 
accounts, every year on-the-ground restoration work is substantially 
delayed while the Forest Service waits for a supplemental 
appropriations bill to be enacted into law.
  In New Mexico, there are some very critical Forest Service fire 
prevention projects that were postponed for up to a year as a result of 
borrowing from these accounts. These include wildland/urban interface 
fuels projects in the Carson National Forest, the Gila National Forest, 
the Lincoln National Forest, and the Santa Fe National Forest.
  In addition, a contract for construction of a fuel break around a 
community at risk in the Cibola National Forest was postponed for 6 
months because of the agency borrowing to cover firefighting costs.
  This is not criticism of the agency. The agency has no alternative 
but to do this borrowing, the way we have set it up. What happens is 
very simple. The President asks for too little money for firefighting. 
He does that every year--at least he has for the last several years. I 
have some charts I will show in a few minutes on that.
  The President asks for too little money. We in the Congress agree 
with the President and appropriate too little money. Then when the 
fires start happening, of course, the Forest Service has to find ways 
to fight those fires. The only option they have is to shut down their 
activities in other areas and use that money instead to fight fires.
  One of the other areas they shut down activity in is in this forest-
thinning work, so that we put it off, say, OK, we cannot get it done 
this year; we are too busy fighting fires; we will try to get it done 
next year. Then next year comes and once again they may have to use the 
money they had hoped to use for the forest-thinning activities and the 
forest health activities to, in fact, fight fires. That has happened 
year in and year out. It is a classic case of being so busy killing 
alligators that there is not time to drain the swamp. That is exactly 
the position we have put the Forest Service in and we need to try to 
correct that. I will offer an amendment with the hope the Senate will 
agree with me and make that correction.
  The lack of funding for forest health projects continues to constrain 
our efforts to actively manage our forests to deal with these disease 
and drought conditions which have been discussed at length. Three years 
ago, Congress found funding was the main obstacle to improving forest 
health and reducing a threat of unnaturally intense catastrophic 
wildfire. Specifically, we have created the National Fire Plan, with 
$1.6 billion in new funding for existing programs, to improve forest 
health conditions. At that time, we all agreed on the need to sustain a 
commitment to the National Fire Plan over a long enough period so we 
could make a difference. We were talking about 15 years. That meant at 
a minimum sustaining the fiscal year 2001 funding levels for all 
components of the National Fire Plan.
  Unfortunately, as I stated just a few minutes ago, the administration 
has systematically and continually proposed major cuts and, in some 
cases, zeroing out critical programs within that National Fire Plan, 
including the burned area restoration program, rehabilitation projects, 
economic action programs, community and private land fire assistance. 
So the proposed cuts we have received in the budgets each year have 
eliminated funding for these programs, notwithstanding the clearly 
identified demand for these programs. For example, New Mexico and other 
States have suffered unnaturally intense, catastrophic fires, and there 
is a desperate need for funds to restore and rehabilitate the burned 
areas.
  Finally, the 2002 report and conclusion by the National Academy of 
Public Administration confirmed the main obstacle constraining the 
Forest Service from substantially increasing its proactive efforts to 
reduce fire risk is the lack of adequate funding. The proposed 
amendment to H.R. 1904 authorizes $760 million. I appreciate the fact 
that funding level is in there, but it does not ensure the real funding 
will be provided. The problem is, when we get into the actual 
appropriating of funds, we do not get the job done.
  In earlier debates, I have repeatedly stated the Forest Service needs 
to

[[Page 26192]]

focus its hazardous fuels reduction effort more directly on the threats 
communities face. We will have an amendment to that effect. I know 
Senator Boxer from California has an amendment to try to do a better 
job in that regard. I think that will be an important issue for us to 
try to deal with as well.
  In sum, Congress required a sufficient proportion of all hazardous 
fuels reduction funds be spent on projects near communities. 
Nevertheless, the General Accounting Office recently found that more 
than two-thirds of the Forest Service decisions involving fuel 
reduction activities were targeted exclusively at lands outside this 
wildland/urban interface area. The amendment that has been brought to 
the floor here goes on to state that this requirement is based on a 
national average, this 50 percent requirement. They are saying we 
should have 50 percent going for projects near communities, in this 
wildland/urban interface. If you have a requirement such as that based 
on national average, obviously individual forests or even entire 
regions can significantly ignore this direction we were giving them.
  In addition, the provisions of the amendment only apply to funds 
allocated for projects pursuant to title I of H.R. 1904 rather than to 
the entire hazardous fuels reduction program.
  There are many questions about the specific language of the amendment 
at which we need to look. Let me talk for just a minute about the new 
administrative appeals process.
  Apart from what the amendment does not do, I am very concerned with 
some of the things the new authority does try to do. The provision that 
seems the least developed in the amendment, the one that causes me 
significant concern, is section 105. This section directs the Secretary 
of Agriculture to establish a predecisional administrative review 
process that will serve as the:

     sole means by which a person can seek administrative review 
     of a hazardous fuel reduction project. . . .

  This predecisional process is described as covering the period 
following the completion of the appropriate NEPA document up to the 
date a final agency decision is issued.
  I understand the desire to ensure that interested members of the 
public are involved during the development of the proposed agency 
project, and to avoid lawsuits by those who have not been involved in 
the process, and I certainly agree with that.
  However, I think the language is somewhat troubling. As I understand 
it, the language would limit the right to administratively appeal an 
agency decision, as well as the ability to challenge it in Federal 
court, to those who have exhausted the predecisional review process. So 
we are going to significantly limit the right to appeal or challenge a 
decision based on a process that has not been established yet and that 
we are not really clear on what it will permit.
  There are other questions about that. As I understand it, there will 
likely be an amendment offered on that issue as well.
  Let me say a word about the Federal courts because many of the others 
who have spoken have done that. The amendment that has been offered 
here limits the court's ability to issue a preliminary injunction to no 
more than 60 days, although a court can renew an injunction 
indefinitely.
  In order to issue a preliminary injunction, a court needs to find 
several things: No. 1, that the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the 
merits. That is the first thing the court needs to find. No. 2, that 
there will be irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued. No. 3, 
the harm to the plaintiff in not issuing the injunction is not 
outweighed by the harm to the defendant of issuing the injunction. And, 
No. 4, that issuing the injunction is in the public interest.
  So a Federal court has to find quite a few things to issue a 
preliminary injunction. Having made this determination, I wonder why we 
then are saying to the court, unless you come back and renew that 
injunction every 60 days, we in Congress are going to assume the agency 
was right and you were wrong. The court has already determined that 
most likely the agency is in error. So I have concerns about that.
  I understand there is a great desire here to limit the Federal 
court's ability to issue injunctions, preliminary injunctions. My 
understanding is, also, that this not only limits preliminary 
injunctions, it limits the Federal court's rights to issue permanent 
injunctions in some questionable ways.
  Let me say just briefly, I do think we need to be sure the bill has 
adequate protections for national monuments and for roadless areas. 
There are provisions to exclude designated wilderness and wilderness 
study areas from the bill. I think we should have that same provision 
apply to national monuments. I hope we can persuade our colleagues that 
that makes good sense. I have been told by some that is certainly their 
intent.
  Turning to my home State, 3 years ago we created the Valles Caldera 
National Preserve in northern New Mexico. I think it would be good to 
know how the provisions in this amendment would be used there, in that 
type of arrangement. Perhaps we can clarify that. I hope we can.
  There are several other questions about how this relates to other 
forest initiatives: How does it interact with recent legislative and 
administrative actions regarding forest health?
  There is a stewardship contracting program that includes exemptions 
from the National Forest Management Act and provides new authority for 
the Forest Service and for the BLM to trade the value of big trees 
removed by a contractor for restoration services completed by that same 
contractor. We need to see how this new legislation would impact upon 
that.
  In addition, the administration has taken several regulatory actions 
recently under its Healthy Forests initiative. It has promulgated new 
rules establishing a categorical exclusion from NEPA, which would apply 
to projects, including timber sales, that cover up to 1,000 acres each. 
The administration has published new rules overhauling the Forest 
Service appeals process. Those new rules exempt all ``categorically 
excluded projects from appeal.''
  In other words, the administration has taken significant action to 
deal with several of these issues. We need to know how this legislation 
affects the actions that have already been taken.
  Slash treatments is another issue that I think deserves some 
attention. We have a serious issue here in that in my home State they 
go through, they cut down the diseased small trees, they put them into 
piles, and then they have to come back and do a sequential treatment, 
come back and remove that slash and be sure it does not become bug 
infested and become an even greater problem. The GAO analysis found 
that in my State the Forest Service and BLM completed only 19 of the 34 
followup slash treatments that they had committed to do in a timely 
manner. Again, it is probably a lack of funding that has caused that 
shortfall.
  I have some additional concerns and questions about the provisions in 
the amendment. I will raise those at the appropriate time as we get 
into the amendments.
  In closing, let me reiterate I am very glad we are proceeding to 
consideration of the bill. Since some of us were not involved in the 
negotiations, I do think it is appropriate we offer some amendments. 
Especially it is important for Senators from States that are directly 
affected by this threat to have that opportunity. I commend the people 
who did work hard in getting this legislation to this point. I do think 
there has been a genuine effort to find some compromise and to make 
some improvements. Clearly, this bill as it stands is substantially 
better than what the House has sent us. But it can be substantially 
improved from where it is. I hope the amendment we offer can be 
seriously considered, and hopefully adopted, and we make those 
improvements.
  With that, I yield the floor.

[[Page 26193]]



                               Exhibit 1

   United States General Accounting Office--Report to Congressional 
                               Requesters


 forest service--information on appeals and litigation involving fuels 
                          reduction activities

                         Why GAO did this study

       The federal fire community's decades old policy of 
     suppressing wildland fires as soon as possible has caused a 
     dangerous increase in vegetation density in our nation's 
     forests. This density increase combined with severe drought 
     over much of the United States has created a significant 
     threat of catastrophic wildfires. In response to this threat, 
     the Forest Service performs activities to reduce the buildup 
     of brush, small trees, and other vegetation on national 
     forest land. With the increased threat of catastrophic 
     wildland fires, there have been concerns about delays in 
     implementing activities to reduce these ``forest fuels.'' 
     Essentially, these concerns focus on the extent to which 
     public appeals and litigation of Forest Service decisions to 
     implement forest fuels reduction activities unnecessarily 
     delay efforts to reduce fuels.
       The Forest Service does not keep a national database on the 
     number of forest fuels reduction activities that are appealed 
     or litigated. Accordingly, GAO was asked to develop this 
     information for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Among other 
     things, GAO was asked to determine (1) the number of 
     decisions involving fuels reduction activities and the number 
     of acres affected, (2) the number of decisions that were 
     appealed and/or litigated and the number of acres affected, 
     (3) the outcomes of appealed and/or litigated decisions, and 
     (4) the number of appeals that were processed within 
     prescribed time frames.

                             What GAO found

       In a GAO survey of all national forests, forest managers 
     reported the following:
       In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 818 decisions involved fuels 
     reduction activities covering 4.8 million acres.
       Of the 818 decisions involving fuels reduction activities, 
     about 24 percent were appealed--affecting 954,000 acres. 
     However, of the 818 decisions, more than half, 486 decisions, 
     could not be appealed because they involved activities with 
     little or no environmental impact. Of the 332 appealable 
     decisions, 194 (about 58 percent) were appealed. There can 
     multiple appeals per decision. In addition, 25 decisions (3 
     percent) affecting about 111,000 acres were litigated.
       For 73 percent of the appealed decisions, the Forest 
     Service allowed the fuels reduction activities to be 
     implemented without changes; 8 percent required some changes 
     before being implemented; and about 19 percent could not be 
     implemented. Of the 25 litigated decisions, 19 have been 
     resolved.
       About 79 percent of appeals were processed within the 
     prescribed 90-day time frame. Of the remaining 21 percent, 
     the processing times ranged from 91 days to 240 days.
       The Forest Service, in commenting on a draft of this 
     report, generally agreed with the report's contents. Their 
     specific comments and our evaluation of them are provided in 
     the report.

 SUMMARY OF FOREST SERVICE DECISIONS AND APPEALS INFORMATION FOR FISCAL
                           YEARS 2001 and 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Impacts
                                   Little or     initially    Total for
        Decisions/appeals          no impact/  uncertain or      all
                                      not      significant/   decisions
                                   appealable   appealable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of decisions.............          486           332          818
Number of appealed decisions....            3           194          197
Percentage of decisions appealed           <1            58           24
Acreage (in thousands)..........        2,989         1,804        4,793
Acreage appealed (in thousands).            4           950          954
Percentage of acreage appealed..           <1            53           20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO data and analysis.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alaska is recognized at this time.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we have had a great deal of 
discussion about the fires raging throughout California this week. We 
talked about fire seasons in the past several years. The years 2000, 
2002, and 2003 fire seasons have been some of the worst on record 
nationally. In 2002, in my State of Alaska alone, we experienced fires 
that burned over a million acres. Over a million acres in Alaska were 
burned in 2002. In this year, in 2003--this is from a report that is 
current as of yesterday, taking into account what is happening in 
California as we speak--to date, approximately 3.6 million acres have 
burned nationwide--3.6 million acres, and burning.
  Forest fires are a huge problem, predominantly in the West, for those 
of us in the Western States. It is interesting to look around the 
Chamber this afternoon and see how many of the Western State Senators 
are paying very close attention to the debate on this legislation.
  We know, we can see the damage to our forested lands from these 
catastrophic wildfires, many of which have resulted from forests that 
have been devastated by insects and by disease.
  Deteriorating forest and rangeland health now affects more than 190 
million acres of public lands throughout the country.
  Again, as we have seen from the pictures which the Senators from 
California displayed and from the newspapers, the areas where the fires 
are ravaging the hillsides and destroying communities are areas that 
were affected by insects and disease.
  I want to take us to a picture of Alaska, as the good Senator from 
New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, mentioned not too long ago. In my State, our 
forests have been infected and literally torn apart by a beetle known 
as the spruce bark beetle. The spruce bark beetle, other insects, and 
other diseases have devastated hundreds of thousands of acres along the 
Kenai Peninsula and in the Chugach Mountains, and outside of my 
hometown in Anchorage along the hillsides. You are talking about the 
wildland/urban interface communities and how it all plays out. I see 
that very carefully and very closely every time I am home.
  The picture that I have behind me is a picture from the Kenai 
Peninsula in the southern part of the State. This is a picture of 
forests that have been totally wiped out by the spruce bark beetle. 
There is not a tree that you look at in the forefront or in the 
background that is alive. Every one of these trees are dead. They were 
killed by the spruce bark beetle.
  As the Senator from New Mexico mentioned, it is like a Christmas tree 
that you have put out on the back porch and it no longer has any water. 
The leaves are crumbly to the touch and fall when you touch them.
  These trees that you are looking at are probably 30 to 40 feet high. 
It is tough to estimate the girth of the trunk. But these are very 
mature old-growth trees that are standing waiting for an accident to 
happen--waiting for a fire. This is not tinder sitting on the forest 
floor. This is standing tinder that is just waiting to be devastated 
and to devastate potentially property and human life.
  As we look at this picture and understand the stands we are talking 
about here, I mentioned that there were hundreds of thousands of acres 
which have been devastated by insect and disease in Alaska. The spruce 
bark beetle has literally changed the forests in Alaska. Over 5 million 
acres of trees in south-central and the interior of Alaska have been 
lost to the spruce bark beetle over just the past 10 years.
  This picture shows, I have been told, the result of trees that have 
been infested for about a 10-year period. These were perfectly healthy, 
strong, and living trees. The entire forest has been wiped out by the 
spruce bark beetle.
  We are told in Alaska that this is one of the worst recorded 
incidents of beetle kill and infestation in our history.
  You do not see any homes. You do not see any development. This is out 
in the wilds of Alaska, if you will. But adjoining the Chugach National 
Forest, off of the Kenai Peninsula, we have many smaller communities--
certainly not a Los Angeles-type of community but we have homes. We 
have towns that adjoin these national parklands.
  We have a little community called Moose Pass which sits right in the 
middle of dead and dying trees.
  My home city of Anchorage, the largest population center in the 
State--about half of the residents of the State of Alaska live in 
Anchorage--is rimmed by the Chugach National Forest. We are dealing 
with the infestation of the spruce bark beetle as it is traveling 
north. The danger is made even worse when you couple it with the fact 
that we have had low snowfalls in recent years. Again, it is an 
accident almost waiting to happen. We don't want to happen in Alaska 
what we are currently seeing in California.

[[Page 26194]]

  Our public land laws and regulations should not make it difficult to 
cut down the dead or the dying trees that are nothing but potential 
fuel for these catastrophic wildfires. Our Nation's policy has to allow 
for responsible forest management that includes the ability to remove, 
when appropriate, wildfire fuel from our forests.
  That is why I am supporting the bipartisan amendment to title I of 
H.R. 1904. In particular, there is a subsection which will authorize 
treatment under title I on Federal land. This technical change allows 
for hazardous fuels reduction on Federal lands on which wind throw or 
blown down ice storm damage or the existence of disease or insect 
infestation has occurred and poses a significant threat to an ecosystem 
component on Federal land or adjacent non-Federal land.
  I suggest to you, looking at this picture and understanding the 
extent of the insect infestation that we have, that it certainly poses 
a significant threat to an ecosystem component.
  The Kenai Peninsula National Forest System land contains 
approximately 223,000 forested acres of which 119,000 contain spruce 
trees with a percentage of old growth. These old-growth stands are 
susceptible to the spruce bark beetle or are already dead.
  The amendment we are speaking to--the bipartisan amendment under 
title I--will allow Federal land managers to manage the dead and dying 
tree stands.
  The prespruce bark beetle epidemic condition on the Kenai Peninsula 
had a significant acreage in unmanaged old-growth spruce which was very 
susceptible to massive mortality and the buildup of the spruce bark 
beetle population. The key to long-term forest management on the Kenai 
Peninsula that will prevent a reoccurrence of the type of spruce bark 
beetle mortality is to manage the forested landscape for a variety of 
species' compositions, structures, and age classes--not simply 
unmanaged old-growth stands.
  To maintain the watershed health--which we certainly need--the 
Chugach National Forest needs to manage the landscape on the Kenai 
Peninsula for a variety of species, structures, and age classes.
  With the technical change that we are seeing in this amendment, it 
allows for old-growth stands such as those existing on the Kenai 
Peninsula to be treated without restriction related to the old-growth 
provisions that are being offered in other sections of the amendment.
  I believe that with the legislation before us--the Healthy Forest 
Restoration Act--we have a comprehensive plan focused on giving the 
Federal land managers and their partners the tools they need to respond 
to national forest health crises. That is what we have in Alaska. That 
is what we are seeing in many parts of the West.
  This legislation directs the timely implementation of scientifically 
supported management activities to protect the health and vibrancy of 
Federal forest ecosystems as well as protecting the communities and the 
private lands that surround them.
  I support what we are doing with H.R. 1904 and certainly encourage 
Members' support.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, after consulting with the leaders and 
those interested in talking about this amendment before we vote, I am 
now in a position to propound a unanimous consent request.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 3:35 today the Senate proceed to a 
vote in relation to amendment No. 1828, with no amendments in order to 
the amendment prior to the vote; I further ask consent if the amendment 
is agreed to, it then be considered as original text for the purpose of 
further amendment; I finally ask that the following Senators be 
permitted to speak prior to the vote: Senator Ensign for 10 minutes; 
Senator Bennett for 5 minutes; Senator Murray for 5 minutes; Senator 
Kyl for 5 minutes; and Senator Crapo for 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the manager of this bill, the 
chairman of the committee, to modify his request to allow Senator 
Lincoln 10 minutes, and that following the disposition of this 
chairman's amendment, Senator Boxer be recognized to offer the next 
amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask that my request be so modified 
and that the vote occur at 3:45 instead of 3:35.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, for purposes of asking the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, it is your desire, I gather, we would then 
have the vote at 3:45 and that would in effect end the opening 
statements on this legislation; we would move to amendments, beginning 
with the Boxer amendment, and then throughout the rest of the day pick 
up the rest of the amendments and hopefully move as quickly as 
possible.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Although I would say, if the distinguished Senator would 
yield, people still have an opportunity if they want to offer their 
comments on the bill itself. There is nothing in the request which 
would prohibit that.
  Mr. COCHRAN. With that understanding, I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I will make a few comments about the 
underlying legislation, the Healthy Forest initiative, and give a 
perspective from another western state, the State of Nevada, my home 
State, and some personal experiences I have had in the last few years.
  I saw a wonderful program on the Discovery channel about the history 
of forest fires in the United States. They went back a few hundred 
years and talked about the natural burning of the forests and how 
forest fires occurred. We had fairly catastrophic fires in the early 
1900s that changed our attitude because a lot of people were killed in 
those fires. It changed the way we looked at forest fires. We decided 
to try to put forest fires out using various methods of fire 
suppression.
  Over the last 100 or so years, in trying to put out all these forest 
fires, we have stopped the natural clearing of the underbrush. As 
humans have moved more into the forests with our development, even if 
we wanted to go back to allowing natural burns to occur, we could not 
do that because of the devastation that can occur such as we are seeing 
in California with people living so close to the natural environment.
  There are some things we can do to manage our forests so when the 
fires do occur they happen in a more natural fashion. What we have been 
seeing in the last several years is they are not natural fires. They 
are catastrophic fires and they burn the entire forest. They literally 
sterilize the ground. There is so much fuel that there are incredible 
temperatures. When the forest fires used to move through, they would 
pretty much burn the undergrowth. They would char the big trees, they 
would char the bark on them, but they would leave the crown of the 
forest alive. As the forest fires moved through and cleared the 
underbrush, it gave the forest a chance to revive, gave a chance for 
little seedlings to take root. It was a nice cleansing process for the 
forests.
  Now that we have started putting all the forest fires out, we have a 
huge fuel buildup. Now when the forest fires burn through, they burn 
the underbrush and they burn the crowns of the forest. They basically 
wipe the entire forest out. It is an unnatural event that is happening 
today. We are losing endangered species. When you wipe out the whole 
forest you lose not only animal life, you lose incredible plant 
diversity as well. We end up with erosion because there is nothing to 
hold the ground when the rains come.
  I have been in the West almost all of my life--mostly in Nevada, 
lived in Oregon, lived in California, lived in Colorado some, attending 
schools--and I have visited a lot of forests there. We have our family 
reunion up in Black Butte every summer. I was there during the huge 
forest fire Senator Smith was talking about earlier; that is still 
going on. We were there July 4 and that fire is still going on today. 
They are waiting for the snows to come to put that forest fire out.
  In comparing the forests from the East to West, in the East there is 
much

[[Page 26195]]

denser forest. That may be OK because of the amount of rain and the 
amount of moisture in the East. We do not get that kind of moisture in 
the West. My State, the State of Nevada, is the most arid State in the 
entire country. We have what are called ``desert forests'' that do not 
have a lot of undergrowth. That is where those forest fires are able to 
move through, clear out a little of the underbrush and leave the crowns 
pretty much intact.
  What happens in the West versus the East, we get periods of drought. 
We are in about a 5-year drought right now in the West. We had 3 good 
years before that of rain. Before that was another 6-year drought. 
During those periods of drought you get the bark beetle Senator 
Murkowski was talking about in Alaska. We have that in our State, 
especially around Lake Tahoe. During the 6-year period of drought, the 
bark beetle devastated a lot of trees in the Lake Tahoe basin.
  I was up there touring some of the Federal lands, some of the State 
lands, and saw the difference in our policies, State versus Federal. 
Comparing State versus Federal versus private lands, the least healthy 
forests are the Federal lands. That is what this underlying bill is 
trying to correct, the problems we see on Federal lands.
  In the State lands, they are cleaning the underbrush. There is a lot 
of emotion generated by the groups participating in these projects. As 
a matter of fact, in one area where they were doing the thinning of the 
underbrush--it is not just underbrush, but they are clearing out the 
fir trees. The big Ponderosa pines are being choked out by the fir 
trees. A lot of fuel goes in there. The sunlight cannot get in so these 
pine trees can grow in the way they were intended to grow naturally. 
When they were going through and cleaning and clearing some of this 
out, they got a lot of complaints because it was near this very popular 
hiking trail up at Lake Tahoe. There were a lot of complaints and 
protests.
  A year after the first area was cleared out, they saw the positive 
ecological results of that clearing. One result is that the aspen trees 
are coming back to that area. They were choked out by the fir trees. 
There is more biodiversity. If a fire now goes through, it will burn 
naturally instead of the catastrophic fires we have seen so much in the 
West. Six hundred thousand acres so far have burned in the State of 
California. That is a huge amount of land.
  In 1999, in my State, 1.8 million acres burned. We have been lucky 
the last few years, but my State is ready to go again, just like most 
of the western States. It is not just the forest fires we worry about 
from these fires, like the almost 2 million acres we had in Nevada--and 
fires in California, Oregon, Idaho, Arizona, and on and on and on in 
the West--these forest fires are creating air pollution.
  We just got calls, because the winds shifted in California, and the 
pollution from the fires is now coming to Nevada because the winds 
changed directions.
  When the Oregon fires were blowing last year, the pollution from them 
came down into the State of Nevada. I was up at Lake Tahoe, and, boy, 
you could not even see. It was like we were in a horrible pollution day 
down in Southern California. It was so dense, the pollution was so bad, 
and the ash came down from these forest fires.
  It is not just the forest health we are worried about, it is also our 
air's health. If people who care about air pollution want to do 
something, the No. 1 thing we could do is to make sure we have healthy 
forests into the future. Because if we do not have these devastating 
fires, we will not have as many acres burn per year and as much of that 
stuff going up into the air to cause pollution. These fires that are 
occurring are much worse than anything man is producing on an 
industrial basis. To protect our air, we should be doing this.
  Protecting the environment, protecting property, and protecting 
people are not mutually exclusive. We can do all of them together if we 
have reasonable laws. That is really what this bill is about.
  Two other areas I want to talk about quickly. One is in Carson City, 
and one is in Ely, NV--great initiatives on this urban interface with 
the forests that were going on. The one in Ely occurred on Federal 
lands. Everybody was together. Environmentalists locally were together 
with local governments and the Federal Government. Everybody was 
together on this initiative. They had it all worked out. The plan was 
in place, ready to go. One person from Idaho filed a protest. They 
didn't even live in our State--one person from Idaho. Almost 3 years 
later, we are still waiting to implement the plan, and a fire that 
comes through there would be devastating. One person from Idaho--that 
is what this bill is trying to fix, to make sure that one person cannot 
stop land managers from doing the right thing.
  The other quick example is Carson City. It is not Federal lands. It 
is State lands, local lands. All the people who care about the 
environment worked together. They have a beautiful fire protection plan 
being implemented that is ecologically balanced. It is protecting the 
local communities as well as protecting the forests. That is the type 
of balanced thinking we need going forward so we protect people, we 
protect property, and we protect the environment all together.
  I also want to express my condolences to all of those who have been 
impacted by the fires in California, especially those who have lost 
friends and family members. While this legislation will not help the 
people fighting forest fires today, it will hopefully prevent such 
fires from occurring in the future.
  The Healthy Forest Initiative authorizes hazardous fuel reduction 
projects that are essential for the health and well-being of our 
Nation's forests. It focuses on specific at-risk areas that are at the 
greatest risk of wildland catastrophic fire, the kind that has 
devastated California, my State's neighbor. These kinds of fires are 
intense, they are unforgiving and they certainly don't discriminate as 
to what will lie in their destroying path. My heart goes out to those 
whose lives have been affected by catastrophic fire.
  To reiterate, in my home State of Nevada, our worst fire year was 
1999 when 1.8 million acres burned. Since then we have been fortunate 
compared to other States. But we know that it is only a matter of time 
before fires ravage our land again. Currently there are over 10.7 
million acres that are at-risk for catastrophic wildfire in the State 
of Nevada. That's 10.7 million acres that need to be treated 
immediately. With the proper treatment, we can lessen the effects of 
the fires that will inevitably come. It is not a question of if fires 
occur, but a question of when.
  Catastrophic fire occurs every year. This year California and Oregon 
have been hit; last year it was Colorado, Oregon and Arizona. In past 
years, New Mexico and one of our Nation's most treasured national 
parks, Yellowstone faced catastrophic fire. In 1999, when 1.8 million 
acres burned in Nevada, unfortunately, that was not a one-time event. 
In the past 5 years, 3.3 million acres have burned in Nevada.
  However, that being said, there are excellent tools available to the 
land managers of this country. Thinning densely wooded areas and 
cleaning out excess brush lessens the ability of fires to spread as 
fast, burn as hot, and consume as much as they already do. To carry out 
these projects, land managers must go through a rigorous assessment 
process. They must ensure that the public is able to participate in the 
process. And they must comply with current environmental statutes and 
forest plans. This is appropriate and necessary. It is a very lengthy 
and thorough process that all too often is railroaded by one dissenter. 
One extreme group will fight it through the administrative appeals, the 
courts and will do everything to kill a completely collaborative 
process.
  A recent GAO report noted reported that the vast majority of appeals 
to fuels projects result in no change in the Forest Service's decision. 
Only 19 of the 180 appealed decisions were reversed, which means that 
the remaining 161 projects--89 percent of those appealed--were delayed 
unnecessarily. We say it time and again, but frivolous lawsuits which 
put these projects on hold are a threat to homes and people.

[[Page 26196]]

More than half of the appealable decisions that were designed to 
protect communities from wildfire were appealed. During the review 
process, these communities remained under the threat of catastrophic 
wildfire. We do not have the time to provide extreme groups the luxury 
of thwarting sound management decisions. It has happened in my State, 
as I mentioned before, and it happens more and more every year.
  That is why passing this amendment is so important. It expedites the 
approval process. It cuts through the bureaucratic red tape. It still 
ensures that administrative appeals and judicial review is available to 
the public. However, only individuals who have actively participated in 
the administrative appeal process can then challenge the final decision 
in the courts so these projects cannot be blindsided by those who 
refuse to participate in the full process.
  I stood here a little over a year ago and called for this type of 
action. I was joined by so many of my colleagues in this body, and yet 
again nothing was done. Since that time we have seen millions of acres 
burn throughout the country. The Forest Service has estimated that 2.8 
million acres have burn in 2003 alone and that does not count the 
millions of acres in California and the more than 1500 homes destroyed 
over the weekend, not to mention the deaths of those struggling to 
escape these deadly fires. I don't want this to happen to Nevada. I 
don't want this to happen in any State. I don't want to stand idly by 
and allow this kind of destruction to go any further. We need to do 
something and we need to do it now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1708

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, in just a couple minutes I am going to 
offer a unanimous consent request to move to consideration of a bill to 
provide extended unemployment compensation benefits to displaced 
workers and to those who have exhausted their benefits.
  Today there are 9 million Americans who are unemployed, and the 
percentage of long-term unemployed is at a 20-year high. Our first 
priority in this Congress should really be to get America back to work. 
The current unemployment benefit extension, as I think all my 
colleagues know, expires at the end of December.
  Our economy is continuing to create only one job opening for every 
three unemployed Americans. So it is clear the current Federal program 
is inadequate to address the needs of out-of-work Americans in today's 
troubled economy.
  Another extension with no additional weeks of benefits will leave far 
too many of our workers and their families out in the cold. In my home 
State of Washington, there are 124,000 people who will exhaust their 
benefits by the end of the year. In addition, more than 1 million 
Americans have run out of unemployment benefits and remain without 
work. These Americans have been stretching their savings, refinancing 
their homes, moving in with other family, and depleting their 
retirement accounts. Three out of four workers are now running out of 
benefits before they find a job.
  In past recessions, we have included these workers in additional 
extensions. But so far Republicans have insisted on leaving them out. 
The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act, which we are introducing, 
would help 4.6 million Americans make ends meet while they search for 
new jobs.
  I know we are dealing with a forest health issue today. It is 
extremely important to many Senators. But we have also thousands of 
Americans whose extensions are going to run out very shortly. Everyone 
is working very quickly here to wrap up all the bills. We all want to 
go home. I know when we go home, we want to make sure the people we go 
home to are not left out in the cold.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 1708, a bill to provide for a 6-month 
extension of unemployment compensation, with additional weeks of 
benefits, as modified to strike title II and ensure that high 
unemployment States are not penalized for having high unemployment 
throughout the recession; that the Senate then proceed to its immediate 
consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, we are on a very critical bill right now 
and I must object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I heard the objection from my colleague 
on the other side, and I would like to have him respond, if he would, 
as to when the Senate will consider this important piece of 
legislation.
  As I said in my remarks, I know we are dealing with an issue that is 
important to many States, but we have to provide some financial relief 
to millions of Americans as we approach the holiday season.
  I know my colleague understands the current extension ends on 
December 31. We are all working quickly to go home. I want to know if 
we can get a commitment that we will go to this bill so we can provide 
for these workers so they can be at home paying for their food and 
shelter that is so important to them. Can my colleague tell me when the 
Senate will consider this legislation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I would be glad to respond.
  As the Senator from Washington knows, all of us have very critical 
issues that are very important to us, that we are trying to get time on 
this floor to consider. The way we handle that is we work with our 
respective leadership in scheduling these matters. I am not in a 
position right now to speak for either the leadership on the other side 
or my own leadership with regard to what kind of an agenda they intend 
to put forward with regard to the floor. What I do know is we have 
waited our time for this Healthy Forests legislation to come forward. 
We now have been given floor time, and we cannot relinquish it. 
Therefore, I will just encourage the Senator from Washington to work 
with her leadership and our leadership to see when the scheduling issue 
she wants to address can be brought forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank my colleague. I know he is not 
in a position to speak for his leadership at this time. I would just 
say to all of my colleagues on the floor, it is critical we allow time 
as soon as possible. We can take as short as 10 or 15 minutes to get 
this passed. We have thousands of constituents across the country whose 
benefits are going to expire. If we wrap up this session and go home 
without passing this bill, we are going to leave them out in the cold 
without the ability to put food on the table, pay their rent, pay their 
mortgage, pay their college tuition bills, and really make it through a 
very difficult time.
  As we all know, the unemployment in this country has risen. We know 
more people today are unemployed than there were a year ago. The 
numbers are rising. The extension needs to be passed.
  I notify my colleagues I intend to continue to come to this floor on 
a daily basis to try to bring up this bill until we get a commitment 
from the Republicans to have a vote on this extension.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask permission to utilize the 10 
minutes which I have been allocated under the unanimous consent 
agreement.

[[Page 26197]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, we are getting close to a vote on this 
amendment. I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to a couple of 
the issues that have been raised by those in opposition to it.
  First, it is notable that very little in opposition to this amendment 
has been said. There are a few things I will get into, but the fact is, 
as we said at the outset, a broad group of bipartisan Senators have 
come together to address the issues from all perspectives and build a 
common ground forward. I believe the relative lack of attack and 
concern that has been raised with regard to this amendment is 
indicative of the success which those Senators have achieved.
  There have been a few criticisms made though. I want to respond to 
some of them.
  First, with regard to the allocation of the resources, it has been 
argued that only 50 percent of the resources have been allocated to the 
wildland/urban interface. Remember, we have $760 million worth of 
resources allocated in this bill. The point, however, needs to be made 
that in addition to the fact that our wildland/urban interface needs to 
be addressed, much of the problem exists out in the forests away from 
that wildland/urban interface. In fact, when the forests get hot and 
get burning, when you get winds such as we are seeing in California 
right now, it is very important to have protection more than just 100 
yards or a couple hundred yards away from the wildland/urban interface.
  We are seeing in California right now what high winds and geography 
can mean with regard to a forest fire, and we must have the flexibility 
in our forest managers to make the decisions about where the best 
management should occur.
  We also have heard that there is apparently a disagreement between 
the proponents and opponents of this legislation with regard to what 
the real problem is. Those who oppose this amendment say that the real 
problem is that we are not putting enough resources into fuel 
management and fuel reduction issues. Those of us who are proposing the 
legislation are said to be focused more on trying to reduce litigation.
  The fact is, this is an indication of the fact that there are 
different points of view as to what we ought to be doing. It is what 
this bipartisan group of Senators did to address the issue. There are 
some who believe we need to solve the problem by putting more resources 
on the ground and getting those resources out there in forest 
management. That is why this bill authorizes $760 million of resources 
to go into the management of our forests.
  We do, however, recognize that there is a large problem in the 
litigation arena. It is that litigation problem that the bill also 
addresses.
  There have been arguments made that as a result of our efforts to 
address the litigation paralysis, public involvement has been limited. 
That is simply not true. No public involvement under NEPA has been 
eliminated. In fact, the predecisional appeals process we are proposing 
to create in this legislation will create a new avenue of public 
involvement. What we are saying, however, is that the litigation has to 
be brought in the State or the district where the fire is, where the 
proposed project is. Those who want to get involved have to exhaust 
their remedies, a very standard legal procedure that is required in 
many areas. Before you are going to file a lawsuit, go through the 
administrative procedures that are provided to try to achieve your 
objectives. And then, finally, if that doesn't work, there still is the 
route of litigation allowed. We simply encourage the courts to act 
expeditiously and require the courts to look at it every 60 days to see 
if the circumstances have changed.
  I believe these are reasonable and fair protections that are built 
into place.
  There has been discussion that even though we have $760 million 
allocated for forest fuel reduction projects and management in this 
bill, that the bill doesn't guarantee that that money will go there 
because it is not an appropriations bill. That is the same thing that 
is true about every authorization bill. The fact is, when we authorize 
these moneys, under the way the Congress works, it is still necessary 
for the Appropriations Committee to then appropriate the moneys. We 
will be working with the Appropriations Committee to take that next 
step. But to criticize this amendment because it is not an 
appropriations bill is simply to put up a false attack and to create a 
false impression that this is not a meaningful authorization of $760 
million, subject, as all bills are except for entitlement programs, to 
the appropriations process.
  One final point: There has been an argument that litigation really 
isn't the problem because a recent GAO report showed that the vast 
number of forest management decisions were not appealed. That study and 
the way people use it shows how you can use numbers to achieve 
different results depending on the outcome you want to address. The 
fact is, categorical exclusions represented a significant number of the 
actions of the agency. These are actions which the current law--not 
this law, but current NEPA law--does not require or allow to be 
appealed.
  The reason is because they are basically the kinds of actions that 
have negligible or have no impact on the environment. It is things such 
as cutting firewood and mowing lawns and other types of categorical 
exclusion activities. There is more than that that is in that category. 
But the point is, these are categorical exclusions for things that have 
no significant environmental impact.
  That is a current part of the existing law. When you look at the 
proposed treatments that have been more than a categorical exclusion, 
that require further NEPA analysis, then the level of appeals goes up 
dramatically. In fact, 59 percent of them are actually appealed. Of 
those that were appealed, it is interesting to note that most are found 
to be without merit; 19 out of 180 were reversed.
  My point is, as I said earlier today, even though these appeals may 
be lost, what they do is cost the time, sometimes a full year or more, 
for the implementation of the management decision, which in many cases 
makes it moot at that point because the insect infestation has gone 
beyond the proposal, or because a fire has occurred or something else 
has made it so that the Forest Service simply can't proceed.
  We are facing litigation paralysis. We do need additional resources 
on the forests. This is the first legislation in the history of the 
country that has provided statutory protection for old growth. This is 
a bipartisan compromise that will help us move significantly forward in 
these efforts to address this critical problem in our country.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Miller and I be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1828.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I appreciate the comments made by my 
colleague from Idaho and I rise to give a case study example of what he 
is talking about. We will give States and specifics here. They are 
similar to those that came from the Senator from Alaska.
  In 1991, a forest health aerial detection survey was made in Utah 
that discovered the bark beetle in certain parts of the Dixie National 
Forest. Forest health specialists advised that it might be necessary to 
suppress the epidemic by removing some of the infested trees and 
thinning some of the standings. At the time they made that decision, 
this photo depicts what the forest looked like: healthy, green, a place 
that was of some pride to the people who lived there. This is called 
the Sidney Valley Recovery Project, proposed as part of the strategy to 
suppress the spread of the epidemic into that area.
  As soon as this was announced, three different environmental groups 
filed appeals of the project and, naturally, it was delayed while those 
appeals were

[[Page 26198]]

heard. Finally, after the delay, the Forest Service was upheld, so the 
appeals were examined and found to be without merit. The Forest Service 
was upheld. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance chose to file a suit 
in Federal court. There were the typical delays connected with 
litigation, and the Federal court finally threw out the lawsuit.
  So you had the appeals to begin with; they were disavowed; and then 
you had a lawsuit. When that was disavowed, OK, now you can go ahead 
with your effort to protect the forest. The only trouble was, at that 
point, this picture depicts what the forest looked like. These are not 
trees with leaves turned because it was fall. These are pine trees. The 
reason they are brown is that they are dead. If you drive through the 
Dixie Forest, which I have done, it almost makes you sick at how 
terribly decimated the forest has become. The only reason is that the 
Forest Service's professional managers, trained in dealing with these 
kinds of epidemics, were prevented from going in there by special 
interest groups until it was too late. I am sure there were mailings 
made in these environmental groups saying: Help save the Dixie Forest 
from the people who would build roads.
  Well, they saved the Dixie Forest from the people who might put in 
logging roads, but they killed it in the process. The epidemic has now 
spread and there is no stopping it now. There is no going back. There 
is no saying, let's reverse this. The trees are dead and the Dixie 
Forest is a blight. The people who live there and know how to take care 
of these things are sick at heart at what has been done, while those 
special interest groups, most of whose members do not live in Utah, can 
claim victory. Well, they cannot claim victory in the lawsuit because 
they lost the lawsuit. They can only claim victory if their goal was to 
destroy the forest.
  It is summarized by one of the former managers of the Dixie Forest 
who says: ``It leaves us with the strategy of win the lawsuit, lose the 
forest.''
  I have a terrible time understanding why people who claim to be 
``friends'' of the forest, ``friends'' of the environment, end up 
producing this kind of result. That is why I have joined as a cosponsor 
of this amendment. I applaud the administration for their initiative in 
saying let's have healthy forests. Fortunately, the Dixie Forest has 
not yet caught fire. But the trees are just as dead either way. The 
blight is there just as much either way. We may have been spared the 
devastation of fire for the communities around the Dixie, but we have 
not been spared the devastation of the epidemic that has destroyed this 
portion of the Dixie Forest.
  For that reason, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment, and 
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I am very proud to be in the Chamber 
discussing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act with an eye toward its 
quick passage through the Senate.
  I first want to applaud both Chairman Cochran for shepherding this 
bill through the Agriculture Committee and to the floor.
  I'd also like to thank Senator Crapo, who chairs the Forestry 
Subcommittee, for his leadership in moving this legislation through the 
Committee expeditiously.
  Chairman Domenici and Chairman Cochran, and Senators Crapo, Wyden, 
Feinstein, Craig, Kyl, McCain, and I have brokered a workable 
compromise to Title I of this bill which we believe will prove amenable 
to the Senate and move on to a conference with the House.
  Want to especially thank our staffs, who have put in many hours of 
hard work over two months to bring us to this point.
  this bipartisan compromise legislation builds upon the Healthy Forest 
Restoration Act, which passed the House of Representatives earlier this 
year.
  Our legislation will ensure that we can address the many problems 
affecting all of our Nation's forests--both on public and private 
forestlands, in southern and western forests, and throughout both 
hardwood and pine ecosystems.
  This legislation is intended to correct the direction of forest 
legislation in this country.
  I am also proud that the bill contains many provisions that I have 
championed and that are beneficial to my home State of Arkansas.
  I began my work on this legislation with the intent to accomplish a 
few, very specific goals related to the health of Arkansas' forests.
  First and foremost, we must provide the Forest Service with the tools 
necessary to immediately address the epidemic of oak decline and 
mortality in the Ozark highlands of Arkansas and Missouri.
  I am proud the bill incorporates language I have championed to 
provide the Forest Service with the tools necessary to immediately 
address the epidemic of oak decline and mortality in the Ozark 
highlands of Arkansas and Missouri.
  Just as our Western forests are under constant threat from fire, our 
Eastern forests are under constant threat from insects and disease.
  We cannot let any more time pass without ensuring the Forest Service 
can quickly mitigate the effects of insect and disease damage 
throughout our forests before it reaches disaster proportions.
  Oak decline is a natural occurrence in older forests or in areas 
where trees are stressed by conditions such as old age, over population 
of the forest, poor soil conditions, and the effects of several years 
of severe drought. And under normal conditions, oak decline is not 
necessarily fatal to the tree.
  However, these conditions have allowed insects such as the red oak 
borer to flourish throughout the forest and have led to an epidemic of 
oak mortality throughout our forests.
  In fact, many estimates now suggest that potentially up to one 
million acres of red oaks have been affected in the Ozark highlands--a 
devastation we never anticipated.
  It is important to note that this epidemic has not been long in 
coming--it was only first discovered in the late 1990s, and quickly was 
out of control.
  I am concerned that this epidemic will lead to a complete loss of red 
oak from the Ozark highlands and cause long-term changes to the health 
of the forest ecosystem.
  It is also important to remember that the epidemic has not been 
limited to public lands. Private forest landowners and homeowners 
throughout the Ozarks face the same problem. The past several years of 
extremely dry summer conditions have weakened trees throughout the 
region.
  Secondly, as we have seen, Arkansas was caught almost flatfooted as 
the epidemic of oak mortality swept through the Ozarks and severely 
endangered the health of our forests.
  One of my priorities was to establish a new Upland Hardwood Research 
Center to ensure there is adequate research performed on the issues 
affecting Arkansas' and this Nation's hardwood forests.
  I am pleased that the bill includes language I authored to establish 
an Upland Hardwood Research Center within the U.S. Forest Service. This 
new center will study the myriad of insects, disease, and problems 
affecting our ability to rehabilitate, restore, and utilize our upland 
hardwood forests. Establishing this new research center will help 
ensure that this does not happen again.
  The establishment of this new research center is necessary to ensure 
we can quickly identify and respond to the multitude of pests, disease, 
and other damaging agents that can dramatically affect our beloved 
forests, especially when they are smaller ones as we have in Arkansas.
  It is also important to find ways to streamline and improve the 
environmental, administrative, and judicial review process for 
hazardous fuel reduction projects under this legislation.
  I join many of my colleagues in believing that the review process for 
hazardous fuel reduction projects, while

[[Page 26199]]

necessary and beneficial, often consumes more time, effort, and 
resources than the initial intent of the project.
  As we have seen with the epidemic of oak mortality in Arkansas, the 
Forest Service must have the ability to quickly respond to insect 
infestation in order to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate the entire 
forest.
  Streamlining of the environmental, administrative, and judicial 
review process for hazardous fuel reduction projects will ensure that 
we can quickly address what ails our forests.
  This legislation also provides increased funding and direction for 
forest land research in this country. It will ensure our Nation's 
colleges and universities are able to devote more research into the 
insects and diseases affecting our forests.
  We also require that any forest land research is conducted at a scale 
appropriate to the forest damage and that it be conducted within the 
requirements of each individual forest management plan.
  Our legislation also includes requirements to ensure this research 
has clearly stated forest restoration objectives and is peer reviewed 
by scientific experts in forest land health.
  I am also pleased the bill incorporates additional language from S. 
1449 to provide funding for emergency grants to immediately remove the 
invasive plants that have become so pervasive throughout this Nation's 
forests. As many know, when we talk about invasive plant species in the 
South, you bet we are talking about kudzu.
  Kudzu was brought into this country several decades ago to be used as 
cover for bare hillsides and has since spread to cover everything, 
including shrubs, bushes, entire trees, and oftentimes large sections 
of our forest. The grant program will provide the means for landowners 
to immediately remove kudzu and the myriad other invasive plants that 
are choking out forests.
  Finally, this legislation includes widely agreed upon language that 
would provide for grants to remove noncommercial biomass from our 
public and private forests, provide for protection of our private 
forested watersheds, and provide for grants to establish private 
healthy forest reserves throughout the Nation.
  Many of these important provisions were included in the Senate-passed 
farm bill last year, but they were not included in the final 
legislation, unfortunately.
  Providing grants to remove noncommercial biomass will immediately 
reduce the amount of fuel on the forest floor and directly reduce the 
fire danger in our forests and around our communities.
  Similarly, providing grants to protect our forest watersheds will 
ensure that we can address our water quality concerns with a voluntary, 
incentive-based approach.
  Finally, providing funding to establish new healthy forest reserves 
from willing private landowners will encourage the preservation and 
rehabilitation of this Nation's forest lands.
  I believe this important legislation will focus needed attention on a 
number of extremely critical goals for our national forest policy.
  One lesson we have learned over the years is that if we value our 
forests and if we want to conserve our woodland resources, if we want 
to preserve their natural beauty, if we want to ensure that the natural 
bounty of our forest land is available to future generations to come to 
know and love and enjoy just as we all have in our different parts of 
this great country, then it is important that we manage those lands and 
resources with a careful eye toward their long-term health.
  I look forward to this legislation's quick passage through the Senate 
and its quick enactment into law. I am delighted by the leadership 
provided by all of the Members working on this issue. I very much 
encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting Senator Cochran's 
amendment and moving forward with this bill in a timely way.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, if ever there was a bill where one could 
say its time has come, this is such a bill. It is critically important 
at this time for us to move forward to a vote on the Healthy Forests 
initiative. The House has passed a bill. We can pass a bill, get it to 
conference and the President for it to become law before the end of 
this legislative session. That must be our goal.
  I begin by thanking Senator Cochran and members of his committee. 
They worked very hard to arrive at a compromise that was bipartisan, 
that could pass the Senate and be signed by the President. I am very 
appreciative of their hard efforts.
  I thank the President for his leadership 2 years ago in putting this 
proposal together. What has been passed is not precisely what he 
proposed, but that is part of the compromise legislative process. We 
have worked to get a bill we can pass and, while not exactly what the 
President has proposed, as I said, it is a very good effort.
  I want to select one other person who illustrates the effort to make 
this bipartisan. Last year, Senator Feinstein was involved in our 
negotiations to come up with a bill. We got very close, but we could 
never get a bill we thought would have 60 votes to pass the Senate.
  What did she get for her very hard efforts at fighting for this 
issue? She got vituperative ads run against her in her home State by 
radical environmental groups that criticized her for even talking to 
Republicans to try to come up with a solution.
  The reason I mention Senator Feinstein is because she was working on 
this long before the California fires that are now raging out of 
control. In fact, this compromise was put together before those fires 
ever started. So the people who were working on this before I think 
deserve some very special credit.
  I also express thanks to those now supporting us because they have 
seen what can happen in the form of the California fires. Two years 
ago, we had these kinds of fires in Arizona. I thought that would 
awaken people to the danger that our overcrowded forests presented. I 
guess I didn't do a good enough job and others didn't in showing people 
what could happen in other places.
  In just two fires, an area larger than the size of the State of Rhode 
Island burned. Two-thirds was on one of our very fine Indian 
reservation areas and about a third on Forest Service land. The 
President came to visit. Whole towns were evacuated. People lost their 
lives. But it still wasn't enough.
  Earlier this year, the President again came to Arizona after the 
Aspen fire. The Aspen fire, on top of the Santa Catalina Mountains 
north of Tucson, burned about 350 homes in the space of less than 4 
hours. I thought, finally this will awaken people. Still, it did not 
occur.
  Over time, thanks to the leadership of the members of the Agriculture 
Committee and others, this legislation was put together. I express my 
appreciation that now that this conflagration is occurring in 
California, we are actually able to get this bill done. I think the 
Arizona experience illustrates the solution as well as the problem.
  Let me give one example. I mentioned the Rodeo-Chediski fire. Most 
was on the White Mountain Apache Reservation. They are subject to the 
same environmental laws that apply to the Forest Service or the Bureau 
of Land Management. They went to work and got the work done. They began 
salvage operations--in fact, they completed salvage operations on the 
Indian reservation for the timber that had burned.
  The reason they can do that is because it is very hard to sue an 
Indian tribe. Obviously, nobody did, and they got the work done, and 
their land has basically been salvaged from that fire.
  The Forest Service put out a very small proposal on what is called a 
categorical exclusion area. Boom, they got hit with a lawsuit. Over a 
year later, the judge finally said: This process has to go forward. So 
he denied the relief of the plaintiffs who were not even from the State 
of Arizona.

[[Page 26200]]

  It was basically too late to do very much work. They got some of it 
done, but the wood began to rot. It is called bluing, and it loses its 
character which is suitable for timber. You have to use it for pallets 
and other uses that have low economic value. That was on a small piece 
of the land. The rest will never be salvaged. Why? Because it is easy 
to sue the Forest Service.
  One of the things this legislation does, the Senator from Arkansas 
noted, is to streamline the process. One of the ways it does that is to 
say instead of having an unlimited number of alternative plans for a 
particular project in your NEPA analysis, under the National 
Environmental Policy Act, you do an environmental impact statement and 
show the various options: the no-action option, the option that is 
proposed, and one alternative.
  Under existing law, you might have to have 20 alternatives. That 
might make sense if you are doing timber sales for logging. That is not 
what we are doing. We are trying to restore the health of the forest. 
The whole concept has been environmental, and there has been a lot of 
environmental work done on these projects before they are ever 
proposed, so you don't need a lot of alternative plans. That is just 
one example.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues 
and hope they support this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1828. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 416 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Reed
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Edwards
     Kerry
       
  The amendment (No. 1828) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
California is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken with the distinguished manager 
of this bill. He has agreed also with Senator Harkin that Senator Boxer 
is going to speak for about 10 minutes on the bill. I will offer an 
amendment and speak for a few minutes on that, and then, with the 
suggestion and consent of the managers of the bill, she will ask that 
amendment be set aside and offer another amendment. The leadership has 
agreed we would have two votes at approximately 5:15, something like 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senators Cochran and Reid for 
allowing me to do this. I have been waiting for quite a while. We can 
get through some of these amendments.
  I rise again with a heavy heart to report on the fires raging in my 
State and bring the Senate up to date on what is happening as of my 
last report at 3:30 p.m: 600,000 acres of land have been burned, more 
than 3 times the size of Chicago; 2,000 homes have been destroyed, 18 
people are dead. Governor Davis has declared Riverside County a state 
of emergency. Riverside has asked the President to declare a national 
disaster there. I have written to the President asking him to act.
  In San Diego, we have 30,000 people without power. Our public schools 
are closed due to bad air. The Cedar Fire in San Diego is raging out of 
control. It is threatening to merge with the Paradise Fire. The fires 
as of 3:30 were only 5 miles apart.
  The head of the California Department of Fire, Chief Chuck Mayner, 
said that they have not gotten all of the equipment and the help they 
have asked for. Senator Feinstein and I have been getting different 
information. It is a little disconcerting. Yesterday, I heard they got 
all the equipment. Today I hear they have not. We actually have heard 
from CDF Chief Mayner that he has not gotten all the equipment and the 
help. That is backed up by Jim Arta, the deputy chief. I have a list of 
the things they have asked for. I hope FEMA will act on this.
  I have met with Mr. Michael Brown. He is very open to doing all he 
can, but I merely want to say on the record that we need help. We need 
strike teams. Strike teams are a combination of resources composed of 
fire trucks and personnel. We need strike 2 teams composed of fire 
trucks designed for fighting brush fires. We need 11 engine strike 
teams for the Paradise Fire, 33 hand strike crews, 12 single resource 
dozers, two type 1 helicopters, one type 2 helicopter.
  We need for the Cedar Fire, in addition to strategic 1 strike teams, 
strike 3 teams, five type 3 helicopters, four type 1 helicopters, and 
one type 2 helicopter.
  As I stand here giving this report from just a few minutes ago, we 
are not getting all the help we need to fight these fires. We need it 
desperately. We urge everyone to work together to get the equipment 
into these areas.
  Our brave firefighters are working to save Julian, which is a town in 
San Diego County. The winds are making the situation worse. There were 
hundreds of firefighters working there. The city of Cuyamaca is 90 
percent destroyed and 150 homes are gone. In Ventura, we have the 
Scenic Valley Fire threatening the Stevenson Ranch area. They are 
already asking us for a FEMA disaster center there.
  In San Bernardino, we still have the Old Fire. It is raging out of 
control, threatening Big Bear and Lake Arrowhead communities. 
Unpredictable winds are making things worse.
  I had a good meeting with a FEMA director today, and a good meeting 
with Governor-elect Schwarzenegger today. We are all on the same page. 
We all want to open disaster centers, disaster assistance centers, 
known as DACs, in the State. I had recommended one in each county. We 
will have that, plus a couple of mobile units. We are probably going to 
need more disaster centers because we are talking about so many miles, 
so many acres. Six hundred thousand acres is a lot of land here. We do 
not want people to have to go far distances to get what they need.
  I want to show a few pictures to my colleagues so you can see what 
things

[[Page 26201]]

look like. This is a picture of a home burning in San Bernardino. You 
can see the raging fires there. Somebody's hopes and dreams are just 
gone.
  I show you a Marine Corps base in San Diego. This is Camp Pendleton. 
This is a hillside. You can take a look at these fires, and when I am 
done with these brief opening remarks, I am going to lay down an 
amendment which deals with helping people in terms of the quality of 
the air. I wanted to show that.
  I want to also share with my colleagues that nine of us, back in 
April, sent a letter to the President. I think this is extremely 
important. This letter was signed by Republicans and Democrats alike--
two Senators and Congressmen Dreier, Hunter, Baca, Calvert, Cunningham, 
Issa, Filner, Davis, Bono, and Lewis--equal numbers, approximately, of 
Republicans and Democrats.
  This is what we asked the President for in April:

       We are writing you today to encourage your swift approval 
     of California Governor Gray Davis' request of a Presidential 
     emergency declaration for Riverside, San Bernardino and San 
     Diego counties relative to the high threat of forest fire in 
     these regions.
       Due to drought conditions and infestation by the bark 
     beetle, our national forests have been met with an 
     unprecedented danger as the bark beetle has attacked over 
     415,000 acres of trees in these three counties. Because of 
     the unique urbanization in and around forests, this 
     infestation has created a tinder box of such magnitude that 
     the loss of life and resources would be incomprehensible 
     should fire break out.

  My friends, we said--nine of us--we could have fires like this. We 
said:

       Most of the affected trees are on or adjacent to federal 
     lands, making this crisis well beyond the ability of state 
     and local authorities to manage. Therefore, it is critical 
     that the federal government help provide financial assistance 
     for infested tree removal from public and private lands, as 
     well as assist with other mitigation measures. Now that the 
     State of California has requested a federal emergency 
     disaster declaration, your help at this juncture remains 
     critical and would make a positive impact in these areas of 
     Southern California.

  We conclude our letter:

       Mr. President, we appreciate the various burdens being 
     placed upon you in these challenging days. However, we urge 
     you to consider this matter as expeditiously as possible 
     since these areas are in need of immediate federal 
     assistance.

  In a bipartisan way, nine of us asked the President to declare an 
emergency, and he did not do it. We did get some small funding. It 
helped a little bit. But we did not get the help we needed. We begged 
for it. I guess if we had a crystal ball, maybe things would have been 
better.
  We all were asking for buffers around our communities. I think the 
importance of this legislation before us is it is our opportunity to 
direct funding, adequate funding, to make sure these buffers are 
created and the fire damage is diminished greatly.
  I myself want to make sure this bill is a Healthy Forests bill and is 
not something else, a ``cut down the forests'' bill. I will be 
supporting many amendments to make sure this bill is the best it can 
be. I do not know the fate of those amendments, but we will be going on 
the record very strongly.


                           Amendment No. 2025

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

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2025:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

             TITLE   . FIREFIGHTERS MEDICAL MONITORING ACT

     SEC.   1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Title shall be referred to as the ``Firefighters 
     Medical Monitoring Act of 2003''.

     SECTION 2. MONITORING OF FIREFIGHTERS IN DISASTER AREAS.

       (a) In General.--The National Institute for Occupational 
     Safety and Health shall monitor the long-term medical health 
     of those firefighters who fought fires in any area declared a 
     disaster area by the Federal Government.
       (b) Health Monitoring.--The long-term health monitoring 
     referred to in subsection (a) shall include, but not be 
     limited to, pulmonary illness, neurological damage, and 
     cardiovascular damage, and shall utilize the medical 
     expertise in the local areas affected.
       (c) Authorization.--To carry out this Title, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank very much the clerk for reading 
the amendment. It is a very straightforward amendment. It basically 
recognizes the fact that our firefighters are our heroes. We certainly 
learned that. Every American learned that after 9/11. We certainly 
learned that.
  Their health has been affected and impacted. We learned we need to do 
more to monitor their health. Right now, we have 12,000 brave 
firefighters frantically working with the California Department of 
Forestry, the U.S. Forest Service, the California Highway Patrol, the 
Red Cross, and FEMA to contain these fires in terrible conditions.
  Firefighters are not only from California, but they are from Nevada 
and Arizona. Other help is on the way from other States.
  I want to show you a photo of some of the conditions these 
firefighters are working in at this point.
  This is the Simi Valley, where you can see the firefighters, how 
strong they are, and yet how they look so small in front of this 
unbelievable blaze they are trying to contain.
  I will show you another picture, another view.
  This is in San Diego. You can see the incredible black, deadly smoke 
here. That is filled with toxins and is right over the hill from where 
they are standing.
  Many of these firefighters are living in fire camps, spending 24 
hours a day in proximity to the smoke from the fires. We know smoke 
from these fires--because it is coming from homes, and there are cars 
and businesses--contains heavy concentrations of carcinogens and other 
toxins. The smoke contains fine particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur, 
formaldehyde, mercury, and heavy metals and benzene. We also know the 
accumulation of carbon dioxide can lead to progressive heart problems, 
to brain dysfunction, and may ultimately lead to coma and death.
  These are the heroes. These are the heroes. I would hope we would 
vote 100 to nothing in favor of this amendment.
  I can't imagine an argument against it. Numerous studies have shown 
that the higher the particulate matter, the greater the number of 
emergency room visits and premature deaths. Why do I put it on this 
bill? Because the purpose of this bill is to reduce the likelihood we 
will have these kinds of fires. But if we do, we have to recognize it.
  By the way, even with the bill, we may well have fires in the future. 
We know health monitoring can identify adverse long-term health 
consequences caused by prolonged exposure to smoke, leading to early 
detection and better treatment. Those who are the most in danger are 
those who are exposed the most; that is, these brave firefighters who 
are working around the clock to contain the fires.
  My amendment, again, is quite simple. It directs the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to work with the medical 
expertise in local areas to monitor the long-term health effects on 
firefighters who fight fires in disaster areas.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. WYDEN. I think what the Senator is doing is very constructive. On 
the forestry subcommittee, we have heard of a myriad of health concerns 
which seem to me, as much as anything you are addressing, a first 
responder issue. These are first responders who are working in a very 
significant area where there are health concerns--in the forestry area. 
It is important from a forestry standpoint and from a first responder 
standpoint. I am very hopeful--I see the chairman of the full committee 
in the Chamber as well--that we can work this out. Given the crisis 
right now in your State, I want to see this adopted.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think this amendment is a constructive 
addition to the bill. I am prepared to recommend that the Senate 
approve it.

[[Page 26202]]


  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send a second amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the regular order--a vote on the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is a vote on the amendment, 
unless the pending amendment is set aside.
  Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will yield, I understood that you--and 
maybe I was incorrect--and Senator Reid had agreed we would vote for 
both amendments at 5:15. I believe that was the order.
  Mr. COCHRAN. If that is the order, that is fine with me. I just 
assumed we were taking amendments as they were offered and disposing of 
them. I was not aware there was another amendment pending besides the 
Boxer amendment that had just been offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no request for unanimous consent and 
thus no order in place.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, whatever Senator Cochran would like to do 
is fine. I need about 3 minutes on my second amendment, and then I will 
be done. The hope was, perhaps to help move it along, we would vote on 
each of these back to back at a time certain that Senator Cochran 
chooses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2026

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

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2026.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

             TITLE   . DISASTER AIR QUALITY MONITORING ACT

     SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Title shall be referred to as the ``Disaster Air 
     Quality Monitoring Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. MONITORING OF AIR QUALITY IN DISASTER AREAS.

       (1) In General.--No later than six (6) months after the 
     enactment of this legislation, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency shall provide each of its regional offices a mobile 
     air pollution monitoring network to monitor the emissions of 
     hazardous air pollutants in areas declared a disaster as 
     referred to in subsection (b), and publish such information 
     on a daily basis on its web site and in other forums, until 
     such time as the Environmental Protection Agency has 
     determined that the danger has subsided.
       (b) The areas referred to in subsection (a) are those areas 
     declared a disaster area by the Federal Government.
       (c) The monitoring referred to in subsection (a) shall 
     include the continuous and spontaneous monitoring of 
     hazardous air pollutants, as defined in the Public Law 95-95 
     section 112(b).
       (d) Authorization.--To carry out this Title, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $8,000,000.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this goes to the quality of the air. We 
have learned so much after what happened on 9/11. When we have this 
type of a fire, if we could look at this smoke here--I have another 
picture to show. Look at this black smoke just headed right toward 
these homes. We know there are pollutants we don't really monitor on a 
daily basis that are getting into people's lungs. I will mention some 
of these: Benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, asbestos, ethylene, glycol. 
Those are just a few.
  The effects of these could be devastating: Premature death, 
cardiovascular illness, neurological disorder, respiratory problems, 
and cancer. One atmospheric scientist described it in the L.A. Times 
this way:

       When they burn, these homes and businesses are mini toxic 
     waste dumps.

  This is the quality of the air we are seeing here. In San Diego, 
every single school has been closed because it is too dangerous for the 
children to go outside their homes. They are telling the elderly to 
stay inside with their windows and doors closed. We know the elderly 
and the children are the most vulnerable to the effects of pollution.
  I believe we must ensure that the public knows which pollutants they 
are being exposed to. Today they would not know. My amendment will 
solve that problem. My amendment will require the EPA to provide each 
of its regional offices a mobile air pollution monitoring network to go 
into these areas in the event of a catastrophe and monitor toxic 
emissions on a continuous and spontaneous basis. The amendment will 
require this to be done within 6 months. We should begin doing it 
immediately. We authorized the funding--it isn't much, $8 million--to 
carry this out.
  In short, my amendment assures that we will have the ability to 
monitor emissions of these hazardous air pollutants in the event of a 
disaster and give the public the information it needs because if they 
have a child, a sick grandma, someone who has cancer or heart disease, 
they need to know to keep them in.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be. The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
firefighter amendment No. 2025 be voted on first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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. What is the regular order?


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2025

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is voting on the two pending 
amendments.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2025. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 417 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Allard
     Burns
     Enzi

[[Page 26203]]



                             NOT VOTING--3

     Edwards
     Kennedy
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 2025) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 2026

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 2026, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) 
and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 418 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--17

     Allard
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sununu
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Burns
     Cornyn
     Edwards
     Kennedy
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 2026) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of 
a letter addressed to the two leaders from a number of sports 
organizations and conservation organizations regarding the adoption of 
the compromise amendment to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         American Sportfishing Association; Boone and Crockett 
           Club; Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; Ducks 
           Unlimited; Foundation for North American Wild Sheep; 
           International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
           Agencies; Mississippi River Trust; National Rifle 
           Association; National Wild Turkey Federation; New 
           England Forestry Foundation; Rocky Mountain Elk 
           Foundation; Ruffed Grouse Society; Safari Club 
           International; Texas Wildlife Association; The Carbon 
           Fund; U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance; and Wildlife 
           Management Institute.
                                                 October 29, 2003.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle: The organizations 
     listed above represent hunters, anglers, natural resource 
     professionals and others that share a strong interest in 
     traditional conservation values and America's fish and 
     wildlife resources. We appreciate Senate deliberations to 
     date on legislation to enhance the health of our nation's 
     forests and associated fish and wildlife resources. We 
     support the bipartisan compromise amendment to the Healthy 
     Forests Restoration Act (H.R. 1904).
       A lack of active forest management has contributed 
     significantly to unhealthy conditions on many of our nation's 
     public and private forestlands. The unnaturally high risk of 
     catastrophic wildfires and large-scale insect and disease 
     outbreaks place rural communities at risk and seriously 
     threaten watersheds and fish and wildlife habitats.
       Again, we urge the Senate to pass the compromise amendment 
     to H.R. 1904. Another Congress must not be allowed to adjourn 
     without action on proposals to facilitate forest health 
     restoration.
       Thank you for your time.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this letter, and many others like it, 
indicates overwhelming support around the country for the compromise we 
adopted today.
  We made good progress in dealing with the bill. Tomorrow we will have 
another opportunity to consider amendments. I ask all Senators who have 
amendments to offer to this bill to please let us know about the 
amendments. Give us copies tonight so we can look at them and be 
prepared to act expeditiously on the amendments so we can finish this 
bill tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, very briefly, I support Chairman Cochran 
in his request. We have been working on this legislation, in effect, 
for more than 4 years. It is now particularly timely, obviously, 
because of the events in California.
  Many of the amendments, at least those we have been told about, are 
coming from my side of the aisle. I ask colleagues--I know Senators 
have strong feelings on this--if they could present them to the staffs 
tonight--Senator Cochran's staff, Senator Harkin's staff. Myself and 
others are available to work through the evening with Senators who have 
amendments because we very much would like to finish it tonight.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides to heed what the chairman has 
said: If possible, get it to us tonight.
  I thank you and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________