[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26585-26623]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003

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

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

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the quorum call be rescinded.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


                           Good Economic News

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

[[Page 26586]]

these reports today. But at the same time, in this body we must 
continue to work toward reducing the cost of doing business in this 
country.
  I immediately turn to issues we are talking about, both on the floor 
and off--health care, energy, class action, litigation costs. We need 
to remove barriers to investment and economic growth so employers can 
create jobs.
  Our work here in the Congress must go forward with renewed 
dedication. Today we do see firsthand the effects of the President's 
economic policies. Such results should encourage all of us to work even 
harder to bring economic recovery to the doorstep of every American.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I, too, am pleased at the good news that the 
GDP has gone up. But for the 3 million people who have lost jobs, J-O-B 
is more important than G-D-P. This last month, another 46,000 jobs have 
been lost in this country; during this administration, more than 3 
million jobs. This is the only President since Herbert Hoover who has 
had a net loss in jobs. I think this is very unfortunate. I hope the 
GDP continues to grow and in the process create jobs.
  Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the committee that has 
jurisdiction of the bill now before the Senate and I spoke with the 
majority leader and minority leader a few minutes ago. It is the wish 
of the distinguished chairman of this committee, the manager of this 
bill, that when an amendment is offered--unless there is some 
exception--we are going to debate that and vote on it, dispose of it 
one way or the other.
  As we spoke to the majority leader, the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi and I--everyone should be--we were both in tune with the 
majority leader. Today's votes are going to take 20 minutes. After 20 
minutes, the majority leader said he is going to ask that the clerk 
announce the vote. There are going to be people who miss votes, but 
that is their problem. All staffs who are listening to me, everyone 
should understand, if the majority leader follows through on what he 
said--and I am confident he will--a few people will miss votes. But I 
think fewer will miss them the second time and fewer the third time.
  If we are going to finish this most important bill, we cannot have 
votes going 40 minutes, and that is what they were going yesterday. It 
is unfair to the managers of the bill, unfair to the Senate, unfair to 
the country.
  I hope that following the vote of Senator Bingaman, we will stick to 
20-minute votes, no matter who isn't here for the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me compliment the distinguished 
acting leader. He correctly states the content of the conversation that 
we had which included the majority leader. The custom, in recent 
history anyway, has been to accumulate amendments and then have the 
votes stacked to occur at a certain time. That is well and good, if you 
know how many amendments you have. We don't have a finite list of 
amendments. That is one thing we need. If Senators would let us know 
which amendments they intend to offer, we can probably manage this bill 
more efficiently and save time for everybody.
  We want to finish the bill tonight. That is my intention. I think 
that is the intention of the acting Democratic leader as well.
  The regular order is, if you have an amendment, come and offer it. We 
will debate it and dispose of it. We will give you a vote on it and 
move to table it or we will accept it.
  Senator Bingaman is here with an amendment. It is an important 
amendment. I understand that he is going to seek the floor and offer 
that amendment. We will debate it and dispose of it.
  I very much thank the two leaders for their effort to help move this 
bill along and ensure that the votes we have are held to a minimum 
amount of time. We are going to try to enforce that.
  I thank everybody concerned.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could say one additional thing, we have 
run a hotline on our side. We are very close to having a finite list of 
amendments. That will be offered on this side. We know the intense 
interest in this bill from all sides. No one exemplifies the interest 
in this bill more than the Senator from Oregon. Senator Wyden has been 
very responsive to the bill that is before us. He has been here 
virtually every minute this matter has been on the floor. Like so many 
people who are concerned about this, he wants this bill to be completed 
as quickly as possible. I think with the cooperation of the Senate we 
can do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I want to recognize 
my friend from New Mexico who has spent a lot of time on this bill and 
has an important amendment.
  As we go to the amendments this afternoon--particularly those from my 
side--I think it is critically important that the bipartisan compromise 
which was consummated yesterday in a 97-to-1 vote on the floor of the 
Senate not become unraveled today. This is, in my view, the only bill 
that can make it to the President's desk. It is a balanced approach on 
management. It ensures that the public has every single opportunity to 
participate in the debate about forestry but, at the same time, it does 
not establish a constitutional right to a 5-year delay on every 
conceivable matter that may relate to the forestry sector.
  In particular, it provides for potentially lifesaving hazardous fuel 
reduction projects in our national forests. We have to respond to what 
we have seen in California. It is a heartfelt need in that State.
  If this legislation as set out in the compromise doesn't become law, 
what we have seen in California in the last few days, and as we saw in 
Oregon last year, is going to be what the country faces year after 
year.
  I am very interested in working with our colleagues in an expeditious 
manner. I thank Senator Cochran again for all of his cooperation. 
Senator Bingaman has been waiting for a long time.
  I intend to work with all of our colleagues on this amendments today. 
What I especially look forward to is completing the work on this 
legislation. It was a very exciting development to have yesterday's 
vote by such a large plurality. It shows what you can do if you stay at 
it and try to find common ground in an area that is about as 
contentious as you can find. As Senator Cochran noted, we hope 
colleagues will bring amendments to the floor and move expeditiously.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2031

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. __. BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, upon 
     the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, make available 
     to the Secretary of Agriculture, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be 
     necessary in each fiscal year to carry out fire suppression 
     activities. The Secretary of Agriculture may make such 
     request only if fire suppression costs exceed the amount of 
     funding available to the Forest Service for fire suppression 
     in a fiscal year.
       (b) Audit.--Not later than 180 days after the Secretary of 
     Agriculture exercises the authority provided by this section, 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture shall 
     submit to the Secretary and to

[[Page 26587]]

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

     SEC. __. COMMUNITY PROTECTION AND BURNED AREA RESTORATION.

       (a) In General.--During fiscal years 2004 through 2008, the 
     Secretaries shall carry out a joint program to reduce the 
     risk of wildfire to structures and restore burned areas on 
     non-Federal lands, including county-owned lands, tribal 
     lands, nonindustrial private lands, and State lands, using 
     the authorities available pursuant to this section, the 
     National Fire Plan and the Emergency Watershed Protection 
     program.
       (b) Cost Share Grants.--In implementing this section, the 
     Secretaries may make cost-share grants to Indian tribes, 
     local fire districts, municipalities, homeowner associations, 
     and counties, to remove, transport, and dispose of hazardous 
     fuels around homes and property to--
       (1) prevent structural damage as a result of wildfire, or
       (2) to restore or rehabilitate burned areas on non-Federal 
     lands.
       (c) Non-Federal Contribution.--The non-Federal contribution 
     may be in the form of cash or in-kind contribution.
       (d) Appropriation and Availability of Funds.--The Secretary 
     of Treasury shall make available to the Secretaries out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated 
     $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to 
     carry out this section, which shall remain available until 
     expended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       During fiscal years 2004 through 2008, the Secretaries [the 
     Secretary of Agriculture who has jurisdiction over the Forest 
     Service and the Secretary of the Interior] shall carry out a 
     joint program to reduce the risk of wildfire to structures 
     and restore burned areas on non-Federal lands, including 
     country-owned lands, tribal lands, nonindustrial private 
     lands, and State lands, using the authorities available 
     pursuant to this section, the National Fire Plan and the 
     Emergency Watershed Protection Program.

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

       In implementing this section, the Secretaries may make 
     cost-share grants to Indian tribes, local fire districts, 
     municipalities, homeowner associations, and counties, to 
     remove, transport, and dispose of hazardous fuels around 
     homes and property to--
       (1) prevent structural damage as a result of wildfire, or
       (2) to restore or rehabilitate burned areas on non-Federal 
     lands.

  This is still on non-Federal lands. It says the non-Federal 
contribution may be in the form of cash or in-kind contribution, and 
then it authorizes the appropriation of $100 million in each of those 
years, 2004 through 2008, to do their work, to make these grants, to 
help these non-Federal agencies and entities deal with the problems.
  Much of the fire we have seen on television in recent days is, in 
fact, not on Federal land. They are desperately in need of assistance 
from the Federal Government. This is assistance that would be of that 
type and should be in place every year.
  I will go through a more complete description of the amendment. The 
amendment does add two new sections to the bill to provide meaningful 
new authority and actual resources to protect communities at risk from 
unnaturally intense catastrophic wildfire. If we are not going to add 
real resources as part of this bill, we are, in fact, making a false 
promise to the American people. We can give all the speeches about how 
we are going to pass the bill, the President is going to sign it, 
everything is going to be rosy, the clouds are going to clear, and we 
are going to be in the sunny uplands--the broad sunny uplands, is the 
way Churchill said it.
  The reality is, if we do not provide resources to help, it is a false 
promise. This amendment will try to help provide those resources.
  The first part of the amendment allows the Forest Service to borrow 
funds from the Treasury to pay for firefighting during the years in 
which available funds do not cover costs. Someone might say that is a 
pretty rare occasion, a year when the funds available do not cover the 
cost. Let me cite the last 3 years: 2001, 2002, and 2003, Forest 
Service firefighting funding.
  We have three columns on my chart: The President's request, what was 
actually appropriated, and what was actually spent, what we wound up 
spending out of Federal Government funds to deal with this problem.
  In 2001, the President requested the Congress appropriate the budget 
he sent us of $291 million. Fortunately, through the good offices of 
Senator Cochran and other Members, we did better than that. I very much 
appreciate that. Senator Byrd deserves credit, as do other Members on 
the Democratic side. We appropriated $469 million--not quite twice what 
the President asked for, but it is getting close. The amount that was 
actually needed was $683 million. So we missed it by a little--we were 
more than $200 million short of what the Forest Service actually had to 
spend for firefighting in that year.

[[Page 26588]]

  In 2002, the President asked for more. He said $291 million was not 
enough, how about $325 million. This is for the whole country. He said, 
$325 million ought to be plenty for the whole country. In fact, we 
appropriated a little less than he asked for, $321 million. What was 
actually needed was $1.28 billion. So we missed it by not quite $1 
billion. That is $1 billion that was spent by the Forest Service of 
funds not appropriated to them for this firefighting activity.
  In 2003, which we just finished, the President said we need $421 
million. The Appropriations Committee said no; let's make it $418 
million. We spent over $1 billion--$1.02 billion.
  There is a shortfall each year. It is a question of whether the 
shortfall is $1 billion, a couple hundred million, but every year we 
have done this. At least since this President has been in town, we have 
seen a significant shortfall. What I am trying to do is begin to 
address that problem.
  The real problem that needs to be addressed with respect to the 
Forest Service situation is the practice of borrowing. Every time we do 
this, every time we give them much less money that turns out to be 
needed for firefighting, they have no choice but to take money from 
other accounts in order to deal with that problem. They do that.
  Let me point out for the year 2002, the year we had the total amount 
transferred out of other accounts to fight fires was $1.02 billion. 
What did that come from? It came from different accounts, but a big 
chunk of it came out of accounts that are the accounts we are saying in 
the Senate are our highest priority. We want money for forest 
restoration, we want money for thinning of forests, for getting the 
underbrush out of the way so we do not have the fires. In fact, that 
funding is not available to the Forest Service because they are too 
busy using it to fight fires rather than to get ahead of the problem 
and deal with that.
  There are many examples I will cite of the problem we are dealing 
with. In my home State of New Mexico, we have a publication, a 1-page 
sheet the Forest Service issued called ``Effects of Transferring Money 
to Fire Suppression.'' That is what this chart is reflecting. All of 
the money on the chart was transferred to fire suppression, to 
firefighting. This was issued in April by the Forest Service with 
regard to New Mexico. It says the 2002 fire season was intense. The 
cost of suppressing these fires was nearly $1.3 billion. The Forest 
Service transferred $1 billion from other discretionary and mandatory 
accounts to defray fire suppression costs. Over $55 million was 
borrowed from national forests in Arizona and New Mexico. Some critical 
projects in New Mexico were postponed for up to 1 year as a result of 
fire borrowing. These included wildland/urban interface fuels projects, 
in the Carson National Forest, in the Gila National Forest, in the 
Lincoln National Forest, in the Santa Fe National Forest; a contract 
for construction of a fuel break around the community at risk in the 
Cibola National Forest was postponed for 6 months.
  What they have to do when they shift the money out of these accounts, 
they have to put that forest thinning or forest restoration project on 
hold because they cannot afford it. They are too busy fighting fires. 
We need the money to fight fires. We have caused them to do that every 
year.
  A similar problem exists in many other States. I will indicate a few 
of those, States that have a great interest in this legislation. I have 
a document called ``Summary of Effects of Transferring Money to Fire 
Suppression.'' As a result of recent fire transfers in which money has 
been transferred from various Forest Service accounts to pay for 
emergency wildfire suppression, critical Forest Service projects were 
postponed or canceled throughout the West. There are literally hundreds 
of examples of unfortunate consequences that resulted, including 
canceled prescribed burns, thinning projects, timber sales, evasive 
weed control programs, and emergency burned area rehabilitation 
projects.
  The consequences are felt beyond dangerous forest conditions, and 
they range from the postponement of dam safety inspection to the 
inability to finalize a tribal energy development agreement.
  I have already given examples from my State of New Mexico. In Idaho, 
spring burning projects in the Nez Perce National Forest were 
postponed.
  A brush-cutting project in Clearwater National Forest could not be 
completed.
  In Montana, a hazardous fuels reduction project in the wildland/urban 
interface of the Bitter Root National Forest was postponed and slated 
for possible cancellation.
  In Oregon, watershed assessments and restoration activities 
associated with the Biscuit Fire were delayed. Numerous timber sales 
and wildland/urban interface thinning work was postponed.
  In Washington, white pine blister rust thinning and pruning projects 
were deferred.
  In California, nearly $6 million was transferred out of forest health 
vegetation management and ecological restoration accounts in 2003, 
resulting in having to withdraw stewardship contracts for wildland/
urban interface fuels reduction projects and the failure to complete 
prescribed burns.
  So this issue of borrowing is serious. It is one that we need to 
address as part of this bill.
  I commend Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan, who are the chairman and 
ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for their 
efforts to secure $400 million to repay the accounts from which the 
agencies have borrowed to fight fires.
  Now, what happens each year, when we, in fact, give the Forest 
Service less money for firefighting than they need, we have to come 
back the next year in supplemental appropriations and ask for funds 
with which to pay back those accounts so they can hopefully get back to 
those projects they had to postpone.
  My understanding is that this amount, this $400 million, was included 
in the conference report that was agreed upon Monday night. I also 
appreciate Senator Burns' comments that the $400 million is not the 
final word. I believe he said this is especially true since the Forest 
Service alone actually borrowed $695 million from other programs so far 
in this last year.
  However, this year-to-year approach to the fire-borrowing problem is 
not an adequate solution. Even when our Senate appropriations 
colleagues do everything they can to make sure these accounts are 
repaid every year, on-the-ground restoration work is delayed--it is 
substantially delayed--while the Forest Service waits for Congress to 
pass a supplemental appropriations bill to once again give them the 
money they had originally been given but could not use for that 
purpose. They had to use it for firefighting.
  The events that occurred earlier this year are a devastating example 
of that. I have sort of gone through that on this chart. The Senate 
approved $289 million in extra wildfire funding in the fiscal year 2003 
supplemental spending bill. However, the House dropped it.
  On July 28, Senator Burns correctly stated on the floor:

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

  Nonetheless, the bill that was sent to the President did not contain 
these urgently needed funds.
  In my State of New Mexico, some critical Forest Service hazardous 
fuels reduction projects were postponed for up to a year, last year, as 
a result of borrowing to fight fires. These include projects in all 
these national forests I have mentioned.
  In February 2003, the Missoulian, which I understand is a Montana 
newspaper--I assume in Missoula--reported that because of fire 
borrowing, Montana and northern Idaho forests ``lost about $80 million, 
including $25 million intended for the repair and replanting of forests 
burned two years earlier on the Bitterroot National Forest.''
  Moreover, as evidenced last year by a $200 million shortfall, the 
supplemental appropriations often are not sufficient to provide full 
repayment to the programs that have been raided.
  So what you have, as we spend what we have on fighting fires--and 
there is

[[Page 26589]]

no choice about that--the Forest Service gives up funds that were 
intended for other purposes. In many cases, this restoration work, that 
we all are now saying is so important--and I certainly agree is so 
important--then we never get around to giving them the full money. We 
never get around to replacing all the funds that we have taken.
  Mr. President, let me talk a little about the second part of my 
amendment. The second part of the amendment provides $100 million 
annually to reduce fire risk and restore burned areas on non-Federal 
lands.
  The Forest Service's own researchers state that 77 percent of all 
high-risk areas are on non-Federal lands. In addition, the National 
Academy of Public Administration, in their 2002 report, found that 47 
percent of acres burned each year are on non-Federal lands. They 
concluded that decreasing the fuel on all owners' lands is needed to 
address the large scope of the fire hazard problem.
  So the second part of the amendment I am offering provides real 
assistance to States and to local partners to conduct projects that 
will complement the work we are trying to do in national forests and on 
public lands.
  If we send a bill to the President which just deals with the issue on 
Federal lands, and then declare victory, the truth is, we will not have 
dealt with the biggest part of the problem. Mr. President, 77 percent 
of all high-risk areas are not on Federal lands; they are on land owned 
by someone else. This second part of my amendment tries to provide some 
level of Federal support to those other entities to do the clearing 
they need to do.
  Many communities that are adjacent to national forests are doing 
their part to better protect themselves from the risk of these 
catastrophic wildfires.
  For example, last year--this, again, is an example from my home 
State--the village council in Ruidoso, NM, adopted new laws that set 
fire-resistant construction and landscaping standards and established 
forest health and fire danger reduction requirements. However, even 
with these new requirements, just a few months ago homeowners in 
Ruidoso received notices from insurance companies warning them to thin 
the trees on their lots or risk losing their coverage altogether.
  Clearly, we need to assist these communities and these homeowners to 
quickly accomplish that needed work. We need to attack the problem in a 
comprehensive way. If we reduce fuels on public lands, Federal lands, 
without also treating the adjacent non-Federal lands, we will not 
adequately protect our communities.
  I think anyone who has watched television for the last several days 
has to believe that is the case. Obviously, many of these subdivisions 
are not on Federal land. They are, in some cases, adjacent to Federal 
land, but much of the thinning that has to occur, in order to protect 
communities, is not thinning on Federal lands.
  A lack of adequate funding for forest health projects continues to 
constrain our efforts to actively manage the forests to reduce the 
threat of fire and insects and disease.
  Three years ago, Congress found that funding was the main obstacle to 
improving forest health and reducing the threat of unnaturally intense 
catastrophic fire.
  Specifically, we created the National Fire Plan. The National Fire 
Plan talked about $1.6 billion in new funding for programs to improve 
forest health conditions. At that time, we all agreed on the need to 
sustain a commitment to the National Fire Plan over a long enough 
period to make a difference. We were talking about perhaps 15 years.
  That meant, at a minimum, sustaining the fiscal year 2001 funding 
levels for all components of the fire plan. Unfortunately, we have not 
followed through. The administration has systematically and continually 
proposed major cuts from that level. In some cases, they have proposed 
zeroing out critical programs within the National Fire Plan, including 
this burned area, restoration, and rehabilitation, the economic action 
programs, the community and private fire assistance.
  The administration proposed these extreme cuts and the elimination of 
funding, notwithstanding the clearly identified demand for these 
programs. We hear that demand from communities in all of our States 
where forest fires have burned in excess in recent years.
  This provision, this amendment that I am offering, will also provide 
actual dollars to restore the burned areas on non-Federal lands. After 
a fire is extinguished, communities often face equally hazardous 
threats from landslides and flooding. There has been very little 
attention to that as yet because the fires continue to burn in 
California. But once those fires are out, we will start hearing about 
flooding and landslides. There needs to be assistance to deal with that 
as well.
  In creating the national parklands 3 years ago, Congress provided 
$142 million for burned area restoration and rehabilitation. 
Nonetheless, in its fiscal year 2002 budget request, the administration 
requested $3 million--not $142 million--for burned area restoration and 
rehabilitation. In fiscal year 2004, they requested no funds for this 
account.
  The amendment I am offering will provide funds for urgent community 
needs for activities such as soil stabilization after fires occur. The 
question we are faced with today is: Are we going to legislate 
solutions that will really make a difference on the ground?
  I very much appreciate the provision in the Cochran amendment that 
authorizes $760 million, but as we all know, authorizing a certain 
level of funding in the Congress is not an adequate solution. In fact, 
agency officials tell me under current law there is no ceiling on the 
amount of money that could be appropriated to address this problem. 
Providing actual dollars, as my amendment does, clearly is part of the 
solution.
  I urge my colleagues to support both sections of this amendment. This 
is an important issue. I believe that if we pass this legislation 
without dealing with both of these issues--the borrowing problem and 
the problem of not providing funds for work on non-Federal lands--we 
will be falling far short of where we should be.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada be added as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, after looking at this amendment, I see it 
clearly increases mandatory spending and, if adopted, would cause the 
underlying bill to exceed the committee's section 302(a) allocation. 
Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to 
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the applicable sections of the 
Budget Act be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator making a motion?
  Mr. REID. I am.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me speak very briefly to the amendment 
of the Senator from New Mexico. I will be very brief. It is a debatable 
motion.
  Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has the floor. Will the 
Senator yield for an inquiry?
  Mr. CRAIG. For a parliamentary inquiry only.
  Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized very briefly 
after Senator Craig before we go to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief. The Senator from New 
Mexico makes eminently good sense. There is

[[Page 26590]]

no question that we have a funding problem. I have spoken with the 
Assistant Secretary and the Chief. I chair the Forestry Subcommittee 
and the committee on which the Senator is the ranking member. What I am 
suggesting we do--because the motion that has just been made in this 
budget point of order is an appropriate one--is to reexamine the whole 
funding mechanism of the Forest Service. Your figures are accurate. The 
kinds of programs that go unfunded now, that would help to begin to 
correct our forest health problem that is in part driving these fires, 
is a very real question.
  As you know, the Forest Service used to have a cash cow. We called it 
logging. Those revenues flowed in, and money moved around from 
different accounts. You could borrow, as we did during fire seasons, 
and they got replenished. So you raise a very important point. But it 
is a point that we need to totally reexamine. To actually allow the 
Forest Service to borrow from the Treasury without going through the 
appropriating process, in my opinion, doesn't really give us the kind 
of fiscal control and responsibility we all ought to have.
  Certainly as ranking member of the authorizing committee and as a 
member of the authorizing committee myself, you and I, on an annual 
basis, ought to aggressively look at this budget, knowing that we have 
fallen far short, and deal with it in an appropriate way. But we have 
not done that.
  You recognized, appropriately, the Senator from Montana, who chairs 
the Subcommittee on Interior that funds this, and others. We ought to 
get at it in an aggressive way. I have already tasked the Assistant 
Secretary and the Chief to look at a variety of mechanisms that fit the 
funding shortfalls that we need to create the new mechanisms necessary. 
But I don't believe that direct ability to borrow from the U.S. 
Treasury by an agency itself, without the authority of the authorizing 
committee and the appropriators, is an approach we ought to undertake 
at this time. It is, however, an issue whose time has come, and we 
ought to deal with it in the appropriate fashion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have already indicated I want to make 
sure the compromise we voted on yesterday does not unravel. I will 
support the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico because I believe 
it will allow us to go forward and make sure the work that the 
bipartisan group did is not in vain.
  The bottom line is very simple: To get the money to put the fires 
out, fire suppression, you have to go out and steal from every single 
Forest Service program around and then hope that at some point down the 
road you are going to get repaid. It makes a mockery out of any effort 
to responsibly budget in this area. In our part of the world, we see, 
in effect, funds robbed from nonprofit organizations such as Wallowa 
Resources, a small nonprofit in eastern Oregon.
  My only concern about putting this off is that if we don't deal with 
this issue now, the question is, When will we deal with it? This is an 
extraordinarily important question. It will not, in my view, unravel 
the compromise which I will fight like crazy to protect, despite the 
fact that I think what the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator 
from Idaho have said has considerable validity as well.
  I hope we will support this amendment and then figure out in the 
course of the afternoon some way in which we can find some common 
ground on this issue. Today the process of just stealing from every 
program around to fight fires really becomes almost farcical. The 
Bingaman amendment responds to that. I hope my colleagues will support 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me briefly respond. I know the point 
of order has been made. A motion has been made to waive the Budget Act.
  First, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Cantwell as a cosponsor 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the good intent of my friend from Idaho in 
saying that this is something on which we ought to start working or on 
which we ought to work. The reality is, this is our best chance. This 
legislation is likely to go to the President, likely to be signed into 
law in some form. If we don't take the opportunity this legislation 
presents to fix this problem, it will remain unfixed. We can have all 
of the assurances we want from the administration, but the reality is, 
the administration is under very severe budgetary restraints as it goes 
into this next year. We in Congress are under very severe budgetary 
restraints. Everyone around this place is going to be looking for ways 
to save money. That means that when it comes to actually providing the 
resources to fight fires, the course of least resistance is to do what 
we have always been doing, what President Bush has done in the last 
several years: Ask for way too little money for firefighting. And then, 
when it turns out that you need an extra billion dollars, tell the 
Forest Service to take it out of their other accounts.
  That is exactly what we have done in the last several years. We are 
getting ready to do that again. I, for one, am not persuaded that the 
concern the Senator from Idaho has expressed here is shared by all in 
the administration. I am confident he believes the issue is one that 
should be addressed. But each of us, as we know, has different 
priorities for what needs to be addressed. I would say this is a fairly 
low priority for the people putting the administration's budget 
proposal together, which we are going to receive this next January.
  I very much think this issue needs to be addressed as part of this 
bill. Again, as I said a couple of times in my earlier statement, if we 
pass this bill without addressing the resource problem and the 
borrowing problem I am trying to get at in my amendment, we can give 
all the speeches we want, issue all the press releases, have all the 
press conferences we want saying what a great thing we have done for 
the American people, but 77 percent of the areas at highest risk are 
not going to have any Federal resources available to them.
  In addition to that, the thinning activity, much of the forest 
restoration activity we all say we favor, is not going to be funded. So 
we need to deal with this as part of this bill.
  Frankly, I am sorry to see the decision has been made to try to deal 
with this as a procedural vote. I think this is an important enough 
issue that we ought to have an up-or-down vote on it and let people 
express their point of view. When you raise a Budget Act point of 
order, basically what you are saying is this is not a big enough 
priority to justify changing the way the budget now sits. If that is 
the conclusion of most Members of the Senate, then I think shame on us. 
If we have the fires going in California, we have all the other 
problems we all talk about, and we are not willing to put that to the 
front of the priority list, then I think shame on us.
  I very much prefer to see us have an up-or-down vote on this 
amendment. Obviously, that is not possible now with the Budget Act 
point of order and the motion to waive the Budget Act.
  I will yield the floor, but I urge my colleagues to support the 
motion to waive the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) is absent 
attending a family funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 36, nays 60, as follows:

[[Page 26591]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 421 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

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

                                NAYS--60

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Nelson (NE)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 36, the are nays 
60. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to ask how long that vote took.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-nine minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I don't know what more we can do here. I 
want everyone to know we are doing our best over here to move these 
amendments. We have a lot of them over here. We are trying to move 
them. We can't do it if we waste a lot of time on these votes. I want 
everyone within the sound of my voice to know that we cannot finish the 
bill if these votes take 30 or 40 minutes. Everyone should understand 
that.
  There are going to be people coming and asking: When can we leave? I 
have a plane. Are we going to have votes tomorrow?
  We will have votes for days, the way this is going. We cannot finish 
this bill tonight with these votes taking as long as they are taking. I 
am disappointed, frankly, that the majority leader wasn't here to 
terminate the first vote. If we limit votes to 20 minutes, people would 
stop straggling in. It is not fair to the Senate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada is exactly 
correct in the fact that we are going to have to have more cooperation 
to move this bill along. We agreed before this vote that we could cut 
off votes after 20 minutes. We had the endorsement of that by the 
majority leader. But because Senators were on their way to vote and 
people told us they were on their way to vote, the vote dragged out 
longer than that.
  I hope Senators will cooperate with the managers of the bill and 
leadership and let's get here and vote when the buzzer sounds and not 
wait until the last minute. These votes are going to be cut short. I 
hope everyone will cooperate with us.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with the understanding of the manger of this 
bill, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana, Mr. 
Baucus, be recognized for 15 minutes to speak on the bill and whatever 
else he wishes to speak on; further, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Bingaman, who still has a number of other amendments that he wishes to 
be offered be recognized to offer the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend, the Senator from 
Nevada, and the managers of the bill for their accommodation.
  It is vital that we pass this legislation this year.
  Montana recently suffered from devastating wildfires, as have other 
western States. As the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein 
pointed out repeatedly, the current news from Southern California is a 
painful reminder of a very large problem.
  Across this country forests are threatened by insects, disease and 
the build up of hazardous fuels. The impacts of these conditions are 
real. And they play out year after year, fueling large fires that 
destroy lives and homes, diminish water and air quality, and destroy 
wildlilfe habitat.
  The cost of containing these large fires is staggering, straining 
State and Federal budgets and devastating local economies.
  There are many reasons for the situation we are in today, ranging 
from weather and natural cycles to urban sprawl and the fire 
suppression policies of the past.
  We can't do anything to change the weather and we certainly can't 
change the past, but we can use today's knowledge and the wisdom of our 
experience to do better.
  Neglecting the problem is not the answer; nor is more talk. We have 
to try a new approach. The compromise healthy forests bill is not 
perfect, but I believe it offers options to more efficiently address 
our forest health problems and the consequences they have on real 
people. I also believe this bill will help put people in rural 
communities back to work in the woods, especially in my State of 
Montana.
  I have said over and over again that a healthy forests bill must 
first allow federal agencies and communities to address dangerous fuel 
loadings on a local level, quickly and efficiently. Second, it must 
support small, independent mills and put local people to work in the 
forests and the mills. Third, it must promote and protect citizen 
involvement and be fair to the principles underlying the federal 
judicial system. And finally, it must protect and help restore special 
and sensitive places like wilderness areas.
  I think we have achieved that with this legislation.
  People impacted by forest health problems don't belong to just one 
political party.
  This is a problem that requires all sides to work together. I would 
like to commend the tremendous efforts of my Democratic and Republican 
colleagues, including Senators Feinstein, Wyden, Cochran, Craig, Crapo, 
McCain and Lincoln, who along with several other Senators and myself 
worked very had to put together the compromise on healthy forests that 
I am proud to support and co-sponsor.
  This was no small feat; this bill touches on some very divisive 
issues that I wasn't sure we would ever find a way to solve. But, we 
did and that is why we are here today having a serious conversation 
about actually passing a bill.
  I believe the compromise healthy forest bill is responsive to our 
need to more efficiently reduce the threat of wildfire while ensuring 
adequate environmental protections, citizen participation, and an 
independent judiciary.
  There is nothing in this legislation that undermines existing 
environmental laws, or a person's ability to be involved in decisions 
that impact their public lands. In fact, this legislation requires 
citizen collaboration beyond existing law--current law does not require 
the secretary to encourage citizen collaboration or to hold a public 
meeting on proposed projects.
  What I believe this legislation does do is help keep the process open 
and honest. I ask unanimous consent that an article for today's 
Missoulian newspaper, from Missoula, MT, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Groups File Lawsuit Over Kootenai Forest Timber Sale

                           (By Sherry Devlin)


            Harvest threatens water, environmentalists argue

       Environmentalists filed another lawsuit against the 
     Kootenai National Forest on Tuesday, hoping to stop a 12.5 
     million-board-

[[Page 26592]]

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

   Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this article demonstrates why the 
provisions of this bill would be beneficial to moving fuel reduction 
projects forward.
   This article describes a lawsuit filed to stop a timber sale after 
the timber sale had been awarded. As I understand the situation, the 
lawsuit was based on an issue that had not been raised at any time 
during the environmental review process or the administrative appeals 
process. It was sprung at the last minute just to delay and stop the 
sale. It was sprung even after the Forest Service was thanked by other 
groups for doing a better job to address old growth issues that had 
been raised earlier.
   Now, I know that this article is about a timber sale and not a 
hazardous fuels project, but the same concerns apply. If someone has 
particular concerns about the impact of a proposed project, the 
compromise healthy forests bill very appropriately requires that they 
raise that issue during the administrative review process before they 
can file a lawsuit.
   No one is saying the public's concerns are not valid and that they 
should not have every right to raise those concerns, and appeal 
projects that they do not feel address their concerns. But, they should 
not be allowed to use the process simply to stop and delay. That's only 
fair. Particularly when we are talking about projects like those 
contemplated by the compromise healthy forests bill, which are projects 
intended to reduce the risks of dangerous fires. The compromise Healthy 
Forests bill simply requires citizens to be thoughtful and thorough 
when they oppose projects.
   This in turn helps the agencies be more efficient, because they can 
do a better job of addressing controversial issues--like old growth--
earlier in the process, without wondering what might be coming at them 
from left field. This is a good example of why the compromise bill will 
have real, positive impacts on the ground.
   Keeping Montana's small timber mills and forest workers in business 
is a top priority for me because of their importance to rural 
economies. But, the fact, is we also need this industry to accomplish 
the hazardous fuel reduction work on the ground.
   I worked in committee to ensure this legislation provides support 
for building a thriving forest industry in rural communities. In 
particular, I worked with Senators Crapo and Leahy to develop the Rural 
Community Forestry Enterprise Program, included in Title VII of the 
bill. The Rural Community Forestry Enterprise Program, is intended to 
give a much needed economic boost to small businesses and small mills 
in rural communities, particularly those in Montana that have been hit 
hard in recent years.
   The Program would establish forest enterprise centers around the 
country, including one in Montana, that would do the following: Ensure 
that the Small Business Administration timber set-aside program works 
better for Montana and other small mills; enhance technical and 
business management skills training; organize cooperatives, marketing 
programs, and worker skill pools; facilitate technology transfer for 
processing small diameter trees and brush into useful products; and 
enhance the rural forest business infrastructure needed for a fuel 
reduction program on both private and public lands.
   Keeping small mills in Montana in operation is a top priority for 
me. These businesses are vitally important to rural economies, 
providing good-paying jobs and revenue to local communities. I support 
this legislation because I believe we do have a serious problem with 
hazardous fuel build-up in our National Forests that we must solve 
sooner rather than later.
   I also believe the bi-partisan Healthy Forests bill has the elements 
necessary to allow local citizens and leaders to make wise decisions 
that address this problem efficiently and effectively. We need to pass 
this bill.
   This is not a problem that we will solve overnight, or even in the 
next few years. But, we have to start somewhere, and this is a great 
place to start.
   I am proud to support this compromise. I ask all of my colleagues to 
take a bold step and support it as well.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, 
notwithstanding the order previously entered, the distinguished Senator 
from Maine be recognized up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for 
his courtesy and also for the extraordinary job he has done in bringing 
together people of diverse views on this critical issue of forest 
management. I also thank the Senator from New Mexico

[[Page 26593]]

for agreeing to let me deliver my comments before he offers his 
amendment.
  Responsible management of our Nation's forests is vital to preventing 
the highly destructive forest fires that we are seeing plaguing the 
West and also to protecting our ecosystems. I am very pleased the 
Senate is moving forward with this important issue which I know matters 
greatly to the Presiding Officer as well.
  No discussion of a responsible forest management system would be 
complete, however, without addressing another threat to our Nation's 
working forests and open spaces; that is, suburban sprawl. Sprawl 
threatens our environment and our quality of life. It destroys 
ecosystems and increases the risks of flooding and other environmental 
hazards. It burns the infrastructure of the affected communities, 
increases traffic on neighborhood streets, and wastes taxpayer money. 
It leads to the fragmentation of wood lots, reducing the economic 
viability of the remaining working forests.
  Sprawl occurs because the immediate economic value of forests or 
farmland cannot compete with the immediate economic value of developed 
land in the areas that are experiencing rapid growth.
  No State is immune from the dangers of sprawl. For example, the 
Virginia State Forester says that since 1992 the Commonwealth of 
Virginia has lost 54,000 acres of forest land per year to other uses. 
The Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments recently reported that 
southeastern Michigan saw a 17-percent increase in developed land 
between 1900 and 2000.
  In my home State of Maine, suburban sprawl has already consumed tens 
of thousands of acres of forest land. The problem is particularly acute 
in southern Maine where a 108-percent increase in urbanized land over 
the past two decades has resulted in the labeling of the greater 
Portland area as the ``sprawl capital of the Northeast.''
  I am particularly alarmed by the amount of working forest and open 
space in southern and coastal Maine that has given way to strip malls 
and cul-de-sacs. Once these forests, farms, and meadows are lost to 
development, they are lost forever. Maine is trying to respond to this 
challenge. The people of my State have approved a $50 million bond to 
preserve land through the Land For Maine's Future Program, and they 
contribute their time and their money to preserve important parcels and 
to support our State's 88 land trusts. It is time for the Federal 
Government to help support these local community-based efforts.
  For these reasons, I will be offering an amendment, along with 
Senator Harkin, that establishes a $50 million grant program, the 
Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Program, within the U.S. 
Forest Service, to support locally driven, market-based land 
conservation projects that will preserve our working forests and farms.
  Locally driven and market based are the essential aspects of this 
program. This program is locally driven because it encourages 
communities and nonprofit organizations to work together with 
landowners to help promote sustainable forestry and public access. The 
program will allow local governments and nonprofits to compete for 
funds and hold title to land or easements purchased with programmed 
funds. Projects funded over this initiative must be targeted at lands 
located in parts of the country that are threatened by sprawl. In 
addition, the legislation requires that Federal grant bonds be matched 
dollar for dollar by State, local, or private resources.
  This program is market driven because it relies upon market forces 
rather than government regulations to achieve its objectives. Rather 
than preserving our working forests and open spaces by zoning or other 
government regulation at the expense of the landowner, this program 
will provide the resources to allow a landowner who wishes to keep his 
or her land as a working farm or wood lot to do so.
  The legislation also protects the rights of property owners with the 
inclusion of a ``willing seller'' provision that will require the 
consent of a landowner if a parcel of land is to participate in the 
program.
  The $50 million that would be authorized would help achieve a number 
of stewardship objectives. First, the amendment would help prevent 
forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to maintain 
the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most significant industry. 
Second, the resources would be a valuable tool for communities that are 
struggling to manage growth and to prevent sprawl.
  Currently, if a town such as Gorham, ME, or another community is 
trying to cope with the effects of sprawl and turns to the Federal 
Government for assistance, they would find there is no program. My 
proposal would change that by making the Federal Government an active 
partner in preserving forest land and managing sprawl, while leaving 
decisionmaking at the State and local level where it belongs.
  There is great work being done in Maine and in other States to 
protect our working forests for future generations. I am grateful for 
the many organizations that are lending support to this effort and 
which have also endorsed my legislation. There is a nationwide network 
of organizations that have endorsed my proposal, including the National 
Association of State Foresters, the New England Forestry Foundation, 
the Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Lands, the Land Trust 
Alliance, and many others.
  By adopting this proposal and incorporating it into this bill, 
Congress can provide a real boost to conservation initiatives, help 
prevent sprawl, preserve special open places, forest lands, and farms, 
and help sustain natural resource-based industries.
  I thank Senator Cochran in particular for his assistance on this 
legislation. It is always a great pleasure to work with him. I hope 
this proposal will be incorporated into the final bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Maine for her contribution to the legislation we have before us today. 
She has been a leader in this effort, and we always appreciate the 
opportunity of working with her. I thank her for her kind comments as 
well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2035

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

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

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

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     ``SEC.   . LONG-TERM FUEL MANAGEMENT.

       In implementing hazardous fuels reduction projects, the 
     Secretaries shall ensure that--
       (1) a slash treatment plan is completed;
       (2) acres are not identified as treated, in annual program 
     accomplishment reports, until all phases of a multi-year 
     project such as thinning, slash reduction, and prescribed 
     burning are completed; and
       (3) a system to track the budgeting and implementation of 
     follow-up treatments shall be used to account for the long-
     term maintenance of areas managed to reduce hazardous 
     fuels.''

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the issue of 
the treatment of long-term fuel management and treating what is called 
slash. Many fuel reduction projects require two or more sequential 
treatments over several years on the same parcel of land--for example, 
an initial timber harvest, followed by the piling and burning of slash, 
which is, obviously, the brush and trees that have been cut down.
  Completing these followup slash treatments in a timely manner is a 
very important part of forest restoration work. It is important because 
the

[[Page 26594]]

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

       In implementing hazardous fuels reduction projects, the 
     Secretaries--

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

     shall ensure that--
       a slash treatment plan is completed;
       acres are not identified as treated, in annual program 
     accomplishment reports, until all phases of a multi-year 
     project such as thinning, slash reduction, and prescribed 
     burning are completed; and
       a system to track the budgeting and implementation of 
     follow-up treatments shall be used to account for the long-
     term maintenance of areas managed to reduce hazardous fuels.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am advised this amendment would really 
be a recipe for gridlock in that it mandates new requirements for the 
Forest Service as well as the Bureau of Land Management--processes they 
have to carry out and go through before they can engage in any fuel 
treatment processes.
  It would require the Forest Service, for example, to prepare a plan 
for treatment of slash that contains all of the information and data 
specified in the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico. It opens up 
the Forest Service to legal challenges if someone has the opinion that 
the plan is inadequate for some reason. It forces the Forest Service to 
set up a new system for tracking the implementation of fuels treatment 
projects, and any followup treatments to them.
  The amendment would add new reporting processes to hazardous fuel 
work. The amendment calls for the development of a plan which is 
already required but requires the agencies to develop multiyear 
treatment plans and report on those plans on an annual basis.
  The whole purpose of this legislation is to try to help simplify and 
get the work done that needs to be done to reduce the chances of 
devastating fires like we have seen in California, to manage the 
forests in a more effective way, a safer way, for those who live in 
those areas, and to get more done in terms of enhancing survivability 
from insect infestation and generally improve the overall health of our 
national forest resources.
  The Forest Service is going to end up spending more time, the Bureau 
of Land Management as well, in their offices working on plans, than out 
doing the work that they were actually hired to do under existing 
legislation. This amendment is, as I have said before, a recipe for 
gridlock. I urge that the amendment be opposed.
  I don't know of any other Senators who wish to speak on the 
amendment. I will be prepared to move to table the amendment when those 
who want to speak have been heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just say that I think this 
amendment is anything but a prescription for gridlock. There is the 
suggestion that all sorts of new program accomplishment reports are 
going to be required. Those reports are currently produced. And the 
real issue is, do we get proper accounting in those reports or do we 
not? The GAO has told us we do not. Each year they give us an 
accomplishment report, and they list acreage on which they have not 
completed the forest restoration work. They have done one of the phases 
of that forest restoration work, and then the next year they take 
credit for that acreage again by doing another phase. The next year 
they take credit for that acreage again by doing another phase.
  All we are saying is that acres should not be identified as having 
been treated in these annual reports, which are already provided, until 
they have done all of the different phases--the thinning, slash 
reduction, and the prescribed burning.
  We are not requiring additional reports. We are requiring accurate 
reports. That is not an unreasonable request.
  I am somewhat disappointed. This is an amendment we delivered to the 
managers of the bill yesterday, to their staff. We asked them to review 
it, to give us suggestions. If they had problems with any aspect of it, 
they did not get back to us, except to say it is unacceptable. That 
seems to be the position they are taking with regard to any and all 
suggested amendments to the bill.
  This is intended as a constructive amendment. I see it as a 
constructive amendment to deal with a specific problem that the GAO has 
identified as existing with regard to management of the long-term fuel 
supply.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
2035. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) is absent 
attending a family funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 422 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

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

[[Page 26595]]


     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

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


                           Amendment No. 2036

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

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

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

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     ``SEC. __. COLLABORATIVE MONITORING.

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

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


                           Amendment No. 2039

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am soon going to send to the desk an 
amendment.
  The people of my State of Vermont, and Americans across the Nation, 
mourn with our colleagues, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, and 
with the people of California, over the tragic loss of life and 
property from the wildfires in San Diego County.
  Today, we lost a firefighter from Novato, CA. These brave men and 
women on the front lines need to be recognized first in this debate. 
Our hearts go out to the firefighters' families and friends.
  We have all been riveted by the vivid images we have watched, day 
after day, and by the heart-wrenching stories of loss and of bravery 
that go with these pictures.
  Our hearts go out to all of these families that have lost so much. 
And our thanks go out to the courageous and diligent firefighters and 
emergency response team members who are fighting those fires and are 
doing all they can to protect these communities.
  Here in the Congress, we need to do more to protect forests and 
communities from wildfires. That is why I introduced the Forest and 
Community Protection Act this summer. This is a bill and an approach 
that would make a real difference for communities facing this kind of 
potential devastation.
  The bill before us now, unfortunately, would not offer the same level 
of help.
  The bill before us is a well-camouflaged attempt to limit the right 
of the American people to know and to question what their government is 
doing on the public's lands.
  When you look at the tidal wave of regulatory changes the 
administration has produced in the last year to cut the public out of 
the process, it could not be clearer that the administration does not 
want the public or the independent judiciary looking over its shoulder.
  Communities that face wildfire threats need real help, not false 
promises.
  As this chart shows, the administration has been busy creating a 
broader number of projects that will be excluded from environmental 
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, limiting how, who 
and when citizens can appeal agency decisions, and even cutting out 
other agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, from advising 
the Forest Service on the impact of the actions on endangered species 
habitats.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today could be the last in this 
series of steps that completely erode the public's trust of the Forest 
Service. Many of us saw the aftermath of the salvage rider on our 
forests and the public trust. We should not go down that road again.
  That is why I am offering an amendment today, along with Senators 
Bingaman, Durbin, Harkin and Boxer, to strike sections 105 and 106 of 
the bill. These sections go too far in undermining the decades of 
progress we have made in public participation and judicial review.
  The administration has worked overtime to try to sell the false idea 
that environmental laws, administrative appeals and the judicial 
process are the cause of wildfires. But they have not been able to back 
up their scape-

[[Page 26596]]

goating with facts. And the facts themselves contradict their claims.
  In May, the GAO issued a study examining delays in all Forest Service 
fuels reduction projects, from appeals or litigation, during the last 2 
fiscal years.
  Contrary to what some advocates of this bill will tell you, the 
results show that neither appeals nor litigation have delayed fuels 
reduction projects.
  As you can see, out of 818 projects, only a quarter were appealed. Of 
those, even fewer took more than the standard 90-day review period. In 
fact, only 5 percent of all the projects took more than 90 days.
  And they can't honestly blame litigation, either, for the delays. 
Again, of the 818 projects, only 25 were litigated. Of those, 10 were 
either settled or ruled in favor of the Forest Service--meaning that 
only 9 out of 818 projects were delayed by court order.
  That is only one percent. Where is the ``analysis paralysis'' my 
colleagues like to talk about so much?
  On the ground, these appeals had even less effect. Of the 4.8 million 
acres covered by fuel reduction projects, only 111,000 acres were 
impacted by litigation. The numbers simply do not back up the 
administration's assertion that appeals and litigation are delaying 
projects.
  The bill before us today rolls back environmental protections and 
citizen rights with no justification at all.
  Enough about numbers. The bill before us is really a solution looking 
for a problem. So let's take a closer look at the solution on the 
table.
  First, the bill would make it much more difficult for the public to 
have any oversight or say in what happens on public lands, undermining 
decades of progress in public inclusion.
  In this new and vague pre-decisional protest process, this bill 
expects the public to have intimate knowledge of aspects of the project 
early on, including aspects that the Forest Service might not have 
disclosed in its initial proposal.
  Section 105 gives the Forest Service a real incentive to hide the 
ball or to withhold certain information about a project that might make 
it objectionable such as endangered species habitat data, watershed 
analysis or road-building information.
  If concerns are not raised about this possibly undisclosed 
information in the vaguely outlined predecisional process, the Forest 
Service can argue to the courts that no claims can be brought on these 
issues in the future when the agency either through intent or 
negligence withheld important information from the public.
  I want to take a couple of minutes to respond to a couple of 
statements that my colleagues have made over the last 2 days with 
regard to appeals and judicial review.
  First, my colleagues keep talking about ``analysis paralysis.'' This 
has become a mantra for those who want to cut the public out of 
decision-making and blame appeals and litigation.
  When the administration went looking for a problem to fit their 
solution of cutting out appeals and judicial review, they came up with 
analysis paralysis.
  When they went looking for facts to back up this new mantra, they 
threw together a Forest Service report that argued that 48 percent of 
decisions were appealed.
  But when people starting asking questions about the report though, 
they found that the Forest Service spent just a few hours gathering 
information for the report. The so-called data it was based on was just 
phone conversations made in an afternoon.
  In fact, the Forest Service does not actually track appeals. Until 
the GAO did its independent report, they really had no idea what impact 
appeals were having on fuel reduction projects.
  But they, and many of my colleagues, already had their talking 
points. As we have seen with many other so-called environmental 
policies of this administration, facts are never allowed to get in the 
way of rhetoric.
  When the facts did start coming out this spring, with an independent 
study by Northern Arizona University and the GAO, they showed that only 
5 percent of projects are appealed and only 3 percent are litigated.
  The report also found that opposition was not a leading factor in 
slowing fuel reduction projects:

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

  What the facts do tell is that the main reasons fuel reduction 
projects could not proceed were due to the weather and the diversion of 
fuel reduction funds to fight wildfires.
  Just this summer, while the President was out in Oregon pushing this 
bill, the Forest Service was back here cutting fuel reduction projects 
because the House Republicans refused to pass emergency funding for 
fire suppression.
  Let's cut through the smokescreen and focus on the facts before 
leaping on board to a solution that will let the administration pick 
and choose 20 million acres of forestland around the country to cut 
with little real public accountability.
  This is not a problem of analysis paralysis but a problem of 
situation exaggeration.
  Essentially, this provision penalizes citizens and rewards agency 
staff when the agency does not do its job in terms of basic 
investigation and information-sharing regarding a project.
  The other significant change to judicial review is section 106. Even 
under the ``compromise'' version of H.R. 1904, the provisions will 
interfere with and overload judges' schedules.
  This section will force judges to reconsider preliminary injunctions 
every 60 days, whether or not circumstances warrant it.
  In many ways, this provision could backfire on my colleagues' goal of 
expediting judicial review. It will force judges to engage in otherwise 
unnecessary proceedings slowing their consideration of the very cases 
that H.R. 1904's proponents want to fast track.
  Moreover, taking the courts' time to engage in this process will also 
divert scarce judicial resources away from other pending cases.
  It is also likely to encourage more lawsuits. Requiring that 
injunctions be renewed every 60 days, whether needed or not, gives 
lawyers another bite at the apple. Something they often find hard to 
resist.
  Instead of telling the courts when and how to conduct their business, 
we should instead be working to find a workable and effective approach 
to reducing wildfire risks.
  This bill does not achieve that, but through sections 105 and 106, it 
instead poses a real risk to the checks and balances that the American 
people and their independent judiciary now have on government decisions 
affecting the public lands owned by the American people.
  Sadly, this bill is just a Halloween trick on communities threatened 
by wildfires. It is not fair to rollback environmental laws, public 
oversight or judicial review under the guise of reacting to devastating 
wildfires.
  It will do nothing to help or to prevent the kind of devastation that 
Southern California is facing. It is a special interest grab-bag 
shrouded behind a smokescreen.
  Let us offer real help and real answers, and let us not allow fear to 
be used as a pretext for taking the public's voice out of decisions 
affecting the public's lands and for ceding more power to special 
interests.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in striking these provisions.


                           Amendment No. 2039

       (Purpose: To remove certain provisions relating to 
     administrative and judicial review)

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

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

         Strike sections 105 and 106.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there has been considerable attention 
paid to the provisions of the House-passed bill which was referred to 
in our Committee on Agriculture. The version the House passed has the 
same provisions

[[Page 26597]]

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 423 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

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

                                NAYS--33

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Edwards
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Nelson (NE)
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion to table was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAPO. 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 Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Wyoming a 
question.
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Were you going to offer an amendment?
  Mr. THOMAS. No, I am not. I wanted to speak in support of the 
legislation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if I might have 5 minutes following the 
Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I follow him for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have been at this now for a couple of 
years. I have risen before a number of times and we are back again. I 
just want to urge the Senate to pass this Healthy Forest legislation 
and invest more in preventing deadly wildfires. The latest thing we 
have seen, of course, is in California. That was not unexpected. These 
woods had insect infestation.
  We have to do something. Many of us in the West are continuing to 
fight this. H.R. 1904 includes carefully crafted bipartisan language. 
If we oppose that, we are really not serious about reform. The 
amendments that weaken the appeal process, judicial review, NEPA 
requirements, would deprive the legislation of some of the very reforms 
that are needed that we have seen through the years in the West.
  I want to see us move forward. I think this is a commonsense 
approach. We have been at it a very long time. This is not even the 
first year we have been at it. I hope we can pass it and pass it right 
away.
  I support this legislation and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico, by previous 
order, is recognized.


                               GDP Growth

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while what is going on in Russia may be 
some of the worst news that could beset the free world, including our 
country, because of the acquisition of majority control of the third 
largest oil company by the Government of Russia in one sweep today, who 
knows what that means in terms of oil production and stability. But I 
rise because, on the other hand, while that bad news is occurring, the 
announcement today as to the status of the American economy is about 
the best news we have had in 20 years.
  Today it was announced that the economy grew by 7.2 percent in July. 
That is July, August, September, that quarter. It has been almost 19 
years. Not since 1984 has this economy seen such GDP growth. This news 
was not unexpected. Many have been saying--certainly I have--for some 
time the policies we have adopted, specifically the tax reductions, 
would result in this kind of event being announced now or very close to 
now.
  In addition, this was reflected in the morning numbers today which 
showed personal consumption was at 6.6 percent. Interestingly, since 
consumption makes up 70 percent of the economy, growth accounted for by 
consumption would on its own have resulted in the economy growing 4.6 
percent all by

[[Page 26598]]

itself. Equally, if not more importantly, the long-term business 
investment grew by 11.1 percent in this quarter.
  To me, this suggests we will continue to see this growth well into 
the future as businesses rebuild their investments and their 
inventories and retool their factories. Government spending, which 
accounted for most of the growth in earlier parts of this year, was not 
that important. It represented only 1.4 percent.
  Maybe lost in this big news is what really matters, and that is, with 
reference to growth, the Department of Labor reported initial claims 
for unemployment declined by 5,000 just this week, affirming a downward 
trend in unemployment. So the news is good on the home front. The 
numbers released today indicate a ramp-up to recovery and growth in 
this quarter and in quarters ahead. Policies we put into place are 
beginning to take hold.
  I commend all of those who have been part of that and commend our 
President as our leader for asking for most of the tax cuts and other 
items that have caused this growth to occur.
  Still, we have a lot more work to do. We must do more to help create 
jobs and bring economic recovery to all of our citizens.
  We cannot rest therefore on these reports today. We must continue to 
work toward reducing the cost of doing business in this country in such 
areas as health care, energy, and litigation costs. We need to remove 
barriers to investment and economic growth so employers can create new 
jobs.
  Our work here in the Congress must go on with renewed dedication. 
Today we see first hand the effects of the President's economic 
policies. But such results should encourage all of us to work even 
harder to bring economic recovery to the doorstep of every American.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I, of course, am also happy about the growth 
of the domestic product last quarter. It is very important. But before 
we get too elated over this economic news, we have to also understand 
that in addition to the need for growth for corporate America, we need 
job growth. Last month we lost 46,000 jobs. During the years this man 
has been President, President Bush, we have lost over 3 million jobs.
  I would hope the next quarter, in addition to having good domestic 
product growth, we also would have job growth. People in Nevada and 
around the country are more concerned about J-O-B than G-D-P.
  The Senator from California is here. She is ready to offer her 
amendment. She offered two very important amendments yesterday.
  I have spoken with Senator Cochran and the Senator from Idaho, who is 
now managing the bill. It is my understanding that the Senator from New 
Jersey is here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1618

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 282, S. 
1618, the 6-month extension of the FAA authorization; 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. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and further, 
parliamentary inquiry, I was under the impression the Senator from New 
Jersey was going to offer an amendment, but he propounded instead this 
unanimous consent request.
  Further reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we have a 
Federal Aviation Administration conference report that is due for 
consideration in the House maybe today or early next week. That issue 
will be coming to the floor of the Senate, I presume, shortly 
thereafter. It is a 4-year, $60 billion bill that is critical for our 
airlines, our airports, for general aviation, and for security in 
aviation. It reminds me of this Healthy Forests bill. A week ago, there 
were objections to the Healthy Forests bill. This week, with half the 
State of California on fire, all of a sudden we are going to get this 
Healthy Forests legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to look seriously at this legislation and what 
it means for this great industry in our country, an important part of 
our economy--aviation--and for security in aviation before we just say 
we are going to go with the status quo. If a week from now or a month 
from now there is an explosion in an airport or a plane is driven into 
a twin tower somewhere, I would not want to be the one who is not 
passing this huge FAA reauthorization extension.
  Further reserving the right to object, I don't like all that is in 
this bill either. I am not an advocate of some of the provisions that 
are in this bill or not in this bill. I am not even necessarily an 
advocate of privatization. But to threaten to kill this major 
legislation with an extension over that one issue is very dubious 
action.
  I, with great pleasure, object to this unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I can obtain the floor, not to 
bring up an amendment, but rather to have a few minutes to explain what 
it is that I would like to do. I ask if the Senator from Mississippi, 
someone with whom I have worked closely on several issues related to 
this, will enable me, by unanimous consent, to have up to 10 minutes to 
talk about the issue.
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can speak on any subject he 
chooses, but the request was made.
  Mr. LOTT. If there is going to be a unanimous consent request, I ask 
that there be an equal amount of time, if needed, for the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the unanimous consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request, as modified, is for 10 minutes on 
each side to talk about the FAA reauthorization bill.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I had been recognized. I respect the 
viewpoint of the Senator from Mississippi, but I disagree with it, and 
I would like to talk about the mission I see in front of us and 
withdraw my request that the bill be read three times and passed. I 
want to discuss what we think is coming over soon from the House.
  Contrary to the remarks my friend and colleague from Mississippi 
made, in terms of his objection, I agree totally that we do not want to 
hold up the funding of this bill. I want to get the money invested. We 
have to take care of the requirements of our aviation needs. While we 
want to make sure we get these funds on their way, we want to make sure 
we don't throw a blanket opportunity out there to terminate 23,000 
loyal, hard-working, safety-oriented employees from the FAA control 
system; that is, those in the towers, those who are service operators, 
those who are technicians, because we have a system that has been so 
safe.
  We handle over 700 million airline passengers a year. The numbers are 
incredible. We saw them, when our FAA controllers were called upon on 
9/11, bring 5,000 airplanes out of the sky safely. They got everybody 
on the ground when it looked as if total chaos was raining on our 
society.
  What I propose to do is say let's just have a 6-month extension, not 
permit the commercialization of the FAA system to take it away from 
Government hands. I see this as the fifth branch of the military. We 
are relying on them 24/7. Without a question of doubt, we need those 
people in their positions.
  We are facing a time within the next 10 years when over 10,000 FAA 
controllers will be retiring; 23,000 jobs are at stake, and we are 
going to say they are going into commercial hands--Acme Air Service, or 
whoever it is.
  There is something else that is taking place here. We see a vote 
coming in the House that looks as if it may carry.

[[Page 26599]]

Do you know how the votes were obtained? Not on substance but on 
excluding particular airports from going into private hands and 
securing votes. That means if you happen to live in one of those areas 
that is not protected by the sale of a vote, your family could be 
getting onto an airplane and perhaps not have it handled as perfectly 
as it could. I know I want my kids and my grandchildren protected to 
the best of our ability. We have seen it done year after year in the 
United States with our FAA controllers, with our air control system.
  I urge we have a chance to vote on whether we can extend this 
authorization, have time for discussion to permit the funding and the 
other elements of the bill. But let's have a serious review. This 
suddenly has come up as a change in the conference report as a result 
of a decision by the administration to suddenly change the rules. They 
want to move toward privatizing the U.S. air traffic control system, 
but 11 Republican Senators joined me and the remainder of the 
Democrats, and we had 56 votes in favor of keeping the system in 
Government hands.
  We just recently took the baggage screeners from private hands, from 
commercial hands, and put them into Government hands. We thought it was 
a good move. That was 28,000 people. We transferred them over to the 
Government so we can control them. Those people control the baggage 
that is going aboard. These people control 700 million lives that fly 
each and every year. We quickly are saying discard that, forget that, 
we have our deals, we have our airports protected. We have two in 
Alaska protected. We have others in other States that are protected and 
we will worry about the safety later. That is wrong.
  I hope people across the country recognize what is happening, that we 
are putting this on the sale block, that it is part of a scheme to have 
Government privatized--over 850,000 is the mark--and it should not be 
done on the backs of safety. That is the issue.
  I appreciate the Senator from Mississippi, a very knowledgeable and 
longtime Government servant, a man who has been responsible for lots of 
good things, but 71 percent of the Americans who were polled who were 
asked the question about what they think we ought to be doing with the 
FAA about keeping it in Government hands or going private with it, 71 
percent of the people across this country--and I want everybody to hear 
it--our constituents, agree we ought to keep the FAA in Government 
hands.
  I am not saying we are going to extend it a long time. I am saying, 
give us a chance to review it. Let us take it up and have a discussion 
about it and not simply have something jammed through the House and us 
be like the second body, here it is, take it or leave it. I would like 
to see if we can talk to the 11 Senators who voted with us the last 
time and see if they will vote with us another time. I think it is 
reasonable in the interest of safety.
  I just received a letter dated today. It is signed by a 
representative of the Consumers Union of the Public Citizens Congress 
Watch, Consumer Federation of America. It is addressed to me:

       Senator Lautenberg: We commend you for your leadership and 
     strong opposition to the most recent version of the FAA 
     authorization conference report. The new conference report 
     does not restore the original House and Senate language 
     prohibiting privatization of air traffic control services. 
     Instead, the report leaves the door open for future 
     privatization attempts going against the will of the American 
     people and jeopardizing the safety of our skies.

  The letter goes on. 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:
                                                 October 30, 2003.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: We commend you for your leadership 
     and strong opposition to the most recent version of the FAA 
     Authorization conference report. The new conference report 
     does not restore the original House and Senate language 
     prohibiting privatization of air traffic control services. 
     Instead, the report leaves the door open for future 
     privatization attempts, going against the will of the 
     American public and jeopardizing the safety of our skies.
       Our air traffic control network is far more complex than 
     any other in the world, with more than nine million flights 
     and nearly 700 million passengers moved through the system 
     annually. We believe that our air traffic control system must 
     remain a federal responsibility, with employees entirely 
     accountable to the public and not a company's bottom line.
       It appears the Administration is intent on moving ahead in 
     contracting out air traffic control, as has been clearly 
     demonstrated by the intense pressure it has applied to 
     Congress. Only an explicit prohibition against privatizing 
     air traffic control will assure the flying public that their 
     safety will be secured.
       Again, we commend you for your leadership on this critical 
     public safety issue. We urge all Members of Congress to 
     follow your lead and vote against the conference report as 
     currently written.
           Sincerely,
     Adam J. Goldberg,
       Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.
     Winifred DePalma,
       Regulatory Affairs Counsel, Public Citizen's Congress 
     Watch.
     Travis Plunkett,
       Legislative Director, Consumer Federation of America.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I hope we can test the will of the Senate and test 
the determination of the American people to have it done in a way that 
satisfies them and their families.
  A reference was made by the distinguished Senator about what might 
happen if there was an accident, a crash, as a result of not having 
facilities up to snuff because of the bill not being passed.
  I will say if we look at the record in the U.K. and Canada about what 
happened after they turned those operations to business hands, to 
private hands, we will see that the number of near-misses went up 
substantially in the U.K. That means near-misses in the air.
  Many times I sit in the second seat on a small airplane and I want to 
tell my colleagues something, to find out where another airplane is at 
the last moment is a life-remembering event.
  In Great Britain, since privatization, near-misses of crashes or 
other problems have increased by 50 percent.
  There is something new of which I think we ought to be fully aware, 
and that is that the space between airplanes is being narrowed in the 
interest of taking more airplanes into the sky. This is no time to be 
saying, turn over our safety function, the maintenance function, to 
private hands, to Acme Air Service.
  I do not ask for a lot, but I ask for it on behalf of the American 
people, 71 percent of whom said they want to keep these services in 
Government hands because they know Government can manage it best. I 
want to be able to bring up an amendment and have it voted upon. I am 
asking for a 6-month extension, and that is it. Give us a chance to 
reason in a more comfortable time frame. Right now, there is enormous 
pressure to conclude our business so we can go home, but I do not want 
to go home in an airplane that I do not think is the safest place I can 
possibly be, or my kids flying with me on a vacation or my 
grandchildren flying with me on a vacation over the Christmas holiday 
not feeling like we had the best possible people in the towers watching 
us in our flight.
  I hope we will reconsider where we are and have a chance to discuss 
this at length.
  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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I realize we need to get back to amendments 
on this legislation so we can complete Healthy Forests so I will try to 
be brief, but I have to respond to some of the things that were said.
  First, the Senator from New Jersey and I have talked about this issue 
and

[[Page 26600]]

about this legislation in the past. He knows that I was in hopes we 
could work out something in this area, but now we are talking about not 
going forward with the conference report and doing a 6-month extension 
for what is not in a bill.
  We were told there was a problem with the language that was in the 
bill because it said, by the way, there cannot be any private takings 
of air traffic controllers. That was in the conference report, that 
there would be 69 medium and smaller airports that would be subject to 
possible contract towers. We were told that is a problem. The people 
did not like the contract tower concept. Others did not like the 
prohibition, by the way, on privatization of the air traffic 
controllers. So the conference took those two provisions out.
  Basically, the conference says in that area you just had a 6-month 
extension, extend the current law. What are you gaining? There are a 
lot of things that are in this bill that make a huge difference that 
will not go forward if we do not pass the conference report: $60 
billion, money that is needed for security in our airports; funds for 
the first time, over $100 million, that would go to the regional 
airlines, airport security, expansion, and improvement. We let $500 
million go from the airport improvement fund into airport security. 
This legislation says, no, you cannot do any more of that. The security 
funds will have to come from other fees, but airport improvement money 
will go to improve the airports.
  It has to do with general aviation, and we have some significant 
language in there for them. Manufacturers of airplanes from Kansas and 
Washington and parts suppliers all over America, all of that would be 
put on hold.
  We are behind the curve already. Does anybody really think the 
airports are secure and that the airlines are secure, and that we have 
done all we need to do? I am not that critical of TSA. I think they are 
working hard and I think it is better, but we have a long way to go.
  Then we are going to put a timeout on this huge, important part of 
our infrastructure? We want to create jobs. How about improving our 
airports and our air service and all the concessionaires that are 
involved in the airports, all the people who lost their jobs after 9/11 
in the aviation industry? If we do that and do the highway bill, we are 
talking about thousands of jobs in America.
  Also, the Senator is suggesting that we have no privatization in FAA 
at all, not just air traffic controllers but I guess the flight weather 
service people, the maintenance people, the service people.
  Now, I am not particularly an advocate--in the past I have not been--
of privatization of air traffic controllers. But some of these? 
Maintenance service not even being possible to consider for the private 
sector? It is almost as if the private sector is incompetent; the 
Federal Government can do it better. I do not think that is usually the 
case. I think most American people think when the Federal Government 
does it it gets worse and more expensive.
  Then there is one other point. The President of the United States is 
not going to sign a bill that says there cannot be any privatization 
anywhere anytime in the FAA. We have tried to be accommodating, to go 
back to the conference and take out what we thought was the offending 
language.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LOTT. If I could, let me complete, and then I will yield for a 
question, although we prolong this agony, which is not going to achieve 
anything right now.
  If we took out the 69 contract towers, there are a lot of places in 
America which wouldn't have a tower. In fact, that is bipartisan. The 
idea of contract towers, I can tell you, came from a Democrat, a well-
known one in a previous administration. I thought it made sense.
  I don't understand. If we cannot have 100 percent purity, we don't 
want this bill. We don't want $60 billion. Aviation is about more than 
just the guy in the air traffic control tower. It is about security on 
the ground.
  I plead with my colleagues to think this through. We are not pulling 
back and saying we are going to privatize. In fact, there is a letter 
from the Secretary of Transportation, Norm Mineta--not your basic 
every-day, run-of-the-mill Republican, a Democrat--the Secretary of 
Transportation, says we are not going to privatize air traffic 
controllers.
  We are fighting ghosts here. If we don't watch it, we will be 
creating ghosts. We will talk more about this when this conference 
report comes up. But I plead with my colleagues. I talked about this 
with my colleagues. I tried to make sure it was bipartisan. It passed 
the Senate overwhelmingly. There have been some changes made from that, 
obviously. But if we leave here this year having not passed a Federal 
Aviation Administration bill or an Energy bill or a Healthy Forests 
bill, heaven help us when our constituents get hold of us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho, the manager of the 
amendment, has previous recognition.
  Mr. CRAPO. As we move forward on the Healthy Forests legislation, it 
is my understanding we have worked with all those interested here.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask for no more than 5 minutes to 
conclude my remarks in response to the Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAPO. I will not object.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Idaho.
  What I want to ask the Senator from Mississippi--he said: People know 
when things get in government hands, they are in worse shape. What are 
we doing with the baggage screeners? We transferred 28,000 of those 
folks, took them off the line, gave them a raise in pay, took them away 
from the private handlers and said, No, we want to know our baggage is 
being thoroughly inspected.
  I also remind the Senator in the CR which looms directly in front of 
us, there is no provision for increased funding for the aviation bill.
  When we see what is happening in southern California, our hearts go 
out to them. The air is full of smog. There is smoke all over the 
place. You need people on the ground who know exactly how to direct 
those flights to make sure they travel at appropriate intervals.
  When we had the hurricane on the east coast, we had to make sure we 
were conscious of the fact that weather changes were looming in front 
of us. This is a different world than we used to know. What a time it 
would be to turn all of this over to private hands.
  Security on the cheap? I know the Senator from Mississippi doesn't 
really think that is a good idea. But, on the other hand, that is what 
is going to be happening.
  I thank the Senator from Idaho, who is very kind, and my good friend 
from New Mexico, for their indulgence for these last few remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New 
Mexico be recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. 
Following that, the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, be 
recognized to offer her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2042

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2042.

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

              (Purpose: To require best-value contracting)

       At the appropriate place insert the following--

     ``SEC. __.  BEST-VALUE CONTRACTING.

       (a) To conduct a project under this Act, the Secretaries 
     may use best value contracting criteria in awarding contracts 
     and

[[Page 26601]]

     agreements. Best value contracting criteria includes--
       (1) the ability of the contractor to meet the ecological 
     goals of the projects;
       (2) the use of equipment that will minimize or eliminate 
     impacts on soils; and
       (3) benefits to local communities such as ensuring that the 
     byproducts are processed locally.''

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment simply gives the Forest 
Service and the Bureau of Land Management the authority to consider 
benefit to local communities when determining which company or 
individual is going to receive a contract to conduct a hazardous fuels 
reduction effort on the national forests and the public lands.
  Currently, the authority the agencies have limits them to accepting 
only the high bid for a timber sale contract or the low bid for a 
service contract. Unfortunately, numerous forest-dependent rural 
communities have discovered this practice means the contracts are often 
awarded to large companies from urban areas, and in many cases from 
States other than where those communities are located. In my State of 
New Mexico, many rural communities are trying desperately to find ways 
in which they can create and maintain decent jobs. Because these 
communities are often surrounded by national forests and public lands, 
I believe that, where possible, we should provide tools to create jobs 
in these communities by restoring the health of the forests.
  Best-value contracting is one such tool. This amendment, as currently 
drafted--and this is a change from the earlier draft--says that ``to 
conduct a project under this act, the Secretaries''--that is the 
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior--``may use best-
value contracting criteria in awarding contracts and agreements.'' It 
goes on to define what best-value contracting criteria include.
  I think it is important to realize here that this best-value 
contracting criterion does include consideration of the benefits to 
local communities such as ensuring that the byproducts are processed 
locally.
  Congress enacted a very similar requirement when authorizing the 
Stewardship Contracting Program.
  In addition, last year Senator Craig and I sponsored the Community-
Based Forest and Public Lands Restoration Act. That bill, which was 
passed by the Senate unanimously, also authorized best-value 
contracting.
  I believe this is a simple amendment. It should be noncontroversial. 
I hope it can be accepted by all Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, we have reviewed this amendment. We don't 
find it objectionable. We are prepared to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2042) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to send an amendment to the 
desk in a moment. Before I do, I wanted to give the Senate an update on 
what is happening with the fires in California, and pay a very special 
tribute to a fallen firefighter. As of 3 p.m. today, the fires in 
California have consumed more than 722,000 acres, or roughly 1,100 
square miles. Many of these acres are on public lands. Many are on 
private lands. More than 2,600 homes have been destroyed, 20 people 
have been killed, and there are more than 12,000 firefighters battling 
the flames. These firefighters are very brave. I will show you one of 
them right now.
  I rise with a very heavy heart to pay tribute to a fallen California 
firefighter. It is an honor for me to do this, but it is a very sad 
moment for me to do this.
  Steven L. Rucker, a fire apparatus engineer from Novato, CA, was just 
38 years old. Novato, CA is nowhere near southern California. Novato, 
CA is in the northern part of our State, in the San Francisco Bay area. 
But Steven Rucker and others from his fire department risked their 
lives and, indeed, Steven gave his life, to help our southern 
California communities. Steven Rucker comes from my home county, a 
county where I was a supervisor for 6 years before I went to the House 
of Representatives, in the early 1980s.
  He was killed on Wednesday, October 29, at 12:30 p.m., when his unit 
was overwhelmed by flames as they battled on foot to protect a home 
threatened by the Cedar Fire in San Diego County.
  I want to show you a picture of some of the firefighters and what 
they are up against. Have you ever seen a more telling picture of what 
these firefighters are up against, standing close to these flames in 
air that is so polluted it is beyond description?
  Steve fell. He was nicknamed ``the Ruckster'' by his friends and 
colleagues. He grew up in Freemont, CA, in the San Francisco Bay Area. 
He was the youngest of four children. After completing paramedic 
training in Contra Costa, Mr. Rucker went on to realize his childhood 
dream of becoming a firefighter in Novato. In his 11 years with the 
Novato Fire Protection District, Mr. Rucker wore the badge and his 
honor proudly. His car carried a license plate that read ``Fire Ruck.'' 
He was known for organizing toy drives and children's events for 
Christmas and for Easter.
  Steve Rucker is a true example of why we call firefighters heroes. He 
bravely and selflessly risked his life time and time again trying to 
protect the homes of families he didn't even know in a community far 
from where he lived. Tragically, he has fallen in one of those battles. 
It is easy to see why we mourn his loss and why his friends and family 
are so proud of him.
  I send my sincere condolences to his family, to his wife, and their 
two young children, the communities of Novato which mourns his loss, 
and all of the firefighters who had the honor of serving with Mr. 
Rucker over these years. I know they are devastated by this tremendous 
loss, and I know the loss is reverberating through the fire lines. I 
know how hard it is for them to cope with this.
  In this time of crisis in California, we must carry on, and we will. 
We always have. People say to me even here in the Senate: Your State 
always has some kind of crisis, some kind of problem. Why do so many 
people live there? What draws them there? I always explain that you 
need to be there to understand the beauty of our State. You need to be 
there to understand it. You need to be there to understand the 
incredible diversity of our people. In politics, we reason from one 
side to the other. Diversity? We have every one. The beauty of our 
State holds us all together. It has brought us to that State.
  We will carry on, but we are not going to forget Steve. We are also 
not going to forget Doug MacDonald. I send my prayers to Fire Captain 
Doug MacDonald who is a 17-year veteran of that Novato Fire District. 
Captain MacDonald suffered severe burns and injuries when he went back 
into the fire to search for his missing colleague, Steve Rucker. 
Captain MacDonald is in critical condition at the San Diego Burn 
Center. We pray and pray that he will come home soon. I know his wife 
and his two children are with him.
  It says something about Captain MacDonald, and it says something 
about the Novato Fire Department, that Captain MacDonald, a 17-year 
veteran, went back and risked his own life to save Steve Rucker. It 
says a lot about Steve Rucker in that he would inspire people to risk 
their lives to save him. These firefighters are extraordinary heroes.
  Yesterday, I was so proud that the Senate overwhelmingly passed my 
amendment to ensure that those first responders, those firefighters, 
will receive the best health care available to minimize their injuries 
when they fight in such natural disasters--fires.
  I thank the President at this time. He has now declared Riverside 
County a Federal disaster area. This is now our fifth county, and we 
have been asking him to do this. We are very glad he has done this 
because even though we know in Riverside we have had less loss of homes 
and property, we have homeowners there who will need the help that such 
a declaration will bring.
  Before I send my amendment to the desk, I wish to make one more 
point. We still have fires burning out of control in my State. We still 
need help,

[[Page 26602]]

particularly in the San Diego area. We now need, according to Deputy 
Chief Arta, 26 type I strike teams, we need 48 type III strike teams, 
we need 2 strike teams of dozers, and we need 15 hand crews at the 
Cedar Fire in San Diego.
  For the Paradise Fire--and my understanding is that these fires are 
about 5 miles apart and the big issue is to stop them from joining. At 
that Paradise Fire, we need 31 engine strike teams, we need 9 type III 
strike teams, and we need 33 hand strike crews.
  I mention this because we still have work to do to wrap our arms 
around this. We need this help now. We needed it 2 days ago. We have 
asked everyone who could help us with this--particularly our FEMA 
Director who is working hard with us to get this equipment--to get 
these people to help our 12,000 firefighters.
  I want to look at Steve one more time, our firefighter, our 38-year-
old firefighter, from Novato, CA, in Marin County, who traveled miles 
and miles with his colleagues in that department to help people far 
away from where he lived. In his name, please send the help to 12,000 
firefighters. We need to help them. We need to cut through all of the 
bureaucracy and all of the excuses. We need to get the help there in 
San Diego.
  Look at what is happening. Look at what it looks like. We need help. 
We are getting a little help from the weather--a little bit of a 
change, but not enough of a change, in our State. We really do not get 
the heavy rains in November. In San Diego and Riverside, they do not 
get that much. We are getting some moist air in from the ocean. That is 
good. We need more help.
  We need to be strong, and we need to get this help. We need to see 
the end date when we will have these fires 100 percent contained.
  This bill that we are working on today does more than current law to 
prevent this kind of tragedy from happening. It doesn't do as much as I 
would like. Senator Leahy wrote a bill which I was proud to co-author 
that did much more than this bill in front of us. But this bill in 
front of us is more than current law. It certainly does more than the 
House bill, which does, in essence, in my view after I have looked at 
it, hardly anything at all to help these communities--hardly anything 
at all.
  We have an opportunity to make this bill even better.
  Then Senator Bingaman got a couple of amendments through. I thank 
Senator Wyden for helping get some of these amendments through, Senator 
Cochran for supporting some of our amendments, and my colleagues on the 
other side.


                           Amendment No. 2043

  (Purpose: To increase the minimum percentage of funds allocated for 
  authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects in the wildland-urban 
                               interface)

  Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be read 
and considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California, [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2043:
       On page 25 of Amendment No. 1828, line 7, strike ``50 
     percent'' and insert ``70 percent''.

  Mrs. BOXER. This is a very straightforward amendment. In the 
underlying bill, 50 percent of the funds are allocated to help 
communities that are close to areas that are high risk for fire. These 
are high-risk communities. We have these in our State. We have them up 
and down the west coast. We have them in the western part of our 
country. Frankly, we have them in a number of communities. We need to 
get on top of things before we see this kind of fire. The way to do 
this is to take as much of the resources as we can and go to these 
communities--whether they are large or small, it does not matter--and 
work with them.
  In April, Governor Gray Davis, our outgoing Governor, declared 
several counties that are now burning disaster areas because of the 
bark beetle. We asked the President to please declare an emergency, a 
disaster, so we could spend what it would take to get rid of those 
dying trees that sat out there. We knew they were waiting to burn. We 
predicted--I hate to say this; there were 12 of us in the bipartisan 
letter, the two California Senators and a bipartisan team from the 
House--we predicted in almost an eerie way that we would have 
uncontrollable fires if we did not have this disaster declared. It did 
not happen.
  Now we have a chance. A lot of my constituents will not have that 
chance. But now we will have a future chance to protect communities 
that are at risk by taking funds in this bill, the majority of them, 
and putting them toward these communities.
  I will show a couple of other pictures. The first photo shows what it 
looks like before the fire engulfs the community. This photo shows what 
we are dealing with--dreams gone. I have lived in the same house for 38 
years in a hillside community. Every time I look at one of these 
families, I know how I would feel if I lost my home of 38 years with 
all of my memories--yes, we would move on; we would move ahead, but it 
is very difficult. Whoever said your home is your castle is right. It 
does not matter if it is one bedroom or one room or a mansion. It does 
not matter; your home is your castle. When you are home, this is your 
domain. This is your place. This is the place for your family.
  You lose your home, you lose a sense of order. You lose a sense of 
security. You lose a sense of peace. This is a very hard time for my 
State.
  What would this amendment do? I hope it is voted on, and I hope we 
pass it. It would help protect communities from wildfire by directing 
70 percent of the funds for wildfire prevention in the wildland/urban 
interface; in other words, where the wildland and the urban areas 
interface, where communities face the greatest risk from wildfire.
  The amendment happens to be consistent with what the President 
recommended in his budget for fiscal year 2003. We did not pick this 
number out of the hat in any way, shape, or form. We actually have 
precedent for this number.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the USDA Forest 
Service fiscal year 2003 President's budget.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       USDA Forest Service--FY 2003 President's Budget--Overview

       The NFS appropriation also includes $15 million to 
     reimburse Federal agencies responsible for expedited 
     Environmental Species Act consultations, one of the 
     components necessary to ensure the success of the National 
     Fire Plan.
       Wildland Fire Management (FY 2003 President's Budget 
     Request--$1,425,723,000).--This appropriation provides 
     funding for Forest Service fire management, presuppression, 
     and suppression on National Forest System lands, adjacent 
     State and private lands, and other lands under fire 
     protection agreements. The Forest Service's program 
     recognizes that fire is a critical natural process and that 
     it must be integrated into land and resource management plans 
     and activities on a landscape scale across agency boundaries. 
     The program also recognizes that wildland fire management 
     must be based on the best available science. The budget 
     continues to place emphasis on economic opportunities for 
     rural communities with a significant threat from wildfire 
     that have also experienced job losses from reductions in 
     Federal timber harvest.
       In conjunction with the Department of the Interior, the 
     Forest Service will develop a performance-based preparedness 
     model to replace the current formula that describes 
     preparedness funding in terms of the ``Most Efficient 
     Level.''
       The budget request for wildfire suppression costs is $423 
     million, which is the average cost per year from 1991-2000. 
     Seventy percent of the funding for hazardous treatment is to 
     be targeted to the wildland-urban interface, to protect 
     communities and reduce suppression costs over time.
       Capital Improvement and Maintenance (FY 2003 President's 
     Budget $568,004,000).--The Capital Improvement and 
     Maintenance program provides funding to improve, maintain, 
     and operate the infrastructure of facilities, roads, and 
     trails related to recreation, research, fire, administrative, 
     and other uses. The program emphasizes better resource 
     management decisions based on the best scientific information 
     and knowledge, an efficient and effective infrastructure that 
     supports public and administrative uses, and

[[Page 26603]]

     quality recreation experiences with minimal impact to 
     ecosystem stability and conditions. Infrastructure 
     improvement was established to reduce the rate of 
     accumulation of deferred maintenance, which leads to 
     deterioration of performance, increased repair costs and 
     decreased values of real property assets. The Deferred 
     Maintenance program enhances the facilities, roads and trails 
     programs by specifically directing resources towards critical 
     deferred maintenance projects.
       As part of the President's Management Reform Agenda, the 
     agency has established a target of co-locating Forest Service 
     and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offices at 22 sites for 
     the period FY 2003 through FY 2005. This co-location effort 
     is part of Service First, a joint venture between BLM and the 
     Forest Service to create seamless, citizen-centered service 
     and more efficient land management. The President's budget 
     request for FY 2003 includes $10 million to facilitate co-
     location activities (such as buying out existing building 
     leases in support of co-locations). In addition, the budget 
     includes funding for facility enhancements for anti-terrorism 
     protection.

  Mrs. BOXER. Now, if we pass this amendment, we are coming up with a 
stronger bill because it is just common sense that the real purpose 
behind this bill should be protection of our people. That is the real 
purpose. It should not be to make it easier for big loggers to go deep 
into the forest and take out old-growth trees. I know we protect them 
in here but not as far as I would want to. The real purpose of this 
should be to protect our communities. As I said, the House-passed bill 
certainly did not do that.
  We will hear a lot of talk from the House side, and I encourage my 
colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Wyden, Senator Feinstein, Senator 
Crapo, and the others to stand strong for the Senate bill because the 
House bill would do nothing--I say this sincerely--to help us. It would 
not have helped in our circumstance. I will explain why.
  The House bill fails to emphasize and prioritize removal of flammable 
vegetation. This is chaparral. This is not what the House bill deals 
with. The House bill deals with trees. It also does not allow for 
projects on non-Federal land where many areas are burning. I don't have 
the exact stats, but we are looking at maybe 50-50 here on Federal land 
and non-Federal land. Clearly, if we just have a bill that focuses on 
Federal land, we are missing a lot of other land and our communities 
could burn.
  The bill Senator Wyden, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Cochran worked 
on does not have that prohibition. We need to have a bill that deals 
with the chaparral, that deals with this vegetation that is going up in 
smoke, and that does not just deal with the large trees.
  The Senator from Nevada is here. There is certainly a lot of growth 
like this in his State, including in Lake Tahoe as well.
  I ask unanimous consent Senator Reid of Nevada be added as a 
cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. The House bill fails to focus the limited resources for 
wildfire prevention projects near at-risk communities where these 
resources are needed the most. We can see the communities right around 
here. Many are not that populated, but they are communities that would 
qualify in the underlying bill. In my amendment, more funds would go 
here.
  By not focusing its resources near at-risk communities, the House-
passed bill keeps homes, businesses, and communities in this wildland/
urban interface area in harm's way. In other words, where the beautiful 
wildlands meet the suburban-urban communities, that is where we have 
our problems. This is what we have been talking about. This is what 
Senator Leahy and I have been talking about and why we know we need 
more funding.
  By the way, we have much more funding in that bill. The bill before 
the Senate is a compromise. It is not enough. It is better, certainly, 
than where we are, and it is much better than the House bill which 
actually, to be honest, again, would do absolutely nothing, absolutely 
nothing to help us in this type of circumstance.
  Now, in the bill before us, that I am amending, we know hazardous 
fuels reduction projects on non-Federal lands would qualify for the 
funding. This is important. I thank the authors for that. Additionally, 
the underlying bill emphasizes the thinning and removal of small-
diameter trees for wildfire prevention and seeks to implement standards 
that protect old-growth trees.
  Then it says at least 50 percent of the funds should go to these at-
risk communities. This is where I am trying to strengthen it and say it 
ought to be 70 percent. Again, I think this bill is getting better.
  I was so happy to tell my firefighters we are going to take care of 
their health. I was happy to tell my communities that the EPA, if this 
bill becomes law, will monitor the toxins in the air, not the usual 
pollutants that we follow, but the toxins that are in the air from 
these fires. So I am happy about that.
  Again, I hope this amendment will be adopted. I really do not know 
what the end result will be, but clearly, if you increase the 
percentage of the funds that you can spend in these communities that 
are at risk, common sense tells you we will not have the type of fires 
we are seeing in California today.
  We cannot waste our resources. We do not have enough resources. In 
this bill, therefore, the 70 percent ought to be directed here. So we 
believe there are strong arguments why we need to focus a greater 
percentage on these high-risk communities.
  We believe there is precedent setting for this, given the President's 
request.
  Mr. President, I am so hopeful we will get agreement on this 
amendment because, again, it will make this a far better bill.
  I yield the floor at this time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the proposed amendment 
from the Senator from California, not because I disagree with her point 
that we need to make sure we adequately protect the wildland/urban 
interface, but because the bill, as it is currently drafted, not only 
adequately provides for that but provides even broader flexibility so 
we can, in addition, protect the watersheds, the water quality for 
communities. It will actually allow communities to have a greater input 
into the management decisions relating to the forests that surround 
them.
  The amendment would require that 70 percent of all of the money that 
is provided in this bill for fuels reduction be expended in the 
wildland/urban interface. The bill, as drafted, provides that not less 
than 50 percent of the funds will be allocated for projects in the 
wildland/urban interface.
  Nothing in the bill, as drafted, would prohibit our forest managers 
from doing exactly what the Senator from California says she thinks 
they ought to do, if that is the right decision. On the other hand, our 
bill follows the recommendations of the Western Governors' Association, 
which allows communities to make proposals to the Forest Service about 
how the forests in their communities should be managed.
  Frankly, the opportunity for communities to say they would like to 
see management reach out a little further than just a quarter of a mile 
around their homes, into the forest in general, or into the watershed, 
so they can protect their watershed as well as their homes, is an 
opportunity that we believe is one that should be maintained for our 
communities and for the flexibility of our forest managers.
  Now, let me repeat. Nothing in the bill, as drafted, would stop the 
Forest Service from expending not only 70 percent but even more than 70 
percent on the wildland/urban interface if it is determined that is the 
best place for the allocation of these resources.
  What the bill says is, no less than 50 percent must be allocated, but 
it does not prohibit any allocation above 50 percent if the Forest 
Service and the affected communities can reach an agreement.

[[Page 26604]]

  The issue here is one of flexibility. Very often, in Washington, as 
we put together legislation--whether it be over forests or any other 
issue--one of the tendencies is for us to try to determine every 
situation around the country and how best to manage it.
  The problem here is, not every circumstance is the same around the 
country. The need is not the same throughout every forest that will 
need to be treated. In some forests, I am confident that far more than 
70 percent of the resources would go to the wildland/urban interface. 
In other forests, for example, the one I talked about yesterday, which 
surrounds Elk City, the residents there are very concerned that the 
entire watershed is threatening to them, and their one route of exit 
from their community is threatened along an entire corridor. They would 
need to seek protection along the entire exit corridor to literally 
safely protect their lives if they needed to evacuate.
  It is because the situation in Elk City is very different from the 
situation in Los Angeles and different from the situation in other 
communities which have forest environments that our bill seeks to 
preserve the flexibility that we need to be able to manage these funds 
adequately.
  I encourage all Senators to reject this amendment and to move forward 
with the provisions as we have provided them, which, again, gives the 
Forest Service the flexibility to not have to be bound by the cookie-
cutter solutions that we often want to put in place in Washington and 
have the flexibility to be able to manage as the communities and the 
fire and forest experts know would be the best way to approach it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to respond to my friend with great 
respect because we do not change a thing about your bill, except change 
the percentage of 50 to 70. We leave you all the flexibility. If a 
community says they think it is important to go inside the forest to 
protect a watershed, to protect the supply of water, or there is bark 
beetle infestation, that is not a problem. The fact is, we just say 
that the communities ought to have 70 percent of this rather than 50 
percent.
  I say to my friend, who is going to show us pictures here--I don't 
know if he was present--12 of us, in April, wrote the President about 
the severe danger. We named three of the four counties that are up in 
smoke. We begged him to declare a disaster, we begged him.
  I want you to know who signed that letter: Senator Feinstein and I, 
Congressman Jerry Lewis, Congresswoman Mary Bono, and the San Diego 
delegation--Republicans and Democrats.
  We saw this coming a mile away. The importance of this bill is 
because we do not know what future Presidents might do. We may have the 
same trouble in the future, and they just don't pay too much attention 
to it. We can't get our needs taken care of.
  This bill is very important, but if we don't take that money and 
spend it where the people are, then, to me, we have not learned a 
lesson from these California fires.
  I thank my colleague very much. I am disappointed we cannot agree. I 
understand, but I am disappointed. I hope we will have a good vote for 
expending funds where the people are because that is what we need to 
do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the passion by which the 
Senator from California approaches this issue. I would like to have her 
attention for a few moments because she is most sincere in what she 
says.
  Forest scientists--not a year ago--5 years ago, were pleading with us 
to create activity in our forests and in San Bernardino to stop a 
catastrophic fire that was going to happen someday. Yet this Senate--
and my guess is, the vote of the Senator from California--denied those 
kinds of actions, a more interactive approach and active thinning and 
cleaning.
  We have been talking about forest health on the floor of this Senate 
not for 1 year, not for 2 years, not for 3 years, but 5 years. Why?
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. No, I won't yield at this point.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator is talking about my vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will not yield at this moment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, the Senator is talking about me.
  Mr. CRAIG. No, I will not yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, I think that is fairly rude, but I will wait for my 
time.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me complete my thought, Senator, and then I will be 
happy to yield to you.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is all right. That is OK.
  Mr. CRAIG. I have been in the San Bernardino and so have you. For 15 
years that forest has gone relatively untouched.
  So I appreciate the Senator's passion. What we have tried to strike 
here is a balance.
  The picture I am demonstrating is not unlike the picture the Senator 
from California brought. Why aren't the trees burned around the homes 
that are gone? The reason they are not is because 60-mile-an-hour winds 
spread fire in many instances a mile or a half a mile beyond where the 
fire is burning. Embers fell on the roof of the shake roof homes in 
California, and the homes are gone because the trees in the immediate 
area stand.
  So when the Senator from Oregon and this Senator from Idaho and the 
other Senator from California were trying to strike a balance, we knew 
that reaching out as far as we possibly could was where we needed to 
go, along with recognizing that the urban interface was critical.
  We believe we have struck that kind of balance. We want to sustain 
that balance. The money goes where the people exist.
  Let me reference another fire that occurred in early summer. The 
Senator from California witnessed it, as we all did. It was called 
Summer Haven on the mountain above Tucson. Summer Haven had been 
treated. Thinning and cleaning had gone on around that little urban 
enclave interface. But the community no longer exists today. It burned 
up in a wildfire. Why? Because the fire started down the canyon in 
areas that had not been thinned and cleaned, and it swept up the 
canyon, burned out the areas that had been thinned and cleaned, and 
took out all the homes.
  The point I am making--and I will be happy to respond to a question 
from the Senator from California--is that we tried to strike a balance. 
We need to go where the people are. And California cries out for that 
at this moment.
  I hope the Senator will continue to work with us. It isn't just 
happening on the San Bernardino. Tens of thousands of acres are dead 
and dying in the Sierras. The Tahoe Basin is in trouble. The Senator 
from Nevada attempted to address that along with us a few years ago. We 
are beginning to try to get some active management there. It is a 
tragedy waiting to happen again. It is happening in thousands of acres 
of forested lands across this country.
  That is why we are trying to strike the balance. Not only do we have 
bug kill in the urban interface; we have it out there in lands that we 
have agreed, under a certain process and procedure, we might try to 
treat. That is my point. That is why I think you can be arbitrary here 
and have good logic for that arbitrariness. The Senator from California 
is arbitrary, as are we. She has a set of logic. I am trying to suggest 
that in a 60-mile-an-hour firestorm, fires do not listen to borders. 
They do not react to them.
  Now if the Senator from California has any questions, I would be more 
than happy to respond.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the 70-percent number was taken out of 
President Bush's own budget request. This is not an arbitrary figure. 
It is a figure that was put in his budget. We have put it in the 
Record.

[[Page 26605]]

  I don't want to talk about 5 years ago. But I will be happy to 
discuss the forest plans I have supported, because they always dealt 
with what the problem is, which is making sure we get rid of the brush, 
we get rid of the infestation, and we don't use this as a way to say 
the only way to have a healthy forest is to cut down every tree, 
particularly old growth. Then you don't have any forest. That is not my 
idea of healthy forests.
  I don't have to go 5 years to prove where I have been. I ask 
unanimous consent to print in the Record this letter, dated April 24, 
2003.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, April 24, 2003.
     President George W. Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: 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 the 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.
       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.
       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.
           Sincerely,
         Mary Bono, Jerry Lewis, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, 
           David Dreier, Duncan Hunter, Joe Baca, Ken Calvert, 
           Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Darrell Issa, Bob Filner, 
           Susan Davis.

  Mrs. BOXER. It reads:

       We are writing you today to encourage your swift approval 
     of California Governor Gray Davis' request of a Presidential 
     emergency declaration--

  Not just for San Bernardino--

     for Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties 
     relative to the high threat of forest fire in these regions.

  We knew that. The people knew that. We were trying to get help. We 
said:

       Due to the drought conditions and the infestation by the 
     bark beetle, our national forests have been met with an 
     unprecedented danger as the bark beetle has attacked over 
     451,000 acres of trees in these three counties. Because of 
     the unique urbanization in and around the 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.

  This is uncanny.

       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.

  So we didn't just limit it to removal of the bark beetle. We called 
for other mitigation measures. We said:

       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 those 
     areas of Southern California.

  We close with this:

       Mr. President, we appreciate the various burdens being 
     placed upon you--
       Because this was at the time we were at war with Iraq--

     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.

  I say to my colleagues, please, let's not stand up here and point 
fingers at each other. The fact is, this is a bipartisan group of 
colleagues begging for help, recognizing the fact that near at-risk 
communities we have work to do. I am happy this bill is before us 
today. I am thrilled at that. I thank my friends for helping me protect 
the health of firefighters and the children and the elderly there, as 
they did yesterday.
  All I am saying is: Please, I don't change one word of your brilliant 
legislation. I don't take a word. I just say, take it up to 70 percent 
for the communities that live near these at-risk areas.
  I will close by reading the people who signed this letter. By the 
way, it is a beautiful representation of California politics, from the 
most liberal to the most conservative. Signing this letter: Jerry 
Lewis, Mary Bono, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, David Dreier, Duncan 
Hunter, Joe Baca, Ken Calvert, Randy Duke Cunningham, Darrell Issa, Bob 
Filner, and Susan Davis.
  This isn't the time to have a finger-pointing argument, while I just 
lost a firefighter because no one declared this a disaster. That was 
the way it went. Please, let's not do that. Why don't we use this 
opportunity to come together across party lines, as my colleagues did 
with the underlying bill, and just realize that this fire says 
something to us. What it says to us is that these at-risk communities 
need more attention.
  I guarantee you, if you support this, and we have a bill that really 
carries out what President Bush said should be the case--70 percent of 
the money being used at these communities--we will have made a great 
leap forward.
  I hope we won't have a circumstance where we are going: What did you 
do 7 years ago and 10 years ago and 5 years ago and 4 years ago.
  I will tell you what I did. I have been saying we have to clear brush 
around these communities. We have to clear trees, dead and dying trees 
in these forests. We have to thin. We have to go after the chaparral. 
We have a lot of work to do. Let's meet somewhere in the middle between 
those people who want to see more aggressive logging of old-growth 
trees. I respect your view. I don't attack you. I just don't agree with 
you. I don't think that is the answer to protecting our communities. 
The answer is helping us near these at-risk communities.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from California for 
this amendment, and the people who have joined with her, as indicated 
in the letter, are certainly headed in the right direction. What the 
Senator from California has stated is we should direct this very 
important legislation toward people. That is what this amendment is 
directed toward--toward people, communities, and areas.
  Take, for example, this terrible tragedy in California we see every 
time we turn on the television set. If there had been hazardous fuel 
treatment around populated areas, some of these fires may have 
happened, but most of them would not have happened. This amendment is 
good for the firefighters. It is certainly good for the people who live 
in these communities.
  As generous and as rich as we are in this country, there is not 
enough money to take down all the dead and dying trees and other trees 
that need to be taken down to have good forest health. We simply don't 
have enough money. But certainly we have enough money to take care of 
the populated areas of our country, and that is why the Senator from 
California says we have a limited amount of money, so let's put most of 
it toward protecting people. That is what this amendment does.
  I hope this very reasonable amendment which is directed toward people 
is adopted. It is important.
  I again applaud the Senator from California for bringing this to the 
attention of the Senate, and I am happy to be a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I intend to move to table, so if anybody 
wants to debate before I do that, I will look around and see if someone 
wants to speak. I wish to make two quick comments about the debate 
before I move to table the amendment.
  First, it has been suggested the intent of those who want to keep the 
bill

[[Page 26606]]

the way it is is to allow cutting of old-growth forests. That is simply 
not the case. First of all, as everyone who has focused on this bill 
knows, we have provisions in the bill that protect old growth in the 
forests.
  Second, the fact is, as I will say again, the bill gives communities 
and the Forest Service managers the flexibility to make the decisions 
about where the fuel reduction will be most effective to preserve and 
protect our forests and the people who live near the forests. 
Certainly, our focus on the Western Governors' proposal and the 
protection of communities is what we ought to be doing in this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
2043.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) is 
attending a family funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 424 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

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

                                NAYS--34

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Edwards
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Nelson (NE)
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion of the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2030

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have an amendment, No. 2030, at the 
desk. I call that amendment up, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2030.

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

          (Purpose: To ensure protection of old-growth stands)

       On page 17, line 16, after ``(3)'' insert ``(4)''.
       On page 18, line 23, strike ``by implementing'' and insert 
     ``and implement''.
       On page 19, line 11, strike ``by implementing'' and insert 
     ``and implement''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as all of us know, the Senate right now 
is debating the Healthy Forests bill, and I believe we need to do more 
in this bill to help protect America's old-growth forests.
  Old-growth forests are stands of trees that have tremendous historic 
and cultural value.
  I think we need to work hard to clarify a few parts of this bill so 
that Federal agencies do not misinterpret congressional intent in 
protecting historic and ecologically important resources.
  This evening I am offering a perfecting amendment that will close two 
loopholes in this bill to ensure that our old-growth forests get the 
protection they deserve.
  Before I turn to the details of my amendment, I want to comment on 
the horrible devastation we are seeing in California from wildfires. 
Like all Americans, I have been watching the shocking news coverage. My 
thoughts and my prayers are with everyone who has been affected. My 
brother is a firefighter. So I appreciate the sacrifices that are made 
by these brave men and women.
  In my home State of Washington, we have been touched by terrible 
losses in recent years, including four young firefighters who died in 
the Thirtymile Fire on July 10, 2001, at Okanogan County.
  It is clear that we have to take smart, responsible steps in this 
bill to reduce the dangerous fuel loads in our forests.
  While it is too soon to draw any final conclusions about the fires in 
California, I think the fires highlight two challenges that ought to be 
a part of this debate.
  First, it is clear that we don't have enough money in the budget to 
address our firefighting and fire prevention needs. In fact, today the 
Forest Service is borrowing from its fuel reduction accounts to pay for 
firefighting operations; that is, robbing Peter to pay Paul. The money 
reserved for fuel reduction, if it is used wisely, helps to prevent 
fires in the first place. The current budget is inadequate, and we are 
going to pay a greater price down the road if we don't address the 
resource issue.
  Second, because the funds are limited, we have to do a better job of 
prioritizing how we spend the money that we do have. Specifically, we 
need to give a higher priority to those vulnerable lands in areas where 
wildlands and urban lands intersect. Those are spots where people and 
property are threatened.
  If we address the hazards there--and if we educate homeowners--we 
will have a bigger impact with our limited funds.
  I am looking for an aggressive plan to reduce the fuel loads in our 
forests, especially in the urban/wildland areas where people and 
property are endangered.
  Old-growth forests are important for many reasons.
  First of all, they represent ecosystems that are unique in nature. 
These forests are made up of a complex web of plants and animals, and 
climate and ecological conditions that are extremely different from 
what is found in younger or plantation forests. Certain animals and 
plants only live within these old-growth ecosystems.
  If we are going to maintain a diverse species, we have to protect 
their habitat. Old-growth forests also have the cleanest drinking 
water, they provide structures for good salmon habitat, and they 
mitigate the effects of flooding and global warming.
  Finally, these forests have great historic, recreational, and 
spiritual value which is important to all of us.
  Hiking through an old-growth forest is truly a remarkable experience. 
I invite any of my colleagues who have not had that kind of experience 
to come to my State or to another State with a lot of old growth and 
have that kind of experience. You will understand why those of us who 
speak out on this floor are so passionate about this issue. In fact, in 
our old-growth forests perhaps is the only place where you can feel 
transported back hundreds of years and see what the very first 
explorers saw when they encountered these cathedral forests. They are a 
part of our history,

[[Page 26607]]

and we cannot afford to lose them. Unfortunately, we have already lost 
many of these unique lands.
  Old growth used to sweep across the Pacific Northwest, but recent 
studies estimate that old growth makes up between 10 and 18 percent of 
the lands in the Pacific Northwest and a mere 3 percent of lands 
nationwide. There is very little left today. We have to do all we can 
to ensure their survival.
  I want to recognize my colleagues from Oregon and California who made 
this bill better by including an old- growth section in title I. As a 
result, this bill is now much better than what the President and the 
House first proposed.
  But as I read the provisions, I saw two loopholes that we should 
close.
  First of all, the bill lets the Forest Service and the BLM treat 
dangerous forests, and it provides protection for old-growth stands. 
Old growth can still be treated. It just has to be treated in a way 
that protects its unique character.
  But if an area has insect infestations or is subject to trees being 
blown over, then the old-growth stands lose all of their protection. 
That is a big loophole. Any forest could be subject to strong winds 
that knock down trees. Any forest could experience insect infestation. 
Any forest could be subject to disease. Almost any forest could be 
damaged by an ice storm. It is just one of those things that happen. An 
old-growth forest could be drastically altered in ways that destroy its 
unique characteristic.
  The underlying bill has a massive loophole in it that threatens old-
growth forests and subjects them to unrestrained thinning. My amendment 
would simply close that loophole by making those lands subject to old-
growth protection. My amendment, importantly, allows treatment of old 
growth. I know that is a concern to other Senators here on the Senate 
floor. It still allows treatment of old growth. It still must protect 
characteristics that we all recognize as important.
  There is a second loophole that my amendment addresses. This bill has 
a fine directive to protect the integrity of old-growth stands. That is 
section 102, subparagraph (e)(2). I think we all can accept that 
standard. But I am concerned that it won't be carried out because it 
relies on forest management plans to be implemented.
  Here is the problem with that. If the forest has a management plan 
that is less than 11 years old, that plan will not need to be updated 
to meet the new standards. That is a big loophole. It could mean that 
forests with relatively recent management plans don't have to enact the 
protections we are calling for in the bill. Fortunately, there is an 
easy way to close that loophole. It involves just changing four words 
in the bill.
  My amendment does two things.
  First of all, it ensures that all hazardous fuel reduction projects 
on Federal lands will protect old-growth forests.
  Second, my amendment ensures that the old-growth standard in the bill 
applies to all Federal forests--not just those with older management 
plans.
  I thank all of my colleagues and their staff who have worked very 
hard on this legislation.
  The chairman and ranking members of the Energy Committee and the 
Agriculture Committee have been tireless on this bill.
  My western colleagues from Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and California 
have all been looking after the best interests of their States and 
their constituents. I thank them all, and I appreciate their 
consideration of my amendment.
  Old growth makes up just a fraction of our remaining public lands 
today. Many of these stands of trees are older than our Union. They are 
older than the settlement of the West. Some are older than Columbus' 
arrival in the New World.
  We would not be doing our duty here on the floor of the Senate if we 
didn't do everything we could to protect them for future generations.
  The amendment I am offering this evening will strengthen the 
protection in the underlying bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer and Senator Reid of Nevada 
be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague, Senator 
Murray, from the great State of Washington and the great job she does 
on behalf of her State. I appreciate all the hard work she has put into 
looking toward this amendment and others.
  I hope in my opposition to this amendment I can at least provide some 
comfort that we have looked at trying to make sure the old growth in 
this Nation is protected. I rise today to oppose this amendment that 
would apply old-growth restrictions to insect and disease treatments, 
as well as to clean up after severe weather events. Part of why I do 
that is, simply, our forests are very different across this land. We 
want to make sure everyone is participatory in what we are doing in 
protecting and keeping healthy our forest lands.
  Insects do not care about the size of the tree. In fact, as many 
scientists have stated for years, they prefer older trees that are in 
poor health. Old growth, as I said, is very relative. In these older 
stands where trees are stressed for water and nutrients, insects will 
go after both large and small trees. The idea is to allow forest 
managers to go there and remove the problem trees, reducing the density 
of the stressed stands to immediately address the insect or disease 
problem which in our forests in the South are our most common and 
immediate problem. Insect and disease treatments are vastly different 
from preparing for a potential fire somewhere down the road.
  I join my colleague from Washington in sending our prayers and 
thoughts to all of those who are valiantly fighting the wildfires in 
California and the families and the communities that are affected by 
those.
  Fighting against an insect or disease outbreak is not like preparing 
for a fire. It is exactly like fighting a slow-moving wildfire. You 
would not ask firefighters to only fight a fire in certain sections of 
the forest, would you, and require them to skip around certain stands 
in the forest? It would seem ludicrous to do that. You could not 
effectively fight a fire that way.
  That simple logic is why Chairmen Cochran and Domenici, and Senators 
Crapo, Craig, Feinstein, Wyden, McCain, Kyl, and myself, have worked 
hard to craft some compromise language. We ensure that when our forest 
managers treat and prevent the spread of insect and disease outbreaks 
or attempt to clean up after a severe weather event, they do not have 
their hands tied to only treating a certain portion of the forest. 
Managers must be able to treat all of the forest or we are all just 
going to watch the forests die--both inside old-growth stands and 
throughout all of the forests of this Nation.
  Forests in my State of Arkansas and throughout the country are being 
affected by unprecedented and catastrophic outbreaks of insect and 
disease. Whether it is the southern pine beetle in the Southeast, the 
sudden oak death in California, or the red oak borer in Arkansas, this 
Nation's public and private forests are under attack.
  In Idaho, the Douglas-fir bark beetle is another predator of our 
forests. This beetle seldom attacks trees that are less than 12 inches 
in diameter. These bugs like large trees, optimally 24 inches in 
diameter and larger.
  In this case, to prevent or mitigate an infestation, in many 
circumstances it is absolutely necessary to remove some of the larger 
trees in order to treat the insect outbreak. The larger trees have been 
devastated.
  The southern United States and the Rocky Mountain West are currently 
experiencing outbreaks of bark beetles, including the southern pine 
beetle and the spruce beetle at levels unprecedented in historical 
times. As Senator Murkowski demonstrated earlier, over 90 percent of 
the spruce trees have been killed in Alaska's Kenai Peninsula. In the 
Southwest, the pinion pines have suffered severe mortality. The Lake 
Arrowhead region is a horrifying example of where forest managers were 
unable to address the overdense stand conditions in a timely manner.

[[Page 26608]]

  Right now, on the San Bernardino National Forest, over 230,000 acres, 
half of the forest land, have more than 40-percent tree mortality 
because of an outbreak of western pine beetle. This is a case in point 
where forest managers were unable to actively treat the area and it 
resulted in a massive insect infestation and right now is at a very 
high risk of catastrophic wildfires, as well.
  In my home State of Arkansas, the red oak borer is attacking older, 
living oak trees at unprecedented magnitudes. Again, older growth is 
relative to the forest that you are talking about. This outbreak is 
rampant throughout the oak forests of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma 
affecting roughly one-third of the interior highlands.
  The red oak borer complex is the greatest threat to the oak component 
in the interior highlands in recent history. This is from a native 
insect never before considered anything other than a minor pest or 
concern to the forests. These are insects that have been there forever. 
This is not something new that has just been introduced to our forests.
  It is essential that we allow the Forest Service the flexibility it 
needs to attack this overwhelming problem wherever it happens 
throughout our forests.
  This legislation is about forest health. We have done everything in 
working to bring about compromises in good conscience that are going to 
protect the health of our forests. It is about restoring forests to 
more resilient ecosystems, making these systems less susceptible to 
disturbances such as wildfire, insects, disease, and invasive species.
  In my mind, reducing the flexibility to address these forest health 
issues will eventually destroy the very trees we have been trying so 
hard to protect. If we do not enable our forest managers to proactively 
address insect and disease outbreaks wherever they happen and before 
they become extensive, you can be sure insects such as the Douglas-fir 
bark beetle will be certain that there are no old-growth forests to 
protect.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to remember one of 
the most critical parts when we are talking about old growth; that is, 
this is the first statutory protection for old growth that we have ever 
seen. There are protections throughout this bill for old growth, many 
focusing on smaller trees, but without a doubt, making sure the 
protections for old growth are there and recognizing this is the first 
time we have had statutory protection for old growth.
  I encourage my colleagues to take a good look at this and to defeat 
this amendment and rest assured that we have done everything we can in 
this compromise to make sure we will protect that old growth, 
particularly with the statutory language we have but ensure the 
flexibility that we can also protect and save our forests.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise for a few moments to second the 
remarks of the Senator from Arkansas and say this amendment, although 
certainly well intended, is a threat to forests, including old-growth 
forests in Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.
  We have 300,000 acres of forests in those States that right now, as 
we speak, are infested with pests such as the red oak borer. The Senate 
needs to understand what happens when these pests descend upon the 
forests. The red oak borer will bore into a tree, create a huge gash, a 
deep hole in the tree. If you have ever seen it, it makes you feel for 
this tree. It lays its eggs in the tree so it interrupts the tree's 
ability to pass nutrients up and down the trunk, eventually killing the 
tree and laying other eggs that burrow deep into the tree or fly out 
and infest other trees.
  The pest is getting stronger because we have not been able to manage 
it. They used to spawn every 2 years and now they spawn every year. We 
are in danger of losing whole forests, including old-growth forests.
  As the Senator from Arkansas said, it is the older trees that are the 
most liable and the most vulnerable to this infestation. I don't want 
that to happen. There is no reason for it to happen. All we have to do 
is empower our Forest Service to manage the forests to take care of 
these trees, the old growth as well as the new growth, and prevent the 
spread of these pests.
  I have talked to experts in Missouri. They are sad at what is 
happening. You cannot observe it without being depressed at what is 
happening. The trees die. When they die, the deadwood litters the floor 
of the forests. That is additional fuel which increases the risk of 
fire not only to the national forests but to the private landholders 
nearby. That increases the risk of property loss, of loss of life.
  We do not want to have happen in Missouri what is happening in other 
parts of the country. We want to stop those fires that are occurring in 
California, as well.
  This is a very important provision that a number of Senators have 
worked on for a long time. It is a carefully tailored compromise. It is 
a good compromise and one we ought to pass.
  I respect the purpose of the amendment, but I encourage the Senate to 
vote against the amendment, and vote to table it if that motion is 
offered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do not want to prolong this debate. I 
know the managers have been here all day long and they want to move to 
a vote on this amendment.
  Let me simply respond to my colleagues from the South and tell them 
that I understand insect infestation is a key concern in national and 
private forests.
  I know my colleagues from the South face significant insect and 
disease issues. We certainly face them in the Pacific Northwest. 
However, I strongly believe we do not need to abandon the old-growth 
protections in this bill. The bill already allows old-growth stands to 
be treated for hazardous conditions. They simply must be treated in a 
manner to protect the old-growth characteristics.
  Again, I know in most of the Nation 3 percent of the land is old 
growth. In the Pacific, it is 18 percent. It is a tremendous part of 
our heritage. It is something of which I think all of us should be very 
proud.
  We need to be careful we do not take steps this evening with this 
bill that undo the heritage most of us are very proud of in this 
country.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I know my colleague from 
Idaho wants to move forward with a vote on this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, before I make a motion to table, I thank my 
colleague, Blanche Lambert Lincoln, for her efforts in protecting our 
forests in this bill against insect infestation. She has been working 
very hard and very closely with us in building this compromise.
  This legislation does a tremendous job of making sure we can address 
insect infestations throughout our forests. It is a well-crafted 
compromise. And the legislation will be a significant benefit to our 
national forests.
  With that, Mr. President, I move to table this amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
2030.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) is absent 
attending a family funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''

[[Page 26609]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 425 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

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

                                NAYS--32

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Edwards
     Hagel
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Nelson (NE)
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. 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 Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as far as we know on this side, there are 
two more amendments to be offered. If there are more, Senators should 
come forward and tell us. The amendments remaining are an amendment by 
the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, and the Senator from Iowa, 
Mr. Harkin, has an amendment. As far as we know, those are the only two 
amendments.
  When these amendments are disposed of, we will go to final passage, 
as far as I know.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we have a few 
other amendments being discussed. We think we will be able to clear 
them. Discussions are underway. Other than those two amendments, I 
don't think any other amendment will require a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Washington.


                    Amendment No. 2038, As Modified

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2038, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2038, as modified.

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

  (Purpose: To require the Comptroller General to study the costs and 
 benefits of the analysis of alternatives in environmental assessments 
                  and environmental impact statements)

       In section 104, strike subsection (b).

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Jeffords be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I know the hour is already late for some Members. I 
believe we have had much time to discuss this legislation, but I do 
believe there are a couple of important amendments that are still yet 
to come that raise issue that are important for Members to understand. 
I am concerned that the underlying bill amends the National 
Environmental Policy Act, a benchmark statute that has been on the 
books since 1969. Because this is an important act, I believe I must 
stand up and offer this amendment.
  I take great pride in the fact that I sit at the desk of Senator 
Henry M. Jackson who served as chairman of the Senate Interior 
Committee for many years. He was the prime sponsor and mover behind the 
National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark piece of national 
legislation that sets the tone for how our environment should be 
treated as we review the work of Federal agencies' actions.
  I know my colleagues from California, Oregon, and Idaho are trying to 
move forward on hazardous fuel reduction projects. I am asking them to 
consider the impact of the major changes that bill proposes to make to 
the National Environmental Policy Act process with respect to hazardous 
fuels reduction projects. In addition, the bill before us leaves the 
door open for further changes in the National Environmental Policy Act 
in other areas besides hazardous fuel reduction, and that concerns me.
  First of all, I really do believe that at the heart of this problem 
associated with hazardous fuels reduction is funding. It was the case 
in 2000 when we had a lot of fires throughout the West, and the Western 
Governors Association came together and said: Let's fund a hazardous 
fuel reduction account. The problem with the current practice is that 
Congress provides money for hazardous fuels reduction projects, but the 
funds are taken out of these accounts and used to fight fires, and the 
projects are not funded. In addition, we are not providing enough 
funding for hazardous fuels reduction projects.
  I estimate that we need approximately $1 billion a year to do 
adequate hazardous fuel reduction in wildland-urban interface areas. 
Unfortunately, the President's budget request for this fiscal year 
included approximately $300 million for this purpose.
  I think all of my colleagues can agree that we have to come together 
to authorize and appropriate adequate resources to prevent fires ahead 
of time. We should not short-fund hazardous fuels reduction and take 
those limited resources to fight fires when they happen.
  I applaud my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, 
particularly the Senator from Oregon, and for putting this legislation 
forward.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are also trying to bring up 
the fact that they think it is important that hazardous fuel reduction 
projects proceed smoothly. That is why I would like to point out to my 
colleagues that the Forest Service does provide categorical exclusions 
for hazardous fuels projects. According to the U.S. General Accounting 
Office, sixty percent of projects in 2001-2002 received categorical 
exclusions. These projects did not require the agency to prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment.
  A second group, about 34 percent, has been approved via environmental 
assessments, which are much shorter than an EIS.
  Only 6 percent of the projects have had to go through the full EIS 
process.
  These figures are outlined in an October 2003 GAO report that clearly 
shows that the National Environmental Policy Act has not held up 
progress on hazardous fuel reduction. What has held up progress is the 
failure to provide adequate funding in this area.
  So I ask my colleagues why should we change the National 
Environmental Policy Act, a landmark piece of Federal legislation that 
has protected the environment since 1969?
  Some of my colleagues have suggested that the law's requirement that 
the Forest Service consider alternatives has delayed hazardous fuels 
reduction projects. However, numerous court cases have held that in 
some circumstances two or three action alternatives are adequate to 
comply with NEPA. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that in the 
cases of Friends of Southeast's Future v. U.S. Forest Service and the 
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, that two or three 
alternatives, in addition to the preferred alternative and the no-
action alternative, will satisfy NEPA.
  The case law does not say that 30 different alternatives must be 
considered,

[[Page 26610]]

or 10 different alternatives, or 7 different alternatives, or 6 
different alternatives, or even five different alternatives. It is 
saying that in certain cases, two or three can be adequate.
  I think my colleagues are well intentioned. However, I have real 
concerns about the proposed change to the National Environmental Policy 
Act, that has been on the books since 1969. The bill before us would 
limit the number of alternatives to: one, the proposal for hazardous 
fuel reduction; two, the alternative of doing nothing or; a third 
alternative, which is the only real alternative. In the case of a 
proposed fuel reduction project in the Northwest, someone could propose 
taking no action because we do not have to do that hazardous fuel 
reduction, and then someone else says, maybe here is an alternative.
  Well, my concern is that we are throwing the baby out with the 
bathwater. If only 6 percent of these cases really have not had the 
categorical exemption of not having to go through an EIS and only three 
percent are ending up in court, then the National Environmental Policy 
Act is not the cause of the holdup.
  Washington State has been the subject of many forest fires and many 
tragedies, most recently the tragic Thirty-mile fire in 2001. Much of 
eastern Washington is under condition class 2 and condition class 3, 
and, therefore, could be subject to this bill. My concern is that if a 
city wants to propose an alternative, it might be precluded from 
offering an alternative that would address concerns over the impact of 
the hazardous fuels reduction project on water quality.
  So I would say to my colleagues, let us fund the hazardous fuels 
reduction account. Let us move forward to promote healthier forests. If 
we truly see that the National Environmental Policy Act delays project, 
even though only 3 percent of hazardous fuels projects have ever 
reached court, then let us come back and change the law.
  I am truly concerned with the proposed change to the National 
Environmental Policy Act. What will stop other legislative proposals 
from coming to the Senate floor to change the National Environmental 
Policy Act in other areas? Are Members who are going to support this 
underlying language ready to stop at hazardous fuel reduction, or do 
they want to change NEPA all across the board?
  For example, say one's community has to consider a proposal to build 
a new gas pipeline. Pipeline safety has been an issue of great 
controversy in the State of Washington, which had a pipeline explosion 
several years ago that killed several people. What if only one 
alternative was considered for the route of a gas pipeline going 
through one's State? I want to make sure the current law says 
reasonable alternatives are considered so that no community, no 
citizen, no organization with standing is left out in the cold.
  That is what Henry M. Jackson was thinking about when he wrote the 
National Environmental Protection Act. He thought about making sure the 
public had a chance to participate in the process. He wanted to make 
sure they had the ability to have the issues that they wanted to be 
addressed and considered.
  The Forest Roads Working Group, an organization that has operated 
with the blessing of the Bush Administration, along with other 
organizations, has raised similar concerns. These organizations have 
expressed their support for the public to have a say and to retain the 
ability to participate in the decision-making process.
  I know my colleagues want to move forward on a plan that will make 
all communities more secure, that will make our forests more healthy. I 
applaud them for that, but I also hope Members will stop and think 
about the statistics that GAO has outlined. This dispute is not 
fundamentally about the EIS process and the number of alternatives. The 
Forest Service has the ability to proceed via categorical exemptions. 
It can develop an EIS when it needs to analyze complex proposals. If we 
start changing NEPA with respect to hazardous fuels projects, where are 
we going to stop?
  I urge my colleagues not to change legislation that has been one of 
the landmark pieces of environmental law that this body saw fit to pass 
in 1969, but rather to keep that legislation intact and fund hazardous 
fuel reductions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington has made a 
number of extremely important points, points with which I certainly 
agree. Having served as chair of the forestry subcommittee and now 
ranking minority member, I can tell my colleagues the Senator from 
Washington is absolutely right with respect to her concern about 
adequate funding. For example, the bill from the other body provided no 
funding for the thinning projects. This legislation increases funding 
80 percent. So her point with respect to making sure there is funding 
is dead on correct, and I think not only that point but other points 
she has made are correct.
  In spite of that, I do have to oppose the amendment tonight, and I 
want to take a couple of moments to say why.
  First, let me stress how important public participation was to me and 
to the other Senators who are involved in putting together this 
bipartisan compromise. If there is one thing, just one, that I want to 
stand for in my career in public service, it is the right of citizens 
to participate. That is why I have open community meetings in all my 
counties. It is why I have sidewalk office hours. It is why, as so many 
Senators, I try to make myself available as widely and extensively as I 
can.
  So I come tonight to say with respect to this key issue, this key 
question of public participation, not one current opportunity for 
public involvement would be lost under this compromise. I say that 
again. Not one current opportunity for public comment would be lost 
under this proposal.
  There are three alternatives that people would be part of examining 
and, in fact, the public would have a right to come forward and offer 
their own. It seems to me that that gives us a chance to keep the 
greatness of the National Environmental Policy Act, a statute more than 
30 years old, while at the same time allowing us to deal with some of 
the concerns such as the unnecessary redtape and paperwork.
  This proposal in the legislation we are considering cuts the 
alternatives from five, to nine, essentially to three. I am of the view 
that, while it is appropriate to have a host of these alternatives 
under the National Environmental Policy Act, when, say, the Federal 
Government is building a road, which is a broad purpose concern, I 
think when you are talking about this area and projects that are 
narrowly drawn, limited in where they can occur and how, it is 
appropriate to try to boil down the NEPA alternatives to the three that 
we have offered in this legislation.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Washington makes the argument that, 
in effect, the Senate will be starting down a slippery slope. I would 
just say to the Senator from Washington, I am convinced that because 
there are good people in the Senate, such as the Senator from 
Washington, that will not be the case. If someone comes forward and 
tries, for example, to unravel the National Environmental Policy Act, 
or even apply what we are doing in this area to every area, there will 
be opposition from a whole host of Senators, including this one. Nobody 
is talking about doing this in a host of other areas. We are talking 
about saying in this one area where we have been told by, for example, 
the Governors, it is not just a question of spending more money, it is 
a question of how you spend the money, I think this compromise strikes 
a reasonable balance.
  I urge my colleagues to support this compromise. The compromise is 
dramatically different than the approach the other body takes with 
respect to the National Environmental Policy Act. The other body 
basically kicks the public out by predetermining the National 
Environmental Policy Act alternatives. What is offered in the 
compromise preserves all opportunities for public input and appeal, 
while making

[[Page 26611]]

sure that we deal with the paperwork and some of the unnecessary 
redtape.
  I urge my colleagues to support what is in the compromise because not 
one current opportunity for public comment would be lost, and all of us 
want to make sure that on an issue that citizens care so strongly about 
their right to be heard is preserved. This compromise does that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Oregon in 
opposing this amendment. Let me make a couple of quick points.
  First of all, if the Senator from Washington is concerned about the 
issue of funding, we increase by 80 percent the funding provided for 
fuel load induction.
  With regard to process, the process in this bipartisan amendment will 
require the agencies work together in collaboration with the public to 
develop proposed projects.
  It will allow the communities to develop community protection fire 
plans to help land management agencies better understand their 
individual needs.
  It requires the agency to publish a notice of each proposed hazardous 
fuel reduction project authorized under the act.
  It requires the agency to hold public meetings to describe the 
project and take the public comments on the project.
  It requires a NEPA analysis of two action alternatives and one no-
action alternative.
  It requires the agency to facilitate a predecisional protest process 
once the project analysis has been completed, and then the publication 
of a final decision notice.
  Finally, it allows the public to pursue a case in the courts if, 
after all of that, they still do not support the outcome of the 
decisionmaking process.
  Because of this, I believe it is very important that we do not 
continue to increase the cost and the bureaucracy surrounding the 
management of these decisions. Therefore, I oppose the proposed 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I move to table this amendment. I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table. The yeas and nays 
are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) 
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) is absent 
attending a family funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) would each vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 426 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--34

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bond
     Clinton
     Edwards
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Nelson (NE)
     Rockefeller
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Senator Harkin has the last amendment, we are told, and 
then we can go to third reading. Everyone should understand the regular 
order following final passage of this. We go to the Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 2045

       (Purpose: To provide authority for title I)

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

       The Senator from Iowa, [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. 
     Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 2045:
       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION.

       The authority provided by this title applies during the 5-
     year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I permitted the reading of the amendment 
to show how simple it is, one sentence. Basically, this amendment 
provides for a 5-year authorization to title I of the bill. Currently, 
this bill is drafted as permanent law, which means these provisions 
continue in perpetuity. I don't believe that should be the case.
  This amendment is very reasonable and should not be controversial. It 
is consistent with past policy on authorizations. For example, the 
Wyden-Feinstein bill and others introduced in the past several months 
have always wisely provided for a 5-year timeline. Why this bill does 
not have a 5-year timeline eludes me.
  Most of our major authorizing bills include a specified term of 
years; for example, the 2002 farm bill, the Agriculture Committee child 
nutrition bill, which expires every 5 years, the Transportation bill, 
and on and on with many others. This is particularly true of 
legislation that attempts to legislate a different approach than what 
is historical practice or that is controversial in some way. Again, 
those both apply here.
  We are legislating a different approach than what has been historical 
practice. It is, obviously, somewhat controversial. In doing so, this 
5-year timeframe provides a structured mechanism for Congress to review 
the effectiveness of this new approach. I believe it is the prudent 
thing to do.
  The bill we are debating today would significantly change how we 
manage millions of acres of public land. It alters the National 
Environmental Public Act, NEPA, as we have discussed. As we all know, 
the bill changes the judicial review process in addressing hazardous 
fuel cases. It changes the Forest Service appeals process as well. It 
provides well-intended protections for old growth. But these may be 
lacking in some key respects. And the bill involves actions that will 
affect public safety and protecting communities throughout the country 
from wildfire risk.
  These are significant changes. It makes perfect sense that Congress 
will want to review the impact and effectiveness of the legislation 
after an initial period of 5 years. Indeed, I believe it is our 
responsibility to do so.
  Currently, the legislation's authorities can be used on 20 million 
acres. That is a cap, and I assume some may argue that is an effective 
limitation on the bill. Yet this could take much

[[Page 26612]]

longer than 5 years at the current rate of hazardous fuels reduction.
  In fiscal year 2002, the Forest Service reduced fuels on 2.2 million 
acres of land. If we just keep that process up, you can see that the 20 
million acres would not be reached for, well, a minimum of 10 years.
  Now, some would argue that simply because we have a cap, that is why 
we should not include a 5-year authorization. Yet if all is going well, 
and the agencies have not yet treated the full 20 million acres, 
certainly the Congress can extend the authorization beyond its initial 
5-year period.
  We do that all the time. We come here all the time to extend 
authorizing bills. But it does give the relevant committees a chance to 
take a look at it and to see whether tweaking needs to be done or 
whether it needs to be reauthorized for that period of time. It sort of 
forces us to do our responsibility; that is, to review legislation 
periodically. Moreover, we can make improvements when the time comes.
  Now, again, some will argue that this acreage cap is an effective 
authorization or a sunset, but it is not. It is simply a cap on 
acreage, nothing more. So I think adding the 5-year authorization to 
this bill is a fairly conservative, reasonable, appropriate step to 
take in line with much of what we do around here in terms of the length 
of time of legislation.
  I know many of us, even those who will ultimately vote for the bill's 
passage, would be comforted to know in several years' time there will 
be an opportunity to review its impact, discuss it, and perhaps make 
improvements.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and kind of 
keep it in line with most other types of legislation of this nature 
that we pass around here.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there is no question that what the Senator 
from Iowa has talked about, the limitations that are built within the 
legislative process, are there.
  He is the reigning member of a full committee that has a forestry 
subcommittee. I am chairman of another forestry subcommittee. We are 
going to monitor very closely this bill, if it becomes law. Probably we 
are 6 to 8 months away from regulation writing alone that will hit the 
ground and become active. So already we will probably have an operative 
life of only 4 years, if the amendment of the Senator from Iowa were to 
become law.
  Our job is oversight. The Senator's job is oversight. Because this is 
a controversial issue, it is incumbent upon us to make sure we monitor 
it closely. Many of our forest experts across the country who look at 
the magnitude of the problem of forest health today are going to 
suggest that even if we can reach our cap limits within 5 years, the 
public and the resource will cry out that we continue for years to come 
in a thinning and cleaning process.
  So I would hope our colleagues would join in sustaining the 
bipartisan compromise that is reflected in the legislation that is 
before us this evening.
  Before I close, and because this appears to be the last amendment, I 
want to make one more comment in the way of an article that was written 
in the San Jose Mercury News by Paul Rogers and Josh Susong. It 
appeared, apparently, today. Let me read, very briefly, the first page 
of this article. I will ask that the entire article be put in the 
Record.
  The dateline is: Lake Arrowhead, CA:

       The oil industry had the Exxon Valdez. Nuclear power had 
     Three Mile Island.
       Wednesday, with flames menacing one of Southern 
     California's most beloved mountain resorts, Lake Arrowhead in 
     the San Bernardino Mountains risked becoming forestry's 
     equivalent--a disaster so overwhelming it could change U.S. 
     environmental policy for decades to come.
       The area, filled with overgrown, diseased and dying trees, 
     has gained a reputation in recent years as one of the worst 
     examples of forest mismanagement in the West.
       If much of Lake Arrowhead or nearby Big Bear Lake ends up 
     burning, fire experts said it could prompt rapid changes, 
     including congressional orders for much more logging to thin 
     the nation's overgrown forests. . . .

  Well, we are already responding. This article is actually behind, and 
we are responding with the kind of bipartisan compromise that is before 
us tonight. But the article goes on to say:

       Flames destroyed more than 300 homes near Lake Arrowhead 
     Wednesday--

  That is yesterday--

     with no end in sight.
       Forests there would have burned naturally every 20 years, 
     said [a Forest Service expert]. . . . Areas that historically 
     had 50 trees per acre now have 500 [trees per acre].

  Well, the article goes on and on, but here is something that it 
talked about. And, of course, we have not seen the evening news tonight 
because fires are still burning in the Lake Arrowhead, San Bernardino 
forest areas.
  It says:

       Fire crews worked desperately to stop the advance as it 
     moved toward 44,000 homes, 2,000 businesses and 80,000 
     outbuildings--property with an assessed value of $8 billion.
       ``This may be a landmark event. This fire could take out 
     20,000 homes in the next day or two,'' said . . . a professor 
     of earth sciences at the University of California-Riverside.

  And the article goes on and on.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From San Jose Mercury News, Oct. 30, 2003]

              Lake Arrowhead: Fears of a Landmark Disaster

                    (By Paul Rogers and Josh Susong)

       Lake Arrowhead.--The oil industry had the Exxon Valdez. 
     Nuclear power had three Mile Island.
       Wednesday, with flames menacing one of Southern 
     California's most beloved mountain resorts, Lake Arrowhead in 
     the San Bernardino Mountains risked becoming forestry's 
     equivalent--a disaster so overwhelming it could change U.S. 
     environmental policy for decades to come.
       The area, filled with overgrown, diseased and dying trees, 
     has gained a reputation in recent years as one of the worst 
     examples of forest mismanagement in the West.
       If much of Lake Arrowhead or nearby Big Bear Lake ends up 
     burning, fire experts said it could prompt rapid changes, 
     including congressional orders for much more logging to thin 
     out the nation's overgrown forests, a loss of public 
     confidence in environmental groups that have resisted such 
     logging, and billions more taxpayer dollars spent on fire 
     protection.
       Flames destroyed more than 300 homes near Lake Arrowhead 
     Wednesday, with no end in sight.
       Forests there would have burned naturally every 20 years, 
     said Tom Bonnicksen, a professor of forest science at Texas 
     A&M University. But with homes at risk, the blazes were 
     regularly extinguished. Areas that historically had 50 trees 
     per acre now have 500.
       ``Who's to blame? It depends on which decade you are 
     talking about,'' said Bonnicksen.
       By the 1970s and 1980s, warnings from fire experts went 
     unheeded by homeowners' associations around Lake Arrowhead. 
     They protected their trees to preserve property values.
       ``You couldn't even cut the limb off a damn tree without 
     getting a permit,'' said Minnich. ``These people have wanted 
     to save every leaf.''
       The last sawmill in the area closed in the mid-1980s. More 
     recently, environmentalists have pushed hard to limit logging 
     of large trees there.
       ``The handwriting was on the wall several decades ago,'' 
     said Bonnicksen. ``Anyone in forestry could forecast that the 
     inevitable outcome would be the forest would burn down or the 
     insects would kill it and then it would burn down.''
       The U.S. Forest Service said Wednesday its policy on forest 
     thinning has been guided by public opinion.
       ``People didn't move there to be next to a logging 
     operation,'' said . . .
       Fire crews worked desperately to stop the advance as it 
     moved toward 44,000 homes, 2,000 businesses and 80,000 
     outbuildings--property with an assessed value of $8 billion.
       ``This may be a landmark event. This fire could take out 
     20,000 homes in the next day or two,'' said Richard Minnich, 
     a professor of earth sciences at the University of 
     California-Riverside.


                           WARNINGS OF DANGER

       The loss of Lake Arrowhead would be stunning but not 
     entirely surprising. For the past three years, fire experts 
     have described the resort community 100 miles northeast of 
     Los Angeles as a catastrophe waiting to happen.
       Four years of drought have hammered the region. The area's 
     weakened ponderosa pine and fir trees became infested with 
     bark beetles, and by this summer millions of trees were dead 
     across 350,000 acres.
       Limbs fell on cars and homes. Local residents, facing 
     county citations, paid up to

[[Page 26613]]

     $1,000 per tree to contractors in a frantic attempt to remove 
     the tinder-like fuels. They barely made a dent.
       The reason: The forests are unnaturally thick. Fire crews 
     began putting out fires in the area in the early 1900s, when 
     James Gamble of Proctor & Gamble built a dam to create the 
     lake, and vacation cabins from a growing Los Angeles began to 
     spring up in the 1920s and 1930s.
       Forests there would have burned naturally every 20 years, 
     said Tom Bonnicksen, a professor of forest science at Texas 
     A&M University. But with homes at risk, the blazes were 
     regularly extinguished. Areas that historically had 50 trees 
     per acre now have 500.
       ``Who's to blame? It depends on which decade you are 
     talking about,'' said Bonnicksen.
       By the 1970s and 1980s, warnings from the experts went 
     unheeded by homeowners' associations around Lake Arrowhead. 
     They protected their trees to preserve property values.
       ``You couldn't even cut the limb off a damn tree without 
     getting a permit,'' said Minnich. ``These people have wanted 
     to save every leaf.''
       The last sawmill in the area closed in the mid-1980s. More 
     recently, environmentalists have pushed hard to limit logging 
     of large trees there.
       ``The handwriting was on the wall several decades ago,'' 
     said Bonnicksen. ``Anyone in forestry could forecast that the 
     inevitable outcome would be the forest would burn down or the 
     insects would kill it and then it would burn down.''
       The U.S. Forest Service said Wednesday its policy on forest 
     thinning has been guided by public opinion.
       ``People didn't move there to be next to a logging 
     operation,'' said spokesman Matt Mathes.
       Mathes said when the trees began to die off from bark 
     beetle infestation, the San Bernardino National Forest 
     increased its budget for fire-thinning from $2 million in 
     2002 to $12 million this year.
       Charles Griego, who's been trimming trees in the area for 
     years, left his home near Lake Arrowhead on Wednesday with 
     his wife and three sons and a pile of family pictures.
       He shook his head when he talked about the downed trees and 
     the agencies--federal, state, anybody. ``They've known they 
     had a problem for years,'' he said, ``and they didn't do 
     anything.''


                             Angry e-mails

       As the fires burned, angry e-mails began pouring in 
     Wednesday to the offices of environmental groups blaming them 
     for the disaster.
       Monica Bond, a wildlife biologist with the Center for 
     Biological Diversity in Idyllwild, said that although her 
     group has appealed and sued to block a government forest-
     thinning operation in the Sierra Nevada, it had not done so 
     in the San Bernardino Mountains. The trees need to be logged 
     and removed, but large trees should be left for wildlife 
     habitat, she said.
       ``Some people are shamelessly exploiting this tragedy as an 
     excuse to log big trees in remote areas,'' she said. ``There 
     is no need to do that.'' Bonnicksen, who has worked with the 
     timber industry, said he supports President Bush's ``Healthy 
     Forests Initiative,'' to thin overgrown national forests and 
     cover the costs by allowing timber companies to take some 
     large, old-growth trees.
       ``If Lake Arrowhead burns down, there will be a massive 
     reaction,'' he said. ``It will be finger-pointing like you 
     can't believe. I'm more interested in having us understand 
     why it got this way, and preventing it from ever happening 
     again.''
       On the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-
     Calf., held up pictures of California forests. She succeeded 
     in convincing the Senate to pass an amendment to Bush's 
     logging plan that would require 50 percent of thinning to be 
     done near homes, and to provide $760 million to offset the 
     costs.
       ``Look at these homes. Look at the dead and dying trees,'' 
     she said of Lake Arrowhead. ``Does anyone believe they have a 
     chance of surviving if this forest is not cleaned?''

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what we are about to conclude tonight is a 
3- to 4-year effort on the part of many folks of good will on both 
sides of the aisle to bring some modicum of change. This is not a giant 
leap forward. This is a cautious, careful step to assure that we can 
begin to address our forests that are overgrown, that are diseased, 
that are now caught up in the scenario of wildfire, as we see it 
playing itself out in southern California today.
  Without a doubt this is a national emergency and a national crisis. 
We are being asked to spend upwards of $1.2 billion a year of 
taxpayers' money simply to put the fires out, let alone the cleanup and 
the restoration and the saving of watersheds and wildlife habitat.
  So I would hope we could continue this process and monitor it 
closely. My last hope is that the work tonight can go to the 
President's desk, can become law, and we can say we, once again, have 
become reasonable and responsible stewards of our forested lands.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. The hour is late. I am going to 
be very brief.
  I am opposed to this amendment. This is not an unlimited bill. It has 
a 20-million-acre cap. Suffice it to say, we are going to have a lot of 
oversight in both the Agriculture Committee and the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee.
  But I also thank the Senator from Iowa with respect to how he has 
handled this legislation. He has been exceptionally kind and helpful to 
me. He has had differences of opinion with me on this issue. I thank 
him for all of his cooperation.
  Suffice it to say, Mr. President and colleagues, the West has been 
watching the last few days, and in a particularly contentious area, the 
Senate has been able to find an awful lot of common ground. Even on 
some of the amendments that we have had--the question of the urban 
interface funding initiative, whether it should be 50 percent or 70 
percent--these are areas where reasonable people can differ. It is 
awfully easy to polarize on this issue, to drive people into rival 
camps, and to a great extent the Senate has avoided this.
  So what is important tonight as we deal with this last substantive 
amendment--and then we have a couple of procedural matters, colloquies, 
and that sort of thing to finish--is that we recognize how important it 
is to get this bipartisan compromise to the President's desk.
  The bill that the Senate will pass tonight is the one that I believe 
ought to become law, and it is absolutely critical that it be the one 
to get to the President so it can become law.
  So I hope Senators will continue to work together on a bipartisan 
basis and make sure the Senate compromise does not unravel.
  In addition to the Senator from Iowa, who has been so helpful 
throughout this process so we could expedite it, Senator Cochran from 
Mississippi, since the days that we spent those long hours in his 
office, Senator Craig, Senator Domenici, Senator Crapo, and others, a 
lot of people thought we would never get to this night.
  One person who did was the senior Senator from California who I have 
been so honored to have had on my subcommittee over the years. We 
wouldn't be on the floor tonight without the senior Senator from 
California who consistently, when we bumped up against an issue where 
we couldn't bring people together, it was the Senator from California 
who broke the gridlock. I want the Senate to know how much this body 
should appreciate the contribution of Senator Feinstein. This Senator 
does in particular.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are wrapping up this bill. I think 
everyone knows that it essentially came from the Agriculture Committee 
of the Senate. Many of us thought it was going to the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, but it was ruled that it belonged more in 
the jurisdiction of Agriculture. I feel very good about the results. I 
am very pleased with Chairman Thad Cochran's efforts and those of the 
Agriculture Committee, in a bipartisan manner, producing this bill and 
then further negotiations to even make it better.
  I am not so sure had it been sent to the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, where in years past we would have thought it should go, that 
we would have produced as good a bill. With the amendments that have 
come forth because of efforts after the bill came out of committee, it 
is truly remarkable that we were able to achieve this. It is almost as 
if the problem couldn't possibly have existed so long because of the 
way it has worked out. It is like an overwhelming number of Senators 
have come to the realization that it is time to fix a broken set of 
management tools for the forests of our country.
  I think we have fixed them. I can tie this into the pending amendment 
by

[[Page 26614]]

saying, it certainly isn't anything you are going to fix in 5 years. So 
for those who might have in mind that we have this bill for 5 years and 
then we start over, we are probably going to need 15 or 20 years of 
effort under this bill, with plenty of resources, to get the forests of 
America back where they should be. Where they ought to be is they ought 
to be beautiful forests, but they ought not be so susceptible to 
burning down. We all know that.
  It is just incredible that it has taken so long to get where we are. 
I know what Senator Craig read into the Record a while ago from the 
newspaper in California because I read it a while ago. Whoever wrote it 
is right on. This horror that we lived through was no accident. It is 
the result of not doing what we ought to do because certain groups in 
this country didn't want it to be done--plain and simple.
  They know who they are and the people know who they are. It happens 
that every time we turn around and talk about them, there is an excuse 
now that they really didn't do it; They weren't really against this; 
They were for fixing the forests all along; They have been for 
modifying our laws for decades; right?
  Well, that just isn't true. We have finally come around, but it 
surely has taken a long time.
  Anybody looking at this Nation on this one would have a real 
complaint about the slowness of the democratic process. Because it 
wasn't all of a sudden that this problem came upon us; it has been 
around. It has been up and down, through the hills, burning the 
mountains. It leaves millions of acres dry, pieces of wood standing in 
the air that have been infested. And then still there are people going 
to court, groups saying, don't cut them down.
  These fires cut them down. These fires make them disintegrate. They 
don't even burn down; they just go poof and there goes a tree. That is 
about how it goes.
  I have seen it. I had one that was bad. Three hundred fifty homes 
burned down. Probably with the number of homes and the damage, it was 
the second largest one. But it paled in comparison to this one.
  Frankly, before these forests that are dead and should have already 
been cut down, before it finishes in California, there will be no room 
for excuses. There is going to be a whole bunch of people who will want 
it all solved next week, in particular those who have been in the way 
of fixing it. They are going to be saying: Why isn't it fixed?
  We are going to have to pour in three times as much money, in my 
estimation, as we have been putting in. I don't know if we can find the 
manpower to put in the Bureau of Land Management and the forests to do 
the kind of work we have to do. I am not sure we can. It is such a huge 
job to clean up these forests that I am not sure, if you put down a 
timeline and said, here is where we ought to be, we would get there. We 
are going to have to contract it out. We will have to have all kinds of 
approaches to get in there and just take out all that stuff that is all 
over the bottom of the forests, under the trees, just waiting to burn. 
That is no easy job.
  For those who are so worried that we were going to log the forests to 
death, they have watched them burn to death. We were not going to log 
them to death so we watched them burn to death. That is what happened.
  It is high time we fix it. I don't know if I will be a conferee. 
Maybe they will all be off the Agriculture Committee. If I am, I can 
pledge that I am in a hurry. I have a lot to do, but I am in a hurry.
  Everybody who goes to this conference ought to be in a hurry, not 
only in a hurry to get a bill but in a hurry to get a bill that can 
clear the Senate and get the President to sign in the shortest period 
of time. That is what we ought to be worried about next. It isn't so 
good to get this done and be at it 6 months and then find that the 
President doesn't like what we have done because we have changed things 
so much.
  I thank not only Chairman Cochran but I thank the staff of the 
Agriculture Committee. They have been tremendous. We have had the 
luxury of working with them from our staff. But I can tell you, had it 
been assigned, we couldn't have done it any better with the full staff. 
And they have done it.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wanted to say a few words. Actually, 
Senator Craig was one of the earliest people with whom we began to work 
on these issues, from the California perspective, many years ago on the 
Quincy Library Group. That began to develop kind of an across-the-aisle 
bond.
  Then when Senator Wyden became ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Public Lands and Forests in the Senate Energy Committee, he really took 
a great interest in this subject as well. So it has been a terrific 
pleasure for me to work with him as well. He has carried this out in an 
absolutely superlative way.
  I also want to thank Senator Daschle, Senator Lincoln and Senator 
Pryor, who have been a crucial part of this legislation, Senator 
McCain, Senator Cochran, Senators Crapo and Domenici. I am looking for 
people in the Chamber who have been part of this effort.
  I hope the American people are proud of us tonight. I believe we have 
worked as the American people want us to work--not out of mean-spirited 
partisanship but rather, sitting together and working across the aisle 
to work out compromises. That is what this bill is. We had to cement 
certain compromises in order to see that the bill covered the United 
States fairly and also met the concerns of both sides of the aisle.
  This bill is funded. It is about double the amount of money that we 
have had in the past to treat those lands that are at high risk of 
catastrophic fire. The House bill is not funded. Additionally, this 
bill leaves intact a collaborative citizen participation process in an 
administrative review procedure. It leaves intact the ability for 
judicial review, but it truncates it in a way that allows us to move 
more aggressively on the 20 million acres that are encompassed in this 
bill.
  It is interesting to me to hear people say: Oh, they are just going 
to log all the forests. In fact, that has never been the case. There 
has always been a set number. In this bill, it is 20 million acres. We 
have 54 million acres across the United States that is at the highest 
risk of catastrophic fire. In my State alone, we have 8.5 million 
acres. It is going to take a new mindset for people if we are going to 
be able to do what we need to do.
  Since Senator Craig mentioned the Old Fire, which is currently 
burning in California, I just wanted to give you all a brief update. 
Currently, I have my State director at the command center in San 
Bernardino. I just want to report that with respect to the Old Fire, 
which is the huge fire they thought would consume all of Lake Arrowhead 
and a number of other threatened mountain towns where there are 50,000 
to 60,000 residential homes, they have had a good day today. It began 
to rain this morning, the fog is in, and the air remains moist. They 
couldn't see the smoke for the fog, and for the first time on the fire 
lines, there is a sense of optimism that these heroic crews are going 
to be able to get a hold on this fire. Most importantly, they were able 
to bulldoze a line ahead of that fire. Over five hundred homes have 
been lost in that particular fire so far. Hopefully, there will not be 
many more lost, and, hopefully, within a matter of a few days that huge 
fire can be put under control.
  As we know, the town of Julian, which is a gold mining town in the 
San Diego area, has eight firefighters. All eight firefighters fighting 
these fires have lost their homes. One distinguished firefighter, 
Steven Rucker, who came down on mutual aid from the city of Novato in 
northern California lost his life. I think we all salute him.
  There is an enormous lesson in these devastating fires currently 
burning in my home State, and it is that the land has to be managed. 
The forests have to be managed. We have to do the right thing for our 
constituents. We are pushed and we are pulled by conflicting interests. 
I believe the Senate version

[[Page 26615]]

of this bill is a good bill. It is a good bill from the interests of 
the public, and that is what has to count in this matter.
  I thank the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Cochran, 
who has been instrumental in leading this effort; Senator Domenici, my 
friend and colleague, and Senator Harkin, the ranking member on the 
Agriculture Committee. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
this bill.
  I thank the chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to close out my amendment. There 
were a lot of speeches, but not too many on my amendment.
  I would like to bring it back a little bit, anyway. I again point out 
that the pending amendment is one that basically says we are going to 
authorize it, but we are going to authorize it for a period of time.
  I say to my good friend from Oregon--and he is my good friend--I know 
he and others worked so hard on this bill and got a good compromise. I 
understand that, but I don't think that putting a time on this bill 
violates any compromise. As I pointed out, earlier bills have had a 5-
year time limit.
  I know my friend from Idaho talked about monitoring, the fact we 
monitor bills. Of course, we monitor bills. There is that old saying: 
Nothing focuses one's attention like the hangman's noose. When you find 
that something is expiring, that is when a committee starts to act, 
review, and get into it, perform its responsibilities.
  It is in that nature I have offered this amendment. I don't think it 
does anything to hurt the bill or change it. It doesn't change one 
thing in the bill. All it says is at some point down the track, 5 
years--I picked 5 years because that was in earlier bills--the 
appropriate committee--in this case the Agriculture Committee--will 
reauthorize it.
  Sometimes a reauthorization goes through by unanimous consent. That 
may be the case with this bill. I don't know. Maybe if this bill works 
as everyone says it will, it might go by unanimous consent or maybe we 
will want to change something. At least it will force the committee to 
do something at that time, and that is in the nature of why I offered 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know Members are 
here waiting for a vote. I also have to rise in opposition to the 
amendment. When we first began crafting the legislation in the 
Agriculture Committee, of which I chaired the Forestry Subcommittee, 
our first thought was to have no limit on time and no limit on acreage 
because, frankly, this is a good bill and it provides good management 
techniques we ought to utilize until we can devise better ones for our 
forests.
  However, in the compromise through the negotiation process, as we 
were working to make this a strong bipartisan bill and bring it 
together, we agreed to a 20 million acre cap. I believe that 20 million 
acre limit is very modest compared to the risk we face. We need to put 
a perspective on this. The fact is the estimates are that there are 100 
million acres at risk in America today, and this bill has a 20 million 
acre limit.
  If anything, we need to be talking about how to consider whether we 
need to expand the application of this bill rather than to retract it 
or put more limits on it because we have worked in a bipartisan fashion 
to put together a good compromise that is going to be good for our 
forests and good for the people who live near the forests.
  I conclude by also thanking those who worked with us to make this 
truly a bipartisan effort: The chairmen of the two committees, the 
Agriculture Committee, Senator Cochran, and the Energy Committee, 
Senator Domenici; my colleague from Idaho, who is the chairman of the 
Forestry Subcommittee on the Energy Committee, and Senator Lincoln, who 
is the ranking member on my subcommittee who worked so closely with me 
to draft the first piece that became the underlying language from which 
we then built this compromise. She has worked very hard and very 
effectively to make this all happen; Senator Feinstein and Senator 
Wyden, who came in and worked with us, with a true and sincere interest 
to make this a true and strong bipartisan effort; Senator McCain and 
Senator Kyl from Arizona, who became involved; Senator Baucus and 
Senator Burns from Montana; and Senator Thomas from Wyoming--all of 
whom were very integral in working to help make this a broad, 
successful, bipartisan effort. I am sure I have left some out.
  The reason I go through this is to, once again, reiterate how this is 
the way people in America want the political process to work. They want 
us to find common ground and build good commonsense solutions to issues 
that cross party lines and get to the issue on principle rather than on 
partisanship or personal attacks. That is what this bill is about.
  As I move to table this last amendment, I will announce that we will 
then be going forward after that with a managers' amendment and to 
final passage. I think tonight we are going to have a very big victory 
for America.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAPO. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. REID. Can we voice-vote the managers' package?
  Mr. CRAPO. I believe we could.
  I move to table the Harkin amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  I remind Senators, per instructions from both sides of the aisle, 
this will be a 20-minute vote.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
2045. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), 
the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman), are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) is absent 
attending a family funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 427 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

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

                                NAYS--31

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

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


                           Amendment No. 2046

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the 
desk.

[[Page 26616]]

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

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2046.

  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 is an amendment containing technical 
changes to the bill and amendments in behalf of the following Senators: 
Senator Collins, Senators Corzine and Specter, Senator Cantwell, 
Senator Leahy, Senators Lugar and Harkin, Senator Ensign, and Senator 
Allard, all of which have been approved by the managers on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendments are agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2046) was agreed to.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I want to take just a few moments of the 
Senate's time to discuss a provision included in the manager's 
amendment that will authorize acquisition of open space in the 
Highlands Forest that runs through New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut 
and my state of New Jersey.
  First of all, I express my great appreciation to the managers of this 
bill, Senators Cochran and Harkin, for agreeing to include this 
amendment. I also recognize and congratulate Congressman Rodney 
Frelinghuysen for his success in getting an identical version of this 
bill passed unanimously by the House Resources Committee yesterday. 
Congressman Frelinghuysen and I have worked together closely on this 
matter, and I know he has worked hard for many years on behalf of the 
Highlands and has played a key role in bringing needed conservation 
funds to the area.
  The amendment included in the managers' package is a modified version 
of S. 999, the Highlands Stewardship Act, which I introduced earlier 
this year with Senators Lautenberg, Schumer, Clinton, Dodd, Lieberman 
and Specter. The goal of this bipartisan legislation is to preserve one 
of the last open space treasures in our densely populated region, the 
Appalachian Highlands Forest.
  The Highlands region stretches from northwestern Connecticut, across 
the lower Hudson River valley in New York, through my State of New 
Jersey and into east-central Pennsylvania. It encompasses more than two 
million acres of forest, farms, streams, wetlands, lakes and 
reservoirs. It also includes such historic sites as Morristown National 
Historic Park, where George Washington had headquarters during the 
American Revolution, and the United States Military Academy at West 
Point.
  The value of the natural, recreational and scenic resources of the 
Highlands cannot be overstated. In a study of the New York-New Jersey 
Highlands region alone, the Forest Service found that 170 million 
gallons are drawn from the Highlands aquifers daily, providing quality 
drinking water for over 11 million people. 247 threatened or endangered 
species live in the New Jersey-New York Highlands region, including the 
timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, and 
great blue heron. According to the U.S. Forest Service, over 14 million 
people visit the NY-NJ Highlands for outdoor recreation, more than 
Yellowstone National Park and our most heavily visited natural 
treasures.
  But the values and benefits of the Highlands are not limited to the 
four states that share them. A 1992 study and recent update by the 
United States Forest Service describes the Highlands as a region of 
``national significance''--one that is within 2 hours of travel for 1 
in 9 Americans.
  Unfortunately, the supply of federal, state, local and private money 
that has gone to protect the Highlands over the years has not kept pace 
with development in the area. According to the Forest Service, more 
than 25,000 acres of forest and farm land in the New York and New 
Jersey sections of the Highlands have been lost annually to development 
between 1995 and 2000, and nearly 300,000 acres of land critical to 
future water supplies remain unprotected.
  I represent the most densely populated state in the country. The 
pressures we face from development are intense. In New Jersey, the 
Highlands region lies in close proximity to New York City and is valued 
for housing development. New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania face 
similar development pressures. We need to do more to protect this 
national treasure.
  The amendment that I hope the Senate will approve today is modeled 
after the successful federal-state partnership used to protect much of 
Sterling Forest, a crown jewel of the Highlands. The legislation would 
facilitate similar conservation partnerships to protect critical 
treasures threatened by sprawl throughout the region. The amendment 
would enable us to build upon the legacy of Sterling Forest, but it 
will take a strong commitment and partnership between the Highlands 
states and the Federal Government to safeguard this region.
  The amendment calls on the governors of the four states to recommend 
conservation projects within certain threatened areas identified by the 
Forest Service. It also would authorize $100 million over the next 10 
years for easements or acquisition of land within those areas. As in 
the preservation of Sterling Forest, the money would come from the 
Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  I would note that the land and water conservation fund generally is 
not used for open space acquisitions in my state and the other 
Highlands states. That is because the fund only can support 
acquisitions to expand existing Federal parks, forests and recreation 
areas. While this works well for states with a significant amount of 
federal parks and forests, it does not help states like New Jersey with 
comparatively less Federal land. This amendment would help to make sure 
that New Jersey and the other Highlands states get their fair share of 
open space funding.
  The only land to be acquired would be land owned by people who want 
to sell. This amendment would not force anyone to sell, nor interfere 
with any other property right. Nor would the amendment interfere with 
any local zoning ordinance or local government land use plan. Nor would 
it create any new federal ownership or management responsibilities. 
Title to the land or easement purchased would belong to the state where 
it is located.
  Finally, the amendment is designed to conserve land that has been 
identified as having a high conservation value by the Forest Service 
and which is not currently protected from development under any 
existing law. This is land that serves as the habitat for animals, or 
provides a source for water supplies, or that is simply unusual in its 
natural beauty.
  In conclusion, the Highlands are a national treasure, and it is 
critical that they be preserved. I again thank the managers for their 
cooperation, and their support of this legislation.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, 
Senators Cochran and Harkin, for including in the managers' package an 
amendment I filed on the issue of wildland firefighter safety. My heart 
goes out to my colleagues from California and the people they 
represent. In Washington, we are well acquainted with catastrophic 
wildfires and the threat they pose to local communities. Our thoughts 
are with the people of California, as well as with the families of the 
firefighters on the job--including crews from my State who are on their 
way south to join in the effort.
  The men and women who fight fires on our public lands serve our 
Nation bravely. Since 1910, more than 900 wildland firefighters have 
lost their lives in the line of duty. Before the California fires, I 
believe the toll was 26 individuals this year alone.
  And this morning, we were faced with the news of the first 
firefighter death from the California blazes--an 11-year veteran named 
Steven Rucker, who perished while trying to save a home. He leaves 
behind a wife and two children.

[[Page 26617]]

  As I have read the press accounts and listened to the stories my 
colleagues have told about the loss of life in California over these 
past few days, I cannot help but recall a recent tragedy in my State of 
Washington. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, in the 
midst of the second worst drought in the history of our State, the 
Thirtymile Fire burned out of control. Four courageous young 
firefighters were killed. Their names: Tom Craven, 30 years old; Karen 
FitzPatrick, 18; Jessica Johnson, 19; and Devin Weaver, 21.
  Sadly, as subsequent investigations revealed, these young men and 
women did not have to die. In the words of the Forest Service's own 
report on the Thirtymile Fire, the tragedy ``could have been 
prevented.'' We know that firefighting is a dangerous job. But despite 
its inherent danger, we have a responsibility to ensure that no 
preventable tragedy like Thirtymile Fire ever happens again.
  I would like to thank my colleague Senator Bingaman, the 
distinguished ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee, as well as 
Senator Wyden, who was then chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands 
and Forests. In the wake of the Thirtymile Fire, they agreed to convene 
hearings on precisely what went wrong that tragic day. We heard from 
the grief-stricken families. In particular, the powerful testimony of 
Ken Weaver--the father of one of the lost firefighters-- put into focus 
precisely what's at stake when we send these men and women into harm's 
way. I can think of no worse tragedy for a parent than confronting the 
loss of a child, especially when that loss could have been prevented by 
better practices on the part of Federal agencies.
  At the Senate Energy Committee hearing, we also discussed with 
experts and the Forest Service itself ways in which we could improve 
the agency's safety performance. And almost a year to the day after 
those young people lost their lives, we passed a bill--ensuring an 
independent review of tragic incidents such as Thirtymile that lead to 
unnecessary fatalities.
  Based on subsequent briefings by the Forest Service, revisions to the 
agency's training and safety protocols, and even based on what I have 
heard when I have visited with firefighters over the past two years, I 
do believe the courage of those families to stand up and demand change 
has had a positive impact on the safety of the young men and women who 
today are battling blazes as wildland firefighters. Yet, I believe 
there is more that Congress can do to express our commitment. Today I 
offer a modest amendment that will take a few more steps in that 
direction.
  My amendment does three simple things.
  First, it will require the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to 
track the funds the agencies expend for firefighter safety and 
training.
  Today, these sums are lumped into the agencies' ``wildfire 
preparedness'' account. But as I have discussed with various officials 
in hearings before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
it is difficult for Congress to play its rightful oversight role--
ensuring that these programs are funded in times of wildfire emergency, 
and measuring the agencies' commitment to these programs over time--
without a separate break-down of these monies.
  Second, it will require the Secretaries to report to Congress 
annually on the implementation and effectiveness of its safety and 
training programs. I assure my colleagues who have not spent time 
dwelling on this issue, that the maze of policy statements, management 
directives and curricula changes associated with Federal firefighter 
training is dizzying and complicated.
  The agencies have a responsibility to continually revise their 
policies in the face of new science and lessons learned on the fire 
line. Meanwhile, this body has the responsibility to ensure needed 
reforms are implemented. As such, I believe that Congress and the 
agencies alike would benefit from an annual check-in on these programs. 
I would also hope that this would serve as a vehicle for an ongoing and 
healthy dialogue between the Senate and agencies on these issues.
  Third, it would stipulate that Federal contracts with private 
firefighting crews require training consistent with the training of 
Federal wildland firefighters. It would also direct those agencies to 
monitor compliance with this requirement. This is important not just 
for the private contractor employees' themselves but for the Federal, 
State and tribal employees who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them on 
the fire line.
  This is actually quite a complex issue about which many of us are 
just beginning to learn. With the severity of fire seasons throughout 
the country over the past 2 years--and notwithstanding the Clinton 
administration's efforts to hire a significant number of new 
firefighters as part of the National Fire Plan--the number of private 
contract crews hired by the agencies to help with fire suppression has 
tripled since 1998. According to Oregon Department of Forestry 
estimates, the number of contract crews at work has grown from 88 to 
1998 to 300 this year, with 95 percent based in the Pacific Northwest. 
In general, these contract crews have grown up in former timber 
communities and provide important jobs, especially given the fact the 
agencies themselves do not at this juncture have the resources to fight 
the fires entirely on their own. And many of these contractors have 
been in operation for a decade or more and boast stellar safety 
records.
  Nevertheless, as the number of--and need for--contractors has grown, 
there are more and more tales of unscrupulous employers that take 
advantage of workers and skirt training and safety requirements. This 
is a growing concern for U.S. Forest Service employees and state 
officials. This summer, the Seattle Times wrote a detailed feature on 
the issue, quoting internal Forest Service memos as well as evidence 
from the field.
  Among the contractor practices cited in the article: Breaking safety 
rules and failing to warn other crews on the fire line; falsifying or 
forging firefighting credentials and ignoring training requirements; 
hiring illegal immigrants that cannot understand fire line commands--
and committing various labor abuses; and rotating a single crew from 
fire to fire for 50 straight days--while Federal firefighters are not 
allowed to work more than 14 or 21 days in a row.
  The article quoted from a November 2002 memo written by Joseph 
Ferguson, a deputy incident commander for the Forest Service: ``If we 
don't improve the quality and accountability of this program, we are 
going to kill a bunch of firefighters . . . Although there were two or 
three good to excellent crews on each fire, that was offset by 20 to 30 
that were hardly worth having,'' Ferguson added. ``It was apparent that 
training for most of these crews had been done poorly or not at all.''
  Paul Broyles, who heads a safety committee for the National 
Interagency Fire Center added that private crews he has seen have 
varied from ``fantastic to a he[ck] of a lot less than good and some 
were real safety concerns.'' He noted that while state government and 
feds were trying to crack down on violations associated with 
documentation, ``the assumption is, where there's one problem, there's 
probably more.''
  This provision is a modest beginning in addressing the challenges 
posed by integrating private and Federal contract crews--and doing it 
in a manner that maximizes everyone's safety on the fire line. I 
understand that the Federal and State agencies are already attempting 
to push contractors in this direction, and this provision will bolster 
that momentum.
  I had also hoped to include in this amendment a provision that would 
direct the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of the impacts 
of the President's outscourcing initiative on wildland firefighter 
safety. Unfortunately, that provision was opposed by my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle.
  Now, let me be clear. I oppose the Bush administration's outsourcing 
initiative. And if I had my way, I would simply declare that this 
initiative would not apply to the firefighting agencies. However, at 
the very least, I

[[Page 26618]]

hope my colleagues will agree that we should take a close look at how 
outsourcing will affect the ability of our Federal agencies to do their 
job when it comes to fighting wildfires and their ability to do it 
safely.
  According to the Forest Service Council, which represents 20,000 
Forest Service employees across the Nation, some 40 percent of these 
workers serve dual functions.
  Likened to the Reserve or National Guard, they call it the 
``militia'' approach--where qualified employees that perform other jobs 
for much of the year are dispatched as ``first responders'' on wildland 
fires.
  From a military perspective in Iraq, we have seen the importance of 
the National Guard and Reserve in supporting our military efforts. No 
one here in Congress would contemplate outsourcing the Guard and 
Reserve.
  I hope my colleagues would recognize that it is completely unclear 
how the outsourcing initiative, with its emphasis on contracting out 
certain types of jobs, would impact the need for Forest Service 
employees to perform these collateral duties. I am concerned that the 
outsourcing initiative will seriously erode the agencies' capacity to 
fight fires--just as the sponsors of this bill argue these fires are 
becoming most intense.
  Likewise, I have serious concerns that it will disrupt the chain of 
command on the fire line, especially in instances in which the Forest 
Service could lose some of its most experienced firefighters as a 
result of outsourcing. These are my concerns.
  While I understand that there were objections on the other side of 
the aisle to including the GAO study provision--and we have thus 
removed it from this amendment, to move forward on the other important 
provisions--I guess we are lucky that such a study does not actually 
require legislation. I plan to work with a number of my colleagues to 
request just such a report form the GAO, because I believe it is 
important we thoroughly understand the way outsourcing would impact 
Federal agencies' ability to fight fires and fight them safely.
  And so I hope my colleagues will support this simple amendment. 
Ultimately, the safety of our Federal firefighters is a critical 
component of how well prepared our agencies are to deal with the threat 
of catastrophic wildfire.
  Congress owes it to the families of those brave firefighters we send 
into harm's way to provide oversight of these safety and training 
programs.
  We owe it to our Federal wildland firefighters, their families and 
their State partners, and to future wildland firefighters.
  My amendment will provide this body with the additional tools it 
needs to do the job. I thank my colleagues for supporting this 
amendment.


                     administrative review process

  Mr. WYDEN. Could the Senator from Mississippi confirm that with 
respect to section 105(c)(3), it would be the Agriculture Committee's 
intent that if the agency fails or is unable to make information timely 
available during the administrative review process, the court should 
evaluate whether the administrative review process was inadequate for 
claims or issues to which the information is material?
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator's understanding is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, while this bill is not everything I hoped 
it would be, it is an improvement over what was proposed by the 
President and passed by the House. The devastating fires in California 
and throughout the West over the past few years have added great 
urgency to the need to remove dangerous fuel loads from many of our 
forests. We need to treat those hazards now, and this bill is really 
the only relevant legislation that can pass Congress and be signed into 
law by the President this year. That is why I voted for the bill on 
final passage.
  During the floor debate, I offered an amendment to strengthen the 
underlying bill's old-growth protections and I also voted for a number 
of other amendments. It is unfortunate that these amendments were not 
accepted because they would have reassured a greater portion of our 
citizens of the real intent of the legislation and would have made it 
more effective.
  We don't have the funding we need to remove all the dangerous fuel 
loads in our forests. We should have made more funding available and 
ensured more resources were focused on the wildland urban interface 
that presents the greatest risk to property and to the lives of our 
firefighters and citizens.
  While the underlying bill will increase authorization levels for fuel 
reduction activities, it does not guarantee this money will be made 
available. We should have passed Senator Bingaman's amendment that 
would have guaranteed the funding and stopped the raiding of fuel 
reduction accounts to pay for fire suppression.
  Likewise, the Senate bill is an improvement over the House 
legislation in directing at least 50 percent of the work be conducted 
in the wildland urban interface, but we should have strengthened this 
directive by passing Senator Boxer's amendment that would have raised 
wildland/urban interface work to 70 percent.
  Lastly, the underlying bill made an earnest attempt to provide some 
protection for old-growth stands in our national forests. 
Unfortunately, the bill leaves a couple of significant loopholes that, 
if abused by our forest managers, could threaten these ancient trees. 
That is why I offered an amendment to close these loopholes and better 
protect old-growth stands. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated.
  Now that the Senate has spoken on the overall bill, the House should 
take up this legislation and pass it unaltered. The President should 
drop his opposition to the increased spending associated in the bill 
and urge its quick passage by the House. The President's opposition to 
increased spending presents a real and tangible risk to every community 
looking to treat forests surrounding their homes, schools, and 
businesses.
  If this bill is signed into law, the burden will shift to the Forest 
Service and Bureau of Land Management to implement the programs in the 
most responsible and effective manner possible.
  Again, they will need to focus on protecting communities. It will be 
unacceptable to treat forest stands far from human population while any 
community's wildland/urban interface remains untreated.
  They need to focus on taking out of the forests the materials that 
truly threaten to generate catastrophic wildfires. We should not see 
large, fire resistant trees being removed from our forests under the 
guise of ``healthy forests.'' Any old-growth stands that are treated 
need to be treated in ways that protect their unique ecosystems.
  Finally, in a fiscally responsible manner, the agencies need to 
maximize the positive economic influence these fuel reduction projects 
can have on our rural economies. This means not only hiring local 
workers and companies to conduct the work, but also looking for 
opportunities to use the resulting material for other economic 
enterprises.
  The bill passed by the Senate has the potential to truly work in a 
manner nearly everyone can accept. Alteration by the House or poor 
implementation by the agencies will only threaten our wildfire 
endangered communities.
  I am committed to making this legislation work and stand ready to 
assist the communities in Washington State protect their families and 
homes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I intend to support H.R. 1904, as 
amended by the Senate. I do so, however, with significant reservations 
about the bill, and its benefits for Wisconsin, and I want to describe 
my concerns in detail. Forest fire management is a critical issue for 
my home State of Wisconsin and for the country. Forest fires burned on 
approximately 7 million acres across 15 States during last year's fire 
season, the second worst in 50 years. Fighting those fires cost 
taxpayers about $1.6 billion. It also cost 23 firefighters their lives. 
This year's fire season is expected to be as bad as last year's. And 
though Wisconsin has escaped the season unharmed, my State did face a 
higher than normal risk of fire this summer due to the relatively dry 
weather we had the year before.

[[Page 26619]]

  Moreover, forests are important to Wisconsin economically. Our 
businesses depend on them as do our recreation and tourism industries. 
The primary and secondary wood products industry is the second largest 
employer in Wisconsin and, according to the Wisconsin Division of 
Forestry, my State leads the Nation in 2002 in the production of fine 
papers, sanitary paper products, children's furniture, and millwork. 
Forest resources in Wisconsin are a primary tourism attraction for both 
residents and visitors.
  Given the role and importance of forests in Wisconsin, I wish that 
the bill focused more on the forests of the Upper Midwest. I am 
particularly concerned that the bill passed by the House focuses too 
strongly on the implementation of recommendations made by the Western 
Governors regarding forest health.
  It is worth noting that the Senate has considered these kinds of 
emergency legislative measures to address forest health in the recent 
past. As many will recall, an emergency timber salvage rider was 
attached to and signed into law by President Clinton as part of the 
1995 rescissions bill, legislation supposedly designed to reduce 
Federal expenditures. The salvage rider was extremely controversial, 
and my constituents were very concerned about its implementation in 
terms of its fiscal cost, the loss of critical wildlife habitat and 
endangered species, and the precedent that it set for lawmaking and the 
separation of powers in this country. The salvage rider suspended the 
Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the 
National Forest Management Act, and ``all other applicable Federal 
environmental and natural resource laws,'' such as the Clean Water Act.
  I opposed the rider because it was too restrictive in scope. The 
public was blocked from the legal process through which decisions 
affecting their national forests are made. All sales under the salvage 
rider were exempt from the administrative appeal process, and judicial 
review was severely limited to sales deemed ``arbitrary and 
capricious.''
  So I think it is wise to be careful in crafting this legislation, 
lest we risk taking too extreme a step in our efforts to address forest 
health. I agree that the Congress should enact legislation to protect 
our Nation's forests from catastrophic wildlife and disease. Overall, I 
think that the substitute offered for title I of the bill by Senators 
Cochran, Feinstein, Wyden, Daschle and others, is an improvement over 
the underlying bill. I have also supported a number of amendments to 
try to narrow the bill's scope and improve its provisions. It is my 
hope that the conferees will adhere to the provisions approved by the 
Senate when they develop a final bill.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering 
legislation that will go a long way toward reducing the fire risk to 
communities throughout the western United States. The Senate is set to 
pass bipartisan legislation that authorizes federal land managers to 
treat up to 20 million acres of at-risk public lands while empowering 
communities with the resources and tools to protect lives and property.
  The catastrophic fires in California are only the most recent 
demonstration of how the Forest Service, state and local communities, 
and private landowners must actively manage the Nation's forestlands. 
In South Dakota, fires have endangered the communities of Deadwood and 
Keystone in recent years, burning nearly one out of every 10 acres of 
the Black Hills National Forest. I am very supportive of the bipartisan 
response of the U.S. Senate toward passing aggressive forest 
legislation.
  During the last 2 years, the Congress has debated and discussed the 
need to actively manage our forestlands, with particular emphasis 
toward protecting the wildland-urban interface, home to millions of 
individuals and hundreds of communities. The Black Hills is a stark 
example of interface and intermix communities, with a patchwork of 
private landowners scattered through the 1.3 million acre forest. 
Public land managers and communities need the tools and resources to 
reduce fire risk, restore forest ecosystems to a more natural balance 
and protect a vitally important renewable resource. It is overdue--
overdue to end the debate and pass legislation.
  I believe that the agreement crafted today will address many of the 
challenges facing public forestlands. There has been a great deal of 
debate from those on both sides of the spectrum as to the shortcomings 
and compromises made to craft the Senate bill. I agree that the bill is 
not perfect, but in crafting the compromise agreement, the Senate has 
put forward a bipartisan proposal that will enhance the long-term 
health and sustainability of forestlands.
  The Senate plan authorizes fuel reduction projects on up to twenty 
million acres of National Forest System lands and enhances local 
participation. In the plan, communities can develop ``community 
wildfire protection plans'' to identify areas for hazardous fuel 
reduction and other treatments necessary to protect the community from 
wildfire. The collaborative process established in the Senate bill will 
identify and prioritize fuel treatments and recommend the types and 
methods of projects on federal and non-federal lands. This provision is 
a key feature that empowers local communities to craft the proper 
response to the threat of wildland fire specific to their local areas.
  The plan put forward today will allow the Forest Service to focus on 
its core mission of managing our forest for multiple uses and ease the 
crush of bureaucratic and administrative appeals. This fall during a 
tour of the Black Hills, I witnessed the progress made from recent fuel 
reduction projects thinning insect ravaged trees, and believe more 
should be done to reduce fire risk throughout the West. I will vote for 
the Senate compromise because it will finally replace endless talk with 
constructive action. I encourage the House of Representatives to join 
the administration in supporting the Senate bill and quickly passing 
this important and historic plan.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we have all heard the expression many 
times--``A picture is worth a thousand words.'' If that is so, I don't 
think there is any question that the pictures of the wildfires in 
California are speaking volumes and they have had a dramatic impact on 
all of the us in the Congress and around the country .The fires 
continue to burn out West, and the toll continues to mount. The amount 
of forest land up in flames, the homes destroyed, the lives lost and 
the people forever changed by what they have experienced will never be 
known. One thing that is very clear, however, is the importance of 
taking every possible step to ensure that we minimize this kind of 
frightening destruction in the future.
  It is bad enough that we have had to witness the devastation in 
California--and I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to express 
our appreciation and our gratitude to the brave people who are fighting 
the fires there without regard for their own safety. They are true 
American heroes, and we will be keeping them in our prayers.
  Take that feeling that comes from seeing all that destruction and 
despair in California and imagine that you were seeing the reality of a 
threat that faces you every day of your life. Imagine you wake up every 
day filled with the fear of knowing that your home, your job, your 
family, your heritage, and your community could be wiped out in a 
heartbeat. Imagine the commitment you would have to protecting your 
family and your cherished possessions, only to be told that you can't 
do much about it because somebody, far away, whose home is not facing 
the same kind of threat has decided you aren't worth the effort.
  You might think I am exaggerating the problem, but the fact is there 
are more than 100 million acres of Federal forests lands that now exist 
under an unnaturally high risk of catastrophic wildfires and large 
scale insect and disease outbreaks because of unhealthy forest 
conditions.
  For years now, we have been trying everything we can to reduce the 
risk

[[Page 26620]]

and make our forests safer and more fire resilient. Every time we have 
tried, we have had the same response: more environmental reviews, more 
litigation, and more trees that increase instead of reduce the threat 
to the land around them.
  We now have the images to confirm that our concerns were not fairy 
tales. We were not just speaking as alarmists, but as people faced with 
a very real threat.
  This situation is particularly acute in western forests where more 
than 60 years of aggressive fire suppression programs have removed fire 
as a mitigating factor in maintaining forest health. As a result of 
these well-meaning efforts, many of our forests suffer from an 
unnatural accumulation of vegetation on the forest floors. Dense 
undergrowth, combined with increasingly taller layers of intermediate 
vegetation have turned western forests into deadly time bombs.
  Unlike healthy fires of the past that thinned out the underbrush and 
left the large trees to grow larger, modern wildfires quickly climb the 
dense vegetation like a ladder until they top out at the uppermost, or 
crown, level of the forest and race out of control as catastrophic 
fires. Because of their high speed and intense heat, these ``crown 
fires'' leave an almost sterile environment in their wake. After a 
crown fire, nothing is left behind; no trees, no wildlife, and no 
habitat to speak of--with few microorganisms left to rebuild the soil.
  Vegetation manipulation, including timber harvest, is therefore 
necessary to restore our forests, particularly in the West, to 
conditions that are more resistant to catastrophic disturbances and 
that are within acceptable ranges of variability. Scientific studies, 
including the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, SNEP, report, state that 
timber harvest is a tool that can be used to enhance overall forest 
resilience to disturbance. The SNEP report states, for example, that 
``logging can serve as a tool to help reduce fire hazard when slash is 
treated and treatments are maintained.'' If conducted on a large enough 
scale and in a controlled manner, timber harvests can restore our 
national forests to a point where fire can be returned as a healthy 
part of the environment.
  However, any proposal that prohibits all forms of commercial timber 
harvest, regardless of the objective, indiscriminately removes an 
efficient and valuable tool from land managers for restoring forest 
conditions to a more resilient and sustainable state.
  I am tired of sawmills and timber harvesting being seen as ogres. I 
had a brainstorming session with employees of Wyoming Sawmills and 
talked about healthy forests. I found them all to be concerned people 
who can increase the amount of expertise that is used in forest 
management and can do it in a way that helps our forest managers save 
money. These employees showed me what can be done with scrub trees in 
making innovative composite construction housing materials. I am 
talking about using small trees and stems that were once considered 
junk trees and were stacked in the forests and burned.
  Using the innovative approach developed by Wyoming Sawmills employees 
is good stewardship. It would be wrong to accuse them of wanting to 
clear cut the forests. They know what healthy thinning is, and they 
know what a forest should look like. They know that their livelihood 
relies on good practices.
  So far we have been lucky in that some of our most dangerous areas in 
Wyoming have not yet caught fire. One area I am particularly concerned 
about is just east of Cody on Wyoming's Shoshone National Forest. It 
lies just next to Yellowstone National Park. It provides crucial 
habitat to wolves, grizzlies, whooping cranes, elk, bison, mule deer 
and other animals that spend part of their lives in Yellowstone 
National Park. The area is also home to a very severe pine beetle 
infestation that threatens to ignite and cause extreme damage to the 
park, the forest and surrounding communities.
  Other areas in Wyoming have not been as fortunate. I heard a report 
just a few weeks ago that a number of significant Native American 
archeological sites no longer exist in Wyoming's Wind River Mountains. 
When a fire swept through them earlier this year, it didn't just 
destroy habitat, but it also took some of the last remaining examples 
of wikiups and wooden sheep traps that were built by Wyoming's 
Sheepeater Indians. Their handiwork that reflected their place in our 
history is now gone and only exists in a few pictures that were 
fortunately taken before the fires swept it all away.
  For me, this is an issue that has its roots back in the days when I 
was a Boy Scout. At the time, I was working on one of the requirements 
for the rank of First Class that had to be reached if I were to earn my 
Eagle Scout Award. To be successful, I had to start a campfire with no 
more than two matches. I got to be very good at starting campfires and 
was well known for winning water boiling contests at scout camporees. 
There are a number of tricks people develop in starting campfires, and 
I had my own system that helped me win, but no matter who you are or 
what your trick might be, there are three basic elements to every fire: 
oxygen, fuel, and heat.
  Oxygen comes from the air and is readily available. Fuel is found in 
the wood, particularly dry wood that burns easily when enough heat is 
applied. Heat comes from a spark, a match, or possibly just friction. 
The best way to apply enough heat to start a successful campfire is to 
properly organize the wood in a way that allows the flames to climb up 
from the bottom of the firepit where you put the smaller, quick-burning 
sticks and tinder--to the larger, longer burning logs in much the same 
way as someone would climb a ladder, one rung at a time.
  To start a successful fire, I began by carefully putting my wood 
shavings at the bottom of the fire--this would be my light tinder or 
first rung of the fire ladder. I then built a small tee-pee of sticks 
over my tinder as my second rung, and then added larger and larger 
sticks until I had my largest pieces of wood on top where they could 
draw the heat from the flames of the intermediate sticks below them. If 
I did everything correctly, I could start my fire and get a can of 
water to boil before anyone else did.
  You might wonder what this little story of mine has to do with the 
current state of our national forests.
  If we were to head out into the forest right now, and we took a good 
look around at the density of the ground all around us, we would see 
that they are laid out just like the campfires I was trained to build 
and start when I was a Boy Scout. At the bottom of every forest lies a 
collection of small, dried-out bushes, leaves and fallen bark. Over 
this pile of tinder is the next rung of the forest fuels ladder which 
is made up of small to intermediate trees. These intermediate trees are 
then crowded in below the larger and older trees that make up the top 
rung or crown of the forest fuels ladder.
  This problem wasn't always as bad as it is now. There was a time when 
Mother Nature and the Native Americans took care of thinning our 
forests by regularly starting wildfires. Because the fuel loads weren't 
allowed to grow as dense as they are today, the fuel ladder didn't 
reach all the way up to the big trees. Fires would burn up the tinder 
and thin out the intermediate and dead and dying trees. This promoted 
biodiversity, kept the intensity of the forests down and, in times of 
drought the competition for limited water resources was dramatically 
less than it is today. We now have forests that historically have had 
40 or 50 tree stems per acre that are now over 200 stems per acre. This 
is a 300-percent increase. We aren't able to use widespread fire 
anymore because of the danger it presents to homes, as you are seeing 
right now in California.
   When a fire starts in forests this dense, it quickly climbs the fuel 
ladder and races out of control. These crown fires are all but 
impossible to stop. The heat generated from all rungs burning at once 
sterilizes the soil and leaves nothing but desolation in its wake. This 
is only made worse with the added factor of drought. By adding to the 
mix stands of dead trees that are as dry and

[[Page 26621]]

volatile as the tinder on the forest floor you can just imagine the 
threat this kind of fire could have on the forests and their 
surrounding communities.
   It is a much better conservation practice, therefore, to step in and 
duplicate the effect historic, healthy fires had on our forests by 
using what is called mechanical thinning. This is a practice where our 
land management agencies can hire experienced timber companies to 
remove the dense underbrush and carry out the smaller and intermediate 
trees, thereby leaving a forest that is healthier, more biodiverse, 
more fire resilient and with a better mix of older and younger trees.
   The alternative is to allow Mother Nature to step in and conduct one 
of her catastrophic clear cuts, and when Mother Nature does a clear 
cut, she doesn't respect riparian zones or raptor nesting sites, or 
homes.
   Clearly that is a scenario we must make every effort to prevent.
   As we do, just imagine how you would feel if you were here today 
while your family was back home, living in a house that stood in the 
shadow of one of those forests that is ready to explode in a blaze of 
flames.
   Unfortunately, you don't have to imagine what that would be like 
anymore. We have seen what it would be like in the pictures of the 
fires that continue to threaten southern California.
   What we have to do now is work toward a goal we should all support--
ensuring no one else has to face another wildfire blazing out of 
control through their homes and neighborhoods because of a policy we 
could have but did not change.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to speak today about the need to 
pass the Senate's bipartisan amendment to H.R. 1904, the Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act.
  Today there are over 190 million acres of forests at risk of 
devastating wildfire. The situation is the result of the general 
degradation of the health of our forests. This degradation is the 
direct result of past poor management practices, which have resulted in 
our forests being more susceptible to disease, insect infestation, and 
hazardous fuels accumulation. These conditions have resulted in at 
least 10 years of devastating wildfires and the reality that if we 
don't do something to address these conditions we will see decades of 
these devastating fires.
  The decision we must be willing to make is to change the direction of 
management, because from where I am sitting, the current method is just 
not working, and it has not for the last 30 years.
  Most people don't realize how much money we spend every year on 
litigation. Last year alone, taxpayers spent $21 million just on Forest 
Service litigation. And that doesn't count all the paperwork and time 
spent on trying to make every project litigation-proof. We know this 
process is stuck, and it's inefficient, and we're spending a lot of 
money foolishly, when we could instead be spending it on the ground 
improving the health of our forests.
  Add to that the dollars we spend on fighting fires every year, which 
can easily reach into the billions. The costs associated with the 
suppression of these wildfires reaches into the millions per fire, and 
the billions annually--the cost is high partly because we have allowed 
the health of the forests to deteriorate to such poor condition. 
However, the cost of fire suppression is not the only cost associated 
with disease, insects, and wildfires. There are equally high costs 
associated with the loss and damage of wildlife and fishery habitat, 
clean air, and problems associated with the silting of rivers and 
streams, loss of critical infrastructure, and the loss of tourism.
  We must not let the debate over forest health degrade into a 
political debate of cutting timber. There are people who simply have an 
objection to cutting down trees, but I wonder why it's all right to 
burn them down?
  The Forest Service timber sale program is the smallest it has been 
since the 1940's. We are losing more trees, wildlife habitat, and 
critical healthy watersheds to fire, disease, and insects than we 
impact through timber sales. Yet, we continue to stand by and do 
nothing to stop the destruction.
  The environmental community can no longer appeal and litigate every 
project designed to remove hazardous fuels, treat disease, and 
eradicate insects under the guise of protecting the habitat of fish and 
wildlife; yet turn a blind eye on the damage that insects, disease, and 
fire are doing to these same habitats.
  We must provide the Federal land managers with the tools needed to 
address the extreme conditions of our national forests. We must address 
the issues associated with delays as a result of appeals and 
litigation.
  We have before us a bill that reflects a bipartisan effort to finally 
provide the land managers with the necessary tools. It reflects a 
bipartisan effort to streamline the NEPA process, expedite judicial 
action, treat the wildland-urban interface along with other high risk 
areas, and address the urgent need to combat the spread of insects and 
disease in our forests nationwide.
  It is time for this body to set aside partisan politics and stand up 
to the public's expectation that we act responsibly and quickly pass 
this legislation. We ought not to disappoint the public and we ought 
not to be responsible for continuing to put our national forests at 
increasing risk.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this week, as the California wildfires 
continue to rage, scorching more than 720,000 acres of land, destroying 
more than 2,600 homes, and taking the lives of at least 20 people, we 
have learned the costs of not taking the proper steps to protect our 
vulnerable communities and forests.
  Last April, I wrote to the President and asked him to declare three 
of our southern counties disasters areas due to bark beetle 
infestation. There were 12 of us from both parties who asked for fuels 
reduction to ease our dangerous situation. Unfortunately, that disaster 
designation did not happen.
  In July, I introduced a bill with Senator Leahy, the Forestry and 
Community Assistance Act, that would have helped protect our forest and 
communities from wildfires. The bill would have authorized funding for 
wildfire prevention projects including thinning, cutting of dense 
underbrush, and prescribed burning.
  The Leahy-Boxer bill would have authorized $1.25 billion for wildfire 
prevention projects on National Forest System lands, $1.25 billion for 
projects on Bureau of Land Management lands, and $2.5 billion for 
projects on tribal, private and State lands. The bill would have 
required that 85 percent of the funds be given to wildfire prevention 
projects within one-half mile of communities that are at risk for 
wildfire, and projects that are necessary to protect a municipal water 
supply system.
  That is the bill I wish we were passing today. We are passing a bill 
that is far weaker, but it is better than the House bill.
  It explicitly authorizes projects that protect at-risk communities, 
watersheds, and lands with insect infestation.
  The bill also provides that 50 percent of the funds authorized for 
wildfire prevention projects be used toward at-risk communities. 
Unfortunately, my amendment to increase this percentage to 70 percent 
failed.
  Of particular significance to California, the bill directs the 
Department of Agriculture to conduct a program encouraging systematic 
information gathering on insect pests that have caused large-scale 
damage to forests, including the bark beetle.
  Also, I am pleased that the Senate passed my amendment requiring the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, to 
monitor the long-term health conditions of firefighters who fought in 
my area declared a Federal disaster.
  I am also pleased the Senate passed my amendment requiring that the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, monitor the emission of hazardous 
pollutants in the air in disaster areas. The provision requires that 
the EPA accomplish this by providing each of its regional offices with 
a mobile air pollution monitoring network, and publish its findings on 
EPA's website daily until the danger has subsided.

[[Page 26622]]

  This bill could have been made better if we had passed several 
amendments that I supported. These included: a Bingaman amendment to 
allow the Forest Service to borrow funds from the General Treasury for 
firefighting once its funds have been expended. Currently, once the 
Forest service depletes its funds, it must borrow from other accounts 
within the Forest Service's budget to pay for firefighting; the Murray 
amendment to ensure old growth trees on all lands are protected; the 
Cantwell amendment to require that in undertaking efforts to prevent 
wildfires, all possible alternatives be considered; and the Harkin 
amendment to sunset the legislation after 5 years, allowing Congress to 
review how well the program is doing.
  Despite the fact that I wanted a stronger bill, I have decided to 
support the bill before us, because, while not perfect, it will help 
make our communities safer.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I intended to offer an 
amendment to H.R. 1904 to establish a permanent revolving fund to 
address the annual problem of funding emergency fire suppression 
needs--a problem that essentially robs funds from the very fuel 
reduction projects H.R. 1904 is designed to promote.
  When I was in Montana this summer, I visited with some of the 
firefighting teams near Glacier National Park. It was absolutely 
amazing to see the organization and coordination that goes into 
fighting these fires. We had folks from Federal, State, and local 
agencies and local volunteer fire departments; local loggers; teams 
from Australia and New Zealand; and private contractors all working 
together to protect lives and property.
  I can't tell you how impressed and overwhelmed I was by the 
dedication and professionalism of the firefighters on the ground. These 
first-rate men and women earned the deep respect and gratitude of the 
residents of many Montana cities and towns, particularly in West 
Glacier. I know that my colleagues saw much the same thing in their 
states, and we are all seeing it now in California.
  But, this extraordinary and superior fire-fighting effort costs 
money--$305 million spent in Montana alone this year to fight the fires 
that blanketed my state. And as is too often the case, the Forest 
Service and Bureau of Land Management were once again strapped for fire 
suppression funds during extreme fire conditions. They had to borrow 
from other program funds to get the job done in Montana and other 
states this summer.
  The Forest Service and Department of Interior borrowed $860 million 
last fiscal year to pay fire suppression costs. While recent 
supplemental funding for the agencies will repay some of these 
accounts, the agencies will still be short $170 million. Some Forest 
Service accounts will not be repaid, including accounts to rehabilitate 
burned areas. This is enormously counterproductive. And, it wastes 
scarce federal resources. This state of affairs cannot continue.
  We have to be smarter about managing this situation in the future. 
Since we can't accurately predict wildfire suppression needs each year 
when we provide for appropriations, we need a special funding strategy 
to account for extreme fire years. The alternative is extreme 
disruption to Forest Service and Interior budgets and day-to-day 
responsibilities, important work deferred or canceled, and jobs lost.
  Senator McCain and I believe we have a responsible solution that is a 
fair, reasoned, and balanced approach to the problem. It's time we all 
faced up to our responsibilities to provide adequate and stable funding 
to the Forest Service and Interior for fire suppression efforts, while 
ensuring minimal disruption to their current programs and projects and 
encouraging these agencies to keep their costs under control.
  However, Senator McCain and I will not offer our amendment because 
Senator Craig and others have agreed to work with us, and with Senator 
Bingaman, to find a solution to this problem as soon as possible. I 
would like to see H.R. 1904 pass quickly, and I have no interest in 
delay. I appreciate Senator Craig's recognition of the problem and 
commitment to address it.
  Mr. McCAIN. I commend Senator Bingaman for his thorough analysis of 
the budgetary impediments to effective federal action to protect 
communities and our public forest lands from catastrophic wildfire. I 
am in agreement with many of the points that he makes because of what I 
have learned from numerous people in Arizona who have extensive hands-
on experience with forest management and wildfire issues.
  With the compromise reached on Title I of 1904, we struggled to find 
common ground in our understanding of the nature of the problem in each 
of our states. However, the budget issues and inadequacy of funding 
that Senator Bingaman has discussed has not been addressed in this 
legislation. The practice of borrowing program funds to fight wildfires 
will continue to undermine our efforts to increase protection of 
communities in the wildland-urban interface and enhance forest health 
on at-risk public lands.
  Everyone involved in these endeavors at the federal, state, and local 
levels agrees that bankrupting essential program activities until they 
can be replenished at a later time with a supplemental is self-
defeating. There is no disagreement on this score, it's simply a matter 
of putting the right funding mechanism in place to accomplish the 
objective of preserving the integrity of the forest land management 
agencies' programs.
  It is my understanding that Senator Craig and Senator Bingaman have 
come to an agreement that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee will carefully consider this issue early next year. I look 
forward to following these proceedings to develop effective measures to 
ensure that the federal agencies have adequate resources to maintain 
essential program activities as well as fighting wildfires that occur 
with increasing frequency. I thank my colleagues for their commitment 
to addressing this widely recognized budgeting problem to allow our 
mutual community protection and forest restoration objectives to be 
achieved.
  Mr. CRAIG. As I told Senator Bingaman, I agree that this is a serious 
issue and I have been working hard on resolving the problem myself. I 
appreciate the concerns of Senator Baucus and McCain and thank them for 
not offering their amendment. This issue will be my top priority once 
we finish the healthy forests bill. I pledge to work with Senator 
Baucus, Senator McCain and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of all the 
relevant committees to find a workable solution.
  Mr. BURNS. I join my colleagues in noting the magnitude and urgency 
of this issue. As chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, 
which funds wildland firefighting, I know firsthand how disruptive this 
borrowing cycle can be on federal agencies. Public lands states like my 
home State of Montana are at risk for both ends of the fire disaster 
when accounts are not repaid quickly. As we work toward a solution, I 
believe it is important that we work with the Administration and the 
relevant Congressional Committees such as the Budget Committee. We 
should also address the very real concern that firefighting costs 
continue to escalate year after year. Congress needs to better 
understand why costs per acre continue to rise and how we can reverse 
that cycle. Efforts by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council and their 
current review of firefighting costs can help us with this challenge 
and we can use their knowledge as a foundation for our future policy 
decisions.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I agree with the chairman of the Interior 
appropriations subcommittee, Senator Burns, that this yearly problem of 
borrowing and paying back must be addressed. Those discussions need to 
include the relevant authorizing committees, the Budget Committee, and, 
of sources, the Appropriations Committee. As the Ranking Member of the 
Interior subcommittee, I would be pleased to work with my colleagues 
any way that I can.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank all of my colleagues for their commitment to this 
issue.

[[Page 26623]]


  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank all Senators who worked hard to 
put this bill together. They have all been mentioned by each other a 
number of times. I am grateful for everybody's contribution to this 
effort. It has truly been a joint effort on both sides of the aisle, 
across committee lines, across regional lines, and for that I am very 
grateful. I think we can all be proud of the work the Senate has done 
this evening.
  I also have to mention the work of our staff members. Our great staff 
includes Hunt Shipman, who is staff director in the Agriculture 
Committee, and the following staff members who worked hard on this 
project: Lance Kotschwar, West Higginbotham, Doug MacCleery, Graham 
Harper, Dave Johnson, as well as the staff of the Senate Energy 
Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Domenici.
  I hope all Senators will support the final passage of the bill.
  I ask for third reading of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is agreeing to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The committee amendment was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
committee amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final 
passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) is absent 
attending a family funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 428 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

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

                                NAYS--14

     Bayh
     Biden
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Schumer

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Edwards
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Nelson (NE)
     Shelby
  The bill (H.R. 1904), as amended, was passed.
  The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was 
passed.
  Mr. CRAPO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment to the title 
is agreed to.
  The title was amended 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.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________