[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12198-12237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 239, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 1904) to improve the capacity of the Secretary of 
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and conduct 
hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands and 
Bureau of Land Management lands aimed at protecting communities, 
watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, 
to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest 
and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the 
landscape, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Pursuant to House Resolution 
239, the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 1904 is as follows:

                               H.R. 1904

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

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

          TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

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

                           TITLE II--BIOMASS

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

                TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

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

                     TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS

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

                TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

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

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

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

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is--
       (1) to reduce the risks of damage to communities, municipal 
     water supplies, and some at-risk Federal lands from 
     catastrophic wildfires;
       (2) to authorize grant programs to improve the commercial 
     value of forest biomass for

[[Page 12199]]

     electric energy, useful heat, transportation fuels, 
     petroleum-based product substitutes and other commercial 
     purposes;
       (3) to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address 
     threats to forest and rangeland health, including 
     catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape;
       (4) to promote systematic information gathering to address 
     the impact of insect infestations on forest and rangeland 
     health;
       (5) to improve the capacity to detect insect and disease 
     infestations at an early stage, particularly with respect to 
     hardwood forests; and
       (6) to protect, restore, and enhance degraded forest 
     ecosystem types in order to promote the recovery of 
     threatened and endangered species as well as improve 
     biological diversity and enhance carbon sequestration.

          TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

     SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

       (a) Authorized Projects.--Subject to the remainder of this 
     section, the Secretary concerned may utilize the process 
     authorized by section 104 to plan and conduct hazardous fuels 
     reduction projects on any of the following Federal lands:
       (1) Federal lands located in an interface community or 
     intermix community.
       (2) Federal lands located in such proximity to an interface 
     community or intermix community that there is a significant 
     risk that the spread of a fire disturbance event from those 
     lands would threaten human life and property in the interface 
     community or intermix community.
       (3) Condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal lands 
     located in such proximity to a municipal water supply system 
     or a stream feeding a municipal water supply system that a 
     significant risk exists that a fire disturbance event would 
     have adverse effects on the water quality of the municipal 
     water supply, including the risk to water quality posed by 
     erosion following such a fire disturbance event.
       (4) Condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal lands 
     identified by the Secretary concerned as an area where 
     windthrow or blowdown, or the existence or threat of disease 
     or insect infestation, pose a significant threat to forest or 
     rangeland health or adjacent private lands.
       (5) Federal lands not covered by paragraph (1), (2), (3), 
     or (4) that contain threatened and endangered species 
     habitat, but only if--
       (A) natural fire regimes on such lands are identified as 
     being important for, or wildfire is identified as a threat 
     to, an endangered species, a threatened species, or its 
     habitat in a species recovery plan prepared under section 4 
     of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) or in 
     a decision document under such section determining a species 
     to be an endangered species or a threatened species or 
     designating critical habitat;
       (B) the project will provide enhanced protection from 
     catastrophic wildfire for the species or its habitat; and
       (C) the Secretary complies with any applicable guidelines 
     specified in the species recovery plan prepared under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
       (b) Relation to Agency Plans.--An authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project shall be planned and conducted in a 
     manner consistent with the land and resource management plan 
     or land use plan applicable to the Federal lands covered by 
     the project.
       (c) Acreage Limitation.--Not more than a total of 
     20,000,000 acres of Federal lands may be included in 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
       (d) Tree Removal Limitation.--The Secretary concerned, in 
     the sole discretion of the Secretary concerned, shall plan 
     and conduct an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project 
     so as to maintain species composition, size class 
     distribution, and density of trees, including old and large 
     trees appropriate for each ecosystem type covered by the 
     project, consistent with the purposes of this title.
       (e) Exclusion of Certain Federal Lands.--The Secretary 
     concerned may not plan or conduct an authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project that would occur on any of the 
     following Federal lands:
       (1) A component of the National Wilderness Preservation 
     System.
       (2) Federal lands where, by Act of Congress or Presidential 
     proclamation, the removal of vegetation is prohibited or 
     restricted.
       (3) Wilderness Study Areas.
       (f) Protection of Roadless Areas.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not construct any new permanent road in any 
     Inventoried Roadless Area as part of any authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project.

     SEC. 103. PRIORITIZATION FOR COMMUNITIES AND WATERSHEDS.

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

     SEC. 104. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     title, the Secretary concerned shall plan and conduct 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects in accordance 
     with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4331 et seq.) and any other applicable laws.
       (b) Discretionary Authority To Eliminate Alternatives.--In 
     the case of an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, 
     the Secretary concerned is not required to study, develop, or 
     describe any alternative to the proposed agency action in the 
     environmental assessment or environmental impact statement 
     prepared for the proposed agency action pursuant to section 
     102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4332(2)).

[[Page 12200]]

       (c) Public Notice and Meeting.--
       (1) Public notice.--The Secretary concerned shall provide 
     notice of each authorized hazardous fuels reduction project 
     in accordance with applicable regulations and administrative 
     guidelines.
       (2) Public meeting.--During the planning stage of each 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, the Secretary 
     concerned shall conduct a public meeting at an appropriate 
     location proximate to the administrative unit of the Federal 
     lands in which the authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     project will be conducted. The Secretary concerned shall 
     provide advance notice of the date and time of the meeting.
       (d) Public Collaboration.--In order to encourage meaningful 
     public participation in the identification and development of 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects, the Secretary 
     concerned shall facilitate collaboration among governments 
     and interested persons during the formulation of each 
     authorized fuels reduction project in a manner consistent 
     with the Implementation Plan.
       (e) Environmental Analysis and Public Comment.--In 
     accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) and the applicable 
     regulations and administrative guidelines in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned 
     shall provide an opportunity for public input during the 
     preparation of any environmental assessment or environmental 
     impact statement for proposed agency action for an authorized 
     hazardous fuels reduction project.
       (f) Decision Document.--The Secretary concerned shall sign 
     a decision document for each authorized hazardous fuels 
     reduction project and provide notice of the decision 
     document.
       (g) Project Monitoring.--As provided for in the 
     Implementation Plan, the Secretary concerned shall monitor 
     the implementation of authorized hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects.

     SEC. 105. SPECIAL FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 
                   PROCESS.

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

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

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

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

       If an action brought against the Secretary concerned under 
     section 703 of title 5, United States Code, involves an 
     agency action on Federal lands in which the Secretary 
     concerned found that the agency action is necessary to 
     restore a fire-adapted forest or rangeland ecosystem, 
     including an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, 
     the court reviewing the agency action, in considering a 
     request for a prohibitory or mandatory injunction against the 
     agency action, shall--
       (1) consider the public interest in avoiding long-term harm 
     to the ecosystem; and
       (2) give deference to any agency finding, based upon 
     information in the administrative record, that the balance of 
     harm and the public interest in avoiding the short-term 
     effects of the agency action is outweighed by the public 
     interest in avoiding long-term harm to the ecosystem.

     SEC. 108. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

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

                           TITLE II--BIOMASS

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

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

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Biomass.--The term ``biomass'' means trees and woody 
     plants, including limbs, tops, needles, and other woody 
     parts, and by-products of preventive treatment, such as wood, 
     brush, thinnings, chips, and slash, that are removed--

[[Page 12201]]

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

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

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

     SEC. 204. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

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

                TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

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

     SEC. 302. ESTABLISHMENT OF WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM.

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

     ``SEC. 6. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) General Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Forest Service, may provide technical, financial, 
     and related assistance to State foresters and equivalent 
     State officials for the purpose of expanding State forest 
     stewardship capacities and activities through State forestry 
     best-management practices and other means at the State level 
     to address watershed issues on non-Federal forested lands and 
     potentially forested lands.
       ``(b) Technical Assistance To Protect Water Quality.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with State 
     foresters or equivalent State officials, shall engage 
     interested members of the public, including nonprofit 
     organizations and local watershed councils, to develop a 
     program of technical assistance to protect water quality, as 
     described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Purpose of program.--The program under this 
     subsection shall be designed--
       ``(A) to build and strengthen watershed partnerships that 
     focus on forested landscapes at the local, State, and 
     regional levels;
       ``(B) to provide State forestry best-management practices 
     and water quality technical assistance directly to 
     nonindustrial private forest landowners;
       ``(C) to provide technical guidance to land managers and 
     policy makers for water quality protection through forest 
     management;
       ``(D) to complement State and local efforts to protect 
     water quality and provide enhanced opportunities for 
     consultation and cooperation among Federal and State agencies 
     charged with responsibility for water and watershed 
     management;
       ``(E) to provide enhanced forest resource data and support 
     for improved implementation and monitoring of State forestry 
     best-management practices.
       ``(3) Implementation.--The program of technical assistance 
     shall be implemented by State foresters or equivalent State 
     officials.
       ``(c) Watershed Forestry Cost-Share Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     watershed forestry cost-share program to be administered by 
     the Forest Service and implemented by State foresters or 
     equivalent State officials. Funds or other support provided 
     under such program shall be made available for State forestry 
     best-management practices programs and watershed forestry 
     projects.
       ``(2) Watershed forestry projects.--The State forester or 
     equivalent State official of a State, in coordination with 
     the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee 
     established under section 19(b) for that State, shall 
     annually make awards to communities, nonprofit groups, and 
     nonindustrial private forest landowners under the program for 
     watershed forestry projects described in paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Project elements and objectives.--A watershed 
     forestry project shall accomplish

[[Page 12202]]

     critical forest stewardship, watershed protection, and 
     restoration needs within a State by demonstrating the value 
     of trees and forests to watershed health and condition 
     through--
       ``(A) the use of trees as solutions to water quality 
     problems in urban and rural areas;
       ``(B) community-based planning, involvement, and action 
     through State, local and nonprofit partnerships;
       ``(C) application of and dissemination of monitoring 
     information on forestry best-management practices relating to 
     watershed forestry;
       ``(D) watershed-scale forest management activities and 
     conservation planning; and
       ``(E) the restoration of wetland (as defined by the States) 
     and stream-side forests and the establishment of riparian 
     vegetative buffers.
       ``(4) Cost-sharing.--Funds provided under this subsection 
     for a watershed forestry project may not exceed 75 percent of 
     the cost of the project. Other Federal funding sources may be 
     used to cover a portion of the remaining project costs, but 
     the total Federal share of the costs may not exceed 90 
     percent. The non-Federal share of the costs of a project may 
     be in the form of cash, services, or other in-kind 
     contributions.
       ``(5) Prioritization.--The State Forest Stewardship 
     Coordinating Committee for a State shall prioritize 
     watersheds in that State to target watershed forestry 
     projects funded under this subsection.
       ``(6) Watershed forester.--Financial and technical 
     assistance shall be made available to the State Forester or 
     equivalent State official to create a State best-management 
     practice forester to lead statewide programs and coordinate 
     small watershed-level projects.
       ``(d) Distribution.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall devote at least 75 
     percent of the funds appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant 
     to the authorization of appropriations in subsection (e) to 
     the cost-share program under subsection (c) and the remainder 
     to the task of delivering technical assistance, education, 
     and planning on the ground through the State Forester or 
     equivalent State official.
       ``(2) Special considerations.--Distribution of these funds 
     by the Secretary among the States shall be made only after 
     giving appropriate consideration to--
       ``(A) the acres of nonindustrial private forestland and 
     highly erodible land in each State;
       ``(B) each State's efforts to conserve forests;
       ``(C) the acres of forests in each State that have been 
     lost or degraded or where forests can play a role in 
     restoring watersheds; and
       ``(D) the number of nonindustrial private forest landowners 
     in each State.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008.''.

                     TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS

     SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE.

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

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

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

[[Page 12203]]



     SEC. 403. APPLIED SILVICULTURAL ASSESSMENTS.

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

     SEC. 404. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

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

     SEC. 405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

                TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

     SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM.

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

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

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

     SEC. 503. CONSERVATION PLANS.

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

     SEC. 504. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

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

     SEC. 505. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

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

     SEC. 506. SAFE HARBOR.

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

     SEC. 507. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

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

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall carry 
     out a comprehensive program to inventory, monitor, 
     characterize, assess, and identify forest stands (with 
     emphasis on hardwood forest stands) and potential forest 
     stands--
       (1) in units of the National Forest System (other than 
     those units created from the public domain); and
       (2) on private forest land, with the consent of the owner 
     of the land.
       (b) Issues To Be Addressed.--In carrying out the program, 
     the Secretary shall address issues including--

[[Page 12204]]

       (1) early detection, identification, and assessment of 
     environmental threats (including insect, disease, invasive 
     species, fire, and weather-related risks and other episodic 
     events);
       (2) loss or degradation of forests;
       (3) degradation of the quality forest stands caused by 
     inadequate forest regeneration practices;
       (4) quantification of carbon uptake rates; and
       (5) management practices that focus on preventing further 
     forest degradation.
       (c) Early Warning System.--In carrying out the program, the 
     Secretary shall develop a comprehensive early warning system 
     for potential catastrophic environmental threats to forests 
     to increase the likelihood that forest managers will be able 
     to--
       (1) isolate and treat a threat before the threat gets out 
     of control; and
       (2) prevent epidemics, such as the American chestnut blight 
     in the first half of the twentieth century, that could be 
     environmentally and economically devastating to forests.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in part A of House 
Report 108-109 is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 1904, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1904

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

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

          TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

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

                           TITLE II--BIOMASS

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

                TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

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

                     TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS

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

                TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

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

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

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

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

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

          TITLE I--HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

     SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

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

[[Page 12205]]

     the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

     SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

       (a) Authorized Projects.--Subject to the remainder of this 
     section, the Secretary concerned may utilize the process 
     authorized by section 104 to plan and conduct hazardous fuels 
     reduction projects on any of the following Federal lands:
       (1) Federal lands located in an interface community or 
     intermix community.
       (2) Federal lands located in such proximity to an interface 
     community or intermix community that there is a significant 
     risk that the spread of a fire disturbance event from those 
     lands would threaten human life and property in the interface 
     community or intermix community.
       (3) Condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal lands 
     located in such proximity to a municipal water supply system, 
     or to a perennial stream feeding a municipal water supply 
     system, that a significant risk exists that a fire 
     disturbance event would have adverse effects on the water 
     quality of the municipal water supply, including the risk to 
     water quality posed by erosion following such a fire 
     disturbance event.
       (4) Condition class 3 or condition class 2 Federal lands 
     identified by the Secretary concerned as an area where 
     windthrow or blowdown, or the existence or threat of disease 
     or insect infestation, pose a significant threat to forest or 
     rangeland health or adjacent private lands.
       (5) Federal lands not covered by paragraph (1), (2), (3), 
     or (4) that contain threatened and endangered species 
     habitat, but only if--
       (A) natural fire regimes on such lands are identified as 
     being important for, or wildfire is identified as a threat 
     to, an endangered species, a threatened species, or its 
     habitat in a species recovery plan prepared under section 4 
     of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) or in 
     a decision document under such section determining a species 
     to be an endangered species or a threatened species or 
     designating critical habitat;
       (B) the project will provide enhanced protection from 
     catastrophic wildfire for the species or its habitat; and
       (C) the Secretary complies with any applicable guidelines 
     specified in the species recovery plan prepared under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
       (b) Relation to Agency Plans.--An authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project shall be planned and conducted in a 
     manner consistent with the land and resource management plan 
     or land use plan applicable to the Federal lands covered by 
     the project.
       (c) Acreage Limitation.--Not more than a total of 
     20,000,000 acres of Federal lands may be included in 
     authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.
       (d) Exclusion of Certain Federal Lands.--The Secretary 
     concerned may not plan or conduct an authorized hazardous 
     fuels reduction project that would occur on any of the 
     following Federal lands:
       (1) A component of the National Wilderness Preservation 
     System.
       (2) Federal lands where, by Act of Congress or Presidential 
     proclamation, the removal of vegetation is prohibited or 
     restricted.
       (3) Wilderness Study Areas.

     SEC. 103. PRIORITIZATION FOR COMMUNITIES AND WATERSHEDS.

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

     SEC. 104. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

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

     SEC. 105. SPECIAL FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 
                   PROCESS.

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

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

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

[[Page 12206]]

     days from the date the complaint or appeal is filed.

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

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

     SEC. 108. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

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

                           TITLE II--BIOMASS

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

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

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

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

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

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

     SEC. 204. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

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

[[Page 12207]]



                TITLE III--WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

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

     SEC. 302. ESTABLISHMENT OF WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM.

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

     ``SEC. 6. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE.

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

                     TITLE IV--INSECT INFESTATIONS

     SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this title:
       (1) Applied silvicultural assessment.--The term ``applied 
     silvicultural assessment'' means any vegetative or other 
     treatment, for the purposes described in section 402, 
     including timber harvest, thinning, prescribed burning, and 
     pruning, as single treatment or any combination of these 
     treatments.
       (2) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means--
       (A) National Forest System lands; and
       (B) public lands administered by the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management.
       (3) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
     means--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest 
     Service, with respect to National Forest System lands; and
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
     appropriate offices of the United States Geological Survey, 
     with respect to federally owned land administered by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (4) 1890 institutions.--The term ``1890 Institution'' means 
     a college or university eligible to receive funds under the 
     Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), including 
     Tuskegee University.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) High levels of tree mortality due to insect infestation 
     result in--
       (A) increased fire risk;
       (B) loss of old growth;
       (C) loss of threatened and endangered species;
       (D) loss of species diversity;
       (E) degraded watershed conditions;
       (F) increased potential for damage from other agents of 
     disturbance, including exotic, invasive species; and
       (G) decreased timber values.
       (2) Bark beetles destroy hundreds of thousands of acres of 
     trees each year. In the West, over 21,000,000 acres are at 
     high risk of bark beetle infestation and in the South over 
     57,000,000 acres are at risk across all land ownerships. 
     Severe drought conditions in many areas of the South and West 
     will increase risk of bark beetle infestations.

[[Page 12208]]

       (3) The hemlock woolly adelgid is destroying streamside 
     forests throughout the mid-Atlantic and Appalachian region, 
     threatening water quality and sensitive aquatic species, and 
     posing a potential threat to valuable commercial timber lands 
     in Northern New England.
       (4) The emerald ash borer is a nonnative, invasive pest 
     that has quickly become a major threat to hardwood forests as 
     a emerald ash borer infestation is almost always fatal to the 
     affected trees. This pest threatens to destroy over 
     692,000,000 ash trees in forests in Michigan and Ohio alone, 
     and between five and ten percent of urban street trees in the 
     Upper Midwest.
       (5) Epidemic populations of Southern pine beetle are 
     ravaging forests in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 
     Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
     Tennessee, and Virginia. In 2001, Florida and Kentucky 
     experienced 146 percent and 111 percent increases, 
     respectively, in beetle populations.
       (6) These epidemic outbreaks of Southern pine beetle have 
     forced private landowners to harvest dead and dying trees, in 
     both rural areas and increasingly urbanized settings.
       (7) According to the Forest Service, recent outbreaks of 
     the red oak borer in Arkansas have been unprecedented, with 
     almost 800,000 acres infested at population levels never seen 
     before.
       (8) Much of the damage from the red oak borer has taken 
     place in National forests, and the Federal response has been 
     inadequate to protect forest ecosystems and other ecological 
     and economic resources.
       (9) Previous silvicultural assessments, while useful and 
     informative, have been limited in scale and scope of 
     application, and there has not been sufficient resources 
     available to adequately test a full array of individual and 
     combined applied silvicultural assessments.
       (10) Only through the rigorous funding, development, and 
     assessment of potential applied silvicultural assessments 
     over specific time frames across an array of environmental 
     and climatic conditions can the most innovative and cost 
     effective management applications be determined that will 
     help reduce the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to attack 
     by forest pests.
       (11) Funding and implementation of an initiative to combat 
     forest pest infestations should not come at the expense of 
     supporting other programs and initiatives of the Secretary 
     concerned.
       (c) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title--
       (1) to require the Secretary concerned to develop an 
     accelerated basic and applied assessment program to combat 
     infestations by bark beetles, including Southern pine 
     beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak 
     borers, and white oak borers;
       (2) to enlist the assistance of universities and forestry 
     schools, including Land Grant Colleges and Universities and 
     1890 Institutions, to carry out the program; and
       (3) to carry out applied silvicultural assessments.

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

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

     SEC. 403. APPLIED SILVICULTURAL ASSESSMENTS.

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

     SEC. 404. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

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

     SEC. 405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

                TITLE V--HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

     SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM.

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

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

       (a) Eligible Lands.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall 
     designate rare forest ecosystems to be eligible for the 
     healthy forests reserve program. The following lands are 
     eligible for enrollment in the healthy forests reserve 
     program:
       (1) Private lands whose enrollment will protect, restore, 
     enhance, or otherwise measurably increase the likelihood of 
     recovery of an endangered species or threatened species in 
     the wild.
       (2) Private lands whose enrollment will protect, restore, 
     enhance, or otherwise measurably increase the likelihood of 
     the recovery of an animal or plant species before the species 
     reaches threatened or endangered status, such as candidate, 
     State-listed species, rare, peripheral, and special concern 
     species.
       (b) Other Considerations.--In enrolling lands that satisfy 
     the criteria in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall give additional consideration 
     to those lands whose enrollment will also improve biological 
     diversity and increase carbon sequestration.
       (c) Enrollment by Willing Owners.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall enroll lands in the healthy forests reserve 
     program only with the consent of the owner of the lands.
       (d) Maximum Enrollment.--The total number of acres enrolled 
     in the healthy forests reserve program shall not exceed 
     1,000,000 acres.

[[Page 12209]]

       (e) Methods of Enrollment.--Lands may be enrolled in the 
     healthy forests reserve program pursuant to a 10-year cost-
     share agreement, a 30-year easement, or a permanent easement 
     with buyback option. The extent to which each enrollment 
     method is used shall be based on the approximate proportion 
     of owner interest expressed in that method in comparison to 
     the other methods.
       (f) Enrollment Priority.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall give priority to the enrollment of lands that, in the 
     sole discretion of the Secretary, will provide the best 
     opportunity to resolve conflicts between the presence of an 
     animal or plant species referred to in paragraph (1) or (2) 
     of subsection (a) and otherwise lawful land use activities.

     SEC. 503. CONSERVATION PLANS.

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

     SEC. 504. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

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

     SEC. 505. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

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

     SEC. 506. SAFE HARBOR.

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

     SEC. 507. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

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

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed 
in part B of the report, if offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller), or his designee, which shall be considered read, 
and shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each will control 15 minutes, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) each will control 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) each 
will control 5 minutes of debate on the bill, as amended.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1904, the Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act of 2003. This bipartisan legislation has 
undergone remarkable scrutiny and in fact is a rather modest response 
compared to the magnitude of the forest health crisis confronting this 
Nation. Over 190 million acres of public lands are at risk to damage 
from insects, disease and catastrophic wildfire. By that we mean if you 
have forests in your district or your constituents benefit from a 
forest either by receiving clean water from a forested watershed or 
they go hiking in a national forest on weekends, you need to support 
this bipartisan bill.
  By catastrophic wildfire, we do not mean natural wildfires that burn 
across the ground and take out the brush. We mean the kind of fire that 
consumes the entire forest, shoots flames into the air hundreds of feet 
and takes out entire, huge trees.
  We are proposing to treat less than one in six of the acres on 
Federal lands using the streamlined procedures authorized in the 
underlying bill. This is not a massive logging bill. This is perhaps an 
under action to the magnitude of the problem we have on our public 
lands.
  Why are we doing this? Because these forest health problems are 
national in scope and because what is at stake here is far more than 
the loss of wood fiber.
  Here is a map showing what is known as ``condition classes'' of 
forest and rangeland across the United States. As Members can see, 
while a good portion of the problem is in the western United States, 
there is also a lot of land in the eastern United States that is at 
risk to fire, insects and disease. Seventy-five percent of the National 
Forest land in Alabama is in condition class 2 or 3, the yellow and red 
we see here. Almost 1 million acres in Arkansas is in condition class 2 
or 3; 730,000 acres in Illinois; half a million acres in Indiana; 2.1 
million in Michigan; 4.2 million acres, all of this bright red, in 
Minnesota; 2.3 million in Missouri; nearly half a million in New 
Hampshire; almost a million in North Carolina; and nearly

[[Page 12210]]

three-quarters of a million acres in Pennsylvania.
  In those States alone, that roughly adds up to almost 12.5 million 
acres of land in the eastern United States. There are several other 
States in the East that have problems at least that severe. This bill 
will allow the Forest Service to reach out and treat only a fraction of 
this acreage using expedited procedures. I would hope my colleagues in 
the East would want to support this bill in order to protect their 
forests.
  In addition, I support H.R. 1904 because it takes a comprehensive 
approach to water quality. If we do not get ahead of these catastrophic 
fires, this is what we will be left with on millions of acres of 
precious watersheds. If this hillside had been thinned and a normal 
healthy forest restored, a creeping fire through here would have done 
little damage. Instead, a catastrophic fire has created a dead hillside 
that cannot absorb water.
  Here the intense heat of a catastrophic fire effectively turns the 
topsoil to glass and prevents percolation into the water table. A heavy 
rain event on a fire site like this will create massive flooding and 
transport large amounts of ash and soil into nearby streams, 
contaminating water for wildlife and downstream drinking water 
supplies.
  Some suggest we should not do any hazardous fuels reduction projects 
outside the wildland-urban interface, that we leave watersheds and 
recreational lands to whatever situation fate has in store for them. 
This is the fate that the situation has in store for them; and if this 
is allowed to occur in the interior of our forests and then approaches 
the urban interface, nothing that is done will stop this from taking 
all of that land as well if it is allowed to get to this magnitude as 
it approaches that barrier. If this stand had been actively managed, a 
fire here would have done far less damage. That would make it a better 
place for everyone, better wildlife habitat, better recreation area, 
better watershed, better air quality and certainly a heck of a lot 
prettier. Sitting back and hoping for the best is not the way to get 
healthy forests.
  Some have suggested that we spend almost all of our efforts and funds 
within a few hundred yards of inhabited areas. This is an illusion, and 
it is irresponsible. We cannot protect communities by doing all of the 
work near their boundaries. Fires over the last several years have 
raced miles and leaped as much as 2 miles away from the main fire, 
crossing huge firebreaks like interstate highways to burn hundreds of 
homes.
  Sitting back, hoping for the best and letting existing bureaucratic 
processes continue to founder is not fiscally responsible. Last year, 
the Federal Government spent $1.6 billion fighting catastrophic fires. 
States spent hundreds of millions as well. We need to recognize that 
these huge expenditures are a land management problem. While we need to 
continue fighting fires, we need to be smarter and make investments in 
active land management in order to ultimately reduce these exorbitant 
firefighting costs.
  We have listened to people from all over the country in putting this 
bill together. In addition to the remedial hazardous fuels reduction 
projects, the legislation now contains authorization to assess and 
attack the problem of major insect infestation that are threatening 
public and private forestland all over the country. We have added 
provisions to create cooperative watershed protection programs on 
private forestlands and a healthy forest reserve program to ensure 
continued healthy management of private forestland.
  As we came to the floor, we made adjustments in the bill to clarify 
the modest goals of hazardous fuels reduction. The bill now clarifies 
that there will be public notice and comment on all projects and, when 
projects are judicially appealed, the government will carry the burden 
of proof on the merits of the project. We will now require that all 
insect assessment projects receive outside peer review. We have 
clarified that the contentious debates over endangered species, 
roadless areas and old-growth policy are not a part of this modest 
bill.
  Lastly, I want to point out that there is a truly impressive 
coalition of groups supporting this legislation. Labor unions, local 
conservation districts, county governments, professional land managers, 
volunteer firefighters and State officials have all come out in strong 
support of the underlying legislation. We have over 130 cosponsors of 
this bill, and it has been reviewed and overwhelmingly approved by 
three committees of the House.
  As we speak, this year's fire season is getting under way. The 
experts at the National Interagency Fire Center expect much of the 
interior West, south/central Alaska, portions of California, western 
Great Lakes States and northern Maine to experience an above-normal 
fire season. Please join me and your colleagues from across the country 
in support of beginning to take steps to protect our natural resources 
for the benefit of our children and grandchildren who will wonder if we 
fail to act why we did not take the obvious steps we needed to take to 
conserve our forests. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I recently met with tribal chairmen/representatives from 
the tribes in Arizona with timber interests, the Inter-Tribal Council 
of Arizona. They had come to thank me for cosponsoring the Healthy 
Forests Act and to let me know that they supported the legislation and 
hoped for its passage. Unfortunately, for several of these tribes, they 
are already facing the devastating impacts of forest fires and insect 
infestation, two results that the Healthy Forests Initiative is meant 
to help prevent.
  The chairman of the White Mountain Apaches recounted for me the mass 
destruction that the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire of 2002 had on the forest 
resources of the Fort Apache Indian reservation. This fire raged across 
the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and the Fort Apache Indian 
reservation, burning some 469,000 acres. It grew to 15 acres in the 
first 13 minutes of its life and continued to expand at a rate of 1\1/
4\ acres a minute.
  Timber harvesting and processing was the main industry of the White 
Mountain Apache tribe, and it will be years before the jobs and income 
generated by that industry will be seen again. Even their burial 
grounds and the graves of their ancestors are in danger as a result of 
the environmental damage from the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire.
  The bark beetle has decimated the forest resources of several of the 
other tribes, with the San Carlos Apache tribe having lost 40 percent 
of their forest due to the damage of this pest.
  The question before us today is whether we are willing to learn from 
our mistaken belief that the best way to protect our forests is to 
leave them alone.
  We made a decision a long time ago to manage our forests. Having made 
that decision, we now have a responsibility to manage them using the 
best science we have available.
  Well-managed forests can withstand fire. In fact, forests that have 
been preventively treated to reduce hazardous fuel loads can benefit 
from periodic fires. These fires create forest openings for new growth, 
provide a variety of wildlife habitat and reduce fuel buildup.
  The bill before us today will help us improve management of our 
forests in several important ways. The bill authorizes expedited 
approval of forest thinning and cleanup projects on 20 million acres of 
Federal lands. It authorizes applied silvicultural assessments on 
1,000-acre plots to test treatments for insect and disease 
infestations. It provides grants for biomass energy production from the 
debris produced by the projects. And it establishes a new conservation 
easement system to protect ecologically important forests on private 
lands.

                              {time}  1330

  The cumulative effect of these changes will be healthier forests that 
are less likely to produce the catastrophic wildfires that have 
destroyed

[[Page 12211]]

millions of acres of private and public forests in recent years. These 
catastrophic fires burn hotter, spread faster, and cause long-term, 
severe environmental damage, sometimes even sterilizing the soil.
  Last year, 23 firefighters lost their lives fighting wildfires; and 
taxpayers spent about $1.5 billion to contain record-setting fires. In 
the rural communities nearest to forests, tens of thousands of people 
were evacuated from their homes, thousands of structures were 
destroyed, and tourist-dependent economies suffered significant 
financial losses.
  Let us untie the hands of our forest managers and let them begin 
using the management practices that are best suited to prevent the 
wildfires that have already taken so much from us. I urge my colleagues 
to support H.R. 1904 and oppose the substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden), one of the original authors of the bill.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to first acknowledge the 
comments of my colleague from Texas and appreciate his great leadership 
on this effort and his support of this bill. This legislation has 17 
Democrat co-sponsors. We have 137 overall filed on the bill. Three of 
those Democrat co-sponsors are the ranking members of their committees. 
And I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for his leadership 
on this issue.
  Let us talk about what this bill does.
  This is land that was on fire at Squires Peak last year, 2002. This 
is in a treated area that is burning right now. This is where the 
Forest Service workers have gone in and done the treatments we are 
advocating in this bill.
  Here is the aftermath. We can see the trees are green, some of the 
brush, but otherwise the forest is in pretty good health.
  This is the fire burning the same location but just over the hill a 
bit from where the first photo was. This is a place where it had not 
been treated. See the severity of the fire, the density of the stands. 
This is what it looks like when that fire is finished, enormous 
catastrophic fire. In fact, there are still some trees burning there. 
Dense stands, black timber, scorched ground, sterilized soil, ruined 
habitat.
  Here we see a pine beetle infestation in the Nez Perce National 
Forest. This is what we are trying to figure out the best way to treat. 
How do we get in there and deal with the forests like that and get the 
disease and the bug infestations out? This is the Tanner Gulch fire. It 
occurred in 1989. What is important about this, this was in my 
district. It is in the Wallowa-Whitman, and it wiped out a spring 
Chinook salmon run. We can see the burned trees, the destroyed 
hillsides and all the mud and all going down that stream. We ruined 
that habitat. These are unhealthy forests. The Moose Creek fire in 
Montana destroyed more timber on the Flathead National Forest than has 
ever been harvested on that Forest.
  Human consequences of these kinds of fires, we lost 23 men and women 
last year fighting these fires or going to fight them. The American 
taxpayer spent $1.5 billion on 2002's record blazes.
  So who supports this legislation? The professional biologists, the 
professional silviculturists, the Society of American Foresters, the 
National Association of State Foresters, the Western Forestry 
Leadership Council.
  Let me tell my colleagues what the Society of American Foresters said 
in their letter dated May 29 of this year: ``Serious problems of insect 
and disease outbreaks, catastrophic wildfire, and invasive species are 
reducing the health of forests across the country. Professional forest 
managers need to be able to act now to address these issues and the 
ecological, social, and economic conditions associated with them.''
  The Society of American Foresters endorsing the underlying bill, 
1904.
  Finally, let us make the point, because there is a lot of 
misinformation out there, the provisions of this legislation do not 
touch national parks. They do not touch national wildlife refuges, 
wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, national monuments, or 
inventoried roadless areas. None of those areas fall under the precepts 
of this bill.
  I urge passage of H.R. 1904 and urge rejection of the Miller-DeFazio 
substitute.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the pending legislation. Others 
will come to the floor to discuss the threat of wildfire to the health 
and general welfare of segments of the American population. Others will 
come to the floor to discuss other elements of this legislation such as 
its provisions concerning insect infestation which threatens some of 
our forests and forest industries.
  These are debatable issues, and the House will be presented with an 
alternative to the pending bill in the form of a substitute that will 
be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), and myself. We are not unmindful of the need to address the 
issues raised by this bill, but in our view we would do so in a more 
prudent and responsible manner.
  There is one pending issue in this legislation, however, which 
transcends the debate over forest fires and forest health: the 
independence of our judiciary and right of Americans to seek redress 
from the courts when they believe they are aggrieved by a governmental 
action. Indeed, the judicial review provisions of this bill would set a 
dangerous precedent for anybody concerned with civil liberties, civil 
rights, workers' rights and any other issue that may come before our 
judiciary.
  Consider this: Under this bill the Courts are told to expedite the 
consideration of any lawsuit involving forest hazardous fuels reduction 
projects. In effect, they are told to give priority consideration to 
these types of lawsuits and render a decision within 100 days of 
filing.
  Terrorist trials, corporate crime cases, civil rights cases, name it, 
those would have to be put on the back burner because this legislation 
says that lawsuits involving cutting trees are the most important types 
of litigation there is before the courts. Incredible. Simply 
incredible. This bill tells the court that litigation involving 
thinning trees is more important than prosecuting suspected al Qaeda 
terrorists. To judge lawsuits over forest thinning projects more 
important than all other civil cases, let alone criminal cases, is 
seriously misguided. To make this policy law is absurd.
  But the violation of our judiciary does not end there. By no means. 
For example, the sponsors of this measure have rigged the system in 
favor of the Federal agencies. The bill sets a brand new standard for 
injunctive relief by mandating that courts must give the greatest 
weight to what a Federal agency determines to be in the public 
interest. In essence, a directive to ignore the basis of appeal brought 
by the plaintiffs in a lawsuit.
  Think about the ramifications of that for a moment. Think about it. 
Think about the precedent we would be setting. In my neck of the woods, 
for example, it would be like telling the families of coal miners who 
died in a mine explosion that if they sued the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration for alleged failure to adequately inspect the mine, when 
they walked into the courthouse, the judge by statute had already been 
ordered to defer to the Federal agency. Basically, to ignore the 
contentions of the aggrieved families.
  Many of us have been here long enough to remember when conservatives 
did not trust the Federal Government, and they did not endorse expanded 
and unchecked Federal powers. These provisions have caused a whole 
group of organizations which have no interest in forest policy to take 
a stand in opposition to this bill. The NAACP, for example, is opposed 
to this bill. In a letter sent to all Members of the House, they state: 
``We urge you to reject H.R. 1904 as it could severely impact the 
ability of our Federal courts

[[Page 12212]]

to issue time decisions in civil rights, workers' rights, and other 
pressing matters, and change the fundamental balance that has been 
struck in our legal system.''
  The effect of these provisions are to unfairly and arbitrarily shut 
the courthouse door on Americans, making the Federal Government far 
less accountable to its citizens. It is unfortunate that the sponsors 
of this bill chose to inject this controversial attack on the 
independence of our judiciary in a measure of this nature. These 
provisions are a poison pill, and they do a disservice to our 
addressing issues such as forest insect infestation and forest fires in 
a prudent and responsible fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want to respond to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). 
This bill, far from closing the courthouse door, opens it wide, makes 
it effective for those who seek redress in the courts to address the 
issue at hand. Right now, under current procedures, individuals who 
want no activity to take place in our forests at all will use our 
judicial system to delay action on our forests for 2, 3 years. If we 
have a forest that is prime for a forest fire because of the fuel 
density that is built up in it or because disease or insects have 
destroyed it, we need to take action promptly. That is what this does.
  In no other area of the law that I know of is one allowed on appeal 
in the judicial process to raise issues that they did not raise at the 
outset, and that is also done commonly by extreme environmental groups 
who wait until the end. This cures that. It opens it up. The public is 
able to participate in the process throughout public comment, in the 
administrative process and in the appeals process, but it gets it done 
in a timely fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Burns).
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, America's forest ecosystems are being 
decimated at an alarming rate by large-scale catastrophic wildfire and 
massive outbreaks of disease, insect infestation, and invasive species. 
In the State of Georgia alone, we have a little over 800,000 acres of 
Federal forest. Last year, 13,000 acres of those trees were infested 
and destroyed by the southern pine beetle. H.R. 1904 combats these 
infestations and assists land managers in reducing the susceptibility 
of forest ecosystems to severe infestations.
  Prior to consideration of this bill in the Committee on Agriculture, 
I consulted Dr. James Sweeney, Interim Dean of the Warnell School of 
Forest Resources at the University of Georgia, and I got his views on 
the state of our forests. He said, ``We need to do a better job of 
prevention, a more efficient job of control, and a bigger effort at 
restoration. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act is a bill that needs 
to be passed.''
  Mr. Speaker, Dr. Sweeney is an expert in forestry. With his 
recommendation and that of the Georgia Forestry Commission and Georgia 
Forestry Association, I support this bill.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, last summer, we all watched 
millions of acres of forestland burn up in wildfires; thousands of 
animals, including threatened and endangered species, killed or 
displaced; and, worst of all, dedicated firefighters losing their lives 
trying to extinguish these out-of-control blazes. These tragedies were 
compounded by the knowledge that these fires were preventable and 
resulted from misguided forest management policies designed with good 
intentions but leading to disastrous results. While the most 
devastating fires occurred in the West, all parts of the country, 
including Georgia and the Southeast, are at risk.
  Moreover, millions of additional acres are destroyed or threatened by 
insect infestations each year, both on private and public forestlands. 
In Georgia, the Southern pine beetle has ravaged many forestlands, and 
in other parts of the South this insect damage is occurring at an 
alarming pace. It threatens to destroy the forests with less fanfare 
than a wildfire but with the same devastating result.
  This needless destruction can be prevented with additional research 
and active forest management. I support H.R. 1904 as a way to move 
towards the prevention of unnecessary forest fires and insect 
infestations. This legislation would assist our public land managers by 
allowing for the reduction of excessive fuels on the forest floors that 
are turning our lands into tinder boxes. It would also assist the 
Forest Service and our land-grant universities and colleges with needed 
research dollars into insect infestations and ways to turn this 
research into practical applications.
  The bill would also help protect other forestlands through the 
Watershed Assistance program, designed to assist landowners in 
protecting critical watershed areas, and the Healthy Forests Reserve 
Program, developed to rehabilitate degraded forest ecosystems through 
the use of conservation plans. It even advances the use of renewable 
fuels by providing grants for the use of biomass for energy production.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, with the help of H.R. 1904, hopefully we will see less 
damage from wildfires and insect infestations in the future. It is time 
to start preventing these massive wildfires, instead of simply reacting 
to them once they have already started burning.
  The legislation is good for Georgia, good for the South, and good for 
the forestlands of America. I urge the passage of this much-needed 
legislation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and ask unanimous consent that 
he control said time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1904. The bill 
before us represents a compromise achieved after arduous and intense 
negotiations which began in earnest last fall. It is certainly not 
everything that I would have wanted, that is the nature of compromise, 
but it is a noteworthy attempt to deal with a very real problem of 
forest fires on lands where fire has been too long suppressed in 
regions that are increasingly populated.
  If used properly, the tools provided in this bill will ease the path 
of projects that are carefully designed to reduce the risk of fire in 
those forests where fire would most threaten lives and homes and water 
supplies. This is not meant to be a bill that increases commercial 
logging or to give the Forest Service carte blanche. The projects 
undertaken through this bill ought to be environmentally sound and 
carefully planned, especially given the remarkably immature nature and 
state of our knowledge of forest ecology and fire management.
  The compromise negotiated with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Goodlatte), the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), the 
gentleman from Colorado (Chairman McGinnis), and the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the White House is designed to help ensure that 
the vision of this bill that I just outlined is actually the one that 
comes to pass.
  Let me describe some of the key elements of the compromise. Most 
important, the compromise rewrites section 107 to ensure that courts 
still have the latitude they need when they consider whether to grant 
injunctions. It does this in several ways.
  First, it makes clear that this bill does not change the basic test 
courts use when deciding whether to issue an injunction. Instead, the 
bill lays out some matters that must be weighed when courts apply two 
of the standard tests.
  Specifically, the bill makes clear that both undertaking a project 
and not undertaking a project can have

[[Page 12213]]

short-term and long-term costs and benefits that need to be weighed. 
Balancing harms, to use the legal term, is not a simple matter that 
involves assuming that a project would produce harms that matter only 
in the short-term or that it would produce nothing other than benefits 
over the long term.
  Third, the bill makes clear that while the court should give weight 
to the views an agency holds concerning balance of harms, the court has 
no obligation to defer to the agency and no reason to heed the agency 
at all if its findings are arbitrary and capricious. In other words, 
the agency cannot, and I emphasize, cannot, do as it pleases when it 
pleases.
  What all these technical concerns add up to is this: courts will 
continue to be able to issue injunctions against forestry projects that 
harm the environment, either while a case is pending or permanently.
  The compromise also puts in place other protections against 
questionable projects. To be more specific, it limits the geographic 
reach of the expedited projects created by the bill; it requires that 
an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment be 
conducted on every project covered by this bill; it removes language 
that could be construed to weaken the Roadless Rule; it ensures that 
notice and comment periods will be sufficient to allow genuine airing 
of fire projects; and it requires experimental projects in response to 
insect infestations to be treated as true experiments with an 
objective, outside peer review and with recourse to the courts.
  In short, while this bill does create expedited procedures, it is not 
devoid of safeguards to protect our forestlands, which belong to all 
the people of our Nation, today and in future generations.
  This bill will require careful monitoring along the way; and if the 
version emerging from conference is worthy of support, our task will 
have just begun. Implementation must be carefully monitored to make 
sure the new law lives up to its intended purpose.
  Those purposes are worthy, the protection of lives and property; the 
implementation of sensible forestry projects to prevent fire; the 
return of our forests gradually to something more like their natural 
fire cycle.
  Right now, this bill is our only chance to achieve these goals. I 
urge its adoption, and I oppose the substitute.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
the great State of Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some grounds for agreement here. This chart 
shows what we want to prevent. Fires are not partisan. In fact, last 
fall we negotiated a bipartisan agreement, something that was not 
everything the timber industry wanted; and it certainly was not 
everything the environmentalists wanted. But that approach was 
abandoned several weeks ago. Now the White House is calling the shots 
here, and they are going to jam through a bill.
  There are a lot of reasons to oppose this bill. I mean, one is do we 
trust appointed bureaucrats with our precious natural resources? They 
created this problem through 100 years of mismanagement; and this is 
giving all the discretion in terms of appeals, protection of old 
growth. Even the courts have to give deference to the judgment of the 
appointed bureaucrats. I do not think the Republicans would support 
that for a Democratic administration. I would not support it for a 
Democratic or Republican administration.
  But there are another 5 billion reasons to oppose this bill. There is 
no money in it. The bill we wrote last fall admitted that this is an 
expensive proposition. Undoing 100 years of mismanagement is very 
expensive.
  There is no money in this bill, and they are going to finance this 
bill potentially by cutting the very resource that should be protected, 
what we wanted to restore.
  We just heard about low-intensity fires. We want to go back to low-
intensity fires, big old trees, widely spaced in Eastern Oregon and 
down through the intermountain States.
  But we give all of the discretion on the harvest to the Secretary of 
Agriculture and his or her appointees, and we say there is no money and 
that we are going to finance this by putting contractors out there and 
having them remove things and paying for the projects that way. If you 
do that, guess what they are going to take first? They are going to 
take out the big old trees. They might not bother with the brush and 
poles and dead stuff, which is what we need to be targeting.
  This is not the bill we should be voting on today, and not a single 
Democratic amendment was allowed. What the heck kind of a process is 
this?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in the distribution of time, I heard that, 
I believe, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, yielded his time for 
management to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Did anyone claim the time on the Democratic side for the Committee on 
the Judiciary?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That 5 minutes is controlled by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, no one doubts the need to reduce the threat of forest 
fires after last summer, when our country experienced the second-worst 
fire season in 50 years. However, H.R. 1904 is not the answer, and, 
contrary to its name, does little to make our forests healthier.
  Sections 106 and 107 of this bill make unwise changes to the Federal 
appeals and judicial review process. Under the guise of expediting fire 
control programs, the intent of these two sections is clear: to limit 
public input and to shift the review authority from an independent 
judiciary toward Federal agencies run by political appointees.
  Section 106 of this bill would limit the amount of time the public 
has to file a legal challenge to a mere 15 days, inclusive of holidays 
and weekend days. Clearly, this time limit is not long enough for 
someone to grasp and analyze how a project will affect the health of 
their family and the communities around them.
  Ironically, this provision could exacerbate the problem it proposes 
to address. I suspect more people might dash up the courtroom steps and 
file preemptive lawsuits against projects, since failing to do so 
closes the door thereafter.
  Section 106 also attempts to limit the time judges have to review 
cases and mandates that they inform congressional committees whenever 
they extend injunctions beyond 45 days. Besides making judges postpone 
other important cases, like criminal matters, civil rights or 
terrorism, this provision makes judges subject to constant legislative 
scrutiny.
  Section 107 also seeks an unwise change in American legal standards 
by requiring courts to give unprecedented deference to Federal agency 
findings when considering whether to grant a restraining order or 
injunction. This provision would essentially allow the executive branch 
agencies to decide what is in the public's best interest without taking 
the concerns of judges or communities into consideration.
  This so-called Healthy Forests Restoration Act is anything but. It is 
yet another example of the Bush administration rolling back our 
environmental protections. Now is the time for those who understand how 
important the environment is for future generations to stand up to this 
administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker talked a little bit about 
the need for this legislation as a result of last year's fires. I am 
insulted by that. It is almost as if the tree did not burn in your 
district, there was no disaster.
  It happened year after year after year in Montana. In 1988, I was 
surrounded by fires. It happens every year

[[Page 12214]]

in the State of Montana. In the Year 2000, we burned 1 million acres.
  When are we going to wake up and say enough is enough? This 
legislation goes a long ways toward solving the problem. I remember 
1988. I thought to myself, God, I hope now the legislature, the 
Congress, wakes up and understands that fire can be a tool if it is a 
prescribed burn, if it is a controlled fire. Grazing can be a tool. It 
not only controls the underbrush, but also controls weeds.
  We can have control within our forests, management controls within 
our forests. It does not have to be looked on as a bad thing. It is a 
good thing. It can keep our forests safe.
  To those preservationists who have tipped the scales of our justice 
system against doing the right thing, I tell them you are loving our 
forests to death.
  Do you like this? Because this is exactly the way the people of 
Montana feel with the forest fires coming in. I hope you will support 
this legislation.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the charge that the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act cuts the heart out of the National Environmental Policy 
Act.
  The fact is, this bill requires the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management to conduct environmental reviews of forest thinning projects 
in accordance with NEPA. The most important element of NEPA is the 
environmental review of the proposed project, the project that is to be 
implemented; and that review is retained under the bill.
  The bill also gives agencies discretion to limit environmental review 
to the proposed project only, which means an agency would not have to 
consider multiple alternative project options that are not likely to be 
implemented as is currently required under NEPA. Under current law, 
land management agencies are required to analyze multiple alternatives, 
devoting scarce resources to hypothetical projects instead of to 
developing additional projects in other vulnerable areas of our 
forests.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, America deserves a fuels reduction program in our 
forests that protects two American icons: first, small towns; and 
second, big trees. This bill does neither. This bill is doomed to 
failure in not protecting either small towns or big trees, for three 
reasons.
  The first reason is, it does not provide the money that is necessary 
to do the job. If we take a look at this map, the Forest Service 
suggests there are 190 million acres needing treatment. They propose to 
do about 2.8 million in the next year, this tiny little red dot. That 
is the combination of three States.
  They want to propose to do a tiny little red dot, and they do not 
authorize a dollar for the fuels reduction program. They are so fixated 
on red tape they forget green money. They cannot do the job without it. 
Our bill does that job.
  Second, the bill does not target our precious resources to protect 
human property and life first as a priority, unlike our bill, which 
does. It is not just me that says this. There are a dozen letters to 
the Republican chairman of the committee responsible for this bill 
pleading for help for our local communities to protect against a fire 
in the crucial wildline-urban interface.
  A letter from Donald Vanderhoof, Mayor of the city of Glenwood 
Springs, said, ``Unfortunately, H.R. 1904 does not provide local 
communities with the necessary tools to mitigate future fires. Despite 
the fact that 85 percent of the land within the community protection 
zone is non-Federal, H.R. 1904 channels funds to Federal land 
projects.''
  They have not provided monies for small communities where the rubber 
meets the road and the fire hits the edge of their town; our bill does.
  Third problem, their bill does not protect big trees. Now, there is a 
bipartisan consensus that there is some thinning that is appropriate in 
the forest, but we do not thin trees like this multiple century-old 
tree. Their bill allows that to be done. Their bill does cut the heart 
out of NEPA, because the very heart of NEPA is considering alternatives 
to what size trees they are going to thin.
  It seems to me that our Federal agencies ought to think about what 
size they are going to thin and study alternatives in the NEPA process. 
Their bill cuts that out. Instead, essentially, they want to sell these 
big trees to generate money. That is where they propose to get money 
for this program.
  That is a little bit like somebody who is sick selling their good 
kidney to treat the bad one. They end up with no kidneys. That is what 
they are proposing to do to forests. They want to let the Forest 
Service finance this plan by cutting down big trees to do these 
thinning projects. It is unnecessary, it is wrong, it is against what 
their constituents want and ought to be defeated. Support the 
Democratic substitute.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the Healthy Forest Restoration Act 
increases protection for communities from wildfires by speeding up the 
implementation of forest thinning projects. That is true. That is why 
we keep hearing it.
  To my friend, the gentleman from Washington, and his response, that 
little, bitty red dot, many of us who have spent considerable amount of 
time studying this problem believe that by reallocation of current 
forest services we can deal with this. It does not require all of the 
new money that some propose if we in fact readjust the manner in which 
we regulate the forests of our country.
  Even the critics of this bill acknowledge, as the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall) states in his dissenting remarks to the Committee 
on Agriculture report, that streamlining of the administrative appeals 
process would be appropriate for high-priority fuel reduction projects.
  In a Dear Colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) argues that his substitute provides for expedited treatment of 
Federal lands that pose a risk of wildfire to local communities. Under 
the bill, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management 
would have to conduct a full environmental analysis of each proposed 
thinning project, but the agencies would not have to analyze a full 
range of alternatives to the proposal, as current law requires.
  The bill would set a 15-day time limit for filing lawsuits 
challenging the fuel reduction project once the agency has formally 
announced a final decision and would urge the courts to the maximum 
extent possible to rule from within 100 days from when the suit was 
filed.
  Critics of the bill seem to want it both ways. First, they argue that 
the bill does not do enough to implement these projects. Then they 
argue in favor of continuing the unnecessary and time-consuming 
analysis of alternative projects under NEPA and against reasonable time 
limitations on legal challenges.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to address what the 
Environmental Protection Act does. It is intended for taxpayers to ask 
agencies to think twice about what they do. It is intended to ask 
agencies to look at alternatives to what they do, to figure out what 
the best alternative for the taxpayer dollar is and for the 
environment.
  The reason this bill cuts the heart out of the Environmental 
Protection Act is that it stops any consideration of any alternative to 
exactly what one person who works for this agency may say.
  Now maybe cutting 18-inch trees is the appropriate thing in one 
forest, but maybe it is appropriate to cut 12-inch trees or 8-inch 
trees in another one.

[[Page 12215]]

What they have done is taken away from taxpayers the right to ask their 
government employees to consider what the right size trees ought to be 
in these projects. That is the heart of the Environmental Protection 
Act.
  It is an unfortunate step and an unnecessary one, because we ought to 
preserve both our big trees, our small towns, and our citizens' rights.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1904, the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Our Nation's forests are facing a 
crisis, a crisis that, if not addressed, could have an overwhelming 
effect on the property and livelihood of Americans all across these 
United States.
  Tens of millions of acres of public and private forests throughout 
the country face catastrophic damage from a host of pests, like the 
southern pine beetle and the red and white oak borers throughout the 
South and Midwest.
  The southern pine beetle is the most destructive insect pest of pine 
trees in the southern United States. From 1960 through 1990, this 
insect caused $900 million of damage to pine forests. This aggressive 
tree killer is a native insect that lives predominantly in the inner 
bark of pine trees. During epidemics, southern pine beetle infestations 
often begin in weakened or injured trees, but the populations can 
invade and overcome healthy, vigorous trees by attacking in large 
numbers over a short period of time. These attacks are not limited to 
private or public lands. This insect destroys indiscriminately.
  Red and white oak trees in the South are also facing serious 
conditions. In Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, over a quarter of 
standing saw timber are red oak trees, and it is expected that we will 
lose up to 33 percent due to borer infestations and related causes. 
This translates to over $1 billion in losses in those three States 
alone.
  These pest outbreaks are not normal. Although oak borers are 
frequently found in oak-dominated forests, scientists report that the 
current outbreak is of epidemic proportions. Nearly 1 million acres of 
national forestlands, almost one out of every three acres, in Arkansas 
are at risk of losing key ecosystem components. These acres will be 
eligible for the expedited procedures authorized by this bill.
  In addition to its original intent to address catastrophic wildfires, 
H.R. 1904 will also allow us to act fast due to the threat unhealthy 
forest conditions present to our southern forest ecosystems, air 
quality, and water quality. We must act fast to help protect our 
national and private forests throughout the southern and eastern United 
States and the jobs they provide.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Virginia, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), 
offered a rather imperfect analogy when he talked about someone selling 
their kidney to deal with financial problems.
  No, Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the analogy to a kidney, and the 
problem is not with cutting the heart out of environmental regulation. 
The problem we are confronting, Mr. Speaker, is that we have cut the 
very heart out of rural communities in the western United States who 
live surrounded by national forests.
  In Arizona, in the Rodeo-Chedeski fire of last summer, nearly a half 
million acres and over 400 homes were destroyed. If there is a silver 
lining to the pyrocumulous clouds, it is the very real human tragedy; 
not an abstraction, not a governmental study.
  But we have had paralysis by analysis. The Forest Service has spent a 
quarter of a trillion dollars of their time and their financial 
resources to say, stop these projects because of lawsuits. What we ask 
for is what is reasonable, what is reasonable at long last, to have a 
true, balanced policy. This is an important first step. Support the 
legislation.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank the chairman for 
all the efforts he has put in regarding the infestation we have had, 
regarding the forest fires, and the gentleman's focus in this committee 
to get this piece of legislation out before the fire season besets us.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). He has gone way out of his 
way to help move this bill forward. It is a very, very important bill.
  I need to clarify a couple points here. I say to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), I know what his ethics are like. His ethics 
are, in my book, of a very high standard.
  What I would do is to say to the gentleman that Glenwood Springs, 
which the gentleman quoted from the letter from the mayor, is my 
hometown. I grew up at the bottom of Storm King Mountain, where I, with 
12 others, took 15 firefighters, deceased firefighters, off it.
  I know something about fire, I know something about this bill, and I 
know something about the gentleman's ethics. The gentleman would be 
well advised to disassociate himself from the letter that he quoted in 
his comments, which was obtained through very deceitful means, as has 
been acknowledged this morning by the City of Glenwood Springs.
  So I do not think the gentleman is aware of that. I just want the 
gentleman to be aware of how that letter was obtained.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I see a copy of one of these letters was 
sent to a fellow congressman from Colorado. I was provided these by my 
staff.
  If these are inaccurate copies, please advise me. But everything I 
have read, as far as I know, is accurate. If these are inaccurate 
copies, please advise me; and I will correct the Record.
  To date, I have 12 letters from cities and counties in Colorado 
claiming that they are not taken care of.
  Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am talking 
specifically about a letter. I am not saying that the signature is 
inaccurate, that it is a fraud. I am saying that the way it was 
obtained was very, very deceitful. I would be happy to talk to the 
gentleman after we are finished here about that.
  In regard to the comments of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Baldwin), I am not sure she has read the bill, with all due respect. It 
does not cut out public input. It does not stop the judiciary process. 
I have not seen the gentlewoman at one meeting, I have not seen her at 
one negotiating session where we discussed the details of that.
  Frankly, I consider it a cheap shot when one of my colleagues stands 
up here in front the American public and talks about a bill that we so 
firmly believe in on a bipartisan basis to stop and help us do 
something about these fires and bugs, and the gentlewoman stands up and 
acts like we are shortcutting the judiciary process, like we are 
cutting out the public input. Sure, I take insult with those kinds of 
remarks, and I do wonder whether or not the bill was read before staff 
or somebody drafted those comments for the gentlewoman.
  Let me talk in regard to the comments of the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall). His comments about the bugs and the Miller 
substitute, if we look at the substance of the Miller substitute, 
unless it has been changed in the last 15 minutes, it contains nothing 
of substance within the four corners of that. I am talking about the 
substance part of the bill with regard to bug infestation.
  We have to do something to help our people in the South. These bugs 
are throughout the country, but that is their biggest focus right now.

[[Page 12216]]

  This bill is about between what we call the green hats and the black 
hats. Let me read the Oregonian Newspaper out of Oregon in the district 
of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

                              {time}  1415

  By the way, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), we did not have 
an agreement. We came this close to an agreement, and you and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) negotiated in absolute 
good faith. Unfortunately, we could not get there; but we did not have 
an agreement. I wish we would have inked an agreement. I wish we would 
have had it because it would have been signed in by now.
  I do acknowledge, by the way, although they are strongly opposed to 
what we have today, which is not different than what we had yesterday, 
I do acknowledge the good-faith efforts of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Let me quote the newspaper in Oregon: ``By its words and actions, the 
Sierra Club has shown what it wants. It wants the status quo, no 
logging, only a handful of small thinning projects and more devastating 
fires like those that swept Oregon and the rest of the west this 
summer. On the issue of forest thinning for which national polls have 
found overwhelming support, the real extremists include the Sierra 
Club.''
  This is a good bill. It has got good merit, and it deserves your 
support.
  Today the House will consider among the most important pieces of 
environmental legislation in a generation. The bipartisan Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act is focused on addressing the single largest, 
most complex and destructive challenge facing the management of our 
Federal lands--catastrophic wildfire and exploding epidemics of insect 
and disease outbreaks. Mr. Speaker, these are the destructive symptoms 
of America's forest health crisis.
  During the last Congress, as most of us remember, my colleagues 
George Miller, Greg Walden and Peter DeFazio were nano-inches from 
reaching a bipartisan agreement for the ages. But ultimately, because 
of the invidious attacks of certain special interest groups, and 
because of the late stage in which those talks began, we were unable to 
cement a deal. Let me note that I have immeasurable respect for Mr. 
Miller and Mr. DeFazio for enduring unwarranted ostracism from the 
national environmental movement throughout that process. That 
community, in my opinion, showed its radical colors when they attacked 
these two icons and champions of the environmental cause. So I admire 
these two statesmen and deeply hope that we can continue to work 
together as this bill moves through the process.
  Colleagues, I believe this bill enjoys strong bipartisan support 
because of emerging areas of solid agreement. It's my hope and 
expectation that these areas of agreement will provide the foundation 
on which a Congressional majority can arise.
  As I see it, the pillars of agreement are these:
  First, America is facing a forest health crisis of colossal 
proportions. a century of wholesale fire exclusion has been proven by 
the years to be a foolhardy pursuit--catastrophically so. Fire is part 
of nature's way--it replenishes, it rejuvenates, it restores. Shunned 
for a century, however, wildfire has returned to the landscape with a 
searing vengeance, burning bigger, hotter, and with a runaway ferocity 
than nature never intended. At the same time, unnatural forest stand 
densities have left our forests in a weakened state; their defenses 
susceptible to insect and disease epidemics.
  The second principle of agreement is this: The primary symptom of 
America's forest health crisis, catastrophic wildfire, has done 
shocking harm to our environment. The summer of 2002 provided too many 
horror stories of wholesale environmental destruction to discuss in 
this one setting--stories of our air and water fouled, of old growth 
forest ecosystems left barren and black, of threatened and endangered 
species dealt irreversible ecological impacts.
  One has to wonder about the sanity of a person who would chain 
themselves to tree-tops in an effort to ``Save the Forests'' while 
watching silently; seemingly unconcerned, as environmental calamities 
like the Hayman, Biscuit and Rodeo fires destroy some of America's most 
biologically rich forest ecosystems.
  The third area of agreement is that the bureaucratic status quo on 
our Federal forests and rangelands is not working. Most reasonable 
people would agree that if shouldn't take upwards of several years to 
get a thinning project near a community through the Federal maze of 
analysis, appeals and lawsuits, but that is exactly what the status quo 
has brought us.
  Witness what took place over the course of the last several years on 
the Black Hills National Forest. Most of us remember these rather 
notorious projects--they are the Wildland Urban Interface projects that 
South Dakota's senior Senator rescued from a bureaucratic swamp with 
some legislative language in an emergency spending bill last Congress. 
Senator Daschle, apparently tired of the vicious cycle of analysis, 
appeals and lawsuits tormenting these projects, took matters into his 
own hands and legislated these projects into forward movement.
  But for those of us who aren't the Majority Leader of the Senate, and 
for those of us who don't face a pliant environmental community when we 
start tinkering with environmental laws, extravagant bureaucracy and 
delay is what we're up against.
  That brings us to the final point of agreement--reasoned and prudent 
steps must be taken by Congress to make sense of this process gone mad. 
But as we alter the manifestly broken status quo, certain priorities 
must be rigorously adhered to. Foremost, the public must be given an 
expansive opportunity to engage decision-makers at all stages of 
project development and implementation. That cannot change. Meaningful 
public participation is an imperative. The real success of the Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act, in my opinion, is that it streamlines 
bureaucratic process in a way that honors the fundamental role that 
public participation plays in informed decision making. Anyone who 
argues that this bill provides anything other than a thorough, 
overlapping and robust opportunity for public participation is being 
disingenuous--or maybe they just inhaled too much carbon and mercury 
from one of last summer's big fires.
  This brings me to the bill, Mr. Speaker, which proposes to address 
the root causes of this analysis paralysis. I will briefly describe it.
  The Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes streamlined 
procedures to expeditiously implement hazardous fuels reduction 
projects on Forest Service and BLM lands (1) near communities in the 
wildland urban interface, (2) on high risk lands in the proximity of 
municipal water sources, (3) on high risk lands that encompass habitat 
for threatened and endangered species where Federal wildlife officials 
have identified catastrophic wildfire as a threat to the viability of 
the species, and (4) on high risk landscapes particularly susceptible 
to disease or bug infestation. No wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, 
national parks, national monuments, other special congressional 
designations would be eligible under the bill's expedited procedures. 
The bill prohibits permanent road building in Inventoried Roadless 
Areas.
  The bill codifies the bipartisan WGA 10-Year Strategy's robust public 
input and participation requirements. The WGA strategy was endorsed by 
numerous government and non-government organizations, including leading 
environmental groups like the Wilderness Society. The bill also 
requires an additional public meeting for all projects implemented 
under this Act over-and-beyond that which is required under current 
law.
  In codifying the WGA framework, the bill also cements the bipartisan 
plan's express priority on focusing management actions on lands near 
communities and on at-risk lands in proximity to sources of municipal 
water.
  The WGA plan is widely regarded as the holy grail of wildfire policy. 
This bill gives that bipartisan plan the status of Federal law.
  The expedited procedures outlined in the bill are these. First, the 
legislation would give the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) discretionary authority to limit analysis during the 
NEPA phase to the proposed action only, meaning the agencies would not 
be required to analyze and describe a number of different alternatives 
to the preferred course. While expediting the analysis phase, this 
procedure ensures that all projects will receive an exhaustive analysis 
of all potential environmental effects.
  Next, the bill would provide a limited waiver of the Appeals Reform 
Act for forest health projects implemented under the Act, instead 
directing the establishment of an alternative review process under 
which persons could seek administrative redress against forest 
restoration projects. The Forest Service is the only Federal land 
management agency with an administrative appeals process memorialized 
in statute--a 1992 Appropriation Rider called the Appeals Reform Act. 
In practice, this means that a forest restoration project implemented 
on at-risk lands on the White River National Forest (or any other 
forest) faces a

[[Page 12217]]

significantly higher administrative appeals bar than the exact same 
project would encounter if implemented in Yellowstone National Park or 
the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (BLM). With the National 
Fire Plan's emphasis on interagency cooperation, this makes little 
sense. This bill would put the Forest Service on more even footing with 
its sister agencies.
  With regard to judicial review, the bill would require the Federal 
courts to reconsider and reauthorize any preliminary injunctions on a 
45-day interval, while requiring the courts to more fully weigh the 
long-term environmental risks associated with management inaction. The 
45-day preliminary injunction language is modeled on a proposal first 
offered by Senator Feinstein last summer, who I hasten to add, has been 
a real leader on this issue in her own right.
  Additional provisions of the bill (1) facilitate the utilization of 
the otherwise valueless wood, brush, and slash removed in conjunction 
with the forest health project in the production of biomass energy, (2) 
authorize Federal programs to support community-based watershed 
forestry partnerships, (3) direct additional research focused on the 
early detection and containment of insect and disease infestations that 
have reached epidemic proportions, and (4) establish a private 
forestland easement program, supported by groups like Environmental 
Defense, focused on recovering forest ecosystem types in decline.
  These provisions were included in this bill in recognition of the 
fact that America's forest health is not just a western wildfire issue. 
In particular, rampant insect and disease infestations should be in the 
front and center of any discussion about forest health legislation. 
This bill places them there.
  I would also note that in the self-executing manager's amendment, the 
terms of a compromise between myself and Mr. Boehlert were incorporated 
into this legislation. Mr. Boehlert and his staff showed tremendous 
good faith in helping us improve and clarify an already outstanding 
piece of legislation. I commend him for his good faith and leadership.
  It is with that, Mr. Speaker, that I urge the House to adopt this 
landmark environmental legislation.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to myself to respond 
to the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke made reference to earlier 
remarks I had claimed on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  As you may be aware, the Committee on the Judiciary received referral 
on this bill for sections 105 through 108, a very narrow part, to 
engage in scrutiny in what we believe is our area of expertise. And I 
would certainly defer to the gentleman on his areas of expertise. But 
you may or may not be aware that numerous civil rights organizations in 
this country have taken a strong stance against those provisions. I 
specifically spoke to sections 106 and 107 of the bill that create a 
new sort of inequality, a tipping of the scales, an unevening of the 
playing field which I find very dangerous in terms of a precedent.
  What this bill does in those provisions is it tilts the playing field 
by giving executive agencies with political appointees greater weight 
on the issue of injunctive relief and other provisions than the public 
or other parties. And that is a slippery slope that I think we should 
not go down. I certainly object to the gentleman's characterizations of 
my understanding of those provisions in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Pombo) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Baldwin) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) for purposes of control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) 
has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire who has the right to 
close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
has the right to close.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I quarrel not with the intentions of anyone who has 
spoken here today. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation 
because I believe it does what needs to be done in order to break an 
impasse on how we deal with our Nation's forests.
  We have heard the arguments against for year after year after year. 
The bottom line is the situation is not getting better. It is getting 
worse. I have read carefully this legislation, the specific points that 
seem to be coming under the most attack, and I do share the belief of 
my colleagues on this side of the aisle that it does all of the bad 
things that they allege it does.
  Is it perfect legislation? Probably not. But I have traveled and 
visited some of our forestry areas, and I have seen the results of good 
management and sound science. Some of those, not my colleagues, but 
some of those organizations who oppose time and time again legislation 
like we have on the floor today, oppose it not from the sound science 
and good management but from a deep visceral feeling of how our 
Nation's natural resources ought to be cared for; and I respect that, 
but I differ very strongly with that because I do not believe that we 
can do those things necessary to maintain and improve our Nation's 
forests without applying sound science and good management.
  The public should not be left out, and the public is not left out. 
But those who have learned to use the law in ways that keep things from 
happening by constantly and consistently going to the courts are not 
doing our Nation the service that they allege that they are doing.
  I urge support of the basic bill. I urge opposition to the amendment. 
Let us give those in charge of our Nation's forests a chance to do a 
better job than what is done under current law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Baldwin) for yielding me time.
  I have spent a great deal of time on this legislation studying it. I 
have friends on both sides of the aisle, and I respect and understand 
the general intent of this. I sincerely do.
  We have a huge problem in the Pacific Northwest forests. But I have a 
great concern about the provision regarding the insect assessments. 
Apparently, there has been an amendment that allows for the Secretary 
to no longer have sole discretion on the reviews, but she would still 
appoint the panel that makes the reviews of these assessments. Frankly, 
this administration has a dismal record of appointing objective panels.
  I introduced an amendment that would have offered a National Academy 
of Science provision that would have allowed a truly independent body 
within 60 days to review these. Had that passed, I would have been very 
inclined to support this amendment or this legislation. But it did not.
  We must address this problem of fuel overload and insect infestation 
in an expeditious manner, but we need to make sure it is not used as a 
cover to engage in intents that it was not designed for.
  So I would hope that when this legislation goes to the other body we 
can address that. There is no need to give the Secretary such broad 
latitude. We can have independent assessments, and I would encourage 
this body to insist upon those.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we do have a problem. And I think that everybody who has 
come to the floor today to talk about the underlying bill has 
recognized that we have a serious problem. The gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio)

[[Page 12218]]

talked about 100 years of mismanagement in our forests, and I think it 
is the only thing that he said that I really did agree with him on, 
because there has been a hundred years of mismanagement in our forests. 
We went from what I believe was a point of cutting too many trees, and 
we had the clear cuts and all of the resulting environmental 
degradation and the problems that resulted out of that. And as a 
response to that, we had a number of environmental groups and people 
that came to this floor over the years that said we cannot continue to 
treat and manage our forests this way. And the pendulum swung all the 
way in the other direction. And a lot of folks that over the years have 
worked on the issue really did believe they were doing the right thing, 
but they were not.
  The problem is they adopted a policy of hands off, keep man out, we 
do not want to impact the natural state of our forest. But what they 
forgot was we are part of nature and we are part of the impact on our 
forests. So when you take man out of it and you control all of the 
fires that would have burned over the last 30 or 40 years, you ended up 
with all of this underbrush that grew up in our forests. And our 
forests today are much more dense than they were naturally. And the 
underbrush is much more full than it would have been naturally. And we 
ended up with a situation where a hundred years ago if a small fire had 
started, it would have burned along the bottom of the forest and that 
would have been a natural, healthy event. But today that same fire 
starting in our forest gets into that underbrush, climbs up the trees 
and gets into the crown of the trees and destroys the forest. It 
sterilizes the ground. It destroys our watersheds. It destroys the 
communities that have grown up in these areas.
  So we have to do something about that. And what we have tried to do 
over the last couple of years is negotiate out a way of dealing with 
the current situation that we have in our forests. And I do give the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) credit because they did negotiate with us. And the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis) spent literally dozens and dozens of hours working this 
through and trying to come up with a compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the underlying bill is a compromise. It does 
not do everything I want. It does not do everything that the people in 
my communities want. But it does begin to move in the right direction, 
and that is what we are trying to do.
  I listen to the opponents of this legislation. It is as if they 
dusted off their arguments that they had during the 1970s and rolled 
them out again. They have absolutely nothing to do with the underlying 
legislation.
  This is a middle-of-the-road moderate compromise to deal with a very 
real problem that we have today. That is what we are trying to do. You 
can take an extreme position if you want. You can run out as far to the 
left as you possibly can and hold up your flag, but that does 
absolutely nothing to protect the health of our forests today. What we 
are trying to do is stop the risk or lessen the risk of a catastrophic 
fire starting in our forests.
  The gentleman talked about the provisions that deal with insect 
infestations. We spent literally hours and hours going over that 
provision trying to come up with something that would limit the 
research to a small area and allow the researchers, the biologists, the 
scientists to come up with a way of stopping these insect infestations 
from spreading to the forests. That is what we are trying to accomplish 
with this bill. I would hope that my colleagues would at least try to 
moderate their rhetoric and join us in supporting this bipartisan 
compromise.
  Today the House of Representatives will consider landmark 
environmental legislation--the bipartisan Healthy Forests Restoration 
Act. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to note that this critical environmental 
legislation originated in the House Resources Committee earlier this 
year. Actually, it's the upshot of years of sweat equity on the part of 
a number of Members, many here and others not, each of whom believed 
deeply in the importance of restoring our forests to a healthy state.
  Since its introduction earlier this year, the bipartisan bill has run 
the legislative gauntlet through three committees, where it has been 
discussed, debated and redebated more times than I care to discuss. 
With another bleak wildfire season bearing down us, clearly there's 
been more than enough talking. The time for action on the part of the 
united States House of Representatives is now.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1904, authorized by Representatives McInnis and 
Walden along with Chairman Goodlatte and myself, is as important as any 
environmental legislation to pass through this Congress in a long time. 
And make no mistake about it, this legislation is vital to protecting 
our natural environment.
  With 190 million acres at unnaturally high risk to catastrophic 
wildfire and massive insect and disease outbreaks, cherished forest 
ecosystems and all that they sustain are squarely in harm's way. Air 
quality, water quality, the viability of old growth forests and 
threatened and endangered species, all are directly threatened by 
America's forest health crisis. Last summer we experienced these 
ecological horrors first hand. We all watched the images on TV, and 
many of us witnessed first hand, as the Nation's forestlands were 
denuded, air quality was despoiled, and sources of drinking water for 
millions were devastated. The scope of the destruction was breathtaking 

  The good news is that our Federal land managers can slow this 
destructive environmental march, if only Congress will let them. 
Currently, it typically takes upwards of several years for forest 
managers to get a scientifically validated thinning project through the 
bureaucratic maze of analysis, documentation, appeals and lawsuits. 
This bureaucratic pace is unacceptable given the size of the 
environmental destruction that awaits.
  With this understanding, the legislation's underyling premise is 
simple and clear: With 190 million acres at unnaturally high risk to 
catastrophic wildfire, it is indefensible that it takes Federal land 
managers upwards of several years to maneuver forest health projects 
(like thinning and prescribed burns) through sundry procedural 
requirements. Under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, forest 
management projects on certain high-risk landscapes would still be 
subject to rigorous environmental analysis as well as administrative 
challenges and lawsuits, but these multiple processes would be 
completed in a matter of months, rather than years as is currently the 
case.
  On one point I want to be particularly clear: This bill goes to 
unprecedented lengths to ensure that the public has a full and thorough 
opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. The bill 
codifies the bipartisan Western Governor Association 10-Year Strategy's 
robust public input and participation requirements, ensuring that 
interested persons will have numerous opportunities to engage decision 
makers during all phases of a project's development and implementation. 
The WGA strategy was endorsed by numerous government and non-government 
organizations, including leading environmental groups like the 
Wilderness Society. The bill also requires an additional public meeting 
for all projects implemented under this Act--a public meeting over and 
beyond what is currently required. Finally, the bill locks in place the 
public notice and comment requirements currently required during the 
environmental analysis phase for a wildfire mitigation project.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a thoughtful and balanced approach to addressing 
what amounts to a cataclysmic environmental problem. The common-sense 
nature of this bill is borne out by the overwhelming bipartisan support 
it has received. At last check, there are nearly 140 cosponsors of the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act, 16 of whom are Democrats, who hail 
from all parts of the country and all ideological stripes. It's hard to 
imagine anything but a common sense legislative package drawing this 
kind of broad-based support.
  I would also note that Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, a Member with 
whom I have had any disagreements, has been a constructive partner in 
helping shape this legislation. The self-executing managers amendment 
makes perfecting amendments to an already outstanding legislative 
package. Mr. Boehlert deserves high praise for his leadership and 
goodwill in this process.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has a chance today to do something meaningful, 
important and lasting. Imperiled as they may be, our forests are a 
great national asset, deserving of the immediate attention and care of 
this House.
  They are an unmistakable part of our heritage. The bipartisan Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act will ensure that this natural inheritance is 
healthy, vibrant and thriving into the future.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is quite 
right.

[[Page 12219]]

Our forests were mismanaged a century ago. And we have had a great 
challenge in the last century because people live in and around these 
forests and we must fight forest fires. But the fact of the matter is 
if you fight forests fires, you are going to have this density building 
up. Many of our forests have several times the amount of firewood 
growing in them than is normal, than is natural. So the fires that 
occur are not natural forest fires.
  I have heard the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) say that we 
are cutting the heart out of our environmental laws. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. The fact of the matter is our environmental 
laws will be retained. This measure is quite modest. It only applies to 
a little more than 10 percent of the land that is subject to these 
catastrophic wild fires because of this density of the forests that has 
built up.
  The fact of the matter is, if we do not pass this legislation, the 
abuse of those environmental laws by extremists will cause us to burn 
the heart out of our Nation's forests. This is a responsible response 
to that.
  This is something that will allow the people who know how to manage 
our forests to apply scientific analysis of the forests. And with 
public comment, with local government input, with an appeals process 
both administratively and through the courts, we will get a prompt and 
expeditious response to the problem that we are seeing every year now 
in our national forests. It will give us the opportunity to begin the 
process of making those forests safer and healthier for the animals 
that live in them, for the air that we all breathe, for the streams 
that we all recreate in and are so important to our communities; and it 
will give us the opportunity to have a better environmental and 
economic future for rural America. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I have discussed with Mr. Matheson from Utah the issue 
of local preference contracting for hazardous fuels reduction projects. 
I agree with Mr. Matheson that this issue needs to be addressed and I 
pledge to work with the gentleman from Utah as H.R. 1904 goes to 
conference.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I submit the following 
exchange of letters with the respective Committees of jurisdiction with 
regard to H.R. 1904, the Health Forests Restoration Act of 2003 for 
printing in the Congressional Record:

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2003.
     Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to recognize your 
     Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 1904, the Healthy 
     Forests Restoration Act.
       I appreciate your recognition of the need to move this 
     legislation expeditiously. The U.S. Forest Service is 
     predicting another very dangerous fire season and Congress 
     needs to get the tools contained in H.R. 1904 implemented for 
     the Forest Service post haste. I recognize that your decision 
     not to request a sequential referral of this bill does not 
     waive, reduce or otherwise affect any jurisdictional interest 
     the Energy and Commerce Committee may have in the bill.
       I will support the appointment of conferees from your 
     Committee on those sections of the bill the parliamentarians 
     determine are in the Energy and Commerce Committee's 
     jurisdiction if a conference is convened.
       Thank you again for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2003.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I am writing with regard to H.R. 
     1904, the Health Forests Restoration Act of 2003, which was 
     reported to the House on May 9, 2003. As you know, Rule X of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives grants the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce jurisdiction over the 
     exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing, 
     and regulation of energy resources, including all fossil 
     fuels, solar energy, and other unconventional or renewable 
     resources, as well as public health and quarantine.
       I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before 
     the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not 
     exercise my Committee's right to a referral. By agreeing to 
     waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 
     1904. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves 
     its right to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill 
     that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate 
     conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask 
     for your commitment to support any request by the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 1904 or similar 
     legislation.
       I request that you include this letter as part of the 
     Record during consideration of the legislation on the House 
     floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                            W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 2003.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 
     1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
       Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1904 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     certain provisions of the bill, I agreed not to request a 
     sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 
     mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my 
     decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or 
     otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and 
     of your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest 
     will be included as part of the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of this bill by the House.
       The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also 
     asks that you support our request to be conferees on the 
     provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
     Senate conference.
       Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Young,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2003.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to your May 15, 
     2003 letter concerning your committee's jurisdictional 
     interest in H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. I 
     welcome this opportunity to respond.
       I appreciate your recognition of the need to move this 
     legislation expeditiously. The U.S. Forest Service is 
     predicting another very dangerous fire season and Congress 
     need to get the tools contained in H.R. 1904 implemented for 
     the Forest Service post haste. I recognize that your decision 
     not to request a sequential referral of this bill does not 
     waive, reduce or otherwise affect any jurisdictional interest 
     the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee may have in 
     the bill.
       I will support the appointment of conferees from your 
     Committee on those sections of the bill the parliamentarians 
     decided are in the Transportation and Infrastructure 
     Committee's jurisdiction if a conference is convened.
       Thank you again for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                                         Chairman.

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I agree that 50 years of aggressive fire 
suppression necessitate an increase in fuels reduction. But H.R. 1904 
is not the answer and public comment is not the enemy.
  Last year, wild fires swept across the West and my home state of 
Colorado was particularly hard-hit. The Hayman fire ultimately burned 
over 138,000 acres and the area surrounding Cheesman Reservoir, which 
provides much of the drinking water for my Denver district.
  Thinning efforts must focus on the wildland-urban interface. But H.R. 
1904 fails to prioritize and fund efforts where they would have the 
greatest impact. The Miller-DeFazio substitute would guarantee that 85 
percent of funding for thinning projects is spent near communities and 
watersheds; and provides for accelerated consideration of forest 
thinning projects near communities in non-controversial areas.
  I am also concerned about the ways in which this bill overreaches. 
Specifically, H.R. 1904 attempts to limit the amount of time the public 
has to file a legal challenge to any fuel

[[Page 12220]]

reduction project to a mere 15 days, places limitations on the time 
judges have to review cases and mandates that they inform congressional 
committees whenever they extend injunctions beyond 45 days. There are 
reasons that groups like the NAACP and Planned Parenthood have come out 
against this bill and they have little to do with their positions on 
the state of our nation's forests. They have correctly foreseen the 
very real threat that this bill poses to fair process for 
administrative appeals and the undue burden it places on our court 
systems.
  And the public has little recourse. Shutting the public out of the 
decision making process will not facilitate or streamline anything. 
Many communities throughout the West are ready and eager to play a role 
in sustaining the forests that surround their homes. They should be 
meaningfully engaged in land management decisions that affect them, 
rather than closed out of the process altogether as H.R. 1904 proposes.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-considered legislation and 
instead support the logical and worthy substitute from my Democratic 
colleagues.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, last year the U.S. taxpayers paid 
$1.5 billion to fight forest fires and twenty-three firefighters lost 
their lives. In fact, over the past few years, taxpayers are expected 
to pay billions more to fight forest fires unless changes are made in 
forestry management. Many of the fires we have seen over the past 
several years could have been prevented, billions of tax dollars could 
have been put to better use, and dozens of lives could have been saved. 
Furthermore, critical forest habitat would have been saved for the 
enjoyment of future generations of Americans and for wildlife, 
including endangered species.
  Too many of our nation's forests continue to be damaged by out of 
control forest fires, insect infestations, diseases, and invasive 
species. Today, Federal forestry experts estimate that 190 million 
acres of federal forest are at risk for catastrophic wildfire. 
Unfortunately, current laws put too many barriers and delays in the way 
of properly managing our forests, meaning that these forests will 
remain at risk for years to come unless better management practices are 
implemented in a more timely manner. It currently takes several years 
for forest management plans to get through the bureaucratic and legal 
quagmire. During this delay, too many forests suffer damage from fires 
and insects and billions of dollars--and in some cases human lives--are 
lost.
  Last year, the President proposed a Healthy Forests Initiative to 
facilitate better management of forests. Bipartisan legislation was 
introduced in the House of Representatives, The Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act of 2003 (H.R. 1904) to address this concern. Many of 
the proposals contained in this legislation were put forward during the 
Clinton administration but were never acted upon by that 
administration.
  Under current rules, it is estimated that federal land managers will 
only be able to address the catastrophic fire threat in about 2.5 
million of these 190 million acres each year. This is unacceptable.
  In 2002, then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) 
included an environmental rider to allow for logging in the Black Hills 
of South Dakota to protect these forests from catastrophic fires. 
Senator Daschle recognized the dangers that these potential 
catastrophic fires could pose to the forests and communities of South 
Dakota. Under the Daschle provision all court cases to block forestry 
management plans in the Black Hills were prohibited. H.R. 1904 does not 
go nearly as far as Senator Daschle's plan. H.R. 1904 allows appeals to 
be made, but expedites the process so that it does not take several 
years to approve forest management plans.
  This is a common sense solution to a very serious problem. H.R. 1904 
finds the middle ground between the Daschle plan, which prohibited 
challenges, and the current system, which allows flammable underbrush 
to pile up, forests to become dangerously dense, and forest fires to 
rage out of control while the courts are jammed with suits over 
forestry management plans.
  Through the use of environmentally sensitive thinning, prescribed 
burns, and other scientifically validated management practices, our 
nation's forests can be returned to a sustainable balance, the risks of 
catastrophic wildfire and disease infestations can be reduced, and 
habitat for wildlife will be preserved.
  This bipartisan legislation reforms the current forest management 
system so that forest management plans can be approved and implemented 
in a timely process while still respecting the right of public 
participation in the decision making process. I believe that this 
legislation will aid us in this effort and I support its passage.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about an 
issue that is very important in my home state and in my congressional 
district--hazardous fuels reduction. Oregon has been hit hard by 
wildfires in recent years, and there is no question that we must take 
steps to make up for years of neglect of our federal forests.
  First of all, I want to praise Mr. Walden and Mr. DeFazio for their 
tireless work and passion on this issue. Both of these fine Congressmen 
have spent countless hours over the past several years working together 
to address this very real problem, and I appreciate their hard work. 
Last Congress, I was pleased at the progress they were making, and was 
disappointed that, because of the lateness in the year, they did not 
have the opportunity to complete negotiations and bring the fruits of 
their efforts on fire prevention to the floor. Had they had time to do 
so I would have supported their legislation.
  While I appreciate the efforts that Mr. Walden has put forward, and 
while I agree 100 percent with his goals of creating healthier forests 
and preventing fires, I have concerns about the legislation, H.R. 1904, 
which we are considering on the floor today.
  I am first and foremost concerned about the fact that this 
legislation does not provide any additional funds to undertake the 
projects necessary for healthy forests. The legislation being discussed 
last year included funding, and today's DeFazio substitute also 
includes the money important to protect our forests. Without money we 
face an impossible task. The best intentions are well and good, but we 
need money to fight this battle against fire and insect infestation.
  Second, I am concerned that this legislation, in the name of reducing 
``red tape,'' gives complete authority to the Secretaries of the 
Interior and Agriculture. Regardless of which party is in power, I am 
concerned about allowing the Secretaries to set their own rules, 
regardless of congressional intent and public opinion.
  I have reasons for these concerns. Last Congress I led a bipartisan 
charge with Republican Congresswoman Mary Bono to require Country of 
Origin Labeling on agricultural products. This proposal was strongly 
supported by farmers in my home district, and passed the House of 
Representatives overwhelmingly. My proposal was signed into law last 
Congress. Despite this overwhelming support in my district, and despite 
the voice of the Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture has repeatedly 
blocked implementation of Country of Origin Labeling. I have other 
examples as well, and I do not feel comfortable giving the Secretaries 
this much leeway in determining our national priorities. The public 
needs to be involved in the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I am urging swift consideration of fuels reduction 
legislation in the Senate as we have a huge problem in the Pacific 
Northwest that must be addressed before the heat of summer. This is a 
real problem and we need a real solution with money to match the talk. 
I hope that when the Senate considers this legislation they will 
provide funding to address the need for fuels reduction in our national 
forests. I also hope that they will allow local participation in fuels 
reduction proposals, and will not give such total authority to the 
Secretaries.
  In closing, I would urge the Senate to work quickly to send the House 
hazardous fuels reduction legislation that many of us from timber 
communities can support.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill 
and in favor of the Miller substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, there are few things more heartbreaking than to tune 
into the evening news and watch as wildfires once again bring 
devastation and loss to our neighborhoods in the West.
  In Wisconsin, we have been relatively lucky: It has been over 130 
years since Wisconsin experienced the magnitude of destruction many of 
today's western fires have wrought. On October 8, 1871, the same day as 
the Chicago fire, the great Peshtigo fire ravaged 2400 square miles and 
became known as the Nation's worst forest fire, in terms of lives lost, 
in history.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats agree with our colleagues from across the 
aisle--that the recent propensity of wildfires are a result of years of 
forest mismanagement in combination with years of sustained drought 
have created the undeniable need to develop a sensible hazardous fuels 
reduction policy on our public lands.
  Unfortunately, the bill offered by my colleague, Mr. McInnis does not 
get us there. It fails to target our resources to where they are needed 
most--the areas surrounding our interface communities and municipal 
water supply systems. And like so many other policies championed by 
this administration, the bill

[[Page 12221]]

does not provide any funding mechanism to provide those interface 
communities new financial resources to treat non-federal lands within 
their community protection zones. Mr. Speaker, fire does not recognize 
a federal tree from a non-federal one and if communities are unable to 
treat abutting lands the underlying bill will do practically nothing to 
stop a wildfire's terrible destruction.
  Furthermore, the underlying bill needlessly undermines the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by eliminating its core requirement, 
the consideration of alternatives to a planned activity such as logging 
or thinning. This was the intent of Congress in passing NEPA.
  But perhaps most troubling to me, as a former prosecutor, are the 
unprecedented judicial review provisions of the bill. This section is 
necessary, say its proponents, because ``frivolous appeals'' have 
hamstrung the forest service's efforts to prevent fires.
  Unfortunately, a recent GAO report refutes that argument and found 
that 95 percent of thinning projects have proceeded in a timely manner, 
even when challenged in court.
  The judicial review section of this bill requires challenges to 
Forest Service's action be filed within 15 days--A time limit very few 
communities would be able to meet. Furthermore, this provision forces 
courts to make changes to their docket--regardless of the volume or 
nature of pending cases--to force a decision within an arbitrary 100-
day deadline.
  Finally, this section establishes a new standard for injunctive 
relief by directing courts to give deference to the agencies when 
deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction against an activity 
even when that activity has already proven to be illegal.
  Mr. Speaker, in contrast, the Miller substitute provides federal 
resources where it will do the most good. Unlike the underlying bill, 
it authorizes $4 billion for hazardous fuel reduction and dedicates 85 
percent of the available funds to communities that are most at risk. 
The substitute also provides $500 million in funds to communities to 
address fuel buildup on adjacent private lands.
  Furthermore, the substitute expedites fuel reduction programs around 
communities and watersheds without gutting NEPA or imposing dangerous 
judicial review provisions that are opposed by all of the major civil 
rights groups.
  Mr. Speaker, I join my Republican and Democrat colleagues today in 
calling for a sensible hazardous fuels reduction policy on our public 
lands--one that will actually protect our citizens and reduce the 
occurences of these devastating fires. It is my hope, that the result 
of the policy we make today will allow the citizens of the western 
states, like the citizens of Wisconsin, to go 130+ years without 
knowing firsthand the awful loss wildfires often bring.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the Miller substitute.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition 
to H.R. 1904, the poorly-named Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
  This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It preys on our legitimate 
concerns and fears about the impact of deadly forest fires in the 
upcoming fire season. Indeed, we must acknowledge the destruction that 
has been caused by poor fire management practices over the past 
century. But H.R. 1904, the McInnis-Walden bill, is the wrong solution. 
It is not only inadequate to address these failures, it is deeply 
harmful to our environment.
  Under the guise of helping to protect communities from forest fires, 
this bill actually undermines critical environmental laws. Even more 
egregiously, it also violates our core democratic values by restricting 
the rights of Americans to seek redress in courts for grievances 
against the Federal Government.
  H.R. 1904 should be defeated because it fails to protect our 
communities from wildfire. It allows the logging of remote backcountry 
with no requirement that at-risk homes and communities closest to 
forests are protected first. It does not provide sufficient funding for 
local fire districts, communities, or tribes for fire prevention.
  In addition, this bill undermines existing environmental protections. 
It provides exemptions from the National Environmental Policy Act, the 
cornerstone of all environmental legislation. Without these critical 
NEPA safeguards, this bill will allow commercial logging projects to 
proceed with minimal environmental analysis or public involvement. As a 
result, old-growth forests and roadless areas would not be adequately 
protected.
  The Miller substitute is a great improvement over H.R. 1904. While 
H.R. 1904 in effect would allow logging in remote areas, the Miller 
substitute explicitly prioritizes thinning projects that are closest 
and most threatening to at-risk communities and water supplies. The 
Miller substitute aims to protect our rarest and most precious trees, 
prohibits new road construction, and limits the total amount of federal 
land eligible for thinning projects. It requires environmental reviews 
of forest thinning projects, making exceptions only for projects within 
half a mile of an at-risk community.
  We can all agree that destructive forest fires must be prevented 
through improvements in our forest management practices. But we must 
not let our eagerness to avert these tragic fires blind us to the flaws 
of this bill, which essentially offers a carte blanche for timber 
companies to log in remote forests. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
the Miller amendment and to oppose the McInnis bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed forest 
bill as well as the patently unfair procedure in which this legislation 
is being considered today by the House of Representatives. Neither the 
bill nor the procedure we are following brings credit to this body.
  Last night in the House Rules Committee, Democrats brought forward 
eleven amendments and asked the Committee to allow the House to debate 
them today. Many of these amendments were thoughtful and constructive. 
All of them deserved to be debated by the full House, yet the 
Republican-controlled Rules Committee denied all but one of the 
amendments. The result is that we will have a severely curtailed debate 
on a very divisive piece of legislation with little opportunity for 
Members to improve the bill.
  This is a lost opportunity. Clearly there is a significant public 
divide in this country on forest policy issues, and the best way to 
bridge these differences is to have a full debate in which alternative 
proposals can be debated. Instead, the Rules Committee has adopted a 
procedure in which Members will be effectively gagged. Sadly, this 
practice has become the norm whenever the House considers controversial 
bills.
  I also disagree with the substance of the legislation before the 
House today. This so-called ``Healthy Forest Restoration Act'' is not 
an effective response to the wildfire problems we have experienced in 
recent years. The bill seeks to weaken longstanding environmental 
protections, including the landmark national Environmental Policy Act, 
under the guise of fighting wildfires. But the severe fires we have 
experienced are not the result of our nation's environmental laws; they 
have been due, in large measure, to a combination of severe drought, 
the overgrown conditions of many federal forests resulting from past 
fire-suppression policies, and the growing number of settlements 
adjacent to forested areas.
  I will vote for the substitute that will be offered by 
representatives Miller, DeFazio, Rahall and Conyers. In my view, the 
substitute more effectively deals with the wildfire threat by focusing 
federal resources on protecting the communities most at risk from 
forest fires. Specifically, the substitute would dedicate 85 percent of 
the available funding to fire abatement projects near vulnerable 
communities. There is no similar guarantee in the underlying bill which 
allows logging to take place in roadless areas and old-growth forests 
far from the communities at risk. If the substitute is not adopted, I 
urge my colleagues to join me in opposing final passage of this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.


            Request To Remove Member As Sponsor of H.R. 1904

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) be removed as a sponsor of the bill. He was 
put on there through staff error. I want to make sure I am appropriate 
procedural-wise to get the name off before we get locked into it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. On the bill that is currently under 
consideration?
  Mr. McINNIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is informed it is too late to 
remove the name from the bill. It has been reported.


Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. George Miller of 
                               California

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     George Miller of California:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Hazardous 
     Fuels Reduction Act of 2003''.

[[Page 12222]]

       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Hazardous fuels reduction projects authorized.
Sec. 4. Collaboration and public input process.
Sec. 5. Expedited planning and implementation process.
Sec. 6. Development of definitions of old and large trees.
Sec. 7. Ongoing projects and existing authorities.
Sec. 8. Preference to communities with fire prevention ordinances.
Sec. 9. Sunset.
Sec. 10. Authorization of appropriations.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Land Type and Fire Regime Definitions From Forest 
     Service Rocky Mountain Research Station.--In this Act:
       (1) Condition class 2.--The term ``condition class 2'' 
     refers to lands on which--
       (A) fire regimes have been moderately altered from their 
     historical fire return intervals;
       (B) there exists a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem 
     components; and
       (C) vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from 
     their historical range.
       (2) Condition class 3.--The term ``condition class 3'' 
     refers to lands on which--
       (A) fire regimes have been significantly altered from their 
     historical fire return intervals; and
       (B) there exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem 
     components.
       (3) Fire regime i.--The term ``fire regime I'' refers to 
     lands--
       (A) on which historically there are low severity fires with 
     a frequency of 0-35 years; and
       (B) are located primarily in low elevation forests of pine, 
     oak, and pinyon-juniper.
       (4) Fire regime ii.--The term ``fire regime II'' refers to 
     lands--
       (A) on which historically there are stand replacement 
     severity fires with a frequency of 0-35 years; and
       (B) are located primarily in low- to mid-elevation forests, 
     rangelands, grasslands, or shrublands.
       (5) Fire regime iii.--The term ``fire regime III'' refers 
     to lands--
       (A) on which historically there are mixed severity fires 
     with a frequency of 35-100 years; and
       (B) are located primarily in forests of mixed conifer, dry 
     Douglas Fir, and wet Ponderosa pine.
       (b) Other Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Administrative unit.--The term ``administrative unit'', 
     with respect to Federal lands, means a unit of the National 
     Forest System or a land management district of the Bureau of 
     Land Management
       (2) At-risk community.--The term ``at-risk community'' 
     means a geographic area designated by the Secretary concerned 
     as any area--
       (A) defined as an interface community on page 753 of volume 
     66 of the Federal Register, as published on January 4, 2001, 
     or consisting of a collection of homes or other structures 
     with basic infrastructure and services, such as utilities, 
     collectively maintained transportation routes, and emergency 
     services;
       (B) on which conditions are conducive to large-scale fire 
     disturbance events; and
       (C) for which a significant risk exists of a resulting 
     spread of the fire disturbance event, after ignition, which 
     would threaten human life and property.
       (3) Best value contracting.--The term ``best value 
     contracting'' means the contracting process described in 
     section 15.101 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     which allows the inclusion of non-cost factors in the 
     contract process.
       (4) Comprehensive strategy.--The term ``Comprehensive 
     Strategy'' means the Comprehensive Strategy for a 
     Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to 
     Communities and the Environment, dated May 2002, which was 
     developed pursuant to the conference report to accompany the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (House Report 106-646).
       (5) Federal lands.--Except as provided in subsection (c), 
     the term ``Federal lands'' means--
       (A) National Forest System lands; and
       (B) public lands administered by the Secretary of the 
     Interior acting through the Bureau of Land Management.
       (6) Goods for service contracting.--The term ``goods for 
     service contracting'' means the contracting process described 
     in section 347 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 
     101(e) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 16 U.S.C. 2104 
     note).
       (7) Hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term 
     ``hazardous fuels reduction project'' means a project--
       (A) undertaken for the purpose of reducing the amount of 
     hazardous fuels resulting from alteration of a natural fire 
     regime as a result of fire suppression or other activities; 
     and
       (B) accomplished through the use of prescribed burning or 
     mechanical treatment, or combination thereof.
       (8) Inventoried roadless area.--The term ``inventoried 
     roadless area'' means one of the areas identified in the set 
     of inventoried roadless areas maps contained in the Forest 
     Service Roadless Areas Conservation, Final Environmental 
     Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000.
       (9) Local preference contracting.--The term ``local 
     preference contracting'' means the contracting process 
     described in section 333 of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 (division F of 
     Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 277), that gives preference to 
     local businesses.
       (10) Municipal water supply system.--The term ``municipal 
     water supply'' means reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes, 
     laterals, pipes, pipelines, or other surface facilities and 
     systems constructed or installed for the impoundment, 
     storage, transportation, or distribution of drinking water 
     for a community.
       (11) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
     means--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture (or the designee of the 
     Secretary) with respect to National Forest System lands; and
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior (or the designee of the 
     Secretary) with respect to public lands administered by the 
     Secretary through the Bureau of Land Management.
       (c) Excluded Federal Lands.--This Act, including the 
     expedited process described in section 5, does not apply to 
     any Federal lands--
       (1) included as a component of the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System;
       (2) where logging is prohibited or restricted by Act of 
     Congress, presidential proclamation, or agency determination;
       (3) included in a wilderness study area; or
       (4) included in an inventoried roadless area.

     SEC. 3. HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED.

       (a) Consistency With Implementation Plan.--The processes 
     authorized or required by this Act shall be consistent with 
     the implementation plan for the Comprehensive Strategy to 
     reduce hazardous fuels on Federal lands.
       (b) Priority Hazardous Fuels Reduction Projects.--
       (1) Projects on certain lands.--In implementing hazardous 
     fuels reduction projects under this Act, the Secretary 
     concerned shall give priority to projects on the following 
     Federal lands and other lands:
       (A) Lands that are located within one-half mile of an at-
     risk community where fire regime I, fire regime II, or fire 
     regime III exists and that are in condition class 2 or 
     condition class 3.
       (B) Lands where fire regime I, fire regime II, or fire 
     regime III exists that are in condition class 3, or condition 
     class 2 if the lands are intermingled with condition class 3 
     lands, and that are located in such proximity to a municipal 
     water supply system that a hazardous fuels reduction project 
     should be carried out in order to reduce the risk of harm to 
     such system or the quality of a municipal water supply 
     resulting from an unusually severe wildfire.
       (2) Limitation on other projects pending completion of 
     priority projects.--With respect to projects on Federal lands 
     in a State, the Secretary concerned shall complete all 
     projects on Federal lands identified in paragraph (1) in that 
     State before carrying out projects in areas outside of those 
     Federal lands in that State.
       (c) Compliance With Land Management Plans.--A hazardous 
     fuels reduction project planned and conducted under this Act 
     must be consistent with the land and resource management 
     plan, land use plan, and other agency plans and regulations 
     applicable to the Federal lands covered by the project.
       (d) Project Contracting.--To conduct a hazardous fuels 
     reduction project under this Act, the Secretary concerned 
     shall use local preference contracting and best value 
     contracting. Payments under a contract entered into to 
     implement a project under this Act shall only be made on a 
     fee-for-service basis. The Secretary concerned shall not use 
     goods-for-service contracting to implement a project under 
     this Act.
       (e) Old Growth and Other Limitations.--In conducting a 
     hazardous fuels reduction project under this Act, the 
     Secretary concerned--
       (1) shall not construct new permanent or temporary roads;
       (2) shall maintain all old and large trees and the 
     structure, function, and composition of late-successional 
     forest stands appropriate for each ecosystem type, until the 
     process required by section 6 is complete and Congress 
     formally adopts or rejects the recommendations by Act of 
     Congress;
       (3) shall focus on thinning from below when using 
     mechanical treatment.
       (f) Acreage Limitation.--Not more than 20,000,000 acres of 
     Federal land may be treated using the authorities provided by 
     this Act.
       (g) Funding Priority.--Of funds expended for hazardous 
     fuels reduction projects under this Act, at least 85 percent 
     shall be expended on projects on lands described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (b)(1). Upon forming 
     cooperative agreements with the appropriate parties, the 
     Secretary concerned may use these funds for treatment of non-
     Federal lands.
       (h) Monitoring.--

[[Page 12223]]

       (1) Monitoring required.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     establish a balanced multiparty monitoring process in order 
     for Congress to assess a representative sampling of the 
     hazardous fuels reduction projects implemented under this 
     Act.
       (2) Report required.--Not later than one year after the 
     expiration of this Act, as provided in section 9, the 
     Secretary concerned shall submit to Congress a report 
     containing, at a minimum, the following:
       (A) An assessment of the cumulative accomplishments or 
     adverse impacts of the fuels reduction projects conducted 
     under this Act.
       (B) A description of the ecological effects of the projects 
     conducted under this Act.
       (C) A description of the economic viability, impacts, and 
     costs of the projects conducted under this Act.

     SEC. 4. COLLABORATION AND PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS.

       (a) Process Required.--
       (1) Development.--As a condition on the selection of 
     hazardous fuels reduction projects under section 3, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall jointly develop a collaborative process with interested 
     parties, consistent with the implementation plan for the 
     Comprehensive Strategy. The collaborative process developed 
     by the Secretaries may be the process set forth in title II 
     of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination 
     Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note).
       (2) Required maps and public meetings.--As part of the 
     process developed under subsection (a), the Secretaries 
     shall--
       (A) produce maps, at the appropriate landscape scale, 
     designating the condition class of Federal lands and other 
     lands and including a fire risk assessment based on natural 
     and human-caused factors, including insect and disease 
     mortality, associated with those lands;
       (B) make such maps readily available for public inspection; 
     and
       (C) hold a public meeting by administrative unit to discuss 
     condition class and associated fire risk factors and to 
     identify priority areas for the hazardous fuels reduction 
     projects.
       (b) Public Notice.--
       (1) Quarterly notice.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     provide quarterly notice of each hazardous fuels reduction 
     project proposed to be conducted using the expedited process 
     described in section 5. The quarterly notice shall be 
     provided in the Federal Register, in a local paper of record, 
     and on an agency website. The Secretary concerned may combine 
     this quarterly notice with other quarterly notices otherwise 
     issued regarding Federal land management.
       (2) Content.--The notice required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include, at a minimum, the following information regarding 
     each hazardous fuels reduction project contained in the 
     notice:
       (A) Specific identification that the project is a hazardous 
     fuels reduction project for which the expedited process 
     described in section 5 will be used, including a clear 
     statement whether the agency intends to use a categorical 
     exclusion or to prepare an environmental assessment or 
     environmental impact statement.
       (B) A description of the project, including as much 
     information on its geographic location as practicable.
       (C) The approximate date on which scoping for the project 
     will begin.
       (D) Information regarding how interested members of the 
     public can take part in the development of the project 
     pursuant to the expedited process described in section 5.
       (c) Public Meeting.--Following publication of each 
     quarterly notice under subsection (b), but before the 
     beginning of scoping for the project pursuant to the 
     expedited process described in section 5, the Secretary 
     concerned shall conduct a public meeting at an appropriate 
     location in each administrative unit of the Federal lands 
     regarding those hazardous fuels reduction projects contained 
     in the quarterly notice that are proposed to be conducted in 
     that administrative unit. The Secretary concerned shall 
     provide advance notice of the date and time of the meeting in 
     the quarterly notice or using the same means described in 
     subsection (b)(1).
       (d) Final Agency Action.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     provide notice in the local paper of record and on an agency 
     website of any final agency action regarding a hazardous 
     fuels reduction project for which the expedited process 
     described in section 5 are used.
       (e) Public Petitions for Inclusion or Exclusion of Lands.--
       (1) Right to petition.--An entity referred to in paragraph 
     (4) may submit to the Secretary concerned a petition, with 
     supporting evidence, that requests the inclusion or exclusion 
     of an area of Federal lands in subsection (a) with regard to 
     condition class.
       (2) Evaluation.--The Secretary concerned shall respond to a 
     petition under paragraph (1) by public notice of a public 
     viewing of the area in question, within 90 days of receipt 
     the petition, with the petitioner and any other interested 
     parties.
       (3) Response.--The Secretary concerned shall accept or deny 
     the petition within 180 days of its receipt, based on the 
     site evaluation under paragraph (2) and a specific review of 
     the historical conditions, forest type, and present fuel 
     loads of the Federal lands covered by the petition.
       (4) Authorized petitioners.--A petition under paragraph (1) 
     may be submitted by any of the following:
       (A) A political subdivision of a State.
       (B) A federally formed resource advisory council or 
     provincial advisory committee.
       (C) A resource advisory committee established under section 
     205 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
     Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 
     note).

     SEC. 5. EXPEDITED PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS.

       (a) Scoping.--The Secretary concerned shall conduct scoping 
     with respect to each hazardous fuels reduction project for 
     which the expedited process established by this section are 
     to be used.
       (b) Categorical Exclusions.--
       (1) Presumption near communities.--If a hazardous fuels 
     reduction project covered by section 3, for which the 
     collaborative and public input process required by section 4 
     is used, covers Federal lands located within one-half mile of 
     an at-risk community, the project is deemed to be 
     categorically excluded from further analysis under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et 
     seq.). The Secretary concerned need not make any findings as 
     to whether the project, either individually or cumulatively, 
     has a significant effect on the environment. However, within 
     one-half mile of an at-risk community, the Secretary 
     concerned shall vary the treatments used to achieve 
     heterogeneity of forest conditions and to ensure forest 
     health.
       (2) Extraordinary circumstances exception.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to Federal lands located within one-half mile 
     of an at-risk community if extraordinary circumstances exist 
     with respect to the lands.
       (3) Extraordinary circumstances.--In the case of a 
     hazardous fuels reduction project for which a categorical 
     exclusion applies under paragraph (1), if extraordinary 
     circumstances exist with respect to the project, the 
     Secretary concerned shall follow agency procedures (as 
     contained in CEQ regulation 1508.4, Forest Service Handbook 
     1909.15, chapters 30-33, as of August 22, 2002, and Bureau of 
     Land Management Handbook H-1790-1, 516 DM 2.1-2.10) related 
     to categorical exclusions and extraordinary circumstances.
       (4) Appeals.--Hazardous fuels reduction projects 
     implemented using a categorical exclusion under paragraph (1) 
     are not subject to appeal requirements imposed by section 322 
     of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612 
     note), or the Department of the Interior Office of Hearings 
     and Appeals.
       (c) Environmental Assessments.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to priority lands identified 
     in section 3(b), if a categorical exclusion does not apply 
     under subsection (b) to a hazardous fuels reduction project 
     under section 3 for the lands, the Secretary concerned shall 
     determine, consistent with the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969, whether an environmental assessment will be 
     sufficient to meet the requirements for the project under 
     such Act.
       (2) Content.--An environmental assessment prepared for a 
     hazardous fuels reduction project under section 3 shall--
       (A) be concise, if possible not more than 10-15 pages;
       (B) describe sufficient information and analyses for 
     determining whether to prepare an environmental impact 
     statement or a finding of no significant impact;
       (C) state the need for the proposed action;
       (D) describe alternative actions, as required by section 
     102(2)(E) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
       (E) briefly describe the environmental impacts of the 
     proposed action and alternatives;
       (F) list the agencies and persons consulted, as required by 
     section 1508.9 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, with 
     respect to National Forest System lands;
       (G) reference supporting data, inventories and other 
     documents on which the Secretary concerned relied to make the 
     decision; and
       (H) involve interested agencies and the public in the 
     preparation of the environmental assessment.
       (3) Availability of decision document.--When the decision 
     document is complete for a hazardous fuels reduction project 
     under section 3 for which an environmental assessment or 
     categorical exclusion memo is prepared, the Secretary 
     concerned shall--
       (A) provide notice of the decision document in the Federal 
     Register, the local paper of record, and an agency website, 
     including notice stating how the documentation listed in 
     subparagraph (B) will be available; and
       (B) make the environmental analysis document, 
     administrative record, and decision document or memo for the 
     project, pursuant to section 215.2 of title 36, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, readily available for public review.
       (4) Appeals.--Notwithstanding the appeal requirements 
     imposed by section 322 of the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-
     381; 16 U.S.C. 1612 note), or the Department of the Interior 
     Office of Hearings and Appeals--

[[Page 12224]]

       (A) persons must file any administrative appeal of a 
     project under this subsection within 30 days after the date 
     of issuance of the decision document for the project;
       (B) the Secretary concerned shall resolve any appeal not 
     later than 20 days after the closing date for filing an 
     appeal; and
       (C) the Secretary concerned shall stay implementation of 
     the project until the end of the 15-day period beginning on 
     date on which the Secretary concerned resolves any 
     administrative appeal that complies with the requirements in 
     subsection (d).
       (d) Additional Limitation on Administrative Appeals.--
     Notwithstanding section 322 of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 
     102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612 note), if a draft document prepared 
     pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for 
     a hazardous fuels reduction project covered by section 3 was 
     available for public comment, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     may require that a person filing an administrative appeal 
     with respect to the project must have been involved in the 
     public comment process for the project by submitting written 
     comments raising specific issues with regard to the project.
       (e) Statement of Compliance.--A catagorical exclusion memo 
     or environmental assessment decision document prepared under 
     this section shall include a short statement as to how the 
     hazardous fuels reduction project complies with the 
     requirement of section 3(c).

     SEC. 6. DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS OF OLD AND LARGE TREES.

       (a) Use of National Academy of Sciences.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly 
     enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences 
     for the preparation of recommended definitions of old and 
     large trees appropriate for each ecosystem type to be used 
     for purposes of this Act.
       (b) Qualifications.--To be eligible to serve on the panel 
     of the National Academy of Sciences used to prepare the 
     recommended definitions of old and large trees, a member of 
     the panel shall have scientific expertise in the 
     characteristics of old growth and the seral stages of forest 
     types.
       (c) Submission of Recommended Definitions.--Not later than 
     one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     National Academy of Sciences shall submit to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and Congress the 
     recommended definitions of old and large trees appropriate 
     for each ecosystem type.

     SEC. 7. ONGOING PROJECTS AND EXISTING AUTHORITIES.

       Nothing in this Act shall affect a hazardous fuels 
     reduction projects for which scoping has begun before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act or affect authorities 
     otherwise granted to the Secretary concerned under existing 
     law.

     SEC. 8. PREFERENCE TO COMMUNITIES WITH FIRE PREVENTION 
                   ORDINANCES.

        In determining the allocation of funding for the Community 
     and Private Land Fire Assistance program under section 10A(b) 
     of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2106c(b)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall prioritize 
     funding to those communities that have taken proactive steps 
     through the enactment of ordinances and other means to 
     encourage property owners to reduce fire risk on private 
     property.

     SEC. 9. SUNSET.

       The provisions of this Act shall expire at the end of the 
     five-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, except that a hazardous fuels reduction project for 
     which a decision notice, or memo in the case of a categorical 
     exclusion, has been issued before the end of such period may 
     continue to be implemented using the provisions of this Act.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) National Forest System Lands.--For the purpose of 
     planning and conducting hazardous fuels reduction projects 
     under this Act on National Forest System Lands, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture 
     $1,943,100,000 during the five-fiscal year period beginning 
     October 1, 2003. Subject to section 9, amounts appropriated 
     in one fiscal year and unobligated before the end of that 
     fiscal year shall remain available for use in subsequent 
     fiscal years.
       (b) BLM Lands.--For the purpose of planning and conducting 
     hazardous fuels reduction projects under this Act on Federal 
     lands described in section 2(b)(2)(B), there are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior 
     $1,888,000,000 during the five-fiscal year period beginning 
     October 1, 2003. Subject to section 9, amounts appropriated 
     in one fiscal year and unobligated before the end of that 
     fiscal year shall remain available for use in subsequent 
     fiscal years.
       (c) Other Lands.--For the purpose of planning and 
     conducting hazardous fuels reduction projects under this Act 
     on tribal lands, nonindustrial private lands, and State 
     lands, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of the Interior $500,000,000 during the five-fiscal 
     year period beginning October 1, 2003. Subject to section 9, 
     amounts appropriated in one fiscal year and unobligated 
     before the end of that fiscal year shall remain available for 
     use in subsequent fiscal years.

                              {time}  1430

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
239, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and a Member 
opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
will control the time in opposition.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  Already today we have heard a lot of heated exchange on the subject 
of fire policy. Our Republican colleagues will make impassioned 
speeches about the need to pass this legislation to protect 
communities. The President has implored the Congress to act. And 
without question Democrats and Republicans agree that this is a 
critically important issue to so many of our western communities, to 
the health of our forests, to the safety of those communities and to 
those who are engaged in firefighting during the fire year in the 
western United States.
  But there is a big difference between these pieces of legislation. 
There is a big difference between talking about catastrophic wildfires 
and really helping communities that are at risk. There is a world of 
difference between wildfire legislation put forth by my colleagues on 
the Republican side of the aisle and the alternative that we are 
proposing on this side of the aisle. That really comes down to an issue 
about the priorities of these communities.
  Yes, we have drawn an area around these communities of a half mile 
which we have slated for fire treatment; and if we treated all those 
communities we would use up all of the money that is in the budget for 
the treatment of those fires, those where we engage in catastrophic 
fires, not necessarily the largest fires that take place in the western 
United States or in the United States, including Alaska, where huge 
fires rage very far from communities, far from where people live. Those 
are destructive fires in many ways, but they are not the catastrophic 
fires where we engage in the intensity of firefighting, the risk of 
human life, and the risk to property.
  So we think in our legislation that we have made a decision that we 
will concentrate the resources on that, we will do it in a bill that is 
essentially noncontroversial, that addresses the problem, that can go 
to work right away, can create the jobs in the community that are 
necessary to provide for the health of our forests and the safety of 
our communities.
  It is very clear, I think, when we look at both bills. Westerners 
understand the difference between smoke and fire, and I would suggest 
that the Republican bill is a lot of smoke if we are talking about 
protecting those communities. I think it is important to understand 
what are the distinctions in the bill. We provide direct aid to local 
communities to treat private lands and public lands because they are 
intermingled. To suggest you are going to do one without the other is 
to put the other at risk.
  In fact, we find that there is not the aid to local communities in 
the Republican bill. Our provisions are noncontroversial and will speed 
up the thinning projects. I think when my colleagues read the 
legislation presented by the committees, they will see, as we have 
already heard comments from so many organizations that are deeply 
concerned about the due process provisions of this law, that will make 
it much more difficult, certainly delay its consideration in the 
Senate.
  We create the new jobs quickly, providing that aid for the treatment 
on public and private lands, and we target the resources to those 
communities that are at risk and to the watersheds in those communities 
that are at risk. That is what we should be doing. That is what we 
should be doing. And we should especially be doing that when we 
consider the budget requests of this administration, which requested 
less money in this budget for hazardous fuel treatment than in the 
previous year.

[[Page 12225]]

  The Department of the Interior requested stable funding in this year. 
The fact of the matter is, in total, what we see is there is less money 
to treat fewer acres. That is why we had to set some priorities.
  Yes, we would like to think that we could second-guess nature, that 
we could go out to where lightning is going to strike, treat that area 
this year, and we would not have a fire there next year. But the fact 
of the matter is, in the urban-suburban interface, where communities 
have moved into the forest, where there is a risk, where there is a 
different urgency about fighting a fire because of properties and 
threats to communities where we put people most at risk in fighting 
those fires, that is where we ought to have the priority.
  That is really what this legislation does. It makes a decision that 
the Congress, living within the budget constraints, and I hope the 
Committee on Appropriations will add additional money to this, but 
living within those constraints, let us treat those lands where we have 
the most critical need on this.
  The suggestion in the Republican bill is that if we just cut down 
enough big trees, enough big valuable trees that are not the problem 
with fire, therefore we can pay for the treatment of more lands. In 
California, it is suggested that we could cut down many of the areas of 
the giant sequoia monuments, where we are preserving some of the oldest 
trees on the face of the earth, that we could cut down these trees and 
pay for treatment in Southern California or Northern California. That 
is a Faustian bargain the public does not want.
  We have heard much discussion here about how fires used to creep 
along the forestlands. The suggestion we have to cut down the biggest 
trees so fires will once again creep along the forestlands is a 
mistake. What we need in many instances, and what many communities can 
do on a priority basis, is mechanical treatment and controlled burns to 
get rid of that understudy of brush that then allows those fires to 
jump into the crowns. But that is not what the Republican legislation 
does. It does not put the priority in the protection of those 
communities.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on 
Resources, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to manage that 
time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) 
will control 15 minutes of the time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last year this Nation lost 6.9 million acres to 
catastrophic forest fires. That is an area larger than the entire State 
of Vermont. The Federal Government spent $1.6 billion in a losing 
effort to save that forestland. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act 
would expedite hazardous fuels reduction projects on a fraction of the 
190 million at-risk acres in our national forests.
  The Miller substitute seeks to throw us back into the morass of 
inaction and delay that is destroying our natural resource base. 
According to the Chief of the Forest Service, last year the Forest 
Service spent over $250 million on land management projects. Forty 
percent of that amount, over $100 million, was wasted on process 
delays. If we continue to approach catastrophic fire losses like this, 
we will have lots of lawyers and still lose the forests.
  The Miller substitute would reinstate the opportunities for 
procedural delay and even adds new unnecessary steps. This will drag 
the system even further into the mire that is exposing forest after 
forest to catastrophic fire threats.
  The substitute forces 85 percent of funding for hazardous fuels 
reduction to be spent within one-half mile of an at-risk community. 
This arbitrary standard provides little meaningful protection to towns 
caught in the path of raging fires, the pictures some of which we have 
seen already in the debate, that have been observed to leap up to 2 
miles past the main fire. By throwing almost all the projects into a 
narrow useless belt around towns, the substitute ignores the peril to 
watersheds, wildlife, particularly endangered species, and the forest 
itself.
  The basic approach of the Miller substitute seems to be: If you can't 
beat it, wreck it. The most puzzling aspect of the substitute is that 
it totally ignores most of the bill. It does a thorough job of heaping 
needless process delays on the hazardous fuels reduction projects, but 
it ignores the threat of insect infestation on public and private 
lands. In my part of the country, it is the disease and insect 
infestations that are the greatest threat in the east and the south. 
The substitute refuses to accept the watersheds protection and healthy 
forest reserve programs created by H.R. 1904.
  The Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a balanced approach to 
responsible conservation of our public and private forest resources. It 
addresses forest health problems and promotes good stewardship across 
the Nation. The Miller substitute is a scheme to undermine fire 
protection efforts and effectively pretends there are no other forestry 
problems worth addressing. The labor unions, conservation associations, 
State and local governments, and professional foresters who support 
H.R. 1904 disagree.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of the Miller substitute and the 
passage of this outstanding bill, a first step to ending the carnage of 
our Nation's forestlands.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Miller-DeFazio 
substitute, H.R. 1261. I do so because I think we need a positive 
vision, and that positive vision is the Miller-DeFazio substitute.
  Protecting homes and keeping people safe must be the top priority of 
wildfire policy. Forest Service researchers believe making homes 
firewise and creating defensible space near communities is the best way 
to achieve this goal, one that could be realized within a short period 
of time.
  Advocating for fuel reduction treatments to be focused on community 
protection zones does not mean the rest of the forest is left to burn. 
Restoration treatments focused on prescribed burning and small diameter 
thinning must proceed in the forest dependent on frequent fires, such 
as the Ponderosa Pine. More than 50 southwest conservation 
organizations have been calling for precisely this type of action since 
1996. With continuing droughts and tight budgets, focusing on the 
community is the most effective, common-sense approach.
  The Miller-DeFazio substitute is the definitive middle ground and is 
the only option that addresses hazardous fuels reduction and community 
protections.
  H.R. 1261, the Miller-DeFazio substitute, protects old-growth 
forests, promotes thinning from below, guarantees due process, protects 
the NEPA review process, and, in complete contrast to H.R. 1904, 
actually provides guaranteed funding directly to communities, States, 
and tribal governments for protection of their people, their homes, and 
their businesses.
  This is an effective solution before us today, and I ask, no, indeed 
I implore, that we vote for the solution in the Miller-DeFazio 
substitute.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the Miller amendment would 
eliminate title 4, and it is about management techniques on an 
accelerated basis to stem the exploding insect epidemics.
  To say that a research program is a ruse for commercial timber 
harvest is to ignore the plain language of this legislation. Large-
scale studies are needed

[[Page 12226]]

to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of treatments. This title 
creates a partnership between the Forest Service and academia to bring 
the very best minds in this country to solve these problems.
  We want to talk about a new insect, the Hemlock woolly adelgid. It 
has come into the eastern part of this country. It came in 1950, and by 
the early 1990s this had spread into 11 States from North Carolina to 
Massachusetts, causing extensive Hemlock decline. This map shows where 
it is now spreading.
  This insect, the adelgid, kills infected trees in 3 to 5 years after 
attack and spreads quickly. This next picture here shows these egg sacs 
that have up to 300 eggs apiece and how to identify a tree that has 
this insect. It feeds on the needles, and when they are done, here is 
what a Hemlock tree looks like. A beautiful Hemlock tree now looks 
devastated.
  We need research. We need the ability to stop these insects that will 
destroy the Hemlock forests in the East. The substitute is removing the 
ability to do this. This substitute is not about helping fight the 
insects that are destroying the forests in this country.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in strong support for the Miller-
DeFazio substitute, and I hope that everyone in this room will proudly 
support that amendment as well. It puts local people first in making 
decisions about forest fire prevention, and it will get people to work 
right now before other emergencies come up. It focuses research where 
they are needed the most, in areas surrounding communities where people 
live.
  I say that, Mr. Speaker, because last year we were also faced with 
one of our forest fires in Los Angeles, the Angeles National Forest, 
right on the periphery near cities that both I and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) represent. By contrast, H.R. 1904 is a bill 
that ignores the needs of communities near forests.
  H.R. 1904 drastically revises our legal review process and will 
create gridlock in our court system by virtually guaranteeing that 
every fire prevention plan be contested. It gives priority to those 
cases over all other legal matters, including cases pertaining to 
murder and civil rights.

                              {time}  1445

  That is why many groups and organizations that I work with, the 
NAACP, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the 
National Organization of Women, and all other major environmental 
groups oppose H.R. 1904. H.R. 1904 ignores regional approaches to fire 
protection that has been carefully crafted with input from our local 
communities, industry, environmentalists, and State government. If we 
want a plan to truly protect our forests and our environment and the 
people that live there, then do the right thing and vote for the 
Miller-DeFazio substitute.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
specifically because it sets a one-size-fits-all policy across the 
country. The gentlewoman just spoke about local control, local 
coordination. That is exactly what this amendment does not do. Imagine 
for a minute looking down on one's own garden and being told you cannot 
weed anywhere but within 6 inches of your tomato plants. That is what 
we are telling the forest officials across the West, they have a half-
mile diameter radius outside their city. That is where they will 
concentrate the money and weed the forest. That is where they will take 
out the small diameter, dog-hair thickets. Mind the scientists and the 
experts that proved that the vector fires, the pattern of where the 
fires are going to come from, where the prevailing winds and terrain 
are, never mind being able to thin in those areas so the firemen have a 
fall-back position, thinning is only within a half mile of town. That 
is it, no fall-back. This binds the hands of the Forest Service. Vote 
``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank those 
people who have worked so hard on both sides of the aisle on this bill, 
and I rise in support of the underlying bill and in opposition to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  Last year's wildfire season was among the most destructive in half a 
century. With frightening speed and growing intensity, wildfires swept 
across pristine forest preserves around the country destroying homes by 
the hundreds and forcing evacuations of thousands of residents, and 
blighting America's skies with thick, black, choking smoke. Over 190 
million acres are now at heightened risk of wildfires.
  The incidence and severity of these fires can be reduced through the 
controlled reduction of fire accelerants. For several years, procedural 
and legal obstacles have precluded land managers from taking timely 
steps to address these dangers. Currently, it takes several years to 
propose, analyze, re-analyze, litigate, and appeal preventive 
management options.
  The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 helps provide Federal 
land managers with the tools to ensure timely and effective response to 
wildfire threats.
  H.R. 1904's judicial review and expedited administrative procedure 
provisions formed the basis of the Committee on the Judiciary's 
consideration of this legislation and comprised some of its most 
critical components.
  Specifically, section 104 streamlines procedures for implementing 
threat reduction projects on Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management lands near at-risk communities, on fire-prone lands near 
municipal water sources, on lands that encompass habitat for endangered 
species, and on lands particularly vulnerable to disease and insect 
infestation. The Secretary must permit an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement for each of the authorized hazardous 
fuel reduction project.
  Section 105 requires robust public participation throughout the 
process by requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a formal 
administrative appeals process for persons who wish to challenge the 
implementation of forest preservation efforts.
  Harmonizing the Forest Service's administrative appeal mechanism with 
the highly protective appeals process employed by the Department of the 
Interior promotes public participation, safeguards procedural due 
process, and permits the more timely implementation of urgent forest 
protection measures.
  Section 106 pertains to the judicial review that requires the Federal 
courts to reevaluate the factual conditions underlying preliminary 
injunctions halting threat reduction projects every 45 days. This is 
critical. Presently, injunctive stays may remain in effect for years 
before courts reach the merits of a legal challenge, with sometimes 
catastrophic consequences. Periodic judicial reappraisal of the 
circumstances predicating injunctive relief will better equip courts to 
assess and address hazardous forest conditions.
  Finally, under the current system, Federal courts focus almost 
exclusively on the consequences of implementing fire reduction 
projects. Section 107 of this legislation simply requires Federal 
courts to also assess the consequences of inaction.
  This section, as amended by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), also instructs Federal courts to weigh the factual and 
scientific assessments of forest threat conditions provided by the 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management when reviewing threat 
reduction initiatives. This guidance is consistent with Congress's 
plenary authority to determine the level of probative value courts may 
ascribe to agency determinations.
  For millions of Americans, particularly in western States such as 
Utah, which I represent, the threat of forest conflagrations is not a 
hypothetical possibility, but a daily reality. H.R. 1904 enjoys 
overwhelming bipartisan

[[Page 12227]]

support in the areas most threatened by forest fires. Passage of the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act will help reduce the growing prevalence 
of forest fires that have destroyed irreplaceable natural resources, 
including endangered species, and that have threatened hundreds of 
communities over the last several years.
  I urge my colleagues to help safeguard America's forests from 
increasingly intense and common conflagrations. As chairman of the 
Bicameral Western Caucus, I can personally attest to the urgency of 
passing this bill, and encourage my colleagues to support this 
carefully tailored, proenvironmental legislation and to oppose the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
substitute amendment, not because I think it is perfect, but because I 
think it is a better choice than the underlying bill. The substitute is 
partly better because what it includes and partly because of what is 
not in it.
  Most importantly, the substitute includes some of the best parts of 
the McInnis-Walden bill the Committee on Resources approved last year. 
Like last year's bill, the substitute earmarks most of the fuel-
reduction money for projects to protect our communities and their water 
supplies.
  In both the Resources and Agriculture Committees, I tried to amend 
the bill to restore the requirement that at least 70 percent of the 
money for forest thinning projects go to protect communities and their 
water supplies. That 70 percent requirement was in the McInnis-Walden 
bill last year, but it is not in this year's bill. So on this very 
important opportunity, the substitute is more in line with the bill I 
voted for last year.
  Also, the substitute has a sunset clause. I think it should be 
included because that title is strong medicine to respond to an 
emergency situation. It is only sound policy to allow it to work for 
several years and then look at how well it has worked. A sunset clause 
will make sure that happens. The substitute also includes essentially 
the same provisions on administrative appeals as those in last year's 
bill. The purpose is to cut red tape and to speed up the resolution of 
appeals to avoid unnecessary delays.
  I think those provisions are appropriate and have included similar 
ones in my own bill on this policy area. However, the new bill does not 
include any of those provisions. It simply allows the Secretary to 
establish any kind of appeals process the administration prefers. This 
is essentially a blank check. I do not think that is a good idea 
because it does not ensure that the result will strike the right 
balance between the need to avoid unnecessary delays while still 
affording local governments and other interested parties a meaningful 
opportunity to appeal things they find objectionable.
  At the same time, the substitute does not include some of the most 
troubling parts of the new bill. Unlike the bill, the substitute does 
not go beyond the scope of last year's McInnis-Walden bill approved by 
the Committee on Resources. Many parts of the bill are absolutely new. 
There are things on which we have had no hearings and which threaten to 
bog us down in new controversies. They may have some merits, but I 
think it would be better to consider them separately, not as a part of 
this bill.
  Finally, as I said, the substitute is not perfect, with all due 
respect to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). If it was 
just up to me, it would be different in several respects. In fact, it 
would read just like the bill H.R. 1042, the bill I introduced with my 
cousin and colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). I 
would have a broader definition of the wildland urban interface. If we 
are to truly address the risks to communities and their water supplies, 
we must include lands that are sometimes outside an arbitrary mileage 
limit from the edge of a particular community.
  That is why my bill uses a definition based on the one developed by 
our Colorado State forester. On this one point, H.R. 1904, as well as 
my bill, is closer to the Committee on Resources bill from last year. 
But, unfortunately, my bill is not one of the choices before the House. 
We have to choose between H.R. 1904 and the substitute.
  The substitute builds on the bill the Committee on Resources passed 
last year, while H.R. 1904 throws away some of the best parts of that 
bill and adds many new and troublesome provisions. I think the 
substitute is the better choice, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, who supports our bill? I would 
tell my colleague from Colorado, the Colorado State forester supports 
our bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the Society of American Foresters, the National 
Association of State Foresters, and the Western Forestry Leadership 
Council support the underlying bill, H.R. 1904. These are the 
professionals in the field in the forests who want to do the work to 
prevent this kind of catastrophic fire. These are the people who come 
to us every day and say free our hands so we can do what we were 
trained to do in the colleges and universities across this country, to 
cut the underbrush, to tend to the garden for more than half a mile.
  There is no scientific, underlying purpose to limit the scope of 
either of these bills to half a mile. There is not. That is a political 
decision somebody made. Members want to talk about the abuse we are 
getting on this side for somehow doing away with NEPA? Check the 
substitute, page 16, that grants the Secretary's categorical exemption, 
and let me read from line 4. The Secretary concerned need not make any 
findings as to whether the project, either individually or 
cumulatively, has a significant effect on the environment. They do not 
even have to do an analysis. We require an environmental assessment or 
an EIS in these areas, but theirs to do hazardous fuels says they can 
do whatever they want as long as it is within a half mile from the 
community, no NEPA required. There is a specific exemption from NEPA. 
That is on page 16, beginning line 4, categorical exclusion.
  But let us talk about what is really at stake here, and that is what 
we do to prevent fires from engulfing our communities, destroying our 
watersheds, wiping out habitat of threatened and endangered species. 
And let me quote from the National Association of Forest Service 
Retirees who wrote: ``The big fires of 2002 came roaring out of 
interior forests, and nothing but a change in the weather stopped them. 
The consequences of only thinning around communities will be to give 
residents a false sense of security that may put property and their 
very lives in danger.''
  Mr. Speaker, a false sense of security. That is what the Miller-
DeFazio substitute gives people in communities. We say we are solving 
the problem, but we are only going a half mile back. We ought to be 
stopping catastrophic fires that affect the watersheds and people; but 
they would not qualify for the kind of quick, hazardous fuels 
reductions that we both want to see happen throughout the forests.
  Once again, where does this not apply? The legislation does not touch 
national parks, national wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, wilderness 
study areas, national monuments, or roadless areas. It does not get 
into any of those areas. This is a very small step forward, 20 million 
out of 195 million acres we want to get an expedited process in to see 
if we cannot make a difference. We want to do the assessments and the 
research to figure out what the best way to stop the bug and disease 
infestation we have seen in our forests.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to wipe out our hardwood forests and our 
softwood forests across this country if we debate this to death and do 
not act. I urge defeat of the Miller-DeFazio substitute, and I urge 
enactment of H.R. 1904.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me rise today

[[Page 12228]]

on behalf of the Miller-DeFazio substitute because I believe it is the 
much better bill before this body today, and let me tell Members why.

                              {time}  1500

  We are talking here about trying to deal with forests that are 
overgrown, a situation that has grown over 100 years; and we are trying 
to find out a way to get those forests healthy. The approaches that are 
before us here are pretty radical. The bill that has been offered by 
the majority in this case does some unprecedented things in terms of 
judicial review. It really in fact guts some of the injunctive relief 
provisions and slants the whole process towards the Federal Government.
  I hear on their side of the aisle talk all the time, limited 
government, we want limited government. What they are voting for is 
giving the Federal Government the balance of the power when you get 
into court on injunctive relief. And so they are tipping the scales in 
behalf of the Federal Government. And who else is in court? The 
citizen. That is who is in court. The citizen is in court with the 
Federal Government. And so this majority bill is basically saying, when 
you get into court and you start looking at these tough issues, 
citizens raise good concerns, well, it doesn't matter that they have 
raised good, proper concerns, let's rig the court system, let's rig the 
court system so it comes out in behalf of the Federal agencies.
  I hear talk all the time in the Committee on Resources, oh, we have 
got to limit the Federal Government, we have got to watch these Federal 
agencies, we have got to keep an eye on them. You are not doing that in 
this bill. This bill is just opening the gates wide open for Federal 
agencies to abuse that power. The Miller-DeFazio substitute does not 
have a judicial review section. It does not have that egregious 
section. So it is better by far just on that account. But what Miller-
DeFazio does is actually focus the Federal Government on thinning in 
the areas where it is needed most. The base bill is completely 
unfocused. You do not have a clue where they are thinning. Miller-
DeFazio focuses in and says, let's look at urban-wildland interface, 
let's look at municipal watersheds, let's spend our time and resources 
in those areas. That is a significant difference here.
  Another significant difference is in the NEPA process. I beg to 
differ with the gentleman from Oregon who says that our bill does some 
unfair things in terms of NEPA. We allow the citizens to participate 
with their forests, participate in the process. The underlying bill, 
the base bill, does everything it can to cut the citizens out of the 
process, shorten the deadlines, weight the judicial system against 
them. When it comes to allowing citizens to participate in their 
forests, these, after all, are the forests of the United States of 
America. The public owns these forests. What we are doing in this base 
bill is gutting the ability of the citizens to actually participate in 
the process.
  And so the better bill today is Miller-DeFazio. I would urge everyone 
to vote for that. And if that is not adopted, to vote down the base 
bill, the bill that is before us, because it is unbalanced, it is 
unfair, and it hurts citizens' ability to comment on their forests.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, 190 million acres of our Federal forests 
and rangelands are at unnaturally high risk to catastrophic wildfire. 
Currently, only 2.5 million of these acres are treated by forest 
managers. This is due to the immensely bureaucratic, litigious process 
that prevents proper forest management. The Miller amendment does not 
address this.
  An example of the crisis facing our national forests was evident last 
year when a fire was blazing out of control in the Sequoia National 
Forest. The fire, called the McNally Fire, was raging dangerously close 
to an ancient sequoia grove within the National Sequoia Monument. 
Firefighters were prevented from controlling the blaze for several days 
because it was too dangerous.
  In total, the McNally Fire charred over 150,000 acres of the forest; 
and it could have decimated the sequoia trees, some of which are over 
1,000 years old. Responsible stewardship would have prevented this 
problem and would have minimized the amount of trees, habitat, and 
watersheds that were destroyed in the Sequoia National Forest. The 
Miller amendment would almost guarantee that this fire could happen 
again.
  The McNally Fire is just one example demonstrating why the Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act is necessary. The enhanced flexibility given to 
local forest managers in the bill will better protect our forests. By 
streamlining procedures and ensuring public participation, forest 
management projects will be finished within months rather than years. 
The Miller-DeFazio amendment falls short of this goal.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of those who participated in the 
process of the healthy forests reform legislation for doing a pretty 
good job. I think we are moving in the right direction. In this piece 
of legislation today we are moving significantly in the right 
direction. It does not go the whole way that all of us want to do, but 
we move significantly in the right direction. For those Members who 
will support the Miller amendment and oppose the underlying bill, the 
democratic process is a never-ending story, so we will always have 
opportunities to do what we want to do in this constant management 
regime.
  The other thing is, we do something, I think, that is extraordinary 
in the underlying bill and that is that it deals with the hydrology, or 
the watershed approach, to our national forests. This kind of approach 
takes out the fragmentation piece by piece, the politically charged 
process of dealing with what we need to deal with, and that is healthy 
forests. What were they like 10 years ago? They were not very well 10 
years ago. What were they like 20 years ago? Healthy forests did not 
exist 20 years ago. But what were they like 500 years ago? It was a 
natural process. What we are trying to do in this legislation is go 
through a process to get back to restore the prodigious bounty of 
nature and our healthy forests.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues should hear 
themselves over there. I have been sitting up in my office listening to 
this debate. They are saying our forests are diseased. They are right. 
But I ask, when was the last time they supported adequate funding for 
forest disease research in any of our bills?
  They rightfully worry about fires devastating our forests. But I ask, 
when last did they support any kind of growth control, any kind of 
control that would prevent neighborhoods from butting up against our 
forests?
  Their solution is right, cut the trees. Because if there are no 
trees, there will be no forest fires.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I must at this time speak in opposition to 
the Miller-DeFazio amendment. As a member of both the Committee on 
Agriculture and the Committee on Resources, I saw the evolution of the 
McInnis-Walden bill, H.R. 1904, heard it debated at length and heard it 
amended at length. The base bill provides desperately needed safeguards 
for our Nation's forests. It is well crafted, it is thorough, it is 
comprehensive.
  I have five major concerns with the Miller-DeFazio amendment:
  Number one. As has been stated many times today, the one-half-mile 
thinning zone is not adequate obviously to protect many homes and many 
residential areas. Many fires have jumped further than the one-half-
mile limit.
  Number two. The Miller amendment does not adequately address bug and

[[Page 12229]]

insect outbreaks. This has been particularly a big problem in the 
South, in the East, and in some of the areas in the Midwest which abut 
to the State of Nebraska. The red oak disease has been particularly 
predominant in that area.
  Number three. This amendment prohibits new road development. 
Certainly no one wants a lot of new roads in our forests, but new roads 
occasionally are critical to firefighting. Last summer that was one of 
the major problems that we had; we could not get to the fires. And so 
at times some road building will be necessary.
  Number four. The Miller amendment requires several mapping and 
reporting procedures which will slow down the decision-making process 
necessary to reduce fuel loads. We need less paperwork; we do not need 
more. The base bill, I think, does eliminate paperwork, and that is 
very important.
  Number five. There is a concern that this amendment does not address 
some watershed concerns that are critical to clean water. I am a 
fisherman. I am very concerned about streams. I am concerned about 
habitat. The base bill, I think, does a better job of protecting the 
watershed areas.
  The base bill is comprehensive and thoroughly crafted. I urge its 
passage without amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the committee.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in favor of the Miller 
substitute. I have two, I think, critical questions that need to be 
answered. The first question is, How does the majority party in the 
underlying bill purport to actually pay for what the Forest Service 
says is millions and millions of acres of fuel reduction treatment? Are 
they going to hold a lottery? Are they going to hold a bake sale? There 
is nothing in their bill to say how to get the payment. The Miller 
substitute is a mature, responsible bill because it authorizes the 
money. It authorizes the money not only for the Federal Government but 
for the State and local government.
  It is not just the Federal Government that needs help here. It is 
local government. Earlier I made reference to Glenwood Springs, the 
mayor sending a letter asking for an amendment to make sure there is 
help to local governments. It was suggested, I suppose, that there is 
something wrong with that. In fact, we went through and we found out 
that it is not just Glenwood Springs. There are letters from officials 
in Basalt, Pitkin County, Gunnison County, Summit County, Nederland, 
Boulder, Wheat Ridge, Golden, Silt, San Miguel, and Carbondale asking 
this Congress to help local communities solve this problem. There is 
not a penny in the majority's bill that does that. It is wrong.
  It is an echo of the homeland security issue. It is an echo. We have 
not helped local communities deal with this problem. I think the 
assessment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) of how we got 
into this pickle was really quite eloquent. I think it was right, that 
there was a bipartisan failure of management for a long time. But the 
problem is that there is not bipartisan support not on whether to have 
a fuels reduction program but how to have a fuel reduction program. We 
think on this side of the aisle we ought to help these local 
communities.
  The second question: How in the underlying bill do they guarantee the 
American people we are not going to cut down old growth timber like 
this in this fuel reduction program? We have no business cutting down 
big trees like that instead of the little, tiny, skinny trees that we 
ought to be cutting down in a fuel reduction program. Their bill does 
nothing to guarantee Americans in that regard. They criticize the 
gentleman from California's bill for having categorical exclusions. But 
those categorical exclusions have protections to guarantee against this 
stuff being cut in those wildland-urban interfaces and the community 
protection zones. We have language protecting specifically against old 
growth being cut. We have provisions against using the fiber from these 
big trees for financing this program.
  This dovetails back to the very first question I asked, Where are 
they going to get the money to pay for this? I know they are 
intelligent folks and I respect them all. They are not going to get it 
from lotteries and bake sales. They have only got one place I can 
possibly imagine to get the money from this and that is cutting down 
trees just like that to pay for it. We could do a lot better job on a 
bipartisan basis answering the question how to have a fuels reduction 
program, whether to have one, and that is by having protections for 
trees like this. They did not do the job. We ought to pass the Miller 
substitute.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the base bill by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) and in opposition to the Miller 
amendment. I note that today's New York Times calls this a flawed fire 
bill. I might suggest that The New York Times would do better to look 
at the credibility and believability of its reporters, indeed to their 
veracity, than at fire policy because they have got this one dead 
wrong. What they do is they attack the McInnis bill for not doing 
enough to protect the areas where there is human habitat. Indeed, they 
say the bill does nothing to protect our communities. They say it 
allows logging to go forward in back country areas where fires offer no 
threat to human safety. I would suggest to The New York Times and to my 
colleagues that the issue behind forest thinning is not human safety. 
The issue behind forest thinning is to protect our forests.

                              {time}  1515

  It is true that we have a situation in the southwestern United States 
where our forests are gravely overgrown, but they are not just 
overgrown on the urban interface. They are overgrown everywhere. And 
the experts such as Dr. Wally Covington at Northern Arizona University 
and others all concur that we have an unnatural condition in our forest 
which is a radical danger. We need to protect not just the urban 
interface. We need to protect the entire forest. Indeed, to protect 
endangered species, if we do not do the remote parts of the forest 
where it needs to be thinned to protect wildlife, then we will destroy 
their habitat.
  I strongly support the base bill and oppose the Miller substitute.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bonner).
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from 
California's amendment.
  When President Bush proposed this healthy forest initiative, great 
care was taken by the administration and leadership in crafting a bill 
that is beneficial to all forest in the United States, not just some. 
This is a laudable and logical goal. Healthy forests are not simply 
forests that are free from brush and undergrowth. Healthy forests are 
also free from disease and pest infestation.
  In my home State of Alabama, our forests are under attack every day 
from pest infestation in the form of the Southern pine beetle. The 
beetle burrows into the trees and lays eggs below the bark. The result 
is a rapid deterioration of the health of the tree and in most cases 
its death.
  Unfortunately, this amendment would take out every single reference 
to insects or disease. It is not good public policy to address the 
health of our forests without addressing insects and disease.
  Mr. Speaker, if I had been elected to represent the southern pine 
beetle in my home State I would probably support this amendment. But on 
behalf of the thousands of landowners and timber growers I strongly 
oppose it, and I support the underlying bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Virginia has 5 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Pombo) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page 12230]]


  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on what the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) said here, because it is a part of the bill 
that is in fact a subterfuge in the underlying bill of the committee, 
and that is that they are not prepared to authorize money to be 
expended for this purpose, so they are going to rely on forest 
stewardship contracts.
  We have already been put on notice by the people in the Forest 
Service in California that they are going to need to log the large 
trees around Lake Tahoe in Northern California to go down and to do 
treatments in forests in Southern California where there are no big 
trees. It will not pay for it. They cannot cut enough trees to pay for 
it. It costs about $1,500 to $1,800 an acre to treat these lands, and 
yet there is no money in this. So they rely on forest stewardship. They 
have got to go out, and they have got to cut the big trees. If the 
communities do not have the big trees, then they are not going to be in 
the priority because they have got to pay for the projects.
  That is why we put up real money in the authorization for this 
purpose so those communities could be treated and they can cut any size 
tree they want. There is no limitation on this, and they just balance 
out the books.
  Forest stewardship is not about balancing the books. It is about 
balancing the watersheds. It is about balancing the ecology of the 
area. It is about balancing the soils. It is about balancing the growth 
rate. It is about balancing the infestation. It is all of that in 
determining the health of those forests. But what we have suggested is 
they just create an accounting system. They have got to treat 1,000 
acres. Then they have got to go cut enough big trees somewhere to pay 
for the treatment of that 1,000 acres.
  That is not the proper way to do this. There is a public cost to 
this, and it ought to be authorized. If they are going to spend all the 
money on infestation, then where are they going to get the money to do 
the fire treatment that is necessary in forests where fire is the major 
threat, not necessarily infestation?
  So that is the weakness in the underlying bill. If we want to deal 
with the problem that was agreed upon, that there was this area around 
the cities, around these communities that needed to be treated because 
that is where the catastrophic fires could break out, that is where the 
danger was posed; and to protect those watersheds, that is where we 
were prior to the election.
  Now that it is decided, they have got those votes, they are going to 
open the door, and the fact of the matter is we now have a bill with no 
discipline. There are no priorities, and they simply must pay for it by 
cutting down late successional old forests or the largest trees they 
can find in the area.
  Because if one could make money outside of chipping them, people 
would take the small trees. They would be happy to have them. But we 
know that that is not going to happen; and when we look at the budget 
submissions of this administration, they are planning on treating less 
land this year than they did the year before.
  So we have got kind of a cataclysmic event taking place here between 
the needs of the forest, what many are projecting to be a dramatic fire 
year, maybe more so than the past year, no budget money, which then 
pushes them into large forests where the fire treatment in many cases 
is less needed than around the communities. That is the irrational part 
of the Republican bill.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis).
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, keep in mind, Mr. Miller, 
that the national fire plan has hundreds of millions of dollars in 
there. This big tree argument is nonsense. We are not going out there 
and saying, gosh, we have got to go to the redwoods or the sequoias and 
cut down all this beautiful stuff. That is an emotional argument that 
is used for one purpose and that is to divert from the science.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. But it also happens to be accurate.
  Mr. McINNIS. I do not mind the gentleman making that comment. The 
fact is it is not accurate, Mr. Miller, and you know it is not 
accurate. We are not going out there saying let us pick the most 
beautiful big tree we can find and cut it down. That is exactly the 
kind of picture you want to portray to the general public out there so 
you can divert from the fact that we have reached this status quo on 
trying to fight these forest fires, on trying to protect our wildlife 
habitat, on trying to protect our watersheds.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) gets up here, my 
colleague. She starts lecturing the Republicans. I want you to know the 
partisan portion here is the Democratic substitute. You have no 
Republicans on your substitute.
  My bill, the underlying bill, is a bipartisan bill. It has heavy 
Democrat support. Mr. Miller, what do you do for the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Ross)? What do you do for the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Barry)? What do you do for the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop)? 
What do you do for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)? You take 
out all the bugs and the infestation problems.
  Folks, we have got problems out there. We have got fire problems, and 
we have got bug problems. And the courts do not wear green hats. They 
are not forest rangers. They are not going to get this resolved. We 
cannot afford one more fire season sitting on our haunches, twiddling 
our thumbs and pretending these horrible fires are not occurring.
  Let me mention Mr. Udall. Mr. Udall says our language guts the 
injunctive relief. Mr. Udall, for your information, that language is 
called the Feinstein language. Why do you not take this issue up with 
Senator Feinstein?
  Let us go on here a little. When we talk about what we are attempting 
to do, look at the substance of the bill.
  Mr. Udall from Colorado, it is never good enough for you. At some 
point we have to say, enough is enough. Let our forest people go back 
to managing the forests. Let the forests be managed by science, not by 
emotion; and the way you drive emotion is to stand up here on this 
House floor and talk about how we are going to cut down the big trees, 
that in order to pay for this we are going to take the big trees and 
take them out.
  Not at all. The fact is, we need to manage our forests. We cannot 
take the position of the radical environmental organizations like Earth 
First and the Sierra Club. We can take the position of a bipartisan 
group on this floor, Democrats and Republicans, and that position is 
represented by the underlying bill.
  I urge a no vote on the Democrat non-Republican partisan substitute, 
and I urge support for the underlying bill that is bipartisan, has 
heavy Democrat and Republican support.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to direct 
their comments to the Chair and not to others in the second person or 
who may be viewing the proceedings.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the Chair how much 
time is remaining and who has the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has the right to 
close. The gentleman from Virginia has 5 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has 6 minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I have been watching the 
screenplay from Dumb and Dumber. We all admit that the last few years 
of managing our forests has been dumb. If we pass this substitute, we 
are even dumber than I thought we were. We are changing this bill from 
a healthy forest bill, by passing this substitute, to a healthy 
community bill.
  I am not against healthy communities, but I can tell my colleagues, 
from being in an area where we fight these fires, the communities are 
the

[[Page 12231]]

first things that we come in to protect when the fire gets treated. We 
go in with bulldozers, and we clear it out. So they are probably the 
last ones that need our help because we always find the money when the 
fire is going on.
  What we need to understand is that dead and dying grass is every bit 
as bad as overgrazed grass. The dead and dying trees are every bit as 
bad as overlogging trees.
  I look up in the audience and I look out at America and I see people 
with hard hats and what do I think of? I think of heroes, because they 
use their capital, they use their labor, and they use their equipment 
to go in and cut down the trees. We tell them to.
  I look at the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Inslee) picture of a 
tree. The Members cannot tell me whether that is a healthy tree or not 
sitting 2,000 or 3,000 miles away looking at a picture of it.
  A Congresswoman from the other side of the aisle graced us with her 
presence for about 30 seconds to come down and tell us she was watching 
this debate on TV. That is the problem. Too many bureaucrats are 
sitting in Washington, D.C., making a determination of what is a 
healthy forest without ever getting out on their hands and knees, we 
call it the buns-up kneeling position, and looking and counting bugs 
and looking at the grass and determining what the mineral cycle looks 
like and what the grass and the trees and the endangered species are 
actually doing.
  Let us pass something sensible. There is finally a piece of 
legislation that makes an effort to start removing the cancer of the 
dead and dying forests that are causing a problem within this country. 
We have an opportunity to finally show some leadership after so many 
years of a lack of leadership that has allowed this country to kill its 
forest with kindness. Pass this bill. Let us oppose this substitute.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. There is some room for agreement here. This is what we 
want to prevent. It is a fire in my congressional district last summer.
  The gentleman who just preceded me talked about bureaucrats. This 
bill is a bureaucrat's dream, because this bill gives all the 
discretion to appointed bureaucrats, and I know that that party would 
not be supporting this bill if there was a Democrat in the White House. 
They would not want to give Bruce Babbitt this authority. But they do 
want to give it to this administration.
  This bill was written at the White House and sent down. This is not 
the bill we negotiated last fall. If this was the bill that we had 
negotiated last fall, and I give the gentleman from Colorado and others 
credit for sitting down in tough negotiations where we took flack from 
both sides, from the environmentalists and from the industry, and came 
up with something that would have worked, would have gotten this done, 
would have turned this into a nonpartisan problem. If it was that, I 
would vote for it in a split second. But it was not, so I tried to 
offer some amendments to improve it.
  No, we cannot have any amendments because the House has to adjourn at 
5 o'clock this afternoon. Why? I do not know. Someone has got a golf 
game. People have got to make fund-raising phone calls for the big 
event tomorrow night. I do not know. We do not have time for 
amendments. This is only the Congress after all in the House, no time 
for amendments.
  There has been a lot of talk about whether or not this would allow 
the harvesting of big old trees. The bottom line is we do not do this 
on the cheap. It is 100 years of mismanagement. The only good study was 
done in Oregon at Oregon State. Sixteen hundred and eighty-five dollars 
an acre is the estimate to do this work. And guess what? They do not 
get $1,685 an acre for a bunch of brush and dead poles, do they? No. If 
they are going to generate that much money to do the work that needs to 
be done, they are going to high-grade the damn forests the same way 
that they high-graded them early in the last century when we were 
really stupid.
  That is what is going to happen under this bill. It gives the 
discretion to protect or not protect old-growth to Mark Rey. I love 
Mark. Great guy. But I do not want to give him that discretion. I would 
like a definition of what has to be protected and what is not. No, he 
has that authority and people cannot hardly appeal his decisions 
because the White House wants to pretend it can be done on the cheap.
  The President's budget, his big request is $230 million for fuel 
reduction this year. At that rate, if we did all of the land that they 
want to put into this bill, it would take 174 years. So I do not think 
the President is exactly asking for the money needed.
  Where is the rest of the money going to come from? How are we going 
to do it more quickly than 174 years? There is only one answer: The 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said the truth, and the 
truth hurts. We have got to take high-value products out.
  What is a high-value product? It is a big old tree. And only one 
person stands between cutting that tree to fund this bill and the 
reality of that, and that is an appointed bureaucrat.
  This is really too serious to consider in this way, and it affects 
too many of us too much. I am really sad that it has come to this.
  I was willing to take the heat, and I did last fall. A couple of 
Democratic Senators took a lot of heat, attacked by national 
environmental groups for trying to do something that made sense in this 
area. The environmental groups, they succeeded. They stopped the bill 
last year, and now we are going to see something in the House much 
worse. There is a lesson in that.
  But there is also a lesson in overreaching. My colleagues know this 
bill cannot become law as it is. It is either a bargaining chip with 
the Senate. That is one thing I hear. It is a bargaining chip with the 
Senate to try to pull them back, or it is a political event so that 
they can blame a couple of prominent Democrat Western Senators who are 
up for election for stopping the bill over there and use it against 
them as an election year issue. I do not know which one it is.

                              {time}  1530

  I do not know which one it is, but either are pathetic reasons to 
stick this bill through in this way without a single amendment being 
allowed.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to my colleague from Colorado, for 
whom I have great respect and just make this set of remarks.
  I have never seen a piece of legislation that cannot be improved. In 
fact, it is our responsibility as Members of this body to work to 
improve legislation as it comes forward. I did vote for the McInnis-
Walden bill last fall, proudly, and would have supported it this year 
if it came to the floor in that same structure.
  But my approach has been to try and create consensus and trust and 
involve all of us. We could have had the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and myself on this bill, brought it to the 
Senate with a true broad-based bipartisan coalition, and moved ahead.
  I am worried we are going to have more stalemate, more litigation, 
more problems, and we are going to get the very result that we are all 
worried about here, which is no treatment of our fuels, no reduction of 
these hazardous materials, and an even bigger fire season; and we are 
all going to bear the responsibility for that outcome.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one other point: the 
President also did not ask for enough money to fight the fires. It is 
not new. We had the same problem with Clinton, we had the same problem 
with Bush I, we had the same problem with Reagan. They never ask for 
enough money to fight the fires. So what do they do? They go back in. 
They used to borrow

[[Page 12232]]

the money from the KB funds. KB funds do not exist anymore. What do 
they do now? They rob all the other accounts of the Forest Service.
  Do you know what the first one they rob is? The Fuel Reduction 
Program. So you are not going to put out any real money to do the work. 
We know that money is going to be stolen this year and used for 
fighting the fires, because there is not enough.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I 
will go back from passion to policy for just a minute.
  The Miller amendment ignores the forest health crisis in Southern, 
Midwestern and Eastern forests. I strongly oppose the Miller amendment.
  In spite of the fact that millions and millions of acres of pristine 
forests are spoiled each year by large-scale and unnatural insect and 
disease outbreaks, in this amendment the words ``insect and disease'' 
do not appear in the text.
  The Miller amendment would strip out the bug and insect provisions in 
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act that have given the bill such broad 
backing with Members from every region and every political orientation.
  The Miller amendment would transform this nationally focused Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act into the ``California and Oregon Unhealthy 
Forests Act.''
  Living in the South, where Southern pine beetles and red oak borers 
have destroyed millions of acres of old-growth forest, or in the 
Midwest, where the emerald ash borer is raking across America's 
forests, I am very disappointed by the Miller amendment.
  Wildfire is an important part of the healthy forests debate, but not 
the only part. Are western forests inherently more valuable than those 
east of the Mississippi? The author of the amendment apparently thinks 
so.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote against the amendment and support the 
underlying bill.
  Are western forests inherently more valuable than those East of the 
Mississippi? The authors of this amendment apparently think so because 
no other region gets a thing out of this amendment.
  Even in the West, massive beetle outbreaks are often the precursor to 
calamitous wildlife. The beetles kill the trees, and then wildfire 
burns them, threatening homes and watersheds and wildlife.
  Vote against this amendment and vote for the base bill which gives a 
balanced common sense approach to healthy forests.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, 7.2 million acres last 
year. When is enough enough? This is a 20-year-old problem. How did we 
get there? On the Allegheny National Forest, which I represent, we have 
foresters, biologists, hydrologists, soil scientists, game biologists, 
fish biologists, and renowned research labs trying to help to do things 
right.
  One college student with a free lawyer from the university and a 
judge who knows nothing about forestry suddenly stops the whole 
process, and that is why we are having a problem in this country.
  This bill is trying to open up at least 20 million acres so we have 
the ability to prevent forest fires; 7.2 million last year.
  I flew over with a group in the West a few years ago with the 
Speaker. We flew for an hour and a half. We never saw a blade of grass, 
never saw a green leaf, where the fires had been the year before. The 
streams were full of mud; the hillsides were washing into the valleys. 
You talk about devastation: no bugs, no insects, no birds, no animals. 
That is what is left in the path of these forest fires.
  You talk about environmental degradation? These forest fires are the 
worst, and we must stop them.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I think that this process that we 
have seen with this bill is indicative. It gives us warning about the 
Forest Service process. Here we see this bill being rammed through the 
House of Representatives, no amendments being offered, on a day when we 
do not have a full schedule; but the intent and the purpose is to ram 
it through without the full participation and the deliberations of this 
body.
  It is reflective of what is in this bill. It is an effort to ram 
through these treatment programs, the cutting programs, the logging 
programs, the fire treatment programs, and limit the public 
participation to the greatest extent possible. That is what is wrong 
with this legislation.
  The suggestion that somehow we are going to unilaterally turn over 
the decision on whether or not to protect old forests, or protect old 
growth, to protect large trees, to mark gray unilaterally without 
review, is like turning the banking system over to Bonnie and Clyde. It 
just does not make any sense in terms of the well-being of these 
forests, in the long-term, multiple use of these forests.
  If you are just out there hunting for large trees to cut and you need 
a rationale to cut them, then this bill will give you the ability to do 
that, because it throws open the doors to logging of those large trees 
that matter the most to the communities in the West, matter to the 
citizens that we represent, matter to the citizens sense in our State; 
and that is what this bill does.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, when I look at the Democrat substitute to this bill, I 
am kind of reminded of the old sign show. They used to say it was a 
show about nothing. Well, the Democrat substitute is the substitute 
about nothing.
  They come to the floor, and they say all the right words. They talk 
about how concerned they are about protecting our communities, 
protecting the health of our forests, stopping the catastrophic fires. 
The truth is that their substitute leaves all of the problems in 
existence.
  To make matters worse, and this is probably the most difficult part 
of the Miller substitute, is that by limiting most of your effort to 
that half mile around our communities, you completely ignore the real 
problem.
  What we have tried to do in the underlying bill is to give the local 
foresters, the local people the chance to look at their forest and 
determine the areas that really need to be protected, the areas that 
they really need to go in and treat. Sometimes if you go up a canyon, 
that is more important, maybe 2 or 3 or 5 miles away from the 
community, it may be more important to treat that than a half mile 
radius around that community.
  You heard people testify already today about fires this past year 
that jumped 3 or 4 miles because of the high winds. Your substitute 
does nothing to deal with that. You give some false sense of protection 
to our communities that we are going to treat a half mile radius around 
the community. That does nothing to protect them.
  You talk about how you want the local people to be involved with 
this; but then you cut them out of the process, and you are going to 
dictate from Washington exactly what they can and cannot do.
  Through this entire last couple of years that we have been 
negotiating this bill, we have sat down and tried to work this out; and 
the resulting bill, the underlying bill is an effort of that 
compromise. We came from over here to compromise in the middle, and now 
you want us to go over here. Bipartisanship is when we meet somewhere 
in the middle; it is not when we agree with you.
  When we work our way through some difficult issues like this, it is a 
little give and take. I know there were Members on that side that tried 
to work with us, and they were unable for one reason or another to come 
to final agreement on that. But the underlying bill is our best shot at 
protecting our forests from increased risk of catastrophic fire.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the Miller substitute and 
support the underlying bill.

[[Page 12233]]




          A Blind Eye To Forest Health Crisis Outside the West

  Miller-DeFazio totally ignores the forest health crisis in southern, 
Midwestern and eastern forests. The Miller-DeFazio amendment would 
transform this national healthy forests legislation into the California 
and Oregon Healthy Forests Act.
  The bill does nothing (zero!) to address the growing epidemic of 
insect and disease outbreaks. It would strip out all of the provisions 
that have been included at the urging of so many southern and 
Midwestern Members of Congress, including a large block of Democrats.
  Even the rigid management prescriptions in the bill are based on a 
grossly false assumption that every acre of national forest has all of 
the features, attributes and characteristics of western ponderosa pine 
forests.
  This may be news to the authors of this amendment, but the nation's 
forest health crisis does not end on the western banks of the 
Mississippi.


             Arbitrary Limitations on Community Protection

  The bill limits its expedited NEPA analysis procedures to projects 
within a \1/2\ mile of at risk communities. The \1/2\-mile area is 
grossly insufficient to protect at-risk communities, especially in the 
case of hot and fast moving fires in the West where topography and wind 
speed influence fire movement dramatically.
  For example, the Rodeo-Chediski fire jumped as far as 3 miles. A fire 
in Colorado jumped a river, a railroad track and an interstate in a 
single bound. Anyone who's seen the breathtaking destruction of a 
western wildfire knows that a \1/2\-mile buffer is fundamentally 
inadequate.
  This \1/2\-mile limitation won't do much beyond giving folks false 
comfort. Even my colleague Mark Udall opposes this type of arbitrary 
limitation. It's too bad Mr. Miller didn't follow his cue on this 
point.


                              New Process

  The Miller bill would require the production of maps designating so-
called condition classes of landscapes. This would extend the time 
needed to complete a fuels reduction plan, increase costs, and expend 
unnecessary resources.
  Currently, the USFS does not have the ability to meet mapping 
requirements. They do not expect have this capability until 2006. 
Unfortunately, no projects could be implemented until that technology 
comes to fruition. That will be years, according to the agency. We 
don't have years to wait around.
  Any Healthy Forest legislation needs to expedite and streamline the 
NEPA process--not lengthen it. The current process already takes an 
average of 3-5 years. While the Miller bill does expedite some 
procedures, it also creates new procedures and documentation 
requirements.


                           Road Construction

  The bill under no circumstances allows the constructions of roads. 
This includes escape routes, fire fighting access, access to prevent 
fires in communities, etc. This puts communities, wildlife, and fire 
fighters in grave danger.
  Again, who are we to tell a community that it can't build a road in 
conjunction with a project if that road is needed to treat a high-risk 
area, or provide an escape route for citizens?
  Communities adjacent to habitat for endangered or threatened species 
or roadless areas would not be eligible for expedited fuels reduction 
projects. The bill's extraordinary circumstances limitation on 
hazardous fuel reduction projects is tantamount to saying ``Tough 
Luck'' to the hundreds, and probably thousands of at-risk communities 
adjacent to a roadless area or habitat for threatened or endangered 
species. I bet if Mr. Miller's home was pressed up against a forest 
that's home to an endangered species, this proposal would look a heck 
of a lot different.


                        Stewardship Contracting

  The bill takes away the authority of the Federal land management 
agencies to use the Stewardship contracting authority that was just 
granted as part of the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act. 
Congress just approved this authority, a key part of the President's 
Healthy Forests Initiative, so the agencies could reduce wildfire risks 
while supporting local economies and defraying taxpayer costs.


                            Judicial Review

  Finally, the bill does nothing to hasten the Federal judiciary's 
consideration of lawsuits against wildfire mitigation projects, even 
projects in the highest priority areas. In my view, this element of the 
``analysis paralysis'' simply cannot be ignored, even if it makes some 
constituencies uncomfortable.
  Again, last year Mr. Miller appeared prepared to support legislation 
hastening the Court's consideration of high priority projects.
  In that sense, like so many others, the Miller Amendment represents a 
real step backward from where we were just last year.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The gentleman is recognized for 
2 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bipartisan bill. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), the gentleman from South Dakota 
(Mr. Janklow), the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson), people from all parts of the country of both parties came 
together and negotiated carefully a balanced bill that we have before 
you.
  I have heard people talk about big trees and show some pictures of 
big trees. Let me show you a picture of some big trees, burning up in 
flames, rising hundreds of feet. That is what happens to big trees if 
you do not address the problem.
  There are two big reasons why people should oppose the Miller 
substitute. There are a lot of other reasons as well, but the two 
really big ones are, number one, it ignores the number one problem, and 
that is the process. That is what is slowing us down. That is what is 
taking 2 or 3 years of tying our courts into knots, using up all kinds 
of judicial time, arriving at nowhere.
  This simply streamlines the process. It does not exclude public 
comment, it does not exclude public administration in the 
administrative process, it does not exclude the right to appeal. It 
simply makes it more practical and effective.
  The second problem is this: it ignores the East and the South. This 
is a southern pine beetle. What does it do? It devastates the 
Southeastern part of the United States. Millions of acres of public and 
private forest lands untreated. This is the woolly adelgid, the 
Southeast and the Northeast, absolutely destroyed by it.
  The result? Here is a forest that has been worked over by the 
southern pine beetle. No, this is not fall foliage; those are pine 
trees. That is what you get all across the East. The gentleman ignores 
that whole aspect of the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the substitute and 
support the underlying bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, earlier during general debate I noted we are 
not unmindful of the need to address the issues raised by the bill, but 
in our view, we would do so in a more prudent and responsible manner.
  And do so without incorporating the poison pill judicial review 
provision in H.R. 1904.
  That is the purpose of the pending amendment.
  For instance, the issue of insect and disease infestation is one of 
importance to me and to West Virginia's hardwood forests.
  Exotic insects, in particular, pose a serious threat to America's 
forests. For example, the hemlock woolly adelgid is already widespread 
from North Carolina to New England and in parts of the West.
  The McInnis bill, however, only authorizes $5 million--an amount far 
short of what the agency needs to research and address this problem. 
The bill also specifies certain insects for study. Yet, several other 
species have also been detected.
  Again, as I noted, there are issues in H.R. 1904 which should be 
addressed and that is the purpose of our amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 239, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended, and on the further amendment by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller).
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller.)
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California . Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote 
on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
that a quorum is not present.

[[Page 12234]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184, 
nays 239, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 198]

                               YEAS--184

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--239

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Case
     Conyers
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Gephardt
     Larson (CT)
     Manzullo
     Miller, Gary
     Stupak


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1601

  Mr. OTTER and Mr. COBLE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 198, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 198, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


         Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Yes, I am opposed to it in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Tom Udall of New Mexico moves to recommit the bill, 
     H.R. 1904, to the Committee on Judiciary with instructions to 
     report the bill forthwith with the following amendment:
       Strike Sections 106 and 107.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
motion.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the motion to 
recommit, and I first want to say that this is not a motion to kill the 
bill. This is a motion to recommit that will make the bill fairer and 
will make it more balanced.
  The motion to recommit would merely strike the most egregious 
provisions of this bill, sections 106 and 107, which are known as the 
judicial review provisions of this bill. In the first instance, Members 
should be appalled at how this bill came to the floor and how the 
judicial provisions that are in it got here. We had very short notice 
to the committees. There was no bill actually introduced. There was a 
committee print. That means it was never introduced as a bill in the 
Committee on Resources.
  Apparently, the majority did not want to expose their bill to public 
light. Therefore, it being a committee print, there is no legislative 
history; and this is, in the annals of the Committee on Resources, 
absolutely unprecedented action.
  Let me tell my colleagues what the judicial review sections do in 
this bill. First of all, when a court hears an action, you have before 
that court in these hazardous fuels actions citizens and Federal 
agencies and others. This section, adopted in this bill which had no 
hearings, adopts a standard where the Federal agency decides what is in 
the public interest.
  When the issue comes before the court and you have citizens and 
Federal agencies and others that are before the court, the section that 
is adopted, the judicial review section, does something which is 
unprecedented and I do

[[Page 12235]]

not think has been done in Federal court before. It says that the 
Federal agency that is acting in the public interest should be given 
great weight in terms of what they decide. So it tips the scale in 
favor of the Federal Government, and it basically rigs the system in 
favor of the Federal agencies.
  Throughout the debate here today, I have been asking the majority 
why: Why would you, who favor limited government, who favor smaller 
government, who are always talking in our committee about the Federal 
powers being too broad, why would you want to give a Federal agency not 
only the power to determine the public interest, but when it gets in 
the court, you say to the Federal Court that this Federal Court has to 
decide in favor of the agency? Well, the only answer I could get from 
the other side is that some Senator from the other body introduced an 
amendment, which never made it out of the Senate, and because she 
happens to be in our particular party, that that is why this language 
is good language.
  Well, she may not be right all of the time. Make no mistake about it, 
the majority may talk a lot about limited government, but they have a 
very specific purpose here. They want to give the Federal agencies, 
which my understanding is the President has requested this authority, 
unprecedented power in the Federal courts at the expense of citizens.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just urge a vote for the motion to 
recommit. It makes the bill a more balanced bill, it makes it a fairer 
bill, and it protects the rights of citizens.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the 
Committee on Resources, who has done an outstanding job leading this 
legislation to the floor of the House.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I tell my colleagues that this is another attempt, again 
another attempt to protect the status quo.
  We all come down on the floor and we talk about how important it is 
to protect the health of our forests from the risk of catastrophic 
fire, but my friends on the left have continually, throughout the day, 
argued to protect the law exactly the way it is and to not make the 
necessary changes that we have to make in order to move this forward.
  The provisions that we talk about in the motion to recommit are the 
result of negotiations between both bodies, between the minority and 
the majority; and it was a compromise that was reached. Granted, it is 
not where we started. It is not the language that I would have used to 
deal with this specific problem. But it was a compromise, and it was 
something that we all agreed on.
  I would remind my colleagues that the underlying bill is an attempt 
to step into our national forests, areas that have been mismanaged for 
over 100 years, to step in and try to bring some balance, to bring 
local control, to bring local input and some balance into the decisions 
that are being made to protect those forests. That is the attempt that 
we are trying to make.
  I am not interested in protecting the status quo. I am not interested 
in protecting the bureaucracy in Washington. I am interested in 
protecting the health of our forests and reducing the risk of 
catastrophic fire.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this is a catastrophic wildfire. It is 
not a natural fire that burns along the ground and takes out the brush. 
It consumes millions of acres of big, beautiful trees, 6.9 million 
acres last year, more than the size of the entire State of Vermont.

                              {time}  1615

  This is the risk in every part of the country. This is a serious 
problem in the West, but it is also a serious problem in Minnesota, 
Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia, all 
across the south and Missouri. Every part of this country is impacted, 
and that is why this is bipartisan legislation crafted by Members of 
the House of Representatives from all across the country.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thompson), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Ross) contributed to the effort to make this good, bipartisan 
legislation.
  This is what happens with a catastrophic wildfire. It does not leave 
a healthy forest. It leaves this kind of devastation subject to 
erosion. And then it rains. This is what happens when it rains. It 
washes everything into the rivers and streams. It turns the ground to 
glass. This water will not go into the ground. The ground will not 
percolate, these forest fires are so intense.
  This is one of the main reservoirs for the city of Denver, Colorado, 
and this is what was washed into it after a forest fire, damaging the 
water supply of the community.
  This is what happens in the East and Southeast, bugs: pine beetle 
outbreaks in Georgia and Alabama and Tennessee and the woolly adelgid 
in Virginia. This picture shows what happens in the eastern part of the 
United States without this legislation.
  What does the motion to recommit do? It takes out a key provision in 
the bill which is the source of this problem, which is the process. The 
process takes 2, 3 years. The forest go up in flames from wildfires 
before we ever get to treat the forests for disease and insects and for 
buildup of fuel density that causes this kind of fire.
  Do not let him take out the key provision of the bill which expedites 
the process. It still allows for public comment, and it still provides 
for public input in the administrative proceedings. It still allows for 
judicial review, but it does it in a fair and timely fashion that 
recognizes that if we do not make a change in the bureaucratic morass 
that we are in today, we are going to see this year after year after 
year until we do not have any forests.
  Let us protect our endangered species and our watersheds. Let us 
protect our citizens from air pollution and our firefighters from dying 
in these hazardous fires.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the motion to recommit and 
support the underlying bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 250, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 199]

                               AYES--176

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford

[[Page 12236]]


     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--250

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Conyers
     Delahunt
     Gephardt
     Miller, Gary
     Nussle
     Stupak


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1636

  Mr. CARDOZA and Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. DICKS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256, 
noes 170, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 200]

                               AYES--256

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--170

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee

[[Page 12237]]


     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bilirakis
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Conyers
     Delahunt
     Gephardt
     Miller, Gary
     Stupak


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1643

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________