Healthy Forests

HEALTHY FORESTS

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Madam President. I think we will have a discussion about forestry. I see my colleagues from Idaho and Mississippi.

I will take just a few minutes because I think in recent days there has really been the suggestion that in some ways Senate Democrats don't want to move ahead on this forestry issue. Senator Daschle, in particular, in my view, has been very constructive on this issue and wants to have the Senate vote on this legislation.

I wish to make it clear that I think it is urgent we vote on this bill before the Senate adjourns for this year. I happen to believe there are 60 votes for the Senate compromise that has been worked out. I think it is important to address the concerns of all the Members.

I really hope this isn't left to just the political season, which gets awfully silly sometimes in the course of a Presidential election season next year. I think the Senate must vote on it this year. Senators know that this issue sort of makes Middle
East politics look noncontroversial. This is a very difficult and contentious subject. But I think the Senate has come together around an important compromise.

I wish to take a few minutes this morning to outline how the Senate bill would differ from what has been done in the House of Representatives.

First, the Senate compromise authorizes $760 million for hazardous fuel reduction projects. The House bill does not authorize any additional money for these projects.

The Senate compromise—I want to emphasize this to my Democratic colleagues—does not rely on commercial logging to get these projects done. The House bill does. I think this is unfortunate.

The Senate compromise protects our rural communities. The House bill does not.

The Senate compromise directs that 50 percent of the funding be spent inside what is known as the wildland-urban interface. The House bill is silent with respect to directing these funds.

The Senate compromise protects old growth and large trees and requires projects that thin—not clear-cut—our forests.
Again, that is in contrast to the House bill. The House bill does not protect old growth and large trees, and it doesn't limit how the projects can be executed.

Fourth, the Senate compromise keeps the current standard of judicial review of these projects and rejects the House of
Representatives standard which is not as balanced. The House bill would actually change the outcome of lawsuits, in my view, regrettably, by robbing the judiciary of an independent ability to weigh all of the evidence put before them with respect to forestry matters.

Finally, the Senate compromise keeps the public in the process. Regrettably, the House bill does not. The Senate compromise allows the public to actually propose what is known as a NEPA alternative.

The National Environmental Policy Act is an extraordinarily important statute. It has been of great importance to a lot of
Members of the Senate. Look back to people such as the late Scoop Jackson who were so involved in this issue. The Senate compromise clearly allows the public, through a public process, to propose NEPA alternatives. In my view, the House bill pushes the public out of the process by, in effect, predetermining these alternatives in the NEPA area.

Talking for a few minutes about the compromise, in particular the value of having the first ever statutory protection of old growth, preserving the public's right to participate, while streamlining the appeals process to get at some of the abuses we have seen, strikes the right balance. With respect, for example, to this question of making sure citizens can be involved in appealing matters relating to a forest resale, it is critical those rights be protected.

I also do not think there ought to be a constitutional right to a 5-year delay on every timber sale. The Senate compromise which we put together strikes that appropriate balance.

As we get ready to vote, some very creative work has been done. Folks have asked, How do we know the old-growth
protection is actually going to get put in place? We say, for example, for the old-forest plans that in effect the Forest Service would have to go back and revise those plans to make sure the old growth is protected before the overall projects with respect to thinning go forward. We create for the first time in these old-forest plans an actual incentive for the Forest Service to get busy, get going, and protect the old growth while allowing the thinning to go forward. The compromise makes it less likely that old growth will be harvested under current law because under the compromise we mandated the retention of the large trees and focused the hazardous fuels reduction programs authorized by the bill on thinning the small trees.

Several of my colleagues want to talk on this, but I make it clear, again, Senator Daschle has said publicly, privately, in every conceivable forum, he wants this legislation to move forward expeditiously. Let us address the concerns of all
Senators. This is a matter Senators feel strongly about. Let us vote on this legislation this year. The fires we have seen in the west are not natural. They are infernos coming about as a result of years and years of neglect. The compromise we have crafted reflects a balanced approach. We are not stripping the American people of their rights to be heard with respect to forestry policy. Quite the contrary. We protect all of those avenues of public participation.

I know we are going to hear from our colleagues who have been involved in the compromise. I thank Senator Craig and Senator Cochran, in particular, for working with myself and Senator Feinstein for many months. A number of Senators have already come out for this proposal, including, of course, the minority leader, Senator Daschle, but also Senator Dayton and Senator Johnson. We have a host of Democratic Senators. We can get 60 votes on this legislation and see it passed from this body. We want to have it done this year.

I yield the floor.