Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003

HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, forestry can often make Middle East politics seem noncontroversial. I think it is fair to say that today it would be hard to find a topic that is more emotionally flammable than the one that has come to the Senate today.

I begin by saying that right now, my home State—and I see my good friend, Senator Smith, on the Senate floor as well—is sending resources to California to help deal with the horrendous fires. But I think it ought to be noted, as we begin this discussion, that just over a year ago the State of California was sending resources to my home State—the State that Senator Smith and I are proud to represent. Just over a year ago, we were on the Senate floor speaking about the huge forest fires that raged in our State. At that time, over 500,000 acres were burning. We had a dozen fires raging at any given time. Seventeen thousand people in one of our valleys alone were on a 24-hour evacuation notice, and 2,500 structures were threatened.

So I think we ought to note, as we begin this discussion, that the legislation before us today is critical, not because of last year's tragedies, or even the tragedies that we are seeing in California today; this legislation is critical to address the tragedies and destruction that, as sure as the night follows the day, will be in the news tomorrow if the Senate doesn't start taking reasonable steps to address forest health policy. It seems to me that is the approach before the Senate today.

Mr. President, this is the bill that is going to go to the President of the United States. For many months now, a group of us—and Chairman Cochran has referenced this—have been involved in the negotiations. They are difficult negotiations because passions do run so strong on this issue. But I want to make it clear, for myself and the others who have signed the letter, that we cannot accept an unraveling of this compromise; that this is the bill that is going to go to the President's desk, and we are very hopeful the President will sign that legislation into law.

It is absolutely critical that the Senate come together on a reasonable plan that is going to help our forests become healthy again and secure the well-being of the families who call these beautiful areas their home.

I believe this bill provides an opportunity to remove fire-prone materials from the forests, boost rural economies, and create family-wage jobs, while at the same time protecting the extraordinary treasures—the land and the environment of the West and our Nation—for future generations.

Let me outline for a few minutes why I think this is the approach that needs to be signed into law. First, this is the only bill—unlike the one in the other body—that authorizes a significant increase in funding for the hazardous fuels reduction projects that need to be undertaken. The other body doesn't authorize a single dollar—not one—for the projects that need to be pursued. As a result, there is tremendous concern across the country that if you were to go the route of the other body, the only people that would really be able to afford to get into the thinning work would be commercial logging companies. That would be a huge mistake. Under the bipartisan compromise that has been crafted, that is not going to happen.

Second, the other body doesn't make an effort to target the dollars in a flexible way so that the work gets done in the communities that most need it in our Nation. The Senate compromise goes to bat for our rural communities by directing that 50 percent of the funding be spent inside the wildland/urban interface where populations are great, but at the same time we can deal with these infernos, these enormous fires that so often start way out in the country and then come into the more urbanized areas.

The other body is silent on this issue. The Senate, after many hours of negotiation—my friend from Idaho and I have literally been talking about this issue for almost 5 years now—strikes a reasonable balance with respect to targeting money for the wildland/urban interface while recognizing that so many of these huge fires start in sparsely populated areas out in the country.

Third, this bill is the only one that makes a historic step forward to protect our old growth, our treasures of the West about which our citizens feel so strongly. The other body has no language at all to protect old growth or the large trees and doesn't limit how projects can be executed.

What the Senate has said is, yes, there are more than 100 definitions of what constitutes "old growth." We recognize that, but throughout the bill we reference the priority to focus on the trees that are not old growth—the smaller trees, the brush—that contribute to this problem. And then, to ensure that there is actually an incentive to protect our old growth, we offer what I think is a creative approach, the kind of approach Senator Craig and I offered when we broke the gridlock on the county payments bill years ago so our communities could get revenue for schools and roads. Here, to make sure that the old growth work is a top priority, that protecting old growth is not an afterthought, we say that with respect to the old forest plans, the Forest Service would have to go back and revise the old forest plans to make sure there is actual old growth protection that is going to go forward before the thinning gets put in place.

We have an actual incentive, beyond the statutory language, which is a historic first and would protect old growth. We have a policy that would actually create incentives to prioritize old growth protection because it has to be done first under the old forest plans for thinning work to go forward.

Next, the bipartisan compromise effort keeps the current standard for judicial review of projects and ensures that what we have as a result of the changes in the judicial area, in the appeals area, sends a message across this country that citizens have a right of access with respect to their concerns about timber sales, but they don't have a constitutional right to a 5-year delay on every single timber sale.

The bipartisan group spent a great deal of time on this effort. In my view, the legislation that comes out of the other body would actually change the outcomes of these lawsuits that would rob the judiciary of the independent ability to weigh the evidence put before them. In the bipartisan compromise that was crafted, we strike a reasonable balance. Citizens are going to have a right that is undiluted with respect to access to the judicial system, but we will not set up a litigation derby that goes on for years and years and keeps the essential work from going forward.

Next, the Senate legislation ensures that the public will always be in the debate, will always be in the process and at the table. The Senate compromise allows the public to actually propose alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill in the other body basically drives the public out of the process by predetermining these National Environmental Policy Act alternatives.

The Senate compromise preserves all current opportunities for public input and appeal while streamlining the process and eliminating some of the most frustrating and exasperating aspects of bureaucracy. But it is clear, and I want to make this point early in the debate, that not one current opportunity—not one—for public comment would be lost under this compromise.

The compromise requires the Forest Service to rewrite their appeals process using a process that has been used by the Bureau of Land Management since 1984, and the sponsors of this compromise believe this will change a process that is now confrontational to one that is vastly more collaborative.

Finally, much of the argument made against this compromise is very similar to the arguments that were made in 1999 when
I and Senator Craig and others got together and put before the Senate the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. They said that was going to restrict the opportunities for citizens to be heard. There were some, when I offered that legislation, who said I was proposing a clear cut for kids program, and we had pickets before our office for over a year. We have some of that same sort of activity going on right now.

That did not happen in 1999 when the Senate moved forward with its first substantive forestry bill in more than a decade, and it is not going to happen again under this legislation if this bill actually becomes law.

I say to my colleagues that this legislation is needed. Some have asked, Why can't the issue of healthy forests simply be addressed by investing in the fire plan? They have said the national Governors made some recommendations, so why don't we just go ahead with those recommendations?

Their suggestions were very useful, but the Governors even acknowledge that simply spending more money, the heart of their proposal, was not the entire answer. How that money is spent is as important as simply offering more dollars.

I have made it clear that I think additional funds are critically important. That is why the Senate bill authorizes an 80-percent increase in funding for these thinning projects, but we also need to make some changes in terms of the endless paperwork and redtape to actually get the real work on the ground that is so important in communities across the West.

A number of Senators have said this is as far as they can go in terms of forestry policy. I know colleagues in the Senate and certainly in the other body feel strongly about it. But I reemphasize, as the Senator who organized that letter, that if there is an effort to unravel the compromise that will be voted on in the Senate, that will, in my view, kill the effort to pass this critically important legislation. It was an urgent priority before the tragic events in California. I think it is urgent not just because the Senate needs to respond in a heartfelt way to the tragedies in California, but if this legislation is not passed, I think we will see what happened in Oregon a little over a year ago and what has happened in California in the last week repeated again and again. I am not willing to see these communities and the people who live in them turned into residents of sacrifice zones. It is urgent this legislation be passed.

I close by expressing my thanks to those who have been part of this 5-year odyssey and, first, to Senator Craig. I served as chairman of the subcommittee when he was a ranking minority member. It is vice versa now. Suffice it to say there are a lot of people in the country who would say: What in the world can LARRY CRAIG and RON WYDEN find common ground on? And we have said again and again in this area that if people are willing to look at what is practical, what is a priority in terms of the thinning work that needs to be done and in protecting our old growth treasures, we can do it. That was accomplished in the county payments bill.

It can be accomplished now. Before I wrap up my remarks, I will read into the RECORD part of a statement today that the administration has issued. It states that the administration strongly supports Senate passage of H.R. 1904, the bipartisan managers' amendment; it opposes any further amendment to assure quick resolution with the House.

I ask unanimous consent that statement be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration commends the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee for reporting H.R. 1904, which would provide authorities and authorizations for appropriations that in large part are consistent with the President's Healthy Forests Initiative. The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of H.R. 1904 and the bipartisan manager's amendment (SA 1828), but opposes any further amendment, to assure quick resolution with the House. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act will provide the Administration with the needed flexibility to manage public lands wisely, and implement the kind of active forest management that is good for both the environment and our economy. This bill would further equip Federal land managers with the additional tools they need to restore forest health, safeguard habitat and watersheds, combat disease and insects, and protect lives and communities. The Administration is concerned that the authorization level in the Senate bill is well above recently enacted funding levels and above the increased funding levels the Administration requested and continues to support for FY 2004.

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes procedures to expeditiously implement hazardous fuels reduction projects on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands: (1) near communities in the wildland urban interface; (2) on high risk lands in the proximity of municipal water sources; (3) on high risk lands that encompass habitat for threatened and endangered species where federal wildlife officials have identified catastrophic wildfire as a threat to the viability of the species; and (4) on high risk landscapes particularly susceptible to disease or insect infestation. Additionally, the bill would: (1) facilitate the utilization of wood, brush, residue, and other biomass removed in conjunction with forest health projects in the production of biomass energy; (2) authorize federal programs to support community-based watershed forestry partnerships that address critical forest stewardship, watershed protection, and restoration needs at the state and local level (3) direct additional research focused on the early detection and containment of insect and disease infestations; and (4) establish a voluntary private forestland easement program focused on recovering forest ecosystem types in decline.

Mr. WYDEN. I am pleased to see what is the first formal statement of the administration saying that the Senate bill is the way to go. It is an acknowledgment of the fact that a number of us said we cannot have this compromise unravel, and it is a constructive statement from the administration today. I commend them for it.

In addition to Senator Craig, who has worked with me on this for literally 5 years, Senator Smith and I cannot go anywhere in our home State without people asking, when is the Senate going to respond to this? I thank him for his efforts, as well as those of Senator Crapo, who is in the Chamber. I see Senator Bingaman, who has been so helpful to me as I have had to wrestle with these issues that come up in my home State day after day.

We have not agreed on every single bit of this debate for 5 years, but Senator Bingaman has performed an extraordinarily important service. He has some ideas on a matter that has been documented in our hearings with respect to how these funds get moved around, almost manipulated, from one account to another when there is underfunding of the thinning work that needs to be done. I thank him for all of his help over the last 5 years. We have spent many hours on this.

With the statement that I have just put into the RECORD that the administration wants this legislation and is opposed to efforts to alter it, I think we are in a position to show the country the Senate can find common ground on an issue that is about as contentious as any imaginable. I look forward to seeing the amendments of our colleagues and getting this critically important legislation passed.

I yield the floor.