Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003-Continued

HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003-CONTINUED

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the proposed amendment from the Senator from California, not because I disagree with her point that we need to make sure we adequately protect the wildland/urban interface, but because the bill, as it is currently drafted, not only adequately provides for that but provides even broader flexibility so we can, in addition, protect the watersheds, the water quality for communities. It will actually allow communities to have a greater input into the management decisions relating to the forests that surround them.

The amendment would require that 70 percent of all of the money that is provided in this bill for fuels reduction be expended in the wildland/urban interface. The bill, as drafted, provides that not less than 50 percent of the funds will be allocated for projects in the wildland/urban interface.

Nothing in the bill, as drafted, would prohibit our forest managers from doing exactly what the Senator from California says she thinks they ought to do, if that is the right decision. On the other hand, our bill follows the recommendations of the Western Governors' Association, which allows communities to make proposals to the Forest Service about how the forests in their communities should be managed.

Frankly, the opportunity for communities to say they would like to see management reach out a little further than just a quarter of a mile around their homes, into the forest in general, or into the watershed, so they can protect their watershed as well as their homes, is an opportunity that we believe is one that should be maintained for our communities and for the flexibility of our forest managers.

Now, let me repeat. Nothing in the bill, as drafted, would stop the Forest Service from expending not only 70 percent but even more than 70 percent on the wildland/urban interface if it is determined that is the best place for the allocation of these resources.

What the bill says is, no less than 50 percent must be allocated, but it does not prohibit any allocation above 50 percent if the Forest Service and the affected communities can reach an agreement.

The issue here is one of flexibility. Very often, in Washington, as we put together legislation-whether it be over forests or any other issue-one of the tendencies is for us to try to determine every situation around the country and how best to manage it.

The problem here is, not every circumstance is the same around the country. The need is not the same throughout every forest that will need to be treated. In some forests, I am confident that far more than 70 percent of the resources would go to the wildland/urban interface. In other forests, for example, the one I talked about yesterday, which surrounds Elk City, the residents there are very concerned that the entire watershed is threatening to them, and their one route of exit from their community is threatened along an entire corridor. They would need to seek protection along the entire exit corridor to literally safely protect their lives if they needed to evacuate.

It is because the situation in Elk City is very different from the situation in Los Angeles and different from the situation in other communities which have forest environments that our bill seeks to preserve the flexibility that we need to be able to manage these funds adequately.

I encourage all Senators to reject this amendment and to move forward with the provisions as we have provided them, which, again, gives the Forest Service the flexibility to not have to be bound by the cookie-cutter solutions that we often want to put in place in Washington and have the flexibility to be able to manage as the communities and the fire and forest experts know would be the best way to approach it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I intend to move to table, so if anybody wants to debate before I do that, I will look around and see if someone wants to speak. I wish to make two quick comments about the debate before I move to table the amendment.

First, it has been suggested the intent of those who want to keep the bill the way it is is to allow cutting of old-growth forests. That is simply not the case. First of all, as everyone who has focused on this bill knows, we have provisions in the bill that protect old growth in the forests.

Second, the fact is, as I will say again, the bill gives communities and the Forest Service managers the flexibility to make the decisions about where the fuel reduction will be most effective to preserve and protect our forests and the people who live near the forests. Certainly, our focus on the Western Governors' proposal and the protection of communities is what we ought to be doing in this legislation.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, before I make a motion to table, I thank my colleague, BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, for her efforts in protecting our forests in this bill against insect infestation. She has been working very hard and very closely with us in building this compromise.

This legislation does a tremendous job of making sure we can address insect infestations throughout our forests. It is a well-crafted compromise. And the legislation will be a significant benefit to our national forests.

With that, Mr. President, I move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Oregon in opposing this amendment. Let me make a couple of quick points.

First of all, if the Senator from Washington is concerned about the issue of funding, we increase by 80 percent the funding provided for fuel load induction.

With regard to process, the process in this bipartisan amendment will require the agencies work together in collaboration with the public to develop proposed projects.

It will allow the communities to develop community protection fire plans to help land management agencies better understand their individual needs.

It requires the agency to publish a notice of each proposed hazardous fuel reduction project authorized under the act.

It requires the agency to hold public meetings to describe the project and take the public comments on the project.

It requires a NEPA analysis of two action alternatives and one no-action alternative.

It requires the agency to facilitate a predecisional protest process once the project analysis has been completed, and then the publication of a final decision notice.

Finally, it allows the public to pursue a case in the courts if, after all of that, they still do not support the outcome of the decisionmaking process.

Because of this, I believe it is very important that we do not continue to increase the cost and the bureaucracy surrounding the management of these decisions. Therefore, I oppose the proposed amendment.

Mr. President, I move to table this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know Members are here waiting for a vote. I also have to rise in opposition to the amendment. When we first began crafting the legislation in the Agriculture Committee, of which I chaired the Forestry Subcommittee, our first thought was to have no limit on time and no limit on acreage because, frankly, this is a good bill and it provides good management techniques we ought to utilize until we can devise better ones for our forests.

However, in the compromise through the negotiation process, as we were working to make this a strong bipartisan bill and bring it together, we agreed to a 20 million acre cap. I believe that 20 million acre limit is very modest compared to the risk we face. We need to put a perspective on this. The fact is the estimates are that there are 100 million acres at risk in America today, and this bill has a 20 million acre limit.

If anything, we need to be talking about how to consider whether we need to expand the application of this bill rather than to retract it or put more limits on it because we have worked in a bipartisan fashion to put together a good compromise that is going to be good for our forests and good for the people who live near the forests.

I conclude by also thanking those who worked with us to make this truly a bipartisan effort: The chairmen of the two committees, the Agriculture Committee, Senator Cochran, and the Energy Committee, Senator Domenici; my colleague from Idaho, who is the chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee on the Energy Committee, and Senator Lincoln, who is the ranking member on my subcommittee who worked so closely with me to draft the first piece that became the underlying language from which we then built this compromise. She has worked very hard and very effectively to make this all happen; Senator Feinstein and Senator Wyden, who came in and worked with us, with a true and sincere interest to make this a true and strong bipartisan effort; Senator McCain and Senator Kyl from Arizona, who became involved; Senator Baucus and Senator Burns from Montana; and Senator Thomas from Wyoming-all of whom were very integral in working to help make this a broad, successful, bipartisan effort. I am sure I have left some out.

The reason I go through this is to, once again, reiterate how this is the way people in America want the political process to work. They want us to find common ground and build good commonsense solutions to issues that cross party lines and get to the issue on principle rather than on partisanship or personal attacks. That is what this bill is about.

As I move to table this last amendment, I will announce that we will then be going forward after that with a managers' amendment and to final passage. I think tonight we are going to have a very big victory for America.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAPO. Yes, I yield.

Mr. REID. Can we voice-vote the managers' package?

Mr. CRAPO. I believe we could.