Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003-Continued

HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003-CONTINUED

AMENDMENT NO. 2030

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have an amendment, No. 2030, at the desk. I call that amendment up, please.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

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

On page 17, line 16, after "(3)" insert "(4)".

On page 18, line 23, strike "by implementing" and insert "and implement".

On page 19, line 11, strike "by implementing" and insert "and implement".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as all of us know, the Senate right now is debating the Healthy Forests bill, and I believe we need to do more in this bill to help protect America's old-growth forests.

Old-growth forests are stands of trees that have tremendous historic and cultural value.

I think we need to work hard to clarify a few parts of this bill so that Federal agencies do not misinterpret congressional intent in protecting historic and ecologically important resources.

This evening I am offering a perfecting amendment that will close two loopholes in this bill to ensure that our old-growth forests get the protection they deserve.

Before I turn to the details of my amendment, I want to comment on the horrible devastation we are seeing in California from wildfires. Like all Americans, I have been watching the shocking news coverage. My thoughts and my prayers are with everyone who has been affected. My brother is a firefighter. So I appreciate the sacrifices that are made by these brave men and women.

In my home State of Washington, we have been touched by terrible losses in recent years, including four young firefighters who died in the Thirtymile Fire on July 10, 2001, at Okanogan County.

It is clear that we have to take smart, responsible steps in this bill to reduce the dangerous fuel loads in our forests.

While it is too soon to draw any final conclusions about the fires in California, I think the fires highlight two challenges that ought to be a part of this debate.

First, it is clear that we don't have enough money in the budget to address our firefighting and fire prevention needs. In fact, today the Forest Service is borrowing from its fuel reduction accounts to pay for firefighting operations; that is, robbing Peter to pay Paul. The money reserved for fuel reduction, if it is used wisely, helps to prevent fires in the first place. The current budget is inadequate, and we are going to pay a greater price down the road if we don't address the resource issue.

Second, because the funds are limited, we have to do a better job of prioritizing how we spend the money that we do have.
Specifically, we need to give a higher priority to those vulnerable lands in areas where wildlands and urban lands intersect.
Those are spots where people and property are threatened.

If we address the hazards there-and if we educate homeowners-we will have a bigger impact with our limited funds.

I am looking for an aggressive plan to reduce the fuel loads in our forests, especially in the urban/wildland areas where people and property are endangered.

Old-growth forests are important for many reasons.

First of all, they represent ecosystems that are unique in nature. These forests are made up of a complex web of plants and animals, and climate and ecological conditions that are extremely different from what is found in younger or plantation forests. Certain animals and plants only live within these old-growth ecosystems.

If we are going to maintain a diverse species, we have to protect their habitat. Old-growth forests also have the cleanest drinking water, they provide structures for good salmon habitat, and they mitigate the effects of flooding and global warming.

Finally, these forests have great historic, recreational, and spiritual value which is important to all of us.

Hiking through an old-growth forest is truly a remarkable experience. I invite any of my colleagues who have not had that kind of experience to come to my State or to another State with a lot of old growth and have that kind of experience. You will understand why those of us who speak out on this floor are so passionate about this issue. In fact, in our old-growth forests perhaps is the only place where you can feel transported back hundreds of years and see what the very first explorers saw when they encountered these cathedral forests. They are a part of our history, and we cannot afford to lose them. Unfortunately, we have already lost many of these unique lands.

Old growth used to sweep across the Pacific Northwest, but recent studies estimate that old growth makes up between 10 and 18 percent of the lands in the Pacific Northwest and a mere 3 percent of lands nationwide. There is very little left today. We have to do all we can to ensure their survival.

I want to recognize my colleagues from Oregon and California who made this bill better by including an old- growth section in title I. As a result, this bill is now much better than what the President and the House first proposed.

But as I read the provisions, I saw two loopholes that we should close.

First of all, the bill lets the Forest Service and the BLM treat dangerous forests, and it provides protection for old-growth stands. Old growth can still be treated. It just has to be treated in a way that protects its unique character.

But if an area has insect infestations or is subject to trees being blown over, then the old-growth stands lose all of their protection. That is a big loophole. Any forest could be subject to strong winds that knock down trees. Any forest could experience insect infestation. Any forest could be subject to disease. Almost any forest could be damaged by an ice storm. It is just one of those things that happen. An old-growth forest could be drastically altered in ways that destroy its unique characteristic.

The underlying bill has a massive loophole in it that threatens old-growth forests and subjects them to unrestrained thinning. My amendment would simply close that loophole by making those lands subject to old-growth protection. My amendment, importantly, allows treatment of old growth. I know that is a concern to other Senators here on the Senate floor. It still allows treatment of old growth. It still must protect characteristics that we all recognize as important.

There is a second loophole that my amendment addresses. This bill has a fine directive to protect the integrity of old-growth stands. That is section 102, subparagraph (e)(2). I think we all can accept that standard. But I am concerned that it won't be carried out because it relies on forest management plans to be implemented.

Here is the problem with that. If the forest has a management plan that is less than 11 years old, that plan will not need to be updated to meet the new standards. That is a big loophole. It could mean that forests with relatively recent management plans don't have to enact the protections we are calling for in the bill. Fortunately, there is an easy way to close that loophole. It involves just changing four words in the bill.

My amendment does two things.

First of all, it ensures that all hazardous fuel reduction projects on Federal lands will protect old-growth forests.

Second, my amendment ensures that the old-growth standard in the bill applies to all Federal forests-not just those with older management plans.

I thank all of my colleagues and their staff who have worked very hard on this legislation.

The chairman and ranking members of the Energy Committee and the Agriculture Committee have been tireless on this bill.

My western colleagues from Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and California have all been looking after the best interests of their States and their constituents. I thank them all, and I appreciate their consideration of my amendment.

Old growth makes up just a fraction of our remaining public lands today. Many of these stands of trees are older than our Union. They are older than the settlement of the West. Some are older than Columbus' arrival in the New World.

We would not be doing our duty here on the floor of the Senate if we didn't do everything we could to protect them for future generations.

The amendment I am offering this evening will strengthen the protection in the underlying bill.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer and Senator Reid of Nevada be added as cosponsors.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do not want to prolong this debate. I know the managers have been here all day long and they want to move to a vote on this amendment.

Let me simply respond to my colleagues from the South and tell them that I understand insect infestation is a key concern in national and private forests.

I know my colleagues from the South face significant insect and disease issues. We certainly face them in the Pacific Northwest. However, I strongly believe we do not need to abandon the old-growth protections in this bill. The bill already allows old-growth stands to be treated for hazardous conditions. They simply must be treated in a manner to protect the old-growth characteristics.

Again, I know in most of the Nation 3 percent of the land is old growth. In the Pacific, it is 18 percent. It is a tremendous part of our heritage. It is something of which I think all of us should be very proud.

We need to be careful we do not take steps this evening with this bill that undo the heritage most of us are very proud of in this country.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I know my colleague from Idaho wants to move forward with a vote on this matter.