```

[House Report 107-770]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                            Rept. 107-770
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1

======================================================================

 
        HEALTHY FORESTS AND WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION ACT OF 2002

                                _______
                                

                October 31, 2002.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Hansen, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5319]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 5319) to improve the capacity of the Secretary of 
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to expeditiously 
address wildfire prone conditions on National Forest System 
lands and other public lands that threaten communities, 
watersheds, and other at-risk landscapes through the 
establishment of expedited environmental analysis procedures 
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, to 
establish a predecisional administrative review process for the 
Forest Service, to expand fire management contracting 
authorities, to authorize appropriations for hazardous fuels 
reduction projects, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendments are as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy Forests and 
Wildfire Risk Reduction Act of 2002''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as 
follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.
Sec. 3. Definition of wildland-urban interface and process for revision 
of definition.
Sec. 4. Other definitions.
Sec. 5. Hazardous fuels reduction projects covered by this Act.
Sec. 6. Reservation of hazardous fuels reduction project funds for 
projects in wildland-urban interface.
Sec. 7. Environmental analysis.
Sec. 8. Forest Service administrative appeal process.
Sec. 9. Judicial review in United States district courts.
Sec. 10. GAO audit.
Sec. 11. Stewardship contracting.
Sec. 12. Duration.
Sec. 13. Rules of construction.
Sec. 14. Relation to Collaborative 10-year Strategy for Reducing 
Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment.
Sec. 15. Monitoring by independent panel.
Sec. 16. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

  The purpose of this Act is to reduce the risks of damage to 
communities, municipal water supplies, and some other at-risk 
landscapes from catastrophic wildfires.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE AND PROCESS FOR REVISION 
                    OF DEFINITION.

  (a) Initial Definition.--In this Act, the term ``wildland-urban 
interface'' means a geographic area designated by the Secretary 
concerned, the Chief of the Forest Service, or the Director of the 
Bureau of Land Management as an area--
          (1) that includes an Interface Community or Intermix 
        Community (as those terms are defined on page 753 of volume 66 
        of the Federal Register, as published on January 4, 2001);
          (2) on which conditions are conducive to large-scale fire 
        disturbance events; and
          (3) for which a significant risk exists of a resulting spread 
        of the fire disturbance event, after ignition, that would 
        threaten human life and property.
  (b) Revision of Definition.--Within three years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary 
of the Interior shall submit to Congress any proposed revision of the 
definition of wildland-urban interface in subsection (a) that the 
Secretaries find would better reflect regional and local differences in 
the intermixing of homes and other structures with Federal lands, the 
types of fire threats facing such lands, and the forest and rangeland 
types and conditions on such lands.
  (c) Consultation.--In the case of Federal lands located in States 
participating in the Western Governors' Association, the Secretary of 
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall consult with the 
Western Governors' Association in revising the definition proposed for 
wildland-urban interface.

SEC. 4. OTHER DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act:
          (1) Condition class 2.--The term ``condition class 2'', with 
        respect to an area of Federal lands, means that--
                  (A) fire regimes on the lands have been moderately 
                altered from their historical range by either increased 
                or decreased fire frequency; and
                  (B) there exists a moderate risk of losing key 
                ecosystem components from fire.
          (2) Condition class 3.--The term ``condition class 3'', with 
        respect to an area of Federal lands, means that--
                  (A) fire regimes on the lands have been significantly 
                altered from their historical return interval and fire 
                frequencies have departed from historical ranges by 
                multiple return intervals;
                  (B) there exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem 
                components from fire;
                  (C) vegetation composition, structure, and diversity 
                have been significantly altered; and
                  (D) the lands verge on the greatest risk of 
                ecological collapse as a result of fire.
          (3) Congressional committees of jurisdiction.--The term 
        ``congressional committees of jurisdiction'' means the 
        Committee on Resources and the Committee on Agriculture of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
        Natural Resources of the Senate.
          (4) Day.--The term ``day'' means a calendar day.
          (5) 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.
          (6) Hazardous fuels reduction project.--The term ``hazardous 
        fuels reduction project'' means a project undertaken on Federal 
        lands for the purpose of reducing the amount of hazardous fuels 
        present on the lands through the use of prescribed burning or 
        mechanical treatment. Chemical or biological treatment may only 
        be used in conjunction with prescribed burning or mechanical 
        treatment.
          (7) 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.
          (8) Other at-risk federal lands.--The term ``other at-risk 
        Federal lands'' means Federal lands identified by the Secretary 
        concerned as an area where windthrow or blowdown or the 
        existence or threat of large-scale disease or insect 
        infestation pose a significant threat to forest or rangeland 
        health and an attendant increase in the risk of catastrophic 
        wildfire.
          (9) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
        means--
                  (A) the Secretary of Agriculture (or the designee of 
                the Secretary) with respect to the Federal lands 
                described in paragraph (5)(A); and
                  (B) the Secretary of the Interior (or the designee of 
                the Secretary) with respect to the Federal lands 
                described in paragraph (5)(B).
          (10) Scoping.--The term ``scoping'' means an open process 
        conducted in accordance with applicable regulations and agency 
        guidelines, including section 1501.7 of title 40, Code of 
        Federal Regulations, where applicable, as in effect on the date 
        of the enactment of this Act, during the preparation of a 
        hazardous fuels reduction project.
          (11) 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 containing a threatened species or an 
        endangered species consistent with the Endangered Species Act 
        of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

SEC. 5. HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS COVERED BY THIS ACT.

  (a) Covered Projects.--This Act applies only with respect to a 
hazardous fuels reduction project undertaken by the Secretary concerned 
on Federal lands found by the Secretary concerned to be in condition 
class 3 (or condition class 2 and adjacent to, or intermingled with, 
condition class 3 lands) if the Federal lands--
          (1) are located in the wildland-urban interface;
          (2) are located in such proximity to a municipal water supply 
        system that the risk of adverse effects to the water quality of 
        the municipal water supply from a catastrophic wildfire, 
        including the risk of erosion following a catastrophic 
        wildfire, necessitates use of the processes established under 
        this Act;
          (3) are other at-risk Federal lands; or
          (4) are not covered by paragraph (1), (2), or (3), but, 
        subject to subsection (b), are found by the Secretary concerned 
        to contain threatened and endangered species habitat.
  (b) Additional Requirements for Threatened and Endangered Species 
Habitat.--This Act does not apply to Federal lands described in 
subsection (a)(4) unless--
          (1) natural fire regimes are identified in a species recovery 
        plan as being important for the threatened species or 
        endangered species at issue or its habitat;
          (2) the project will provide enhanced protection from 
        catastrophic wildfire for the species or its habitat; and
          (3) the Secretary complies with any applicable guidelines 
        specified in the species recovery plan.
  (c) Acreage Limitation.--Not more than 2,000,000 acres of the 
aggregate of the Federal lands described in paragraphs (3) and (4) of 
subsection (a) may be treated in any fiscal year by hazardous fuels 
reduction projects for which the processes established under this Act 
are used.
  (d) Additional Limitation.--In conducting a hazardous fuels reduction 
project for which the processes established under this Act are used, if 
the Federal lands to be treated by the project contain fire resistant, 
pre-fire-exclusion old and large trees, the Secretary concerned shall 
limit the removal of such trees so as to maintain as nearly as possible 
an ecologically optimum number of such trees, as determined by the 
Secretary concerned on a project-by-project basis, appropriate for each 
ecosystem type. The Secretary concerned shall also emphasize thinning 
from below for the project.
  (e) Exclusion of Certain Federal Lands.--This Act does not apply to 
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 road in any Inventoried Roadless Area as part of 
any hazardous fuels reduction project for which the processes 
established under this Act are used.

SEC. 6. RESERVATION OF HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT FUNDS FOR 
                    PROJECTS IN WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE.

  (a) Reservation.--Of the total funds expended by the Secretary 
concerned during each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2005 to plan and 
carry out hazardous fuels reduction projects covered by this Act, not 
less than 70 percent shall be expended for hazardous fuels reduction 
projects on Federal lands in the wildland-urban interface.
  (b) Priority Projects.--In conducting hazardous fuels reduction 
projects covered by this Act, the Secretary concerned, in the sole 
discretion of the Secretary, shall seek to give priority to those 
projects that would provide the greatest protection to human lives and 
property.

SEC. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

  (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary 
concerned shall conduct the environmental review for a hazardous fuel 
reduction project covered by this Act in accordance with section 102(2) 
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)).
  (b) Discretionary Authority to Eliminate Alternatives.--In the case 
of a hazardous fuels reduction project covered by this Act, the 
Secretary concerned is not required to study, develop, or describe any 
alternative to the proposed agency action in any 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)). At the discretion of the 
Secretary concerned, the Secretary may consider alternatives to the 
proposed agency action.
  (c) Effect of Proposed Permanent Road Construction.--If a proposed 
hazardous fuels reduction project covered by this Act includes the 
construction of a new permanent system road, the Secretary concerned 
shall include consideration of one alternative that does not include 
such road construction in any environmental assessment or environmental 
impact statement prepared for the proposed agency action. At the 
discretion of the Secretary concerned, the Secretary may consider 
alternatives to the proposed agency action.
  (d) Public Notice.--
          (1) Quarterly notice.--The Secretary concerned shall provide 
        quarterly notice, in the Federal Register, a local paper of 
        record, and on an agency website, regarding all hazardous fuels 
        reduction projects of the Secretary concerned for which the 
        processes established under this Act are to be used.
          (2) Public hearing.--Upon publication of the quarterly notice 
        under paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall conduct a 
        public meeting at an appropriate location in each unit of the 
        Federal lands for which hazardous fuels reduction projects are 
        proposed in the quarterly notice at which interested persons 
        may provide input on the quarterly notice.
          (3) Special rule.--If an incident arises shortly after a 
        quarterly notice under paragraph (1) is published that the 
        Secretary concerned determines should be promptly addressed 
        through a hazardous fuels reduction project for which the 
        processes established under this Act are to be used, notice of 
        the project in the paper of record shall suffice for purposes 
        of this subsection.
          (4) Content.--The notice required by this subsection shall 
        include the approximate date on which scoping for the hazardous 
        fuels reduction projects will begin and information regarding 
        how interested members of the public can take part in the 
        development of the project.
  (e) Public Comment.--With respect to each hazardous fuels reduction 
project for which the processes established under this Act are to be 
used, the Secretary concerned shall conduct scoping in accordance with 
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 comment.

SEC. 8. FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCESS.

  (a) Administrative Appeal Process.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
shall use the following administrative appeal process to consider 
appeals regarding hazardous fuels reduction projects covered by this 
Act to be conducted on National Forest System lands.
  (b) Notice of Opportunity to Appeal.--
          (1) Availability.--Under this administrative appeal process, 
        the environmental analysis document, analysis file, and 
        decision document for a hazardous fuels reduction project shall 
        be complete and available for public review once notice of the 
        decision document is provided in the local paper of record.
          (2) Subsequent revision.--Except as provided in subsection 
        (e)(2), the environmental analysis document, analysis file, and 
        decision document may not be revised after it is made available 
        to the public unless the Secretary concerned provides new 
        public notice and recommences the time limits specified in this 
        section for the project.
  (c) Submission of Notice of Intent to Appeal.--
          (1) Eligibility.--To be eligible to appeal a hazardous fuels 
        reduction project under this administrative appeal process, the 
        person submitting the notice must have submitted specific and 
        detailed comments during the preparation stage of the project 
        on an issue specifically related to the project for which the 
        appeal is sought.
          (2) Time limits.--Eligible persons shall be given a 10-day 
        period, beginning on the date the signed decision document for 
        the hazardous fuels reduction project is made available to the 
        public, during which to submit written notice of an intent to 
        appeal the decision. Notice submitted after the end of such 
        period shall not be accepted.
          (3) Effect of failure to submit notice of intent to appeal.--
        If valid notice is not submitted within the required 10-day 
        period, the hazardous fuels reduction project shall not be 
        subject to appeal under this administrative appeal process or 
        any other provision of law, and the decision document shall be 
        considered the final agency decision.
          (4) Effect of timely submission.--Upon the timely filing of 
        notice under this subsection, the Secretary of Agriculture 
        shall take no action to implement the hazardous fuels reduction 
        project until the completion of the appeal process.
  (d) Filing of Appeal.--If an eligible person timely submits notice 
under subsection (c) with regard to a hazardous fuels reduction 
project, the Secretary of Agriculture shall give the person a 15-day 
period during which to file the administrative appeal. The 15-day 
period shall begin at the end of the 10-day period required by 
subsection (c), not on the day the notice is filed.
  (e) Review of Appeal.--
          (1) Time for review.--Upon receipt of the administrative 
        appeal with regard to a hazardous fuels reduction project, the 
        appeals officer shall consider and render a decision on the 
        appeal within 25 days.
          (2) New decision document.--The appeals officer may sign a 
        new decision document correcting errors or otherwise modifying 
        the decision document, rather than remanding the case for 
        further proceedings. If the appeals officer signs a new 
        decision document, the appeals officer shall supplement the 
        record with explanatory analysis and documentation. The new 
        decision document shall be considered the final agency 
        decision.
  (f) Negotiations.--The appeals officer may enter into negotiations 
with the appellants and other interested persons who filed comments 
during the preparation stage of the hazardous fuels reduction project. 
Any decision document resulting from the negotiations shall be 
considered the final agency decision.
  (g) Relation to Existing Authority.--Section 322 of the Department of 
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 
102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612 note) shall not apply to a hazardous fuels 
reduction project covered by this Act.

SEC. 9. JUDICIAL REVIEW IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.

  (a) Place and Time of Filing.--A hazardous fuels reduction project 
covered by this Act shall be subject to judicial review only in the 
United States district court for the district in which the Federal 
lands to be treated under the project are located. Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, any challenge to the hazardous fuels reduction 
project must be filed in such district 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. The Secretary concerned may not agree to, and a district court 
may not grant, a waiver of the requirements of this subsection.
  (b) Effect of Filing on Project.--Upon the timely filing of a 
challenge to a hazardous fuels reduction project covered by this Act, 
the Secretary concerned shall take no action to implement the project 
until the district court has rendered a decision on the merits of the 
appeal.
  (c) Time for Decision.--
          (1) In general.--Civil actions filed under this section shall 
        be assigned for hearing at the earliest possible date. Except 
        as provided in paragraph (2), the district court shall render 
        its final decision relative to any challenge within 60 days 
        after the date on which the challenge is brought. The challenge 
        shall not be dismissed as moot by the district court for 
        failure of the court to render its final decision within this 
        time period, including any extension provided pursuant to 
        paragraph (2).
          (2) Extension.--The district court shall extend the deadline 
        specified in paragraph (1)--
                  (A) if the court determines that a longer period of 
                time is required to satisfy the due process 
                requirements of the United States Constitution;
                  (B) at the request of the United States (but not to 
                exceed 15 days and not on more than one occasion);
                  (C) at the request of one appellant (but only one 
                appellant and not to exceed 15 days and not on more 
                than one occasion); and
                  (D) at the discretion of the court (but not to exceed 
                30 days and not on more than one occasion) .
          (3) Special master.--In order to reach a timely decision on a 
        challenge, the district court may assign all or part of any 
        such case or cases to one or more Special Masters for prompt 
        review and recommendations to the court.
  (d) Judicial Relief.--The district courts shall have authority to 
enjoin permanently or void a hazardous fuels reduction project covered 
by this Act. On account of the effect of the timely filing of a 
challenge to the hazardous fuels reduction project on the authority of 
the Secretary concerned to implement the project, as provided by 
subsection (b), no temporary restraining order or preliminary 
injunction shall be issued by the district court in connection with the 
project.
  (e) Procedures.--The district court may set rules governing the 
procedures of any proceeding brought under this section which set page 
limits on briefs and time limits on filing briefs and motions and other 
actions that are shorter than the limits specified in the Federal rules 
of civil or appellate procedure.
  (f) Appeal.--Any appeal from the final decision of a district court 
in an action brought pursuant to this section shall be filed as 
otherwise provided by law.

SEC. 10. GAO AUDIT.

  (a) Audit Required.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and from time-to-time thereafter, the 
Comptroller General shall conduct an audit of the implementation of 
this Act to determine the extent to which the processes established 
under this Act and the hazardous fuels reduction projects planned and 
implemented using those processes are achieving the purpose of this 
Act.
  (b) Report Required.--The Comptroller General shall submit to the 
congressional committees of jurisdiction a report containing the 
results of each audit.

SEC. 11. STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING.

  (a) Secretary of Agriculture.--During the period beginning on the 
date of the enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2005, the 
Secretary of Agriculture, via agreement or contract as appropriate, may 
enter into not more than an additional 15 stewardship and end result 
contracts under the authority provided in section 347 of the Department 
of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as 
enacted by section 101(e) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 16 
U.S.C. 2104 note), for the performance of hazardous fuels reduction 
projects (for which the processes established under this Act are used) 
on National Forest System lands.
  (b) Secretary of the Interior.--During the period beginning on the 
date of the enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2005, the 
Secretary of the Interior, via agreement or contract as appropriate, 
may enter into not more than 26 stewardship and end result contracts 
for the performance of hazardous fuels reduction projects (for which 
the processes established under this Act are used) on Federal lands 
described in section 4(5)(B), other than revested Oregon and California 
Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands. The 
stewardship and end result contracts shall be entered into in the same 
manner as provided for the Forest Service under section 347 of the 
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
1999 (16 U.S.C. 2104 note).
  (c) Payment Basis.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), payments 
under a stewardship and end result contract entered into under such 
subsections may be on a fee for service basis to achieve the goals of 
the hazardous fuels reduction project. Cash payments may be reduced by 
the value of goods delivered by the contract, except that tree removal 
or thinning under the project shall be governed solely by the goal of 
fulfilling the purpose of this Act, not by the value of the goods 
delivered.
  (d) Cooperation.--To the extent practicable, the stewardship and end 
result contracts authorized by this section shall be developed using a 
collaborative process that includes local communities and public land 
interest groups.
  (e) Report on BLM Expansion.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
submit to the congressional committees of jurisdiction a report 
regarding the desirability of expanding the authority under subsection 
(b) to include--
          (1) hazardous fuels reduction projects on those revested 
        Oregon and California Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon 
        Road grant lands that are in condition class 3 or condition 
        class 2 and for which the processes established under this Act 
        may be used; and
          (2) hazardous fuels reduction projects on any revested Oregon 
        and California Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road 
        grant lands that are in condition class 3 or condition class 2, 
        but are covered by an exclusion under section 5(e).

SEC. 12. DURATION.

  (a) In General.--The processes established under this Act shall be 
available through September 30, 2005, with regard to hazardous fuels 
reduction projects described in section 5(a).
  (b) Continuation of Noticed Projects.--A hazardous fuels reduction 
project identified in a quarterly notice published in the Federal 
Register as required by section 7(c) before the date specified in 
subsection (a) may proceed to completion after that date using the 
processes established under this Act.

SEC. 13. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

  (a) Relation to Other Authority.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
construed to affect, or otherwise bias, the use by the Secretary 
concerned of other statutory or administrative authorities to implement 
a hazardous fuels reduction project on Federal lands identified in 
section 5(e) where the use of the authorities established under this 
Act is prohibited.
  (b) Relation to Legal Action.--Nothing in this Act 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).

SEC. 14. RELATION TO COLLABORATIVE 10-YEAR STRATEGY FOR REDUCING 
                    WILDLAND FIRE RISKS TO COMMUNITIES AND THE 
                    ENVIRONMENT.

  The Secretary concerned shall conduct immediately and to completion 
hazardous fuels reduction projects on Federal lands consistent with the 
implementation plan for the ``Collaborative 10-year Strategy for 
Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment'', 
dated May 2002, which was developed pursuant to the report to accompany 
the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
2001 (House Report 106-646). Any project carried out pursuant to this 
section shall be consistent with the applicable land and resource 
management plan, land use plan, or other applicable agency plan.

SEC. 15. MONITORING BY INDEPENDENT PANEL.

  (a) Monitoring Requirements.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Secretary of the Interior shall jointly establish an independent panel 
to conduct a general assessment, using accepted measures, indicators, 
and sampling techniques, of the general success of hazardous fuels 
reduction projects for which the processes established under this Act 
are used in achieving the purpose of this Act. The panel shall 
catalogue any adverse environmental effects or unforeseen ecological 
consequences associated with the projects, if any occur.
  (b) Membership.--The panels established under this section shall 
consist in part of members nominated by the Chairmen and ranking 
minority members of each of the congressional committees of 
jurisdiction.
  (c) Annual Assessment and Reporting.--The assessment required by 
subsection (a) shall be performed on an annual basis, and the panel 
shall submit to the Secretary concerned and the congressional 
committees of jurisdiction an annual report containing the results of 
the assessment.
  (d) Secretarial Response.--The Secretary concerned shall respond to 
the annual report of the panel, and that response shall be included in 
the copy of the report submitted to the congressional committees of 
jurisdiction.

SEC. 16. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) National Forest System Lands.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act and to plan and conduct hazardous fuels 
reduction projects on National Forest System lands.
  (b) BLM Lands.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary of Interior such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
Act and to plan and conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on 
Federal lands described in section 4(5)(B).

  Amend the title so as to read:

    A bill to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and 
the Secretary of the Interior to plan and implement hazardous fuels 
reduction projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land 
Management lands in the wildland-urban interface, in areas containing 
municipal water supply systems, in areas containing threatened and 
endangered species habitat, and in areas where windthrow or blowdown or 
the existence or threat of large-scale disease or insect infestation 
pose a significant threat to forest and rangeland health and an 
attendant increase in the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and for other 
purposes.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 5319, as ordered reported, is to 
improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Secretary of the Interior to plan and implement hazardous fuels 
reduction projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau 
of Land Management lands in the wildland-urban interface, in 
areas containing municipal water supply systems, in areas 
containing threatened and endangered species habitat, and in 
areas where windblow or blowdown or the existence or threat of 
large-scale disease or insect infestation pose a significant 
threat to forest and rangeland health and an attendant increase 
in the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and for other purposes.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Millions of acres of federal lands are at unnaturally high 
risk to catastrophic wildfire because of the unhealthy build-up 
of fire fuels. The impending specter of large-scale 
catastrophic wildfire on these federal lands presents a clear 
and present threat to the health and safety of scores of 
communities, homes and ecosystems. Active forest and rangeland 
management is the only way to lessen the growing risk of 
catastrophic wildfire on the federal forests and rangelands.
    The Committee agrees with assertions made by the Secretary 
of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and other senior 
federal land managers that the legal morass of laws, 
regulations, administrative procedures, and court decisions 
impose undesirably cumbersome process requirements that make 
active forest and rangeland management a virtual impossibility 
on any meaningful scale. The Committee finds that these 
statutory and regulatory burdens should be reduced on certain 
at risk landscapes in order to empower federal land managers to 
address wildfire prone conditions on where these conditions 
threaten communities, watersheds, and other areas.

Geographic scope

    As ordered reported, H.R. 5319 establishes truncated 
analysis and review procedures applicable to hazardous fuels 
reduction projects on certain National Forest lands and lands 
administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The expedited 
authorities established under the bill are limited to use on 
certain lands in the: (1) wildland/urban interface, which is 
defined by density of homes and populations; (2) municipal 
watersheds where municipal water supplies are present; (3) 
habitat for threatened and endangered species where wildfire 
risks are identified in the recovery plan of a threatened or 
endangered species; and (4) lands where windthrow or blowdown 
or the threat of large-scale disease or insect infestation pose 
a threat to forest or rangeland health and an attendant 
increase in the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The bill as 
amended limits the number of acres treated in the threatened 
and endangered species and forest health categories (categories 
3 and 4) to two million acres a year combined. The legislation 
additionally provides that, of the total funds expended under 
the bill, not less than 70 percent must be expended to treat 
the wildland/urban interface.

National Environmental Policy Act

    Currently agencies are required under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to consider three to five 
alternatives to the proposed federal agency action, which takes 
considerable time and resources. Some NEPA experts estimate 
that each alternative developed and considered results in a 20 
percent increase in the amount of analysis and documentation. 
H.R. 5319 as ordered reported provides the agencies 
discretionary authority to limit analysis during the NEPA phase 
to the proposed action, meaning the agencies would not be 
required to study, develop or analyze a range of alternatives. 
The one exception is for projects implemented under the bill 
that include the building of new permanent roads, in which case 
the agency would be required to study, develop and analyze an 
alternative that does not provide for the building of new 
roads. While narrowing the number of alternatives considered, 
the amendment increases public notice requirements and codifies 
scoping requirements in effect on the date of enactment of the 
bill.

Administrative appeals

    The appeals process prescribed by H.R. 5319 as ordered 
reported would be limited to 50 days, reduced from the current 
process, which lasts 120 days, and sometimes more. The new 
appeals process gives appellants 10 days to give notice of 
their intent to appeal, 15 days to file an appeal, and the 
Forest Service 25 days to decide on the merits of the appeal. 
Additionally, only persons who submitted specific and detailed 
comments during the preparation stage of the project are 
eligible to file administrative appeals. Finally, the bill as 
ordered reported gives appeals review officers the 
discretionary authority to sign a new decision document at the 
end of the appeals process, instead of requiring project and/or 
analysis modifications made pursuant to an administrative 
appeal to go through the time-consuming remand process.

Judicial review

    Under the bill as ordered reported, judicial review can 
only be sought in the federal district court with jurisdiction 
over where the proposed action is located. The bill as ordered 
reported directs that plaintiffs file causes of action within 
30 days following the end of the appeals process. On the filing 
of a challenge, the Secretary concerned is required to stay the 
project until the completion of the District Court's review. 
With this administratively imposed stay in place, motions for 
temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are 
moot, and are therefore expressly prohibited.
    Because of the exigent circumstances surrounding these 
projects, Congress mandates that federal District Courts decide 
on the underlying merits of an action brought in relation to a 
project proposed under this bill within 60 days, though the 
Court may extend that deadline under narrowly drawn and 
expressly limited circumstances. These deadlines are binding, 
and not merely advisory. The Committee finds that the projects 
covered by the bill are of great importance and urgency and 
that, as such, federal District Courts should move with maximum 
dispatch, consistent with the deadlines in the bill as ordered 
reported, in deciding on the merits of judicial actions brought 
against these projects.

Annual General Accounting Office audit

    The bill as ordered reported requires the Comptroller 
General to conduct an audit of the implementation of the bill 
to determine the success of the processes established under the 
bill and the hazardous fuels reduction projects implemented in 
achieving the purpose of the bill.

Stewardship and end result contracts

    The Forest Service is given the authority to enter into 15 
additional stewardship contract pilot projects. The Bureau of 
Land Management is authorized to enter into 26 stewardship 
contract pilot projects, with the restriction that those 
projects cannot be implemented on Oregon and California lands. 
These additional Stewardship Contract Pilot Projects are 
confined to implementing projects authorized by this bill.

Duration, limitations and rules of construction

    The authorities established under H.R. 5319 shall be 
available through September 30, 2006. Projects noticed under 
the procedures outlined in the legislation by this date shall 
be completed under the processes established under this bill.
    The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are 
prohibited from using the expedited analysis procedures 
established in this bill in wilderness areas, and lands where, 
by Act of Congress or Presidential proclamation, the removal of 
vegetation is prohibited or restricted. Nothing in the bill, 
however, places any limits whatsoever on the authorities of 
land mangers to implement hazardous fuels reduction projects 
under other allowances and authorities.
    Additionally, the bill provides that the Forest Service 
will not be allowed to build new roads in Inventoried Roadless 
Areas (IRAs) under the bill's expedited procedures, though the 
Forest Service would be allowed to implement fuels reduction 
projects in IRAs under the expedited provisions provided they 
do not have a roadbuilding component. Moreover, the bill does 
nothing to diminish the Forest Service's authority to build 
roads in IRAs as needed in IRAs under existing procedures.
    Finally, nothing in the bill as amended is intended to bias 
or otherwise affect the following: (1) litigation involving the 
Roadless Area Conservation Rule; or (2) the authority of the 
Secretaries to implement hazardous fuels reduction projects 
under other available authorities on any federal lands, 
including those lands where the expedited procedures in this 
bill are expressly allowed, in Section 5(a), or expressly 
prohibited, in Section 5(e).

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    Congressman Scott McInnis (R-CO) introduced H.R. 5319 on 
September 4, 2002. The bill was referred primarily to the 
Committee on Resources and additionally to the Committee on 
Agriculture. On September 5, 2002, the Resources Committee held 
a hearing on the bill. On October 8, 2002, the Resources 
Committee met to consider the bill.
    Mr. McInnis offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute which reflected negotiations among several Members 
of the Committee and the Administration. Congressman Jay Inslee 
(D-WA) offered a substitute amendment to the McInnis amendment 
in the nature of a substitute. The Inslee amendment was not 
agreed to by a roll call vote of 12 ayes to 25 noes, as 
follows:

    Congressman Tom Udall (D-NM) offered an amendment to the 
McInnis amendment in the nature of a substitute which added a 
new provision to section 9 entitled ``Relation to Criminal Case 
Workload''. This amendment was not agreed to by a roll call 
vote of 13 ayes to 24 noes, as follows:

    Congressman Mark Udall (D-CO) offered an amendment to the 
McInnis amendment in the nature of a substitute reducing the 
number of acres subject to the hazardous fuels reduction 
projects authorized by the bill and increasing the percentage 
of funds which must be spent on projects in the wildland-urban 
interface. This amendment was not agreed to by voice vote.
    The McInnis amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
then agreed to by a roll call vote of 23 ayes to 14 noes, as 
follows:

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                  FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    The functions of the proposed advisory committee authorized 
in the bill are not currently being nor could they be performed 
by one or more agencies, an advisory committee already in 
existence or by enlarging the mandate of an existing advisory 
committee.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 
incurred in carrying out this bill. The bill authorizes ``such 
sums'' to be appropriated to carry out this bill. The Committee 
believes that enactment of this bill have no significant effect 
on the federal budget.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill, as ordered reported, is to improve the 
capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 
the Interior to plan and implement hazardous fuels reduction 
projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land 
Management lands in the wildland-urban interface, in areas 
containing municipal water supply systems, in areas containing 
threatened and endangered species habitat, and in areas where 
windblow or blowdown or the existence or threat of large-scale 
disease or insect infestation pose a significant threat to 
forest and rangeland health and an attendant increase in the 
risk of catastrophic wildfire, and for other purposes.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has requested but not received a cost 
estimate for this bill from the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing 
law.

             ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

                              INTRODUCTION

    Many western communities are at risk of catastrophic 
wildfires. The cause is a combination of severe drought, the 
overgrown conditions of many federal forest lands resulting 
from a past fire-suppression policies, and the growing number 
of settlements pressing against or into those forested areas. I 
have consistently worked to reduce those risks.
    This year's terrible fires in Colorado and other States 
were a dramatic confirmation of those risks, but my concerns 
began much earlier. Since my first election to Congress, I have 
made it a point to visit parts of Colorado that have been 
burned by catastrophic wildfires or that are at risk of similar 
fires. I have walked areas that have been treated through 
controlled fires and mechanical thinning and seen the dramatic 
difference that such treatments can make in reducing wildfire 
risks. I have been to the front lines of a burning wildfire--
the Big Elk Meadows fire near Estes Park--and I have talked 
with homeowners, foresters, forest ecologists, forest users and 
conservationists to get their perspectives and to try to 
understand what strategies can reduce the risks to lives and 
property.
    What I have learned from these tours and conversations is 
that we need to do more to reduce the risks to our communities, 
our water supplies, and our citizens. That is why I have 
introduced legislation (H.R. 5098 of the 106th Congress and 
H.R. 3948 of the 107th Congress) to expedite the work of 
removing excessive fire-prone materials and to require the 
government to focus its efforts in the areas where this work 
will have the most immediate benefit for the most people.
    H.R. 5913 shares some of these purposes--but, as 
introduced, it included many provisions that I considered not 
only unnecessary but unwise and inappropriate. So, I think that 
Chairman McInnis is to be commended for his willingness to work 
on a bipartisan basis to try to develop revisions that would 
reshape the bill toward one that would deserve and attract 
broad support.
    I think it would have been preferable for the Committee to 
defer action on the legislation until that result was achieved. 
However, that did not occur.
    When the Committee considered the bill, I voted for the 
Inslee substitute because while it had some serious flaws it 
would have made many necessary improvements to H.R. 5319 as 
originally introduced. After that substitute was rejected, I 
voted for the alternative substitute proposed by 
Representatives McInnis and Walden for the same reason. To 
lessen any misunderstandings, I want to explain my reasoning.

             ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

    I do not think our national environmental laws are the 
obstacle to improving our response to the wildfire-related 
risks to our communities. So, I see no real need to make any 
fundamental changes in those laws. This is not to suggest that 
our national environmental laws are beyond improvement, nor 
that we cannot explore ways to reduce bureaucracy and lawsuits. 
But I think we should be very cautious about proposals to 
lessen public involvement in decisions about the management of 
the federal lands.
    Both the Inslee substitute and the bill as reported would 
permit the Forest Service of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 
implement a fuel-reduction project without the full 
documentation normally required by section 102(2) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
    I do not think such provisions are necessary. However, if 
the bill is to include any such provisions, I think those in 
the Inslee substitute would have been preferable because under 
that substitute the reduction in analysis would have applied in 
fewer instances and only to a limited number of projects 
involving a clearly-defined amount of merchantable wood 
products or salvage timber.
    I think those provisions of the Inslee substitute more 
accurately reflected the reality that the real obstacles to 
progress in reducing fire risks have not been the environmental 
laws. Instead, the main obstacles have been inadequate focus on 
the highest-priority areas and a failure by the relevant land-
managing agencies--under both the last Administration and this 
one--to do enough to develop and narrowly-tailored thinning 
projects that can enjoy broad support.

                             PRIORITY AREAS

    I think the highest priority for fuel-reduction work needs 
to be on the forest lands that present the most immediate risks 
to our communities--those within the wildland/urban interface, 
or the ``red zone,'' as it is called in Colorado--and to 
municipal water supplies. These are the places where forest 
conditions present the greatest risks to people's lives, 
health, and property, and so they should be where our finite 
resources--time, money, and people--are concentrated.
    But to properly focus on these areas, we have to properly 
identify them. And in that regard, I considered the McInnis-
Weldon substitute to be clearly preferable to the Inslee 
substitute--because the Inslee substitute included a seriously 
flawed definition of what would be considered ``interface'' 
areas.
    The Inslee substitute defined the term ``wildland-urban 
interface'' as referring only to ``an area within a half-mile 
of a community,'' without specifying what was meant by the term 
``community.'' I think such a definition is simultaneously too 
broad and too narrow.
    It is too broad because it would give the land-managing 
agencies total discretion to decide what would qualify as a 
``community''--regardless of whether a place so identified had 
any residents at all. And it is too narrow because in many 
instances an arbitrary half-mile limit would exclude lands 
whose characteristics and proximity to actual communities 
should make them priority areas for fuel-reduction work.
    I think the ``interface'' definition in the McInnis-Walden 
substitute is clearly preferable. By limiting the term to an 
area including either an ``interface'' or ``intermix'' 
community--and by adopting existing definitions of those 
terms--it provides an appropriate limitation on the discretion 
of the agencies in this regard. And, on the other hand, by not 
drawing an arbitrary mileage line, it appropriately reflects 
the reality that such a community's exposure to the risk of 
wildfire depends on terrain, forest conditions, and other 
factors that can vary greatly from one place to another and 
over time.
    On the other hand, the McInnis-Walden substitute also 
applies to certain federal lands unrelated to communities or 
municipal water supplies, subject to the limit of 2 million 
acres annually. I think fuel-reduction projects on these lands 
should not have the same priority as the other lands covered by 
the bill, which is why I sought to reduce that limit by half. I 
regret the Committee did not adopt my amendment on this point, 
and may renew my efforts at a later point in the legislative 
process.

          ``ANALYSIS PARALYSIS,'' APPEALS, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

    As introduced, H.R. 5319 included (in section 2(a)(9)) a 
finding stating in pertinent part that ``Federal land managers 
need immediate relief from certain procedural requirements that 
substantially burden land management professionals without 
bringing any value to the decision-making process.''
    That and all other findings were deleted by adoption of the 
McInnis-Weldon substitute--a definite improvement. But, like 
the original version, the bill as reported clearly is based on 
a similar premise--that the land-managing agencies are laboring 
under procedural burdens that unnecessarily delay work on fuel-
reduction projects.
    I think that premise has not been proved beyond doubt.
    The Chief of the Forest Service has told our Committee that 
the agency has been slow to act to reduce the risks of 
catastrophic wildfire because of ``analysis paralysis,'' 
meaning that the fear of appeals or litigation has made Forest 
Service personnel excessively cautious in the way they 
formulate and analyze fuel-reduction (and other) projects.
    The chief may be correct in that diagnosis--certainly he is 
in a better position than I am to evaluate the mental states of 
his subordinates. But it is important to remember that the 
Chief has also testified that he does not think revision of the 
environmental laws is required in order to treat this 
condition--and on that point I am in full agreement.
    And if fear of appeals and litigation is the cause of 
``analysis paralysis,'' how realistic is that fear? Over recent 
months, there has been considerable debate over that point, in 
our Committee and in the press. I think it is fair to say that 
debate has been more heated than enlightening, and that the 
question remains unresolved. I am not convinced that the case 
has been fully made that the ability of people to seek 
administrative or judicial review of Forest Service decisions 
has had such adverse effects that stringent limitations on 
those processes are essential.
    As introduced, H.R. 5319 would have repealed the law that 
currently provides for appeals of Forest Service decisions, and 
would have instituted a new ``predecisional review process'' 
for certain agency actions. The bill as reported does not 
include such provisions, and does provide for administrative 
review of projects covered by the bill--another improvement 
made by the McInnis-Walden substitute.
    On the other hand, projects covered by the Inslee 
substitute would have been exempt from any administrative 
appeal process--meaning that the only option for someone 
seeking to have it reconsidered would be litigation. I think it 
likely that in at least some--and perhaps many--instances 
problems could be resolved more quickly and with less expense 
through administrative, rather than judicial, review.
    I think with regard to administrative appeals the bill as 
reported is a definite improvement over the original version, 
and also preferable to the Inslee substitute.
    However, the bill as reported includes provisions related 
to judicial review that I think are imperfect at best, and 
probably completely unnecessary. The only reason that I could 
support their inclusion is that both these provisions and those 
related to administrative review include an automatic stay of 
agency action until the completion of the review process and 
the rendering of a decision on the merits of each issue raised 
by those seeking to change the outcome of an agency decision.
    I think it would have been better if the bill did not 
attempt to make any change in the procedures of the courts, for 
reasons well stated in the dissenting views of Representative 
Udall of New Mexico.

                  OTHER DIFFERENCES FROM ORIGINAL BILL

    In my opinion, the bill as reported represents an 
improvement over H.R. 5319 as introduced in many respects. 
These include the fact that the reported bill applies only to 
National Forest System lands and public lands managed by the 
Bureau of Land Management. The original bill would have applied 
to National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System 
lands, which I think is not necessary and would be 
inappropriate.
    I also think the fact that the bill as reported does not 
apply to designated wilderness or to wilderness study areas is 
a major improvement, as is the fact that National Monuments, 
National Conservation Areas, and other areas where removal of 
vegetation is prohibited or restricted. Those provisions of the 
reported bill are especially important to me because they make 
clear that the bill will not apply to the James Peak Protection 
Area designated by a bill I introduced that was recently 
enacted as Public Law 107-216.
    On the other hand, the Inslee substitute would have more 
fully and appropriately recognized the special qualities of 
inventories roadless areas of the National Forests and the 
importance of retaining existing procedures applicable to 
activities in those areas. And it also would have provided 
similar recognition for Native American cultural or religious 
sites, which I think deserve more consideration than is 
provided by the bill as reported.

                  OTHER SHORTCOMINGS OF REPORTED BILL

    As noted above, I voted for McInnis-Weldon substitute--that 
is, for the bill as reported--because it is far better than the 
original bill. However, I am under no illusion that it is 
perfect. It includes provisions that I think are imperfect, 
unnecessary, or undesirable, and it omits some things that I 
would have preferred be included.
    I want to highlight some ways in which I think the bill 
should be revised further.
    To begin with, I would further narrow the scope of the bill 
by excluding all the lands that would have been excluded by 
section 3(c) of the Inslee substitute. I would also reduce--or, 
better yet, eliminate--the amount of ``other-at-risk Federal 
lands'' and the lands containing threatened and endangered 
species habitat covered by paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 
5(a) of the reported bill. While thinning projects likely 
should be done on some of these lands, I do not think it is 
appropriate to include them in this bill because I think the 
only reason for considering any changes in current law 
applicable to such projects is to respond to the threats to our 
communities and municipal water supplies.
    Similarly, I would further heighten the priority the 
reported bill places on using funds provided for fuel-reduction 
projects in the ``red zone'' areas. Toward that end, when the 
Committee considered the bill I offered an amendment to require 
that 85% of such funds be expended on interface projects. That 
amendment was not adopted, but I think that such a change would 
be an improvement and I may seek to revisit this issue later in 
the legislative process.
    I also think it would have been an improvement for the 
Committee to have adopted the amendment proposed by 
Representative Udall of New Mexico, in order to assure that the 
bill's provisions on judicial review--if they are retained at 
all--would not interfere with the timely handling of criminal 
cases.
    I also think the bill would be improved by the addition of 
provisions related to community and private-land wildfire 
assistance similar to those that were included in section 7 of 
the Inslee substitute.

                               CONCLUSION

    I do think it is appropriate for Congress to act to improve 
the effectiveness of the way the Forest Service and Bureau of 
Land Management are undertaking to reduce the risks of 
catastrophic wildfires to the lives, health, and property of 
people living in communities near federal forest lands.
    However, I thought that H.R. 5319 as originally introduced 
was not well designed to accomplish that goal. That is why I 
have sought to improve it--and the bill as reported, while 
still defective in important ways, is much better than the 
original version.
    I think the essential point of any legislation on this 
subject is to require the agencies to focus on work in the 
highest-priority areas. The reported bill does do that, to some 
extent. It would give a priority--not high enough, but a 
priority--to efforts to reduce the fire risks where they are 
needed most. It also is more limited in scope than the bill as 
introduced and relies to a greater extent on existing, time-
tested administrative and judicial procedures.
    Further, and importantly, the reported bill's provisions 
will terminate on September 30, 2005--a much shorter and more 
appropriate duration for provisions that I think should not be 
considered except as provisional and in the nature of an 
experiment.
    In short, I voted for the reported bill because I am 
willing to consider legislation--although I am not convinced 
such legislation is necessary--to revise the administrative 
procedures applicable to Forest Service and BLM fuel-reduction 
projects intended to reduce the risks to our communities from 
catastrophic wildfires. I want to work with my colleagues on 
the Committee and in the Congress to try to make further 
improvements to H.R. 5319. But I will reserve final judgment 
and will want to watch closely how events unfold before 
deciding whether to support enactment of this or any similar 
measure.

                                                        Mark Udall.

              DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE TOM UDALL

Introduction
    I, like other western members take very seriously the need 
to find a balanced approach to reduce the threat of 
catastrophic wildfires from occurring. Unfortunately, I could 
not support H.R. 5319 as amended during our committee mark-up 
because it fundamentally missed the mark of protecting our 
communities and their water supplies. H.R. 5319, as modified in 
our Committee, is far better than what was originally 
introduced on September 4, 2002 by Mr. McInnis. I believe that 
working together we can put together a bill that protects our 
communities from catastrophic fires without the need for 
expedited processes, without deadlines imposed on the federal 
judiciary, and without emasculating our environmental laws.
    I would like to commend Forests and Forest Health 
Subcommittee Chairman McInnis, Mr. Walden, Mr. George Miller, 
and Mr. DeFazio for attempting to bring to our committee a 
bipartisan bill that reduces the threat of catastrophic 
wildfires, which threaten the livelihood of our communities, 
their water systems, and our pristine forests.
    I participated in one of the several member level meetings 
to help find a balanced, bipartisan approach to reduce the 
threat of catastrophic wildfires. However, since members 
pressed the need to bring a bill before the committee prior to 
Congress's adjournment, I withdrew from the negotiations 
because I felt we were moving in such an expedient manner that 
any bill brought before the committee would reek of hurried 
work and would not afford other members of the committee the 
necessary time to review any final product.
    The ongoing drought in the western United States has caused 
communities to band together to reduce the threat of 
catastrophic wildfire. These communities recognize that 
something has to be done to accelerate fuel reduction 
activities because the risk of severe fire is a harsh reality. 
Back in New Mexico's 3rd Congressional District, I have 
frequently met with ranchers, farmers, elected officials, 
community activists, and environmentalists who all agree that 
the Congress should spend more federal dollars to conduct 
proactive forest restoration and fuel reduction projects within 
the at-risk wildland/urban interface.
    I voted for the alternative substitute offered by Mr. 
Inslee because I believe its adoption would have made several 
improvements to H.R. 5319, which I will discuss further in my 
dissent. However, I respectfully disagree with the definition 
of ``wildland/urban interface'' in the Inslee substitute and 
would have preferred the definition found in H.R. 3948, which 
was introduced by my close friend Representative Mark Udall, 
and which I, along with Representative Joel Hefley joined as 
original cosponsors.
H.R. 5319, the Healthy Forests and Wildfire Risk Reduction Act of 2002
    The amendment in nature of a substitute to H.R. 5319, which 
was offered by Mr. McInnis and Mr. Walden, falls for short of 
our focus to reduce hazardous fuel in the wildland/urban 
interface, around communities that fall within the interface, 
and around key municipal water supplies. The amendment instead 
creates an expedited administrative appeal process that in my 
opinion, as a former federal prosecutor and Attorney General 
for the State of New Mexico, would likely lead to more 
litigation. This amendment would disqualify appeals filed by 
people who did not previously comment on the specific issues 
that they are raising in their appeals, and also those who did 
not file a notice of intent to file an appeal with the agency. 
Consequently, this would make it too easy for the Forest 
Service to dismiss troublesome appeals on the procedural ground 
that the appellants did not properly raise the issue in their 
comments or file a timely notice. Also, while the amendment 
authorizes the Forest Service to negotiate with appellants, it 
does not provide adequate time extensions to conduct the 
negotiations and reach an agreement before end of the appeals 
period. I also have concerns over the amendments authorization 
of 15 new Forest Service projects and an entirely new BLM 
program of 26 projects within the stewardship-contracting 
program. I believe that before Congress starts to expand 
further pilot projects that we wait for the data concerning the 
effectiveness of stewardship contract pilot projects approved 
in 1999, since implementation of nearly all of those projects 
is not yet complete.

What Is Wrong With Judicial Review?

    The area of the bill that causes me particular concern 
pertains to section 9 of H.R. 5319 that addresses judicial 
review. This section in no way contributes to protecting our 
communities through its necessitating unprecedented deadlines, 
restrictions, and burdens on the federal judiciary for lawsuits 
challenging expedited appeals of hazardous fuel reduction 
projects. Furthermore, any subsequent judicial review of an 
agency decision would be rushed and unfair to citizens, and 
could wreak havoc on the federal courts in some regions.
    Section 9 would require federal judges to hear expedited 
fuel reduction project cases ``at the earliest possible date'' 
and then issue final decisions within 60 days after the 
lawsuits are filed, with only a very limited allowance for time 
extensions. Thus, under the law fuel reduction projects would 
be assigned top priority in the federal court system virtually 
above all other civil and criminal cases. Even if only a small 
fraction of those projects are controversial enough to provoke 
a challenge, some district courts--particulary in the western 
states like New Mexico--could quickly be overwhelmed by having 
to meet the bill's legal prioritization and inflexible 
deadlines. This is why I hoped the amendment I offered during 
committee would have been adopted to ensure that civil cases 
filed pursuant to H.R. 5319 would not take precedence over 
criminal cases.
    In addition, the time limitations contained within Section 
9 do not reflect the policies of the Judicial Conference of the 
United States, the policy-making body for the federal 
judiciary, for three primary reasons.\1\ First, the Conference 
strongly opposes the statutory imposition of litigation 
priority and expediting requirements except in those cases 
warranting such review under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1657. Secondly, the 
Conference strongly opposes any attempt to impose statutory 
time limits for the disposition of specific cases in all 
branches of the federal courts. The Conference views Section 
1657 as sufficiently recognizing the appropriateness of federal 
courts generally determining case management priorities. Third, 
the expansion of statutorily mandated priorities and expediting 
requirements run counter to the principles of effective case 
management. As the number of cases receiving priority treatment 
increases, the ability of the court to expedite review of any 
of these cases is restricted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See General Policy Statement of the Judicial Conference of the 
United States regarding expediting provisions for civil cases in the 
federal courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 9's expedited judicial review provision is 
unnecessary because the litigation of hazardous fuel reduction 
projects in federal court is infrequent and practically non-
existent. An August 31, 2001, report by the General Accounting 
Office (GAO) demonstrates that the need for expedited judicial 
review does not exist. The GAO report found that of the 1671 
hazardous fuels reduction projects identified for 
implementation in FY 2001, only 20 (or approximately 1%) of 
them were appealed.\2\ None of these projects were litigated in 
federal court. Considering this, Section 9 is an exercise in 
frivolity, imposing unrealistic and unnecessary deadlines on 
the federal judiciary for lawsuits challenging final 
administrative decisions regarding fuel reduction projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See Forest Service: Appeals and Litigation of Fuel Reduction 
Projects. GAO-01-1114R August 31, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The absurdity of the potential outcome due to the 
implementation of Section 9 is heightened by the fact that, 
according to the GAO, none of the Forest Service's hazardous 
fuel reduction projects were litigated during the first 9 
months of FY 2001. Tragically, H.R. 5319 would almost certainly 
cause many of these projects to be litigated, due to public 
distrust and opposition caused by the loss of normal 
environmental safeguards and public participation 
opportunities.
    In considering any national wildfire prevention and 
protection legislation, we should not diminish judicial review, 
but we should encourage and enhance public participation in the 
decision-making process. Moreover, the Committee on Judiciary 
has exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the federal 
courts and judicial review. As such, I share the concerns of 
the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, 
that the provisions in H.R. 5319, as they pertain to judicial 
review, ``raise serious questions regarding the efficiency and 
efficacy of the federal courts that are best addressed by the 
Judiciary Committee.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Letter from Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking 
Member, House Judiciary Committee to Chairman James V. Hansen and 
Ranking Member Nick J. Rahall, II, House Resources Committee, (October 
8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Is Lacking in H.R. 5319?

    What H.R. 5319 lacks is the emphasis on protecting 
communities as well as providing the tools necessary to assist 
them in those endeavors. I do not view H.R. 5319 as a Healthy 
Forest initiative; rather I view H.R. 5319 as a failed 
initiative to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires, 
which threaten communities and their water systems.
    There are a lot of communities throughout the country and 
in my home state of New Mexico who are undertaking proactive 
efforts to reduce the fire risk. Unfortunately, H.R. 5319 
contained not one provision that could assist communities and 
tribes with their work on fire reduction or restoration 
projects. Restoration projects greatly contribute to reducing 
the potential for a catastrophic fire to occur. I agree that 
funding proactive forest restoration projects to reduce the 
chances for fire is important rather than continuing to spend 
billions of dollars each year fighting fires. Two amendments 
that I had planned to offer would have strengthened H.R. 5319 
in this regard. Both provisions were in the original text of 
the Inslee Substitute, which I supported.
    The first amendment would have allowed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to make grants to States and Indian tribes for the 
purpose of promoting optimal firefighting efficiency at the 
Federal, State, Indian tribe, and local levels in the wildland/
urban interface. These grants would also allow these 
communities to expand outreach and education programs to 
homeowners and communities about fire prevention.
    Working to prevent fires is not only a job undertaken by 
the Federal Government but also a job that is being tackled by 
local communities and tribes. There are several key programs 
that are part of the National Fire Plan which include economic 
action programs, community and private land fire assistance, 
and burned area restoration and rehabilitation that have been 
drastically cut by the Administration over the last two budget 
cycles.
    These funding constraints clearly affect the work that is 
being done on the ground by communities and tribes. My 
amendment would have provided needed assistance that tribes and 
communities could currently use to protect their communities 
from fire. Broad community involvement to prevent fires should 
be encouraged at all levels; however, it is not encouraged 
through the provisions of H.R. 5319.
    My second amendment would have created a new section of 
H.R. 5319 entitled Forest Restoration and Value-added Centers.
    This amendment would allow the Forest Service to enter into 
partnerships, and cooperative agreements with other Federal 
agencies or other organizations, including local nonprofit 
organizations, conservation groups, or community colleges in 
creating and maintaining the Restoration and Value-added 
Centers. The Forest Service regional offices through a 
competitive ``request-for-proposal'' process would select the 
Centers.
    In addition, the Forest Service would provide financial 
assistance equaling 75 percent of each Center's budget. After 
the Center has operated for five years, the Secretary shall 
assess the Center's performance and begin to reduce, by 25 
percent annually, the level of funding.
    I believe these Centers would provide needed technical 
assistance to small communities and enterprises adjacent to 
public lands. This will make the latest technology and 
innovations available to rural communities and provide rural 
entrepreneurs an opportunity to use and share their expertise 
and knowledge of the land and wood products, and be part of 
finding solutions to reducing fires as well as restoring our 
forest.
    Why do we need Forest Restoration and Value-added Centers? 
We need them because the success of our efforts to restore fire 
prone forests to their natural condition will depend on how 
work is structured and byproducts are utilized. We need an 
integrated approach that includes three components:
           Building a high-skill, high-wage workforce 
        especially in rural areas which can respond to the 
        needs of the landscape;
           Investing appropriately to get the work done 
        on the land.
           And adding value to by-products that result 
        from restoration work
    The establishment of Forest Restoration and Value-added 
Centers, through my amendment, would ensure we are being 
environmentally and socially responsible in how we go about the 
restoration of our public lands and stimulating economic 
development. These Centers would ensure that forest restoration 
occurs in a collaborative fashion and assists rural communities 
and enterprises in accessing the best information to develop 
good jobs that will help restore the health of our forests.
    Forest Restoration and Value-added Centers will help 
federal land management agencies create effective partnerships 
with communities and others by providing authority to enter 
into cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations and 
others to implement restoration projects.

Conclusion

    It is my hope that, should H.R. 5319 come before the House, 
the areas I have covered in my dissent will be incorporated in 
a manager's amendment to the underlying bill. We need 
legislation to reduce the potential for catastrophic fires, 
protect our communities, and provide assistance to Tribes and 
states in the work they are currently undertaking to reduce the 
risk of fires. We do not need a bill that increases the 
potential for lawsuits, emasculates our environmental laws, and 
fails to protect our communities and their citizens.
    For those reasons stated above I respectfully dissent from 
H.R. 5319 in its modified form.

                                                         Tom Udall.
                                ------                                

  Views of the Judicial Conference of the United States Pertaining to 
                            Expedited Review

    The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-
making body for the federal judiciary, strongly opposes the 
statutory imposition of litigation priority, expediting 
requirements, or time limitation rules in specified types of 
civil cases brought in federal court beyond those civil actions 
already identified in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1657 as warranting 
expedited review. The Judicial Conference also strongly opposes 
any attempt to impose statutory time limits for the disposition 
of specified cases in the district courts, the courts of 
appeals, or the Supreme Court. (Report of the Proceedings of 
the Judicial Conference of the United States, September 1990, 
p. 80.) Section 1657 currently provides that United States 
courts shall determine the order in which civil actions are 
heard, except for the following types of actions that must be 
given expedited consideration: cases brought under chapter 153 
(habeas corpus petitions) of title 28 or under 28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1826 (recalcitrant witnesses); actions for temporary or 
injunctive relief; and actions for which ``good cause'' is 
shown. The Judicial Conference views 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1657 as 
sufficiently recognizing both the appropriateness of federal 
courts generally determining case management priorities and the 
desire to expedite consideration of limited types of actions.
    Expansion of statutorily mandated expedited review is 
unwise for several reasons. Individual actions within a 
category of cases inevitably have different needs of priority 
treatment, which needs are best determined on a case-by-case 
basis. Also, mandatory priorities and expediting requirements 
run counter to principles of effective civil case management. 
In addition, as the number of categories of cases receiving 
priority treatment increases, the ability of a court to 
expedite review of any of these cases is restricted.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                   Washington, DC, October 8, 2002.
Hon. James V. Hansen,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Longworth 
        House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,
Ranking Member, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, 
        Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Hansen and Ranking Member Rahall: I 
understand that on October 8, the Committee on Resources 
intends to mark up a version of H.R. 5319 that contains a 
section that places significant limitations on the federal 
courts' ability to review a Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project 
(``HFRP''). Among other things, the October 3 version of the 
bill: (1) limits the venue for challenging a HFRP, (2) limits 
the time period for filing a court challenge to a HFRP, (3) 
requires the federal district courts to expedite consideration 
of these actions, (4) sets a 60-day timetable for a federal 
district court to render a decision in a challenge to a HFRP, 
(5) limits extensions of the 60-day deadline for a federal 
district court to render a decision in a challenge to a HFRP, 
and (6) sets a 60-day timetable for a federal court of appeals 
to render a decision in any appeal from a district court 
decision regarding a HFRP.
    The Committee on the Judiciary has exclusive jurisdiction 
over matters relating to the federal courts and judicial 
review. I believe that the judicial review provisions in H.R. 
5319 raise serious questions regarding the efficiency and 
efficacy of the federal courts that are best addressed by the 
Judiciary Committee.
    I request that the Resources Committee drop the judicial 
review provisions from H.R. 5319. In the alternative, I will 
encourage the Judiciary Committee to exercise its jurisdiction 
and mark up the sections of H.R. 5319 over which the Committee 
has jurisdiction.
            Sincerely,
                                         John Conyers, Jr.,
                         Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    Years of fire suppression and forest mismanagement have 
created build-up of forest fuels that in turn fuels unnaturally 
large and intense fires. H.R. 5319 as reported attempts to 
address the perceived need to expedite fuels treatment to 
reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in order to protect 
communities and homes. While its goals are meritorious, its 
approach is misguided and flawed.
    H.R. 5319 undermines the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) by eliminating the requirement that alternatives to the 
proposed action be considered. The premise of NEPA is that 
examining reasonable alternatives allows for mitigation of ill-
effects and improves decision making. CEQ has called the 
analysis of all alternatives ``the heart of the NEPA process.'' 
Under the bill, the agency would not even be required to 
consider a ``no action'' alternative. Thus, the bill reduces 
public participation opportunities and diminishes environmental 
safeguards.
    Expedited procedures combined with a broad scope serve to 
threaten forest health. The scope of H.R. 5319 is so vast and 
definitions so vague as to allow the Secretaries virtually 
unfettered discretion to conduct projects on large swaths of 
national forest and BLM land. Broadly defined hazardous fuels 
treatment projects under expedited procedures can take place in 
the wildland-urban interface, in watersheds, in certain 
critical habitat, and on ``at-risk lands.'' Within these 
categories, only some of the treatments are limited to those 
lands at greatest risk of catastrophic fire. The definition of 
interface lacks a distance demarcation. thereby making the 
geographic scope of the bill extremely broad. The definition of 
water supply systems has the same effect. The inclusion of 
threatened and endanger species habitat and ``other at-risk'' 
lands also creates significant loopholes for lands far from 
communities on which projects with expedited NEPA analysis can 
occur. Under the terms of the bill, up to six million acres 
over three years could be treated outside of municipal 
watershed interface areas, and an unlimited amount of acres 
could be treated in the ill-defined interface and watershed 
areas.
    H.R. 5319 fails to adequately protect old-growth and 
sensitive areas, such as roadless areas, by allowing projects 
to proceed with truncated environmental analysis. Accordingly, 
under the bill, large-scale logging in roadless areas may occur 
under an expedited process. The Forest Service has previously 
concluded that logging of roadless areas is one factor that can 
disqualify an area from wilderness designation for up to a 
century. The bill reverses the presumptions that roadless areas 
should be afforded a high degree of protection and that logging 
should be allowed in roadless areas only under very rare 
circumstances. By allowing road construction--an 
environmentally damaging activity--in projects using expedited 
procedures, the bill further fails to protect resources or 
instill public trust.
    H.R. 5319 not only changes how NEPA works on much of the 
federal landscape, it also repeals the Appeals Reform Act, 
which codified the Forest Service's administrative appeals 
process in 1992. In its place, it establishes a truncated 
procedure that gives interested citizens less time to prepare 
an appeal and forecloses opportunities to challenge government 
actions. Limitations on citizen access to the courts are so 
strict on issues that can be raised in an appeal and subsequent 
suit, i.e., the appellant must have submitted ``detailed and 
specific comments'' on an issue related to the project, that it 
effectively changes standing and exhaustion requirements. 
Currently, an appellant can raise any issue on appeal that was 
raised by any party during the comment period. The appeals 
provisions of H.R. 5319 have the effect of greatly diminishing 
opportunities for public comment on environmental assessments 
as well as denying citizens the right to challenge 
implementation of treatment projects in court as the issue 
raised during implementation could not have been foreseen 
during the comment period.
    Similarly, H.R. 5319's judicial review provisions change 
Federal Rules by limiting venue, reducing time in which to 
bring suit (from 6 years to 15 days), and imposing tight 
deadlines on courts in which to act. The effect is to severely 
curtail access to the courts and to place thinning cases above 
all others in terms of judicial priorities. The time frames are 
such under appeals and suits provisions that citizens may be 
forced to sue to preserve their limited right to hold the 
agency accountable, and may be foreclosed from bringing 
Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, or other claims 
requiring 60 days notice. At the same time, an automatic stay 
provision regardless of the merits of the case will encourage 
suits and contribute to gridlock. These draconian changes to 
how the agencies and courts allow for public input and 
challenge is in the face of questionable evidence of any 
problem with litigation of hazardous fuels reduction projects; 
according to an August 31, 2001 General Accounting Office 
report, approximately 1 percent of the nearly 1,700 hazardous 
fuels reduction projects were appealed and none were litigated 
in the first nine months of FY2001.
    Finally, H.R. 5319 expands the controversial stewardship 
contracting program by authorizing 15 new Forest Service 
projects and an entirely new BLM program of 26 projects. This 
program would give both agencies authority to pay for thinning 
with large diameter trees with no environmental sideboards, 
when logging has in large part contributed to the fuels build-
up problem. Furthermore, the bill ties the pilots not only to 
hazardous fuels projects alone but to those done with 
streamlined NEPA processes pursuant to the bill. Thus, these 
provisions would give the Forest Service, an agency notorious 
for its lack of fiscal and environmental accountability, even 
more license to abuse assets free of public scrutiny.
    In sharp contrast to H.R. 5319, the Inslee substitute 
leaves NEPA intact and focuses thinning and prescribed burns in 
high-risk areas near communities. The proposal uses an already 
existing NEPA authority (categorical exclusions (CEs)) that 
exempts non-controversial projects from full NEPA analysis and 
administrative appeals. Projects covered by the CE provisions 
can take place only in the interface areas and watershed areas, 
are limited to 2.5 million areas a year, and may remove a 
limited amount of timber. Furthermore, the Inslee substitute 
focuses 85% of the funds for all hazardous fuels projects in 
the interface and key municipal watersheds. The provision 
applies to all expenditures for hazardous fuels projects, not 
the limited subset of funding for projects covered by expedited 
procedures, as is the case in H.R. 5319. H.R. 5319 limits only 
70% of funds expended on projects covered by the bill to the 
interface and watershed--leaving 30% of funding for projects 
covered by the bill and 100% of other funding to be spent on 
controversial projects in the back country. Under the terms of 
the Inslee substitute, expedited projects may not take place in 
sensitive areas such as roadless areas and road-building is 
prohibited. The Inslee substitute includes small diameter trees 
as the focus of projects, and water quality as the goal of 
watershed projects. These provisions, along with narrow 
definitions, serve to focus the expedited thinning activity in 
areas where consensus exists.
    While the Inslee substitute's CE provision forecloses 
appeals on all projects covered by the bill (including timber 
sales), it means existing appeals procedures, citizens' rights 
to challenge government actions in court, and judicial 
discretion to set priorities. The substitute also removes 
perverse incentives to log by directing all receipts to the 
Treasury. Finally, the substitute includes a provision for 
block grants for tribes and states, as the majority of at-risk 
lands are on non-federal lands.
    In short, H.R. 5319 fails to focus fuel reduction projects 
in non-controversial areas to protect homes and communities; 
undercuts NEPA, our fundamental environmental law; fails to 
provide assistance to states or tribes; creates significant 
roadblocks to citizen participation in government decision 
making on federal land management; curtails the right to sue, 
while at the same time creating a judicial train wreck; and 
expands a pilot program that could give the agencies carte 
blanche to log. Rather than getting the much-needed work of 
protecting communities and restoring landscapes done, H.R. 5319 
has the potential to deepen public mistrust of land management 
agencies, to generate further polarization, to degrade our 
forests, and to create chaos in the courts.

                                   Jay Inslee.
                                   Betty McCollum.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                  Washington, DC, October 11, 2002.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: On October 8, 2002, the Committee on 
Resources ordered reported H.R. 5319, the Healthy Forests 
Reform Act of 2002. The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Resources and additionally to the Committee on Agriculture.
    Earlier this week, my Chief Counsel forwarded a copy of the 
reported text to your staff for your review. You will note that 
section 104 of this bill affects judicial review of certain 
decisions made under the authorities granted to the Secretaries 
of Agriculture and the Interior under this bill. I believe this 
provision is in the purview of the Committee on the Judiciary.
    Given the importance of moving this legislation before we 
adjourn and the dwindling number of days remaining in the 107th 
Congress, I ask that you not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 
5319.
    By foregoing a sequential referral of H.R. 5319, the 
Committee on the Judiciary would not be waiving its 
jurisdiction over section 104, nor would this action serve as 
precedent for other similar measures. In addition, if a 
conference committee is convened on the bill, I would support 
your request to have the Committee on the Judiciary represented 
on the conference for those matters in your jurisdiction. 
Finally, I would be pleased to include in the Committee on 
Resources bill report on H.R. 5319 our exchange of letters 
regarding this bill. I plan to file the report on Tuesday, 
October 15.
    Thank you for your cooperation and that of Robert Tracci of 
your staff. It has been a pleasure to work with both of you 
during my tenure as Chairman of the Committee on Resources.
            Sincerely,
                                           James V. Hansen,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                  Washington, DC, October 15, 2002.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: In recognition of the desire to expedite 
floor consideration of H.R. 5319, the ``Healthy Forests Reform 
Act of 2002,'' the Committee on the Judiciary hereby consents 
to waive further consideration of the bill. H.R. 5319, as 
introduced and reported by the Committee on Resources, contains 
subject matter that falls within the legislative jurisdiction 
of the Committee.
    The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the 
understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over the 
provisions in H.R. 5319 within the Committee's jurisdiction is 
in no way diminished or altered, and that the Committee's right 
to the appointment of conferees during any conference on the 
bill is preserved.
            Sincerely,
                               F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
                                                          Chairman.


```