19–006

108TH CONGRESS REPT. 108–96 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session Part 2

HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003

MAY 16, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1904] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1904) to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture 

and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and conduct hazardous 

fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands aimed at protecting communities, 

watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats 

to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, 

across the landscape, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 6

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 7

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 7

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 8

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 8

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 8

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 11

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 11

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 11

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 13

2

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 15

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 81

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 1904, the ‘‘Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

of 2003,’’ is to: (1) empower the Secretary of Agriculture and the 

Secretary of the Interior to implement hazardous fuel reduction 

projects on National Forest System lands that protect communities 

and watersheds from catastrophic wildfire; and (2) promote other 

efforts that safeguard watersheds and address threats to forest and 

range land health, such as wildfire and insect infestation. The 

courts provisions set forth in the legislation are designed to expedite legal and administrative proceedings regarding governmental 

responses to forestry crises. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

H.R. 1904 was introduced on May 1, 2003, and referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Resources on that 

same day. The Committee on Agriculture reported the bill by voice 

vote on May 8 and filed its Committee report (H. Rept. 108-96, 

Part I) the following day. The Committee on Resources marked up 

a Committee Print that is identical to H.R. 1904 and also discharged the bill on May 9. 

H.R. 1904 was sequentially referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on May 9 for a period of time ending not later than May 

16, 2003, for consideration of those provisions within its jurisdiction. 

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Federal land managers estimate that approximately 190 million 

acres of Federal forest lands are at unnaturally high risk of catastrophic wildfires and large-scale insect and disease outbreaks due 

to unhealthy forest conditions. The wildfire seasons in 2000 and 

2002 were among the largest and most destructive wildfire seasons 

in the last half century. Last summer, Oregon, Arizona, and Colorado experienced the largest wildfires in their respective histories, 

causing cataclysmic damage to air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat in each of the states and beyond. 

While America’s forest health crisis is often cast as a phenomena 

unique to western forest lands—based largely on the high profile 

of western wildfires—it is not. Massive pest and pathogen outbreaks are also degrading forest ecosystems in all parts of the 

country. In Arkansas, for example, a recent unprecedented outbreak of Red Oak Borer has infected 800,000 acres of Federal and 

non-Federal forest lands. This is not an isolated event. 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 is a comprehensive 

plan focused on giving Federal land managers, their stakeholders, 

and their partners the tools to respond to this growing forest 

health crisis. This legislation requires the timely implementation of 

scientifically-supported management activities to protect the health 

and vibrancy of Federal forest ecosystems as well as the communities and private lands that surround them. 

3

TITLE I—HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

This title’s underlying premise is simple and clear: With 190 million acres at unnaturally high risk of catastrophic wildfire, it is unacceptable that it takes Federal land managers several years to 

maneuver forest health projects (like thinning and prescribed 

burns) through various procedural requirements. Under this title, 

forest management projects will still be subject to rigorous environmental analysis as well as administrative challenges and lawsuits, 

but these multiple processes would be completed in a matter of 

months, rather than years, as is currently the case. 

Geographic Scope. This title establishes streamlined procedures 

that empower local land managers with the tools to expeditiously 

implement hazardous fuels reduction projects on Forest Service 

and BLM lands: (1) near communities in the wild land urban interface; (2) on high-risk lands in the proximity of municipal water 

sources; (3) on high-risk lands that encompass habitat for threatened and endangered species where Federal wildlife officials have 

identified catastrophic wildfire as a threat to the viability of the 

species; and (4) on high-risk landscapes particularly susceptible to 

disease or insect infestation. 

Public Participation. The bill codifies the bipartisan Western 

Governors Association (WGA) 10-Year Strategy’s robust public 

input and participation requirements, ensuring that interested persons will have numerous opportunities to engage decision makers 

during all phases of a project’s development and implementation. 

The WGA strategy was endorsed by many government and nongovernment organizations, including environmental groups like the 

Wilderness Society. The bill also requires an additional public 

meeting for all projects implemented under this Act beyond that 

which is required currently. 

Management Priorities. The bill codifies the WGA prioritization 

scheme, placing express priority on the reduction of hazardous conditions in the Wildland Urban Interface and in proximity to sources 

of municipal water. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The bill would give 

the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

discretionary authority to limit analysis during the NEPA-phase to 

the proposed action only. The agencies would not be required to 

analyze and describe a number of different alternatives to the preferred course when implementing a hazardous fuels reduction 

project on lands described above. Agencies typically analyze three 

to five alternatives at present. One NEPA expert estimates that 

each alternative analyzed results in a 20% increase in the amount 

of analysis and documentation for the agency. Currently, it often 

takes multiple years to get fuels reduction projects just through the 

NEPA phase, an unacceptably slow pace given the immediacy and 

size of the wildfire threat. This provision would substantially speed 

that deliberative process, while simultaneously ensuring that all of 

the environmental effects of a project have been thoroughly analyzed and vetted with the concerned public. 

Administrative Appeals. The Forest Service is the only Federal 

land management agency with an administrative appeals process 

codified in statute—a 1993 appropriation rider called the Appeals 

Reform Act. The Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service 

4

have no formal appeals in any form. The BLM does not have an 

administrative appeals or review process codified in Federal statute, but has established a pre-decisional review process that gives 

interested parties a venue in which to seek administrative redress. 

The BLM process is widely viewed as being more collaborative, and 

less confrontational, than the Appeals Reform Act that governs the 

Forest Service. 

A hazardous fuels reduction project implemented on at-risk lands 

on the Deschutes, White River, or Plumas National Forests face a 

significantly higher administrative appeals bar than the exact 

same project would encounter if implemented in Yellowstone National Park (Park Service), the Klamath Basin Wildlife Refuge 

(Fish and Wildlife Service), or the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (BLM). With the National Fire Plan’s emphasis 

on inter-agency cooperation, this makes little sense. 

Against this backdrop, the legislation would provide a limited 

waiver of the Appeals Reform Act for projects implemented under 

this legislation, instead directing the establishment of an alternative review process by which persons could seek administrative 

redress against such projects. The Forest Service would have 90 

days to draft, take comment on, and finalize this new process for 

administrative review. The Appeals Reform Act would continue to 

be applicable to timber and salvage projects as well as all other 

project level activities not implemented under the Act. 

Judicial Review. The bill has three primary provisions pertaining 

to the Federal judiciary’s consideration of potential actions brought 

against hazardous fuels reduction projects. 

The bill would require preliminary injunctions granted by a Federal court against a project implemented under this Act be reevaluated every 45 days. In cases where a plaintiff seeks to extend a 

preliminary injunction beyond the 45-day threshold, the bill requires the agency to provide an update to the court on the status 

of the conditions of the forest lands at issue, including the extent 

to which disease or insect infestation or wildfire risks have grown 

since the temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction 

were granted. The court could extent preliminary injunctions an 

unlimited number of times at the end of each 45-day interval. 

Currently, preliminary stays on fuels reduction projects can remain in effect for months before a court finally reaches a decision 

on the overarching merits of the legal challenge. These long delays 

can by themselves defeat the purposes of a forest treatment project, 

particularly if a project is aimed at stemming the spread of disease 

or insect infestation to uninfected forest lands. In these cases, judicial delay is just as lethal as judicial defeat for the government. 

Without curbing anyone’s ability to pursue a full range of judicial 

procedures, this provision would ensure that the court remains engaged on the status of a project, including the extent to which management inaction is exacerbating wildfire and forest health risks. 

The bill admonishes, in non-binding terms, Federal courts considering a legal challenge to a hazardous fuels reduction project to 

take all necessary steps required in order to issue a decision on the 

merits of the legal challenge within 100 days. 

The bill directs Federal courts, when considering a challenge to 

hazardous fuels reduction projects, to weigh the potentially devastating environmental consequences associated with management 

5

inaction, while giving deference to the Forest Service and BLM’s 

scientific determinations as to the environmental utility of a project 

in reducing the threat of wildfire to forest ecosystems. Without this 

explicit statutory direction, some Federal courts have been loath to 

consider the devastating consequences of doing nothing to address 

the hazardous forest conditions. 

Safeguards. The Forest Service and BLM would NOT be authorized to use the expedited analysis procedures in wilderness areas, 

or lands where, by Act of Congress or Presidential proclamation, 

the removal of vegetation is prohibited or restricted. Also, the bill’s 

expedited authorities would not be available in National Parks or 

in Wildlife Refuges. Projects implemented in these areas would 

have to be done so under existing authorities. 

Additionally, the bill provides that the Forest Service will not be 

allowed to build new permanent roads in Inventoried Roadless 

Areas under the bill’s expedited procedures. 

Scope. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act’s streamlined procedures could be used on up to 20-million acres of Federal lands eligible under the bill’s provisions, the same number of acres authorized for treatment under Representative George Miller and Representative Peter Defazio’s wildfire legislation introduced in the 

108th Congress (H.R. 1621). 

TITLE II—BIOMASS

The biomass title would establish grant programs (authorized at 

$25 million combined) to encourage energy-related utilization of the 

otherwise valueless wood, chips, brush, thinnings, and slash removed in conjunction with projects on Federal forests and rangelands focused on reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfire and 

insect infestation and disease. 

As the Federal Government wrestles with the wildfire crisis in 

the national forests, the choice is plain: either the Federal Government can spend billions of dollars removing these unmerchantable 

materials itself and burning them once removed, or it can take 

steps to develop markets which in the long run will encourage nongovernment entities to help pay the way for wildfire management 

activities, while providing a source of renewable energy for the 

American people. Even though there is a price tag to the biomass 

provisions, they will actually save the Federal Government money 

in the long run by creating market incentives for non-governmental 

entities to remove the otherwise valueless forest materials that 

feed catastrophic wildfire. 

TITLE III—WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

The watershed forestry title would provide financial and technical support needed by private forest landowners to manage their 

lands and thereby protect water quality, restore watershed conditions, improve municipal drinking water supplies, and address 

threats to forest health, including catastrophic wildfire. 

Authorized at $15 million over 5 years, the program would support community-based watershed forestry partnerships that address critical forest stewardship, watershed protection, and restoration needs. 

6

TITLE IV—INSECT INFESTATION INFORMATION GATHERING

The insect research title directs the Department to conduct an 

accelerated program to plan, conduct, and promote research on 

bark beetles, the hemlock woolly adelgid, the emerald ash borer, 

the red oak borer, and the white oak borer. 

Hemlock woolly adelgid is destroying streamside forests throughout the mid-Atlantic and Appalachian region, threatening water 

quality and sensitive aquatic species, and posing a potential threat 

to valuable commercial timber lands in Northern New England. 

Epidemic populations of Southern pine beetle are ravaging forests 

in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. In 2001, Florida and 

Kentucky experienced 146% and 111% increases in beetle populations, respectively. These epidemic outbreaks of Southern pine 

beetle have forced private landowners to harvest dead and dying 

trees, both in rural areas and in increasingly urbanized settings. 

The presence of the EAB was confirmed in Michigan last year and 

in Ohio early this year. This exotic pest is a threat to the over 3.8-

billion ash trees found on more than 850,000 acres of forest land 

in Ohio alone. It also threatens between 5 and 20 percent of street 

trees in the upper Midwest. 

The legislation would categorically exclude silvicultural (forestry) 

assessments of 1,000 acres or less on lands infected or at imminent 

risk of being infected by these insects, in an attempt to glean which 

techniques are most effective in slowing their rapid spread. These 

procedures could not be implemented on more than 250,000 acres 

in the aggregate. The Secretary concerned would be required to 

consider public input before implementing these assessments. 

TITLE V—EARLY WARNING PROGRAM FOR DISEASE AND

INSECT INFESTATIONS

This title would authorize and direct Federal land managers to 

establish early detection programs for insect and disease infestations, with an emphasis on hardwood forests, so that agencies can 

isolate and treat adverse conditions before they reach epidemic levels. 

TITLE VI—HEALTHY FOREST RESERVE

The healthy forests reserve program is a private forest land conservation initiative that would support the establishment of conservation easements (ranging in length from 10 years to permanent 

with a semi-regular buyout option) on one million acres of declining 

forest ecosystem types that are critical to, among other things, the 

recovery of threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species. 

The program, supported by such groups as Environmental Defense, 

will facilitate the voluntary protection and restoration of otherwise 

imperiled forest ecosystems, while protecting the rights of private 

landowners once an easement has expired under the Endangered 

Species Act’s safe harbor allowances. The program is authorized for 

5 years at $15 million annually. 

HEARINGS

No hearings were held on H.R. 1904 in the Committee on the Judiciary. 

7

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On May 14, 2003, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1904 without amendment by 

a recorded vote of 18 to13, a quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

1904: 

Representative Baldwin offered an amendment to strike sections 

104, 105, 106, and 107 of the bill. The amendment failed by a recorded vote of 12 to 17.

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Smith ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X

Ms. Hart ............................................................................................................ X

Mr. Flake ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Forbes .........................................................................................................

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X

Mr. Carter .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X

Mrs. Blackburn .................................................................................................. X

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Meehan ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X

Total ................................................................................................ 12 17

Chairman Sensenbrenner moved that the bill H.R. 1904 be favorably reported to the House. The motion passed by a rollcall vote of 

18 to 13.

8

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Smith .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X

Ms. Hart ............................................................................................................ X

Mr. Flake ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Forbes .........................................................................................................

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X

Mr. Carter .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X

Mrs. Blackburn .................................................................................................. X

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Meehan ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X

Total ................................................................................................ 18 13

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 1904, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

9

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 15, 2003. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act of 2003. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll, who can 

be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN.

Enclosure

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 1904—Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. 

SUMMARY

CBO estimates that H.R. 1904 would authorize the appropriation 

of $70 million in 2004 and $350 million over the 2004–2008 period 

to research and restore forests on Federal, State, and private lands. 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates 

that implementing the bill would cost $12 million in 2004 and $278 

million over the next 5 years. Enacting this legislation could affect 

offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending), but CBO estimates that any such effects would total less than $500,000 a year. 

H.R. 1904 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. 

CBO assumes that States’ participation in the watershed forestry 

assistance programs authorized by this bill would be voluntary. 

Federal funds authorized for those and other programs would benefit State, local, and tribal governments. 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1904 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level 70 70 70 70 70

Estimated Outlays 12 41 61 80 84

10

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 1904 will be enacted 

before the end of fiscal year 2003 and that amounts estimated to 

be necessary to implement the bill will be provided each year. Estimates of outlays are based on historical spending patterns for similar activities. Provisions that would affect spending subject to appropriation and direct spending are described below. 

Spending Subject to Appropriation 

S. 1904 would specifically authorize the appropriation of $60 million in 2004 and $300 million over the 2004–2008 period for the 

Forest Service and the Department of the Interior (DOI) to support 

research and restoration of Federal, State, and private forests. The 

bill would authorize those agencies to make grants to eligible entities that use biomass to produce energy, provide States with technical and financial assistance to support watershed management, 

purchase conservation easements from private landowners, and assess the health of Federal and private forests. Based on information from the agencies and historical spending patterns for similar 

activities, CBO estimates that these programs would cost $9 million in 2004 and $230 million over the next 5 years. 

Based on information from the Forest Service and DOI about the 

level of effort required to investigate infestations of forests by insects and to develop treatments to reduce the risk of infestation, 

CBO estimates that S. 1904 would authorize the appropriation of 

$10 million a year over the 2004–2008 period. We estimate that 

fully funding these activities would cost $3 million in 2004 and $48 

million over the next 5 years. 

Direct Spending (Including Offsetting Receipts) 

Title I would authorize expedited procedures for planning and 

conducting certain projects to reduce the risk of wildfires on certain 

Federal lands managed by the Forest Service or the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM). Under the bill, those expedited procedures would limit some environmental assessment requirements 

and shorten administrative and judicial appeals. According to the 

Forest Service and BLM, the expedited procedures could affect the 

timing of some projects that generate offsetting receipts, such as 

timber harvests, that the agencies plan to conduct under current 

law. Based on information from the agencies, however, CBO estimates that any subsequent change in offsetting receipts would total 

less than $500,000 annually. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

H.R. 1904 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on State, 

local, or tribal governments. CBO assumes that States participation in the watershed forestry assistance programs authorized by 

this bill would be voluntary. Federal funds authorized for those and 

other programs would benefit State, local, and tribal governments. 

PREVIOUS CBO ESTIMATES

On May 9, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 1904 

as ordered reported by the House Committee on Agriculture on 

11

May 8, 2003. The two versions of the bill are identical, and our cost 

estimates are the same. 

On May 7, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 14, the 

Energy Policy Act of 2003, as introduced on April 30, 2003. A provision in that bill is substantively similar to a provision of H.R. 1904 

that would authorize grants to eligible entities that use biomass to 

produce energy, and our estimates of the cost of such grants ($25 

million a year) are the same under both bills. 

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: 

Federal Costs: Megan Carroll (226–2860) 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller 

(225–3220) 

Impact on the Private Sector: Cecil McPherson (226–2940) 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Peter H. Fontaine 

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goals 

and objectives of H.R. 1904 are to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and 

conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects for the National Forest 

System and the Bureau of Land Management. Once implemented, 

these projects will protect communities, watersheds, and certain 

other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire and will address additional threats to forest and rangeland health, including insect infestation, across the landscape. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the Constitutional authority for this legislation in article I, section 8, and article III, section 

1, of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following is a section-by-section analysis of the provisions of 

the bill falling within the Committee on the Judiciary’s rule X jurisdiction. An analysis of the remaining provisions may be found in 

the Agriculture Committee report (H. Rept. No. 108-96, part I). 

Sec. 104. Environmental Analysis. Pursuant to section 104(a) and 

(b), the Secretary concerned (either Agriculture or Interior) must 

plan and conduct authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

but she is not required to develop any alternative to the proposed 

agency action in the environmental assessment or impact statement which is otherwise required by the Act. 

Subsections (c) through (e) enumerate public notice and meeting 

requirements imposed on the concerned Secretary that are designed to encourage public participation and to facilitate collaboraVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:56 May 16, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR096P2.XXX HR096P2
12

tion among governments and interested parties in the development 

of authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects. 

Subsection (f) requires the Secretary concerned to sign a decision 

document for each authorized hazardous fuels reduction project 

while subsection (g) states that she must monitor implementation 

of each project. 

Sec. 105. Special Forest Service Administrative Review Process.

Subsection (a) states that the Secretary of Agriculture, 90 days 

after the date of enactment, must issue final regulations to establish an administrative process that will serve as the sole means by 

which a person can seek administrative redress regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project. Subsection (b) creates 

standing for a person seeking such redress by requiring that she 

must have submitted substantive and specific written comments 

during the preparation stage of the project. 

Subsection (c) makes clear that the Appeals Reform Act of 1993 

pertaining to Forest Service administrative appeals does not apply 

for those projects contemplated by H.R. 1904. 

Sec. 106. Special Requirements Regarding Judicial Review of Authorized Hazardous Fuels Reduction Projects. Subsection (a) mandates that any legal challenge to an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project must be filed 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 on the 

matter. This time limit supersedes any other filing deadline under 

law and may not be waived by a district court. 

Subsection (b) states that any preliminary injunction granted regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project shall be 

limited to 45 days. Pursuant to subsection (c), a court may renew 

a preliminary injunction, taking into account congressional intent 

that the court expedite, to the maximum extent practicable, the ongoing legal proceedings with the goal of rendering a final determination on jurisdiction, and if jurisdiction exists, a final determination on the merits, within 100 days from the date the proceeding is filed. 

Finally, parties are required to submit relevant updates on any 

changes that may have occurred during the period of injunction to 

a court that is considering a request to renew the injunction. If the 

injunction is renewed, the Secretary concerned must notify the 

House Committee on Resources and the House Committee on Agriculture as well as the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

and Forestry. 

Sec. 107. Standard for Injunctive Relief for Agency Action to Restore Fire-Adapted Forest or Rangeland Ecosystems. Section 107 

states that when an aggrieved person seeks a prohibitory or mandatory injunction against agency action governing restoration of a 

fire-adapted forest or rangeland ecosystem, including an authorized 

fuels reduction project, the court reviewing the request must: (1) 

consider the public interest in avoiding long-term harm to the ecosystem; and (2) give deference to any agency finding that the balance of harm and the public interest in avoiding the short-term effects of the agency action is outweighed by the public interest in 

avoiding long-term harm to the ecosystem. 

13

Sec. 108. Rules of Construction. Unless otherwise indicated in 

title I, and per section 104 of the bill, the planning and conducting 

of authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects must be done in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

Subsection (a) states that nothing in title I shall be construed to 

affect or bias a Secretary’s use of other statutory or administrative 

authorities to plan or conduct a hazardous fuels reduction project 

on Federal land. 

There is ongoing litigation within the 9th Circuit regarding the 

‘‘Roadless Area Conservation Rule’’ and the potential prohibition of 

road construction in approximately one-third of the National Forest 

System. Subsection (b) states that nothing in title I of the bill shall 

prejudice or otherwise affect the consideration or disposition of this 

action. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman):

SECTION 6 OF THE COOPERATIVE FORESTRY 

ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1978

SEC. 6. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE. 

(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE.—The Secretary, acting 

through the Forest Service, may provide technical, financial, and related assistance to State foresters and equivalent State officials for 

the purpose of expanding State forest stewardship capacities and activities through State forestry best-management practices and other 

means at the State level to address watershed issues on non-Federal 

forested lands and potentially forested lands. 

(b) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with State 

foresters or equivalent State officials, shall engage interested 

members of the public, including nonprofit organizations and 

local watershed councils, to develop a program of technical assistance to protect water quality, as described in paragraph (2). 

(2) PURPOSE OF PROGRAM.—The program under this subsection shall be designed—

(A) to build and strengthen watershed partnerships 

that focus on forested landscapes at the local, State, and regional levels; 

(B) to provide State forestry best-management practices 

and water quality technical assistance directly to nonindustrial private forest landowners; 

(C) to provide technical guidance to land managers 

and policy makers for water quality protection through forest management; 

(D) to complement State and local efforts to protect 

water quality and provide enhanced opportunities for consultation and cooperation among Federal and State agenVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:56 May 16, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR096P2.XXX HR096P2
14

cies charged with responsibility for water and watershed 

management; 

(E) to provide enhanced forest resource data and support for improved implementation and monitoring of State 

forestry best-management practices. 

(3) IMPLEMENTATION.—The program of technical assistance 

shall be implemented by State foresters or equivalent State officials. 

(c) WATERSHED FORESTRY COST-SHARE PROGRAM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish a watershed 

forestry cost-share program to be administered by the Forest 

Service and implemented by State foresters or equivalent State 

officials. Funds or other support provided under such program 

shall be made available for State forestry best-management 

practices programs and watershed forestry projects. 

(2) WATERSHED FORESTRY PROJECTS.—The State forester or 

equivalent State official of a State, in coordination with the 

State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee established 

under section 19(b) for that State, shall annually make awards 

to communities, nonprofit groups, and nonindustrial private 

forest landowners under the program for watershed forestry 

projects described in paragraph (3). 

(3) PROJECT ELEMENTS AND OBJECTIVES.—A watershed forestry project shall accomplish critical forest stewardship, watershed protection, and restoration needs within a State by demonstrating the value of trees and forests to watershed health 

and condition through—

(A) the use of trees as solutions to water quality problems in urban and rural areas; 

(B) community-based planning, involvement, and action through State, local and nonprofit partnerships; 

(C) application of and dissemination of monitoring information on forestry best-management practices relating to 

watershed forestry; 

(D) watershed-scale forest management activities and 

conservation planning; and 

(E) the restoration of wetland (as defined by the States) 

and stream-side forests and the establishment of riparian 

vegetative buffers. 

(4) COST-SHARING.—Funds provided under this subsection 

for a watershed forestry project may not exceed 75 percent of the 

cost of the project. Other Federal funding sources may be used 

to cover a portion of the remaining project costs, but the total 

Federal share of the costs may not exceed 90 percent. The nonFederal share of the costs of a project may be in the form of 

cash, services, or other in-kind contributions. 

(5) PRIORITIZATION.—The State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee for a State shall prioritize watersheds in that 

State to target watershed forestry projects funded under this 

subsection. 

(6) WATERSHED FORESTER.—Financial and technical assistance shall be made available to the State Forester or equivalent 

State official to create a State best-management practice forester 

to lead statewide programs and coordinate small watershedlevel projects. 

15

(d) DISTRIBUTION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall devote at least 75 

percent of the funds appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant to 

the authorization of appropriations in subsection (e) to the costshare program under subsection (c) and the remainder to the 

task of delivering technical assistance, education, and planning 

on the ground through the State Forester or equivalent State official. 

(2) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.—Distribution of these funds 

by the Secretary among the States shall be made only after giving appropriate consideration to—

(A) the acres of nonindustrial private forestland and 

highly erodible land in each State; 

(B) each State’s efforts to conserve forests; 

(C) the acres of forests in each State that have been lost 

or degraded or where forests can play a role in restoring 

watersheds; and 

(D) the number of nonindustrial private forest landowners in each State. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for each of the 

fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. A 

working quorum is present. At the request of the minority, the first 

item on the agenda is H.R. 1904, the ‘‘Healthy Forest Restoration 

Act.’’

I now call up bill H.R. 1904 for purposes of markup, and move 

its favorable recommendation to the full House. Without objection, 

the bill will be considered as read, and open for amendment at any 

point. 

[The bill, H.R. 1904, follows:]

16

1

I

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1904

To improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary

of the Interior to plan and conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects

on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management

lands aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, and certain other

at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect

watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including

catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 2003

Mr. MCINNIS (for himself, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon, Mr. POMBO, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. BARTON of

Texas, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Mr. BERRY, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. BLUNT,

Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BURGESS, Mr.

CALVERT, Mr. CANNON, Mr. COLE, Mr. CRAMER, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr.

DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. DOOLEY of California, Mr.

DUNCAN, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. GALLEGLY,

Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. GREEN

of Wisconsin, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr.

HAYES, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HUNTER, Mr.

ISSA, Mr. JANKLOW, Mr. JOHN, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr.

KOLBE, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. LINDER, Mr.

MCKEON, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. MORAN of Kansas,

Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. NUNES, Mr.

OBERSTAR, Mr. OTTER, Mr. OSBORNE, Mr. OSE, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. PICKERING,

Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. RENZI, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama,

Mr. ROSS, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr.

SHADEGG, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SHERWOOD, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH of

Michigan, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. TANCREDO,

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr. TERRY, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. TURNER of

Texas, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. VITTER, Mr. WICKER, Mrs. WILSON of New

Mexico, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for considerVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:56 May 16, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR096P2.XXX HR096P2

I1904.AAB
17

2

•HR 1904 IH

ation of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee

concerned

A BILL

To improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture

and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and conduct

hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest

System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands

aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, and certain

other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance

efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire,

across the landscape, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003’’.

6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for

7 this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Purpose.

TITLE I—HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS

Sec. 101. Definitions.

Sec. 102. Authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.

Sec. 103. Prioritization for communities and watersheds.

Sec. 104. Environmental analysis.

Sec. 105. Special Forest Service administrative review process.

Sec. 106. Special requirements regarding judicial review of authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.

Sec. 107. Standard for injunctive relief for agency action to restore fire-adapted

forest or rangeland ecosystems.

Sec. 108. Rules of construction.


I1904.AAC
18

3

•HR 1904 IH

TITLE II—BIOMASS

Sec. 201. Findings.

Sec. 202. Definitions.

Sec. 203. Grants to improve the commercial value of forest biomass for electric

energy, useful heat, transportation fuels, and petroleum-based

product substitutes.

Sec. 204. Reporting requirement.

TITLE III—WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

Sec. 301. Findings and purpose.

Sec. 302. Establishment of watershed forestry assistance program.

TITLE IV—INSECT INFESTATIONS

Sec. 401. Definitions, findings, and purpose.

Sec. 402. Accelerated information gathering regarding bark beetles, including

Southern pine beetles, hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash

borers, red oak borers, and white oak borers.

Sec. 403. Applied silvicultural assessments.

Sec. 404. Relation to other laws.

Sec. 405. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE V—HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

Sec. 501. Establishment of healthy forests reserve program.

Sec. 502. Eligibility and enrollment of lands in program.

Sec. 503. Conservation plans.

Sec. 504. Financial assistance.

Sec. 505. Technical assistance.

Sec. 506. Safe harbor.

Sec. 507. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE VI—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. Forest stands inventory and monitoring program to improve detection

of and response to environmental threats.

1 SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

2 The purpose of this Act is—

3 (1) to reduce the risks of damage to commu4 nities, municipal water supplies, and some at-risk

5 Federal lands from catastrophic wildfires;

6 (2) to authorize grant programs to improve the

7 commercial value of forest biomass for electric en8 ergy, useful heat, transportation fuels, petroleumVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:56 May 16, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR096P2.XXX HR096P2

I1904.AAD
19

4

•HR 1904 IH

1 based product substitutes and other commercial pur2 poses;

3 (3) to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and

4 address threats to forest and rangeland health, in5 cluding catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape;

6 (4) to promote systematic information gath7 ering to address the impact of insect infestations on

8 forest and rangeland health;

9 (5) to improve the capacity to detect insect and

10 disease infestations at an early stage, particularly

11 with respect to hardwood forests; and

12 (6) to protect, restore, and enhance degraded

13 forest ecosystem types in order to promote the recov14 ery of threatened and endangered species as well as

15 improve biological diversity and enhance carbon se16 questration.

17 TITLE I—HAZARDOUS FUELS RE18 DUCTION ON FEDERAL

19 LANDS

20 SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

21 In this title:

22 (1) AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUC23 TION PROJECT.—The term ‘‘authorized hazardous

24 fuels reduction project’’ means a hazardous fuels re25 duction project described in subsection (a) of section


I1904.AAE
20

5

•HR 1904 IH

1 102, subject to the remainder of such section, that

2 is planned and conducted using the process author3 ized by section 104.

4 (2) CONDITION CLASS 2.—The term ‘‘condition

5 class 2’’, with respect to an area of Federal lands,

6 refers to the condition class description developed by

7 the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Sta8 tion in the general technical report entitled ‘‘Devel9 opment of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland

10 Fire and Fuel Management’’ (RMRS–87), dated

11 April 2000, under which—

12 (A) fire regimes on the lands have been

13 moderately altered from their historical range;

14 (B) there exists a moderate risk of losing

15 key ecosystem components from fire;

16 (C) fire frequencies have departed (either

17 increased or decreased) from historical fre18 quencies by one or more return interval, which

19 results in moderate changes to fire size, fre20 quency, intensity, severity, or landscape pat21 terns; and

22 (D) vegetation attributes have been mod23 erately altered from their historical range.

24 (3) CONDITION CLASS 3.—The term ‘‘condition

25 class 3’’, with respect to an area of Federal lands,


I1904.AAF
21

6

•HR 1904 IH

1 refers to the condition class description developed by

2 the Rocky Mountain Research Station in the general

3 technical report referred to in paragraph (2), under

4 which—

5 (A) fire regimes on the lands have been

6 significantly altered from their historical range

7 (B) there exists a high risk of losing key

8 ecosystem components from fire;

9 (C) fire frequencies have departed from

10 historical frequencies by multiple return inter11 vals, which results in dramatic changes to fire

12 size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape

13 patterns; and

14 (D) vegetation attributes have been signifi15 cantly altered from their historical range.

16 (4) DAY.—The term ‘‘day’’ means a calendar

17 day, except that, if a deadline imposed by this title

18 would expire on a nonbusiness day, the deadline will

19 be extended to the end of the next business day.

20 (5) DECISION DOCUMENT.—The term ‘‘decision

21 document’’ means a decision notice or a record of

22 decision, as those terms are used in applicable regu23 lations of the Council on Environmental Quality and

24 the Forest Service Handbook.


I1904.AAG
22

7

•HR 1904 IH

1 (6) FEDERAL LANDS.—The term ‘‘Federal

2 lands’’ means—

3 (A) National Forest System lands; and

4 (B) public lands administered by the Sec5 retary of the Interior, acting through the Bu6 reau of Land Management.

7 (7) HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION

8 PROJECT.—The term ‘‘hazardous fuels reduction

9 project’’ refers to the measures and methods de10 scribed in the definition of ‘‘appropriate tools’’ con11 tained in the glossary of the Implementation Plan.

12 (8) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—The term ‘‘Im13 plementation Plan’’ means the Implementation Plan

14 for the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy for a Col15 laborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire

16 Risks to Communities and the Environment, dated

17 May 2002, which was developed pursuant to the con18 ference report for the Department of the Interior

19 and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001

20 (House Report 106–646).

21 (9) INTERFACE COMMUNITY AND INTERMIX

22 COMMUNITY.—The terms ‘‘interface community’’

23 and ‘‘intermix community’’ have the meanings given

24 those terms on page 753 of volume 66 of the Fed25 eral Register, as published on January 4, 2001.


I1904.AAH
23

8

•HR 1904 IH

1 (10) MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.—The

2 term ‘‘municipal water supply system’’ means the

3 reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes, laterals, pipes,

4 pipelines, or other surface facilities and systems con5 structed or installed for the impoundment, storage,

6 transportation, or distribution of drinking water for

7 a community.

8 (11) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—The term

9 ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ means the Secretary of Agri10 culture with respect to National Forest System lands

11 and the Secretary of the Interior with respect to

12 public lands administered by the Bureau of Land

13 Management. Any reference in this title to the ‘‘Sec14 retary concerned’’, the Secretary of Agriculture’’, or

15 the ‘‘Secretary of the Interior’’ includes the designee

16 of the Secretary concerned.

17 (12) THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

18 HABITAT.—The term ‘‘threatened and endangered

19 species habitat’’ means Federal lands identified in

20 the listing decision or critical habitat designation as

21 habitat for a threatened species or an endangered

22 species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973

23 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).


I1904.AAI
24

9

•HR 1904 IH

1 SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION

2 PROJECTS.

3 (a) AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.—Subject to the remain4 der of this section, the Secretary concerned may utilize

5 the process authorized by section 104 to plan and conduct

6 hazardous fuels reduction projects on any of the following

7 Federal lands:

8 (1) Federal lands located in an interface com9 munity or intermix community.

10 (2) Federal lands located in such proximity to

11 an interface community or intermix community that

12 there is a significant risk that the spread of a fire

13 disturbance event from those lands would threaten

14 human life and property in the interface community

15 or intermix community.

16 (3) Condition class 3 or condition class 2 Fed17 eral lands located in such proximity to a municipal

18 water supply system or a stream feeding a municipal

19 water supply system that a significant risk exists

20 that a fire disturbance event would have adverse ef21 fects on the water quality of the municipal water

22 supply, including the risk to water quality posed by

23 erosion following such a fire disturbance event.

24 (4) Condition class 3 or condition class 2 Fed25 eral lands identified by the Secretary concerned as

26 an area where windthrow or blowdown, or the existVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:56 May 16, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR096P2.XXX HR096P2

I1904.AAJ
25

10

•HR 1904 IH

1 ence or threat of disease or insect infestation, pose

2 a significant threat to forest or rangeland health or

3 adjacent private lands.

4 (5) Federal lands not covered by paragraph (1),

5 (2), (3), or (4) that contain threatened and endan6 gered species habitat, but only if—

7 (A) natural fire regimes on such lands are

8 identified as being important for, or wildfire is

9 identified as a threat to, an endangered species,

10 a threatened species, or its habitat in a species

11 recovery plan prepared under section 4 of the

12 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.

13 1533) or in a decision document under such

14 section determining a species to be an endan15 gered species or a threatened species or desig16 nating critical habitat;

17 (B) the project will provide enhanced pro18 tection from catastrophic wildfire for the spe19 cies or its habitat; and

20 (C) the Secretary complies with any appli21 cable guidelines specified in the species recovery

22 plan prepared under the Endangered Species

23 Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

24 (b) RELATION TO AGENCY PLANS.—An authorized

25 hazardous fuels reduction project shall be planned and


I1904.AAK
26

11

•HR 1904 IH

1 conducted in a manner consistent with the land and re2 source management plan or land use plan applicable to

3 the Federal lands covered by the project.

4 (c) ACREAGE LIMITATION.—Not more than a total

5 of 20,000,000 acres of Federal lands may be included in

6 authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects.

7 (d) TREE REMOVAL LIMITATION.—The Secretary

8 concerned, in the sole discretion of the Secretary con9 cerned, shall plan and conduct an authorized hazardous

10 fuels reduction project so as to maintain species composi11 tion, size class distribution, and density of trees, including

12 old and large trees appropriate for each ecosystem type

13 covered by the project, consistent with the purposes of this

14 title.

15 (e) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS.—The

16 Secretary concerned may not plan or conduct an author17 ized hazardous fuels reduction project that would occur

18 on any of the following Federal lands:

19 (1) A component of the National Wilderness

20 Preservation System.

21 (2) Federal lands where, by Act of Congress or

22 Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation

23 is prohibited or restricted.

24 (3) Wilderness Study Areas.


I1904.AAL
27

12

•HR 1904 IH

1 (f) PROTECTION OF ROADLESS AREAS.—The Sec2 retary of Agriculture shall not construct any new perma3 nent road in any Inventoried Roadless Area as part of any

4 authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.

5 SEC. 103. PRIORITIZATION FOR COMMUNITIES AND WATER6 SHEDS.

7 As provided for in the Implementation Plan, the Sec8 retary concerned shall give priority to authorized haz9 ardous fuel reduction projects that provide for the protec10 tion of communities and watersheds.

11 SEC. 104. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in

13 this title, the Secretary concerned shall plan and conduct

14 authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects in accord15 ance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

16 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.) and any other applicable laws.

17 (b) DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO ELIMINATE AL18 TERNATIVES.—In the case of an authorized hazardous

19 fuels reduction project, the Secretary concerned is not re20 quired to study, develop, or describe any alternative to the

21 proposed agency action in the environmental assessment

22 or environmental impact statement prepared for the pro23 posed agency action pursuant to section 102(2) of the Na24 tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.

25 4332(2)).


I1904.AAM
28

13

•HR 1904 IH

1 (c) PUBLIC NOTICE AND MEETING.—

2 (1) PUBLIC NOTICE.—The Secretary concerned

3 shall provide notice of each authorized hazardous

4 fuels reduction project in accordance with applicable

5 regulations and administrative guidelines.

6 (2) PUBLIC MEETING.—During the planning

7 stage of each authorized hazardous fuels reduction

8 project, the Secretary concerned shall conduct a

9 public meeting at an appropriate location proximate

10 to the administrative unit of the Federal lands in

11 which the authorized hazardous fuels reduction

12 project will be conducted. The Secretary concerned

13 shall provide advance notice of the date and time of

14 the meeting.

15 (d) PUBLIC COLLABORATION.—In order to encourage

16 meaningful public participation in the identification and

17 development of authorized hazardous fuels reduction

18 projects, the Secretary concerned shall facilitate collabora19 tion among governments and interested persons during

20 the formulation of each authorized fuels reduction project

21 in a manner consistent with the Implementation Plan.

22 (e) ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC COM23 MENT.—In accordance with section 102(2) of the National

24 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2))

25 and the applicable regulations and administrative guideVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:56 May 16, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR096P2.XXX HR096P2

I1904.AAN
29

14

•HR 1904 IH

1 lines in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,

2 the Secretary concerned shall provide an opportunity for

3 public input during the preparation of any environmental

4 assessment or environmental impact statement for pro5 posed agency action for an authorized hazardous fuels re6 duction project.

7 (f) DECISION DOCUMENT.—The Secretary concerned

8 shall sign a decision document for each authorized haz9 ardous fuels reduction project and provide notice of the

10 decision document.

11 (g) PROJECT MONITORING.—As provided for in the

12 Implementation Plan, the Secretary concerned shall mon13 itor the implementation of authorized hazardous fuels re14 duction projects.

15 SEC. 105. SPECIAL FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE RE16 VIEW PROCESS.

17 (a) DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.—

18 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment

19 of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue final

20 regulations to establish an administrative process that will

21 serve as the sole means by which a person described in

22 subsection (c) can seek administrative redress regarding

23 an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.

24 (b) ELIGIBLE PERSONS.—To be eligible to partici25 pate in the administrative process developed pursuant to


I1904.AAO
30

15

•HR 1904 IH

1 subsection (a) regarding an authorized hazardous fuels re2 duction project, a person must have submitted specific and

3 substantive written comments during the preparation

4 stage of that authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.

5 (c) RELATION TO APPEALS REFORM ACT.—Section

6 322 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agen7 cies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102–381; 16

8 U.S.C. 1612 note), does not apply to an authorized haz9 ardous fuels reduction project.

10 SEC. 106. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING JUDICIAL

11 REVIEW OF AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS FUELS

12 REDUCTION PROJECTS.

13 (a) FILING DEADLINE.—

14 (1) TIME LIMIT ESTABLISHED FOR FILING.—

15 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to be

16 timely, an action in a court of the United States

17 challenging an authorized hazardous fuels reduction

18 project shall be filed in the court before the end of

19 the 15-day period beginning on the date on which

20 the Secretary concerned publishes, in the local paper

21 of record, notice of the final agency action regarding

22 the authorized hazardous fuels reduction project.

23 This time limitation supersedes any notice of intent

24 to file suit requirement or filing deadline otherwise

25 applicable to a challenge under any provision of law.


I1904.AAP
31

16

•HR 1904 IH

1 (2) WAIVER PROHIBITED.—The Secretary con2 cerned may not agree to, and a district court may

3 not grant, a waiver of the requirements of this sub4 section.

5 (b) DURATION OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.—

6 (1) DURATION; EXTENSION.—Any preliminary

7 injunction granted regarding an authorized haz8 ardous fuels reduction project shall be limited to 45

9 days. A court may renew the preliminary injunction,

10 taking into consideration the goal expressed in sub11 section (c) for the expeditious resolution of cases re12 garding authorized hazardous fuels reduction

13 projects.

14 (2) SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION.—As part of

15 a request to renew a preliminary injunction granted

16 regarding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction

17 project, the parties shall present the court with an

18 update on any changes that may have occurred dur19 ing the period of the injunction to the forest or

20 rangeland conditions that the authorized hazardous

21 fuels reduction project is intended to address.

22 (3) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.—In the

23 event of the renewal of a preliminary injunction re24 garding an authorized hazardous fuels reduction

25 project, the Secretary concerned shall submit notice


I1904.AAQ
32

17

•HR 1904 IH

1 of the renewal to the Committee on Resources and

2 the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Rep3 resentatives and the Committee on Energy and Nat4 ural Resources and the Committee on Agriculture,

5 Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.

6 (c) EXPEDITIOUS COMPLETION OF JUDICIAL RE7 VIEW.—Congress intends and encourages any court in

8 which is filed a lawsuit or appeal of a lawsuit concerning

9 an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project to expe10 dite, to the maximum extent practicable, the proceedings

11 in such lawsuit or appeal with the goal of rendering a final

12 determination on jurisdiction, and if jurisdiction exists, a

13 final determination on the merits, within 100 days from

14 the date the complaint or appeal is filed.

15 SEC. 107. STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR AGEN16 CY ACTION TO RESTORE FIRE-ADAPTED FOR17 EST OR RANGELAND ECOSYSTEMS.

18 If an action brought against the Secretary concerned

19 under section 703 of title 5, United States Code, involves

20 an agency action on Federal lands in which the Secretary

21 concerned found that the agency action is necessary to re22 store a fire-adapted forest or rangeland ecosystem, includ23 ing an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project, the

24 court reviewing the agency action, in considering a request


I1904.AAR
33

18

•HR 1904 IH

1 for a prohibitory or mandatory injunction against the

2 agency action, shall—

3 (1) consider the public interest in avoiding long4 term harm to the ecosystem; and

5 (2) give deference to any agency finding, based

6 upon information in the administrative record, that

7 the balance of harm and the public interest in avoid8 ing the short-term effects of the agency action is

9 outweighed by the public interest in avoiding long10 term harm to the ecosystem.

11 SEC. 108. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

12 (a) RELATION TO OTHER AUTHORITY.—Nothing in

13 this title shall be construed to affect, or otherwise bias,

14 the use by the Secretary concerned of other statutory or

15 administrative authorities to plan or conduct a hazardous

16 fuels reduction project on Federal lands, including Federal

17 lands identified in section 102(e), that is not planned or

18 conducted using the process authorized by section 104.

19 (b) RELATION TO LEGAL ACTION.—Nothing in this

20 title shall be construed to prejudice or otherwise affect the

21 consideration or disposition of any legal action concerning

22 the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, part 294 of title 36,

23 Code of Federal Regulations, as amended in the final rule

24 and record of decision published in the Federal Register

25 on January 12, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244).


I1904.AAS
34

19

•HR 1904 IH

1 TITLE II—BIOMASS

2 SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

3 Congress finds the following:

4 (1) Thousands of communities in the United

5 States, many located near Federal lands, are at risk

6 to wildfire. Approximately 190,000,000 acres of land

7 managed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the

8 Secretary of the Interior are at risk of catastrophic

9 fire in the near future. The accumulation of heavy

10 forest and rangeland fuel loads continues to increase

11 as a result of disease, insect infestations, and

12 drought, further raising the risk of fire each year.

13 (2) In addition, more than 70,000,000 acres

14 across all land ownerships are at risk to higher than

15 normal mortality over the next 15 years from insect

16 infestation and disease. High levels of tree mortality

17 from insects and disease result in increased fire risk,

18 loss of old growth, degraded watershed conditions,

19 and changes in species diversity and productivity, as

20 well as diminished fish and wildlife habitat and de21 creased timber values.

22 (3) Preventive treatments such as removing fuel

23 loading, ladder fuels, and hazard trees, planting

24 proper species mix and restoring and protecting

25 early successional habitat, and other specific restoraVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:56 May 16, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR096P2.XXX HR096P2

I1904.AAT
35

20

•HR 1904 IH

1 tion treatments designed to reduce the susceptibility

2 of forest and rangeland to insect outbreaks, disease,

3 and catastrophic fire present the greatest oppor4 tunity for long-term forest and rangeland health by

5 creating a mosaic of species-mix and age distribu6 tion. Such prevention treatments are widely acknowl7 edged to be more successful and cost effective than

8 suppression treatments in the case of insects, dis9 ease, and fire.

10 (4) The by-products of preventive treatment

11 (wood, brush, thinnings, chips, slash, and other haz12 ardous fuels) removed from forest and rangelands

13 represent an abundant supply of biomass for bio14 mass-to-energy facilities and raw material for busi15 ness. There are currently few markets for the ex16 traordinary volumes of by-products being generated

17 as a result of the necessary large-scale preventive

18 treatment activities.

19 (5) The United States should—

20 (A) promote economic and entrepreneurial

21 opportunities in using by-products removed

22 through preventive treatment activities related

23 to hazardous fuels reduction, disease, and insect

24 infestation; and


I1904.AAU
36

21

•HR 1904 IH

1 (B) develop and expand markets for tradi2 tionally underused wood and biomass as an out3 let for by-products of preventive treatment ac4 tivities.

5 SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

6 In this title:

7 (1) BIOMASS.—The term ‘‘biomass’’ means

8 trees and woody plants, including limbs, tops, nee9 dles, and other woody parts, and by-products of pre10 ventive treatment, such as wood, brush, thinnings,

11 chips, and slash, that are removed—

12 (A) to reduce hazardous fuels; or

13 (B) to reduce the risk of or to contain dis14 ease or insect infestation.

15 (2) INDIAN TRIBE.—The term ‘‘Indian tribe’’

16 has the meaning given the term in section 4(e) of

17 the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assist18 ance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)).

19 (3) PERSON.—The term ‘‘person’’ includes—

20 (A) an individual;

21 (B) a community (as determined by the

22 Secretary concerned);

23 (C) an Indian tribe;


I1904.AAV
37

22

•HR 1904 IH

1 (D) a small business, micro-business, or a

2 corporation that is incorporated in the United

3 States; and

4 (E) a nonprofit organization.

5 (4) PREFERRED COMMUNITY.—The term ‘‘pre6 ferred community’’ means—

7 (A) any town, township, municipality, or

8 other similar unit of local government (as deter9 mined by the Secretary concerned) that—

10 (i) has a population of not more than

11 50,000 individuals; and

12 (ii) the Secretary concerned, in the

13 sole discretion of the Secretary concerned,

14 determines contains or is located near

15 land, the condition of which is at signifi16 cant risk of catastrophic wildfire, disease,

17 or insect infestation or which suffers from

18 disease or insect infestation; or

19 (B) any county that—

20 (i) is not contained within a metro21 politan statistical area; and

22 (ii) the Secretary concerned, in the

23 sole discretion of the Secretary concerned,

24 determines contains or is located near

25 land, the condition of which is at signifiVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:56 May 16, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR096P2.XXX HR096P2

I1904.AAW
38

23

•HR 1904 IH

1 cant risk of catastrophic wildfire, disease,

2 or insect infestation or which suffers from

3 disease or insect infestation.

4 (5) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—The term ‘‘Sec5 retary concerned’’ means—

6 (A) the Secretary of Agriculture with re7 spect to National Forest System lands; and

8 (B) the Secretary of the Interior with re9 spect to Federal lands under the jurisdiction of

10 the Secretary of the Interior and Indian lands.

11 SEC. 203. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE COMMERCIAL VALUE

12 OF FOREST BIOMASS FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY,

13 USEFUL HEAT, TRANSPORTATION FUELS,

14 AND PETROLEUM-BASED PRODUCT SUB15 STITUTES.

16 (a) BIOMASS COMMERCIAL USE GRANT PROGRAM.—

17 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary concerned

18 may make grants to any person that owns or oper19 ates a facility that uses biomass as a raw material

20 to produce electric energy, sensible heat, transpor21 tation fuels, or substitutes for petroleum-based prod22 ucts to offset the costs incurred to purchase biomass

23 for use by such facility.


I1904.AAX
39

24

•HR 1904 IH

1 (2) GRANT AMOUNTS.—A grant under this sub2 section may not exceed $20 per green ton of biomass

3 delivered.

4 (3) MONITORING OF GRANT RECIPIENT ACTIVI5 TIES.—As a condition of a grant under this sub6 section, the grant recipient shall keep such records

7 as the Secretary concerned may require to fully and

8 correctly disclose the use of the grant funds and all

9 transactions involved in the purchase of biomass.

10 Upon notice by a representative of the Secretary

11 concerned, the grant recipient shall afford the rep12 resentative reasonable access to the facility that pur13 chases or uses biomass and an opportunity to exam14 ine the inventory and records of the facility.

15 (b) VALUE ADDED GRANT PROGRAM.—

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary concerned

17 may make grants to persons to offset the cost of

18 projects to add value to biomass. In making such

19 grants, the Secretary concerned shall give preference

20 to persons in preferred communities.

21 (2) SELECTION.—The Secretary concerned shall

22 select a grant recipient under paragraph (1) after

23 giving consideration to the anticipated public bene24 fits of the project, opportunities for the creation or


I1904.AAY
40

25

•HR 1904 IH

1 expansion of small businesses and micro-businesses,

2 and the potential for new job creation.

3 (3) GRANT AMOUNT.—A grant under this sub4 section may not exceed $100,000.

5 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

6 authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for each of the

7 fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to carry out this section.

8 SEC. 204. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

9 (a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than October 1,

10 2010, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with

11 the Secretary of the Interior, shall submit to the Com12 mittee on Resources and the Committee on Agriculture of

13 the House of Representatives and the Committee on En14 ergy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Agri15 culture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report

16 describing the results of the grant programs authorized

17 by section 203.

18 (b) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report shall include

19 the following:

20 (1) An identification of the size, type, and the

21 use of biomass by persons that receive grants under

22 section 203.

23 (2) The distance between the land from which

24 the biomass was removed and the facility that used

25 the biomass.


I1904.AAZ
41

26

•HR 1904 IH

1 (3) The economic impacts, particularly new job

2 creation, resulting from the grants to and operation

3 of the eligible operations.

4 TITLE III—WATERSHED

5 FORESTRY ASSISTANCE

6 SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:

8 (1) There has been a dramatic shift in public

9 attitudes and perceptions about forest management,

10 particularly in the understanding and practice of

11 sustainable forest management.

12 (2) It is commonly recognized that the proper

13 stewardship of forest lands is essential to sustaining

14 and restoring the health of watersheds.

15 (3) Forests can provide essential ecological

16 services in filtering pollutants, buffering important

17 rivers and estuaries, and minimizing flooding, which

18 makes its restoration worthy of special focus.

19 (4) Strengthened education, technical assist20 ance, and financial assistance to nonindustrial pri21 vate forest landowners and communities, relating to

22 the protection of watershed health, is needed to real23 ize the expectations of the general public.

24 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this title is to—


I1904.ABA
42

27

•HR 1904 IH

1 (1) improve landowner and public under2 standing of the connection between forest manage3 ment and watershed health;

4 (2) encourage landowners to maintain tree

5 cover on their property and to utilize tree plantings

6 and vegetative treatments as creative solutions to

7 watershed problems associated with varying land

8 uses;

9 (3) enhance and complement forest manage10 ment and buffer utilization for watersheds, with an

11 emphasis on urban watersheds;

12 (4) establish new partnerships and collaborative

13 watershed approaches to forest management, stew14 ardship, and conservation;

15 (5) provide technical and financial assistance to

16 States to deliver a coordinated program that en17 hances State forestry best-management practices

18 programs, as well as conserves and improves for19 ested lands and potentially forested lands through

20 technical, financial, and educational assistance to

21 qualifying individuals and entities; and

22 (6) maximize the proper management and con23 servation of wetland forests and to assist in their

24 restoration as necessary.


I1904.ABB
43

28

•HR 1904 IH

1 SEC. 302. ESTABLISHMENT OF WATERSHED FORESTRY AS2 SISTANCE PROGRAM.

3 The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 is

4 amended by inserting after section 5 the following new

5 section:

6 ‘‘SEC. 6. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE.

7 ‘‘(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE.—The

8 Secretary, acting through the Forest Service, may provide

9 technical, financial, and related assistance to State for10 esters and equivalent State officials for the purpose of ex11 panding State forest stewardship capacities and activities

12 through State forestry best-management practices and

13 other means at the State level to address watershed issues

14 on non-Federal forested lands and potentially forested

15 lands.

16 ‘‘(b) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PROTECT WATER

17 QUALITY.—

18 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coopera19 tion with State foresters or equivalent State officials,

20 shall engage interested members of the public, in21 cluding nonprofit organizations and local watershed

22 councils, to develop a program of technical assist23 ance to protect water quality, as described in para24 graph (2).

25 ‘‘(2) PURPOSE OF PROGRAM.—The program

26 under this subsection shall be designed—


I1904.ABC
44

29

•HR 1904 IH

1 ‘‘(A) to build and strengthen watershed

2 partnerships that focus on forested landscapes

3 at the local, State, and regional levels;

4 ‘‘(B) to provide State forestry best-man5 agement practices and water quality technical

6 assistance directly to nonindustrial private for7 est landowners;

8 ‘‘(C) to provide technical guidance to land

9 managers and policy makers for water quality

10 protection through forest management;

11 ‘‘(D) to complement State and local efforts

12 to protect water quality and provide enhanced

13 opportunities for consultation and cooperation

14 among Federal and State agencies charged with

15 responsibility for water and watershed manage16 ment;

17 ‘‘(E) to provide enhanced forest resource

18 data and support for improved implementation

19 and monitoring of State forestry best-manage20 ment practices.

21 ‘‘(3) IMPLEMENTATION.—The program of tech22 nical assistance shall be implemented by State for23 esters or equivalent State officials.

24 ‘‘(c) WATERSHED FORESTRY COST-SHARE PRO25 GRAM.—


I1904.ABD
45

30

•HR 1904 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall estab2 lish a watershed forestry cost-share program to be

3 administered by the Forest Service and implemented

4 by State foresters or equivalent State officials.

5 Funds or other support provided under such pro6 gram shall be made available for State forestry best7 management practices programs and watershed for8 estry projects.

9 ‘‘(2) WATERSHED FORESTRY PROJECTS.—The

10 State forester or equivalent State official of a State,

11 in coordination with the State Forest Stewardship

12 Coordinating Committee established under section

13 19(b) for that State, shall annually make awards to

14 communities, nonprofit groups, and nonindustrial

15 private forest landowners under the program for wa16 tershed forestry projects described in paragraph (3).

17 ‘‘(3) PROJECT ELEMENTS AND OBJECTIVES.—A

18 watershed forestry project shall accomplish critical

19 forest stewardship, watershed protection, and res20 toration needs within a State by demonstrating the

21 value of trees and forests to watershed health and

22 condition through—

23 ‘‘(A) the use of trees as solutions to water

24 quality problems in urban and rural areas;


I1904.ABE
46

31

•HR 1904 IH

1 ‘‘(B) community-based planning, involve2 ment, and action through State, local and non3 profit partnerships;

4 ‘‘(C) application of and dissemination of

5 monitoring information on forestry best-man6 agement practices relating to watershed for7 estry;

8 ‘‘(D) watershed-scale forest management

9 activities and conservation planning; and

10 ‘‘(E) the restoration of wetland (as defined

11 by the States) and stream-side forests and the

12 establishment of riparian vegetative buffers.

13 ‘‘(4) COST-SHARING.—Funds provided under

14 this subsection for a watershed forestry project may

15 not exceed 75 percent of the cost of the project.

16 Other Federal funding sources may be used to cover

17 a portion of the remaining project costs, but the

18 total Federal share of the costs may not exceed 90

19 percent. The non-Federal share of the costs of a

20 project may be in the form of cash, services, or other

21 in-kind contributions.

22 ‘‘(5) PRIORITIZATION.—The State Forest Stew23 ardship Coordinating Committee for a State shall

24 prioritize watersheds in that State to target water25 shed forestry projects funded under this subsection.


I1904.ABF
47

32

•HR 1904 IH

1 ‘‘(6) WATERSHED FORESTER.—Financial and

2 technical assistance shall be made available to the

3 State Forester or equivalent State official to create

4 a State best-management practice forester to lead

5 statewide programs and coordinate small watershed6 level projects.

7 ‘‘(d) DISTRIBUTION.—

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall devote

9 at least 75 percent of the funds appropriated for a

10 fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appro11 priations in subsection (e) to the cost-share program

12 under subsection (c) and the remainder to the task

13 of delivering technical assistance, education, and

14 planning on the ground through the State Forester

15 or equivalent State official.

16 ‘‘(2) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.—Distribution

17 of these funds by the Secretary among the States

18 shall be made only after giving appropriate consider19 ation to—

20 ‘‘(A) the acres of nonindustrial private

21 forestland and highly erodible land in each

22 State;

23 ‘‘(B) each State’s efforts to conserve for24 ests;


I1904.ABG
48

33

•HR 1904 IH

1 ‘‘(C) the acres of forests in each State that

2 have been lost or degraded or where forests can

3 play a role in restoring watersheds; and

4 ‘‘(D) the number of nonindustrial private

5 forest landowners in each State.

6 ‘‘(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

7 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section

8 $15,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through

9 2008.’’.

10 TITLE IV—INSECT

11 INFESTATIONS

12 SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE.

13 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this title:

14 (1) APPLIED SILVICULTURAL ASSESSMENT.—

15 The term ‘‘applied silvicultural assessment’’ means

16 any vegetative or other treatment, for the purposes

17 described in section 402, including timber harvest,

18 thinning, prescribed burning, and pruning, as single

19 treatment or any combination of these treatments.

20 (2) FEDERAL LANDS.—The term ‘‘Federal

21 lands’’ means—

22 (A) National Forest System lands; and

23 (B) public lands administered by the Sec24 retary of the Interior, acting through the Bu25 reau of Land Management.


I1904.ABH
49

34

•HR 1904 IH

1 (3) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—The term ‘‘Sec2 retary concerned’’ means—

3 (A) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting

4 through the Forest Service, with respect to Na5 tional Forest System lands; and

6 (B) the Secretary of the Interior, acting

7 through appropriate offices of the United States

8 Geological Survey, with respect to federally

9 owned land administered by the Secretary of

10 the Interior.

11 (4) 1890 INSTITUTIONS.—The term ‘‘1890 In12 stitution’’ means a college or university eligible to

13 receive funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7

14 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), including Tuskegee University.

15 (b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:

16 (1) High levels of tree mortality due to insect

17 infestation result in—

18 (A) increased fire risk;

19 (B) loss of old growth;

20 (C) loss of threatened and endangered spe21 cies;

22 (D) loss of species diversity;

23 (E) degraded watershed conditions;


I1904.ABI
50

35

•HR 1904 IH

1 (F) increased potential for damage from

2 other agents of disturbance, including exotic,

3 invasive species; and

4 (G) decreased timber values.

5 (2) Bark beetles destroy hundreds of thousands

6 of acres of trees each year. In the West, over

7 21,000,000 acres are at high risk of bark beetle in8 festation and in the South over 57,000,000 acres are

9 at risk across all land ownerships. Severe drought

10 conditions in many areas of the South and West will

11 increase risk of bark beetle infestations.

12 (3) The hemlock woolly adelgid is destroying

13 streamside forests throughout the mid-Atlantic and

14 Appalachian region, threatening water quality and

15 sensitive aquatic species, and posing a potential

16 threat to valuable commercial timber lands in North17 ern New England.

18 (4) The emerald ash borer is a nonnative,

19 invasive pest that has quickly become a major threat

20 to hardwood forests as a emerald ash borer infesta21 tion is almost always fatal to the affected trees. This

22 pest threatens to destroy over 692,000,000 ash trees

23 in forests in Michigan and Ohio alone, and between

24 five and ten percent of urban street trees in the

25 Upper Midwest.


I1904.ABJ
51

36

•HR 1904 IH

1 (5) Epidemic populations of Southern pine bee2 tle are ravaging forests in Alabama, Arkansas, Flor3 ida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,

4 South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. In 2001,

5 Florida and Kentucky experienced 146 percent and

6 111 percent increases, respectively, in beetle popu7 lations.

8 (6) These epidemic outbreaks of Southern pine

9 beetle have forced private landowners to harvest

10 dead and dying trees, in both rural areas and in11 creasingly urbanized settings.

12 (7) According to the Forest Service, recent out13 breaks of the red oak borer in Arkansas have been

14 unprecedented, with almost 800,000 acres infested

15 at population levels never seen before.

16 (8) Much of the damage from the red oak borer

17 has taken place in National forests, and the Federal

18 response has been inadequate to protect forest eco19 systems and other ecological and economic resources.

20 (9) Previous silvicultural assessments, while

21 useful and informative, have been limited in scale

22 and scope of application, and there has not been suf23 ficient resources available to adequately test a full

24 array of individual and combined applied silvicul25 tural assessments.


I1904.ABK
52

37

•HR 1904 IH

1 (10) Only through the rigorous funding, devel2 opment, and assessment of potential applied silvicul3 tural assessments over specific time frames across

4 an array of environmental and climatic conditions

5 can the most innovative and cost effective manage6 ment applications be determined that will help re7 duce the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to attack

8 by forest pests.

9 (11) Funding and implementation of an initia10 tive to combat forest pest infestations should not

11 come at the expense of supporting other programs

12 and initiatives of the Secretary concerned.

13 (c) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this title—

14 (1) to require the Secretary concerned to de15 velop an accelerated basic and applied assessment

16 program to combat infestations by bark beetles, in17 cluding Southern pine beetles, hemlock woolly

18 adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak borers, and

19 white oak borers;

20 (2) to enlist the assistance of universities and

21 forestry schools, including Land Grant Colleges and

22 Universities and 1890 Institutions, to carry out the

23 program; and

24 (3) to carry out applied silvicultural assess25 ments.


I1904.ABL
53

38

•HR 1904 IH

1 SEC. 402. ACCELERATED INFORMATION GATHERING RE2 GARDING BARK BEETLES, INCLUDING

3 SOUTHERN PINE BEETLES, HEMLOCK WOOL4 LY ADELGIDS, EMERALD ASH BORERS, RED

5 OAK BORERS, AND WHITE OAK BORERS.

6 (a) INFORMATION GATHERING.—The Secretary con7 cerned shall establish, acting through the Forest Service

8 and United States Geological Survey, as appropriate, an

9 accelerated program—

10 (1) to plan, conduct, and promote comprehen11 sive and systematic information gathering on bark

12 beetles, including Southern pine beetles, hemlock

13 woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak borers,

14 and white oak borers, including an evaluation of—

15 (A) infestation prevention and control

16 methods;

17 (B) effects of infestations on forest eco18 systems;

19 (C) restoration of the forest ecosystem ef20 forts;

21 (D) utilization options regarding infested

22 trees; and

23 (E) models to predict the occurrence, dis24 tribution, and impact of outbreaks of bark bee25 tles, including Southern pine beetles, hemlock


I1904.ABM
54

39

•HR 1904 IH

1 woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak

2 borers, and white oak borers;

3 (2) to assist land managers in the development

4 of treatments and strategies to improve forest health

5 and reduce the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to

6 severe infestations of bark beetles, including South7 ern pine beetles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald

8 ash borers, red oak borers, and white oak borers on

9 Federal lands and State and private lands; and

10 (3) to disseminate the results of such informa11 tion gathering, treatments, and strategies.

12 (b) COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary

13 concerned shall establish and carry out the program in co14 operation with scientists from universities and forestry

15 schools, State agencies, and private and industrial land

16 owners. The Secretary concerned shall designate univer17 sities and forestry schools, including Land Grant Colleges

18 and Universities and 1890 Institutions, to assist in car19 rying out the program.

20 SEC. 403. APPLIED SILVICULTURAL ASSESSMENTS.

21 (a) ASSESSMENT EFFORTS.—For information gath22 ering purposes, the Secretary concerned may conduct ap23 plied silvicultural assessments on Federal lands that the

24 Secretary concerned determines, in the sole discretion of

25 the Secretary concerned, is at risk of infestation by, or


I1904.ABN
55

40

•HR 1904 IH

1 is infested with, bark beetles, including Southern pine bee2 tles, hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak

3 borers, and white oak borers. Any applied silvicultural as4 sessments carried out under this section shall be con5 ducted on not more than 1,000 acres per assessment.

6 (b) LIMITATIONS.—

7 (1) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AREAS.—Sub8 section (a) does not apply to—

9 (A) a component of the National Wilder10 ness Preservation System;

11 (B) Federal lands where, by Act of Con12 gress or Presidential proclamation, the removal

13 of vegetation is restricted or prohibited; or

14 (C) congressionally designated wilderness

15 study areas.

16 (2) CERTAIN TREATMENT PROHIBITED.—Sub17 section (a) does not authorize the application of in18 secticides in municipal watersheds and associated ri19 parian areas.

20 (3) ACREAGE LIMITATION.—Applied silvicul21 tural assessments may be implemented on not more

22 than 250,000 acres using the authorities provided by

23 this title.

24 (c) PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT.—


I1904.ABO
56

41

•HR 1904 IH

1 (1) PUBLIC NOTICE.—The Secretary concerned

2 shall provide notice of each applied silvicultural as3 sessment proposed to be carried out under this sec4 tion in accordance with applicable regulations and

5 administrative guidelines.

6 (2) PUBLIC COMMENT.—During the planning

7 stage of each applied silvicultural assessment pro8 posed to be carried out under this section, the Sec9 retary concerned shall provide an opportunity for

10 public input.

11 (d) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION.—Applied silvicultural

12 assessments carried out under this section are deemed to

13 be categorically excluded from further analysis under the

14 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.

15 4321 et seq.). The Secretary concerned need not make any

16 findings as to whether the project, either individually or

17 cumulatively, has a significant effect on the environment.

18 SEC. 404. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

19 The authorities provided to the Secretary concerned

20 by this title are supplemental to their respective authori21 ties provided in any other law.

22 SEC. 405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

23 There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years

24 2004 through 2008 such sums as may be necessary to

25 carry out this title.


I1904.ABP
57

42

•HR 1904 IH

1 TITLE V—HEALTHY FORESTS

2 RESERVE PROGRAM

3 SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTHY FORESTS RE4 SERVE PROGRAM.

5 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Agriculture

6 shall establish the healthy forests reserve program as a

7 program within the Forest Service for the purpose of pro8 tecting, restoring, and enhancing degraded forest eco9 systems to promote the recovery of threatened and endan10 gered species as well as improve biodiversity and enhance

11 carbon sequestration.

12 (b) COOPERATION.—The Secretary of Agriculture

13 shall carry out the healthy forests reserve program in co14 operation with the Secretary of the Interior, acting

15 through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

16 SEC. 502. ELIGIBILITY AND ENROLLMENT OF LANDS IN

17 PROGRAM.

18 (a) ELIGIBLE LANDS.—The Secretary of Agriculture,

19 in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall

20 designate rare forest ecosystems to be eligible for the

21 healthy forests reserve program. The following lands are

22 eligible for enrollment in the healthy forests reserve pro23 gram:

24 (1) Private lands whose enrollment will protect,

25 restore, enhance, or otherwise measurably increase


I1904.ABQ
58

43

•HR 1904 IH

1 the likelihood of recovery of an endangered species

2 or threatened species in the wild.

3 (2) Private lands whose enrollment will protect,

4 restore, enhance, or otherwise measurably increase

5 the likelihood of the recovery of an animal or plant

6 species before the species reaches threatened or en7 dangered status, such as candidate, State-listed spe8 cies, rare, peripheral, and special concern species.

9 (b) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.—In enrolling lands

10 that satisfy the criteria in paragraph (1) or (2) of sub11 section (a), the Secretary of Agriculture shall give addi12 tional consideration to those lands whose enrollment will

13 also improve biological diversity and increase carbon se14 questration.

15 (c) ENROLLMENT BY WILLING OWNERS.—The Sec16 retary of Agriculture shall enroll lands in the healthy for17 ests reserve program only with the consent of the owner

18 of the lands.

19 (d) MAXIMUM ENROLLMENT.—The total number of

20 acres enrolled in the healthy forests reserve program shall

21 not exceed 1,000,000 acres.

22 (e) METHODS OF ENROLLMENT.—Lands may be en23 rolled in the healthy forests reserve program pursuant to

24 a 10-year cost-share agreement, a 30-year easement, or

25 a permanent easement with buyback option. The extent


I1904.ABR
59

44

•HR 1904 IH

1 to which each enrollment method is used shall be based

2 on the approximate proportion of owner interest expressed

3 in that method in comparison to the other methods.

4 (f) ENROLLMENT PRIORITY.—The Secretary of Agri5 culture shall give priority to the enrollment of lands that,

6 in the sole discretion of the Secretary, will provide the best

7 opportunity to resolve conflicts between the presence of

8 an animal or plant species referred to in paragraph (1)

9 or (2) of subsection (a) and otherwise lawful land use ac10 tivities.

11 SEC. 503. CONSERVATION PLANS.

12 (a) PLAN REQUIRED.—Lands enrolled in the healthy

13 forests reserve program shall be subject to a conservation

14 plan, to be developed jointly by the land owner and the

15 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The conservation

16 plan shall include a description of the land-use activities

17 that are permissible on the enrolled lands.

18 (b) INVOLVEMENT BY OTHER AGENCIES AND ORGA19 NIZATIONS.—A State fish and wildlife agency, State for20 estry agency, State environmental quality agency, and

21 other State conservation agencies and nonprofit conserva22 tion organizations may assist in providing technical or fi23 nancial assistance, or both, for the development and imple24 mentation of conservation plans.


I1904.ABS
60

45

•HR 1904 IH

1 (c) COST EFFECTIVENESS.—The conservation plan

2 shall maximize the environmental benefits per dollar ex3 pended.

4 SEC. 504. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

5 (a) PERMANENT EASEMENT WITH BUYBACK OP6 TION.—

7 (1) PAYMENT AMOUNT.—In the case of land

8 enrolled in the healthy forests reserve program using

9 a permanent easement with a buyback option, the

10 Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the owner of the

11 land an amount equal to—

12 (A) the fair market value of the enrolled

13 land less the fair market value of the land en14 cumbered by the easement; plus

15 (B) the actual costs of the approved con16 servation practices or the average cost of ap17 proved practices, as established by the Sec18 retary.

19 (2) BUYBACK OPTION.—Beginning on the 50th

20 anniversary of the enrollment of the land, and every

21 10th-year thereafter, the owner shall be able to pur22 chase the easement back from the United States at

23 a rate equal to the fair market value of the easement

24 plus the costs, adjusted for inflation, of the approved

25 conservation practices.


I1904.ABT
61

46

•HR 1904 IH

1 (b) 30-YEAR EASEMENT.—In the case of land en2 rolled in the healthy forests reserve program using a 30-

3 year easement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the

4 owner of the land an amount equal to—

5 (1) 75 percent of the fair market value of the

6 land less the fair market value of the land encum7 bered by the easement; plus

8 (2) 75 percent of the actual costs of the ap9 proved conservation practices or 75 percent of the

10 average cost of approved practices, as established by

11 the Secretary.

12 (c) 10-YEAR AGREEMENT.—In the case of land en13 rolled in the healthy forests reserve program using a 10-

14 year cost-share agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture

15 shall pay the owner of the land an amount equal to—

16 (1) 75 percent of the actual costs of the ap17 proved conservation practices; or

18 (2) 75 percent of the average cost of approved

19 practices, as established by the Secretary.

20 (d) ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Sec21 retary of Agriculture may accept and use contributions of

22 non-Federal funds to make payments under this section.

23 SEC. 505. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

24 The Forest Service and the United States Fish and

25 Wildlife Service shall provide landowners with technical


I1904.ABU
62

47

•HR 1904 IH

1 assistance to comply with the terms of agreements and

2 easements under the healthy forests reserve program and

3 conservation plans.

4 SEC. 506. SAFE HARBOR.

5 In implementing the healthy forests reserve program,

6 the Secretary of the Interior shall provide safe harbor or

7 similar assurances, through section 7 or other authorities

8 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.

9 1531 et seq.), consistent with the implementing regula10 tions of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to

11 landowners who enroll land in the healthy forests reserve

12 program when such enrollment will result in a net con13 servation benefit for listed species.

14 SEC. 507. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

15 There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000

16 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to carry

17 out this title.

18 TITLE VI—MISCELLANEOUS

19 PROVISIONS

20 SEC. 601. FOREST STANDS INVENTORY AND MONITORING

21 PROGRAM TO IMPROVE DETECTION OF AND

22 RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS.

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall

24 carry out a comprehensive program to inventory, monitor,

25 characterize, assess, and identify forest stands (with emVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:56 May 16, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR096P2.XXX HR096P2

I1904.ABV
63

48

•HR 1904 IH

1 phasis on hardwood forest stands) and potential forest

2 stands—

3 (1) in units of the National Forest System

4 (other than those units created from the public do5 main); and

6 (2) on private forest land, with the consent of

7 the owner of the land.

8 (b) ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED.—In carrying out the

9 program, the Secretary shall address issues including—

10 (1) early detection, identification, and assess11 ment of environmental threats (including insect, dis12 ease, invasive species, fire, and weather-related risks

13 and other episodic events);

14 (2) loss or degradation of forests;

15 (3) degradation of the quality forest stands

16 caused by inadequate forest regeneration practices;

17 (4) quantification of carbon uptake rates; and

18 (5) management practices that focus on pre19 venting further forest degradation.

20 (c) EARLY WARNING SYSTEM.—In carrying out the

21 program, the Secretary shall develop a comprehensive

22 early warning system for potential catastrophic environ23 mental threats to forests to increase the likelihood that

24 forest managers will be able to—


I1904.ABW
64

49

•HR 1904 IH

1 (1) isolate and treat a threat before the threat

2 gets out of control; and

3 (2) prevent epidemics, such as the American

4 chestnut blight in the first half of the twentieth cen5 tury, that could be environmentally and economically

6 devastating to forests.

7 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

8 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section

9 $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through

10 2008.

Æ


I1904.ABX
65

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, for an opening statement. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. I thank 

you for taking up this important legislation. It is very appropriate 

that we consider H.R. 1904, the bipartisan legislation entitled the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, as we are about to face another season with higher than average risk of wildfire in many 

parts of the country. 

The legislation before the Committee today is a carefully crafted 

compromise that has cleared two other Committees. The Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act is intended to save and protect our forests 

from destruction, not the opposite, as some are falsely characterizing it. 

H.R. 1904 will allow the sustainable management of forests for 

generations to come by giving Federal, State, and private land 

managers the flexibility and tools needed to ensure healthy, sustainable forests. It will do a lot more than just protect the health 

of our forests and ecosystems. It will also provide an economic 

stimulus for the communities so dependent on forestland. This bipartisan legislation balances efforts to restore, protect, and enhance forests, with efforts to promote economic and entrepreneurial 

opportunities in communities. 

The risks associated with doing nothing are too dangerous. Our 

forests, communities, and citizens deserve better. Today we have 

the opportunity to make a true difference in the health of our forests, particularly our communities in and around forestland, something very beneficial for the public good that both sides of the aisle 

should rally around. 

H.R. 1904 applies to and helps all regions of the United States, 

including public and private lands. It protects forestland, it protects wildlife, it protects watersheds, it protects human life, and 

will positively impact rural communities, businesses, and schools. 

The President has made this a high priority. He addressed it 

during his State of the Union address. For these reasons, I strongly 

encourage Members to support the underlying legislation and to 

oppose all amendments. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CANNON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Let me just point out, as the Chairman of the Western Caucus, 

this is an issue of vital importance to America. We have 70 or 75 

million acres that are ready to go up. The early assessments of fire 

vulnerability this year were low as of a few months ago, but at 

least in my State and also I believe in Idaho and several other 

States, we have had quite a wet spring. That has meant that we 

filled in a couple of these steps on the fire ladder so that if we get 

any kind of fires this year, they can be more devastating than last 

year. And the last year was the most devastating fire year in our 

recent history. 

This bill is vital that we move it quickly and not amend it. I 

think it is very, very important. Thank you. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]

66

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. Chairman, having represented Utah for more than three terms and serving 

now as Chairman of the Western Caucus in the House, I am particularly attuned 

to the problems faced by my state and other Western states with respect to catastrophic wildfires. I want to thank the Chairman for his attention to, and prompt 

action, on this important legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, for the people of Utah the threat of forest conflagrations is not a 

mere hypothetical possibility but rather a daily reality. More than 75 per cent of 

our state is, in fact, federal land . . . much of it forested and all of it subjected to 

the seasonal exigencies that make it particularly susceptible to the kind of catastrophic wildfires that we witnessed last year. 

Given the fact that man and nature must share this volatile landscape, intelligent 

management is an absolute necessity to preserve a beneficial environment for both. 

Inattention to the buildup of hazardous fuels in that environment represents a monumental danger that can lead to the destruction of entire communities and, in some 

cases, the loss of forests and watersheds from which it may take a century or more 

to recover. Intelligent management also requires that the agencies entrusted with 

the responsibility to oversee forested environments be given the power to act expeditiously to address building dangers. 

H.R. 1904 provides the tools and a proper administrative framework for federal 

land managers to deal with wildfire dangers. Public participation in hazardous fuel 

reduction projects is encouraged and administrative and judicial review is accelerated in recognition of the inherent danger to public safety. 

One of the principal responsibilities of the Congress is to provide for public protection and resource conservation. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1904 does just that at a time 

when recent events have so dramatically underscored the dangers to which our 

Western environment particularly is subject. 

I thank you, and commend you again, for your expeditious consideration of this 

legislation and urge its support.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Yield to the gentleman from Arizona. 

Mr. FLAKE. I just thank the gentleman for bringing this forward 

quickly. We in Arizona lost a half million acres last year; we stand 

to lose a lot more this year unless we do something, and in years 

to come. So this is important. It has been, as mentioned, a carefully 

crafted compromise. We worked it through the Resources Committee last week, and hope that we can speedily push it on from 

here. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. And I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Who on the minority side wishes to 

give an opening statement? The gentlewoman from Wisconsin, you 

have an opening statement? Well, if there is none, then, without 

objection, all Members may insert opening statements into the 

record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

I first would like to commend the Chairman for exercising the Committee’s jurisdiction on this legislation. When introduced on May 1, the bill was referred only to 

the Agriculture and Resources Committees. This was despite the fact that it contained provisions governing the judicial review of cabinet department decisions, 

which would be in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. Just last week, after 

a series of letters from myself and from the Chairman, the bill was referred to this 

Committee, as well. 

Having said that, I have serious concerns with the provisions that are in our jurisdiction, provisions that are unprecedented in federal law and strip our judiciary 

of their independence. The bill imposes strict timelines on when decisions by the executive branch can be challenged and on when the court must act on such challenges. For example, a local community would have only fifteen days, including 

weekends, to challenge an Interior Department decision allowing controlled burns. 

A community would have to learn of the decision, review it, and agree to challenge 

it, and file the lawsuit all in that time period. Finally, the bill requires courts to 

67

notify congressional committees of decisions to extend injunctions that have been 

imposed on the government. 

While the independence of the judiciary is the prize of our democracy, restrictions 

such as these essentially convert the judicial branch into an arm of the executive. 

Alexander Hamilton said that the ‘‘independent spirit in the judges’’ enables them 

to stand against the ‘‘ill humors of passing political majorities;’’ legislation such as 

this demonstrates that today’s passing political majority wants to use its ill humors 

to gut review of the Administration’s environmental actions. 

I hope these provisions can be removed from the bill before it is reported out of 

the Committee.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Only sections 104 through 108 inclusive are within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. And 

the Chair will only entertain amendments to those sections. Are 

there any amendments? 

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1904, offered by Ms. Baldwin. 

[The amendment follows:]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Point of order is reserved. 

The CLERK. Strike sections 104, 105, 106, and 107. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman persist in his 

point of order? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman withdraws his reservation. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

While the bill’s intent to reduce forest fires is laudable, I believe 

that this is the wrong approach. It contains provisions that are not 

only unnecessary but also unwise and unprecedented. Section 104 

of this bill would effectively scrap the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which was landmark legislation. NEPA is the 

American public’s guarantee of informed participation in Federal 

Government decisions that have an impact on public lands. NEPA 

operates not by requiring agencies adopt a particular course of action, but helps them combat tunnel vision by making them consider 

alternative approaches that could cause less environmental harm 

or produce greater environmental benefits. 

I understand that there is a need to act quickly in some highpriority fuel reduction projects, but section 104 simply goes too far 

by allowing the Forest Service to conduct large-scale logging 

projects in areas of little risk without considering other options. 

Section 105 also gives the Forest Service a blank check in designing an appeals process. Conceivably, the agency could give citizens 

only a few days to participate in the appeals process, impose subVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:56 May 16, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR096P2.XXX HR096P2

Baldwin.eps
68

stantial filing fees, or allow projects to proceed before completion 

of the process. This section creates a completely undefined process. 

The American public deserves to know how their voice will be 

heard when it comes to projects that may be in their own communities. 

Sections 106 and 107 seek to restrict a core principle of our democracy, the right of Americans to seek redress in court for grievances involving the Federal Government. Section 106 attempts to 

limit the amount of time the public has to file a legal challenge to 

a mere 15 days, and this time limit which counts weekend days 

and holidays, is not long enough for the public to grasp how 

projects will affect the land they live on, the water they drink, and 

the air they breathe. This 15-day deadline could also create a perverse incentive to file a lawsuit against projects, since failing to do 

so closes the courthouse door thereafter. 

Section 106 also attempts to place limitations on the time judges 

have to review cases and mandates they inform congressional Committees whenever they extend jurisdictions beyond 45 days. These 

new provisions should not be overlooked by those who say our court 

system is already overworked and overburdened. 

And, finally, section 107 seeks a change in American legal standards by requiring courts give deference to agency findings regarding the balance of harms in deciding whether to enter a temporary 

restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction 

in any court challenge. The standard is unprecedented in any prior 

law and seems designed to allow Federal agencies to determine if 

its actions are in the public interest and, in effect, have the determination to be presumed valid in court. 

Based on my background of the Constitution’s separation-of-powers doctrine, this may well intrude upon the equitable powers of 

the judiciary. It is my understanding that the bill sponsor, Mr. 

McInnis, has agreed to modify this language to direct Federal 

judges to give only special weight to agency claims instead of deference. This would still be unacceptable. Judges should not be prohibited from exercising their own judgments in matters that affect 

the public health and our natural resources. 

So I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment to strike sections 104 through 107 from this bill, and yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 

last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the Chairman, And I speak in strong 

opposition to this amendment. The provisions that the gentlewoman would strike are absolutely critically important to this legislation. As the gentleman from Utah noted, we are heading into 

the fire season. And one of the things that needs to be done is to 

make sure that sensitive areas in our forests are properly treated, 

thinned and other things done, to make sure that we have natural 

fires that occur on the ground and not these catastrophic wildfires 

that you have seen on the news for the last few years that consume 

entire forests and thousands of acres. 

69

While the difference between the one and the other is the ability 

to proceed administratively in a reasonable and timely fashion, this 

legislation creates a reasonable process under which the Forest 

Service can go forward with public comment, with administrative 

appeal, with the right to bring the action into court, but in a more 

timely fashion. It does some very commonsense things, like requiring that an individual who objects to a forest plan—and believe me, 

there are individuals who object to any kind of ground-disturbing 

activity of any kind by the Forest Service—they can file an appeal 

and not raise the key issues in the process until late in the process 

when it goes to court. That is not the normal judicial legal procedure, where, if you are engaged in a trial, you have to put all your 

evidence and all your law on the table in the trial; and, if you want 

to appeal it, you have to appeal based upon the record of the trial. 

Right now, in a Forest Service appeal, you don’t need to do that. 

You can wait until you get to court to raise de novo issues, brandnew issues in what is effectively the appellate process. 

What this has done is turned the management of our forests 

away from the forest professionals and toward the management of 

the forests by our courts, a very, very bad thing; has caused tremendous problems, particularly in the West but it has spread to include errant judicial decisions in other parts of the country as well. 

Let’s present to the courts a judicial foundation, a record on which 

they can make their decision. 

In addition, what this does is it makes the process more compact. 

And that is important, because if you are trying to get in to deal 

with a disease or insect infestation, a particularly severe problem 

in the eastern and southern United States, by the time you have 

been through the current process—and, by the way, this does not 

eliminate NEPA by any means. But by the time you get through 

current process, it is too late. 

This bill only applies to 250,000 acres out of the hundreds of millions of acres owned by the Forest Service with regard to the insect 

and disease infestation issue. And with regard to fighting forest 

fires, it only applies to 20 million of those hundreds of millions of 

acres. So, in effect, it is a good way to get at the most severe 

places, and also a good way to show that this is a better process 

than the one that we have been using in the past that can grind 

on for years, leaving these forests untended and continuing to allow 

these catastrophic wildfires. 

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. 

Mr. CANNON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I may ask for my own time later on, 

but let me just point out that what we are doing in this bill is quite 

limited and very thoughtful. This is not like the elimination of judicial review that happened as to the Black Forest in legislation that 

was inserted last year in appropriations language that actually totally denied the NEPA process. Many of us think that something 

like that would be appropriate because of the magnitude of the 

problem that we are faced with right now. But what we are doing 

here is actually maintaining a process and maintaining much of 

what we have learned that is good in the NEPA and other bills. 

But the limitations are significant in that it allows the Federal 

70

Government to do something this year while we have a crisis, and 

hopefully prevent that, and get back to a different kind of process. 

But the key thing here is that we are not doing a draconian 

thing like prohibiting judicial review of these kinds of decisions. 

That has happened, there is precedent for that, there is good reason for that, and we may need to come back and take a look at that 

kind of approach. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Can I just ask Mr. Goodlatte a question about the language on page 17, lines 6 through 14; if he might be able to tell 

me what that means and why we would be putting such a provision 

as that into statute? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, as I mentioned in my remarks just a few 

minutes ago, one of the purposes of this legislation is to make sure 

that because of the emergency nature of treating these acres, the 

acres most subject to catastrophic wildfire, if you can’t get to them 

quickly, then the wildfires occur, the devastation occurs, and the 

legislation doesn’t do any good. So this is simply a directive to our 

courts to expeditiously handle the appeals process. 

Mr. WATT. I think I could understand a directive, but I don’t 

read this to be a directive. It says Congress intends and encourages 

any court in which is filed a lawsuit or appeal to do certain things 

and to dispose of it timely, within 100 days. But I don’t see any 

directive there. And I guess the question I am raising is whether 

we are just leaving—I mean, without a directive or something—

without a directive, if a directive is appropriate, it just seems to me 

that we are leaving pretty much the state of law as it is. And I 

don’t know, I don’t think I have seen a statute that encourages the 

courts to do something. I mean, if we think it is so important, why 

wouldn’t we direct it? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WATT. I yield, yeah. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman is quite correct that this is different than a number of other 

provisions in the bill that do direct the courts to a different process. 

This one gives the courts some more flexibility. There might be 

some circumstances in which they might need to exceed the 100 

days. Therefore, without trying to tie them too closely and trying 

to define a circumstance that in some instances might be unworkable, we strongly encourage them to get these done within 100 

days. But we do not require it. 

Mr. WATT. Well, just reclaiming my time. I guess I am ambivalent about this. I mean, obviously every lawsuit that gets into 

court, you would like for the court to expedite it. And there are 

some cases where we direct the courts to expedite. But I confess, 

I have not seen a provision quite like this one that says we would 

like for you to do it but we are not going to direct you to do it, 

which basically says nothing. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Would the gentleman yield further on that 

point? 

71

Mr. WATT. Yes. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. If the gentleman would turn his attention to the 

preceding page, page 16. 

Mr. WATT. You mean you did it again and I missed it? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No, no. Not at all. And I think this will help 

clarify the situation. Section 106(b)(1) makes a 45-day action on injunctions a requirement. The court must act within that time. The 

reason is that, with an injunction, that is a complete holdup on 

taking any action on treating the land. 

Mr. WATT. And I take it that provision is contrary to other provisions in the law related to injunctions? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. That provision is a specific directive. 

Mr. WATT. But it is different than other general injunctive law 

in terms of its time frames. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I am sure there are different provisions in other 

sections of the law. This is 45 days to get at the issue of whether 

one can proceed. The court has 45 days to make that determination. We would like to get to the underlying final decision expeditiously as well, but that is not as critical. Therefore, we ask them 

to do it in 100 days but we don’t require it. The 45 days, the initial 

finding on whether action is emergent in nature and therefore 

needs to take place expeditiously, that is mandated in this bill. 

Mr. WATT. Can I ask one other question? Has there been any 

hearings about this part of the bill that is under the Judiciary 

Committee’s jurisdiction? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. There have been numerous hearings on this legislation in both the Resources Committee and in the Agriculture 

Committee. 

Mr. WATT. I want to know whether there have been any hearings 

on the part of the bill that is under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary 

Committee. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman from North 

Carolina yield? 

Mr. WATT. Yes, I will yield. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. We got this bill last Friday when the 

other Committee filed its report. The sequential that was given to 

us by the Speaker expires on Friday of this week. There really 

hasn’t been time for a hearing. And if we don’t do a markup, then 

we lose jurisdiction and the bill goes out on the floor. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. WATT. Can I ask unanimous consent for just 30 additional 

seconds? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. WATT. And I think the problem I am having here, Mr. Chairman, is the tail seems to be wagging the dog here. Whenever we 

get a directive from the Speaker to do something that is inconsistent with our responsibilities as Members of this Committee, it 

just seems we go running around and doing things that have not 

been well thought out. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield. The 

Chair fought to get a sequential to this Committee. The Speaker 

and the other Committees did not want this Committee to have a 

sequential at all. 

Mr. WATT. And, Mr. Chairman, I have——

72

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I got us a week, and we are doing 

what we can in the time that is available. 

Mr. WATT. I am not blaming the Chair, Mr. Chairman. I am sure 

you did whatever you could, but all you did was get us time to go 

through an irrational process that legitimizes irrationality. And we 

don’t have any idea whether these timetables are consistent with 

what is reasonable under the law. And without some kind of hearings to hear the arguments on both sides or another, I honestly 

don’t know whether I side with Ms. Baldwin or Mr. Goodlatte. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, if the gentleman will yield further. If we delay, as of Friday this bill floats away from us and 

goes out on the floor. You know, that is what the rules are. The 

gentleman’s time has expired again. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I support the amendment, and I would like to go 

beyond the issues raised by my colleague from North Carolina, 

which is into the structure of the bill that is not specifically before 

us but that does relate to us, because it relates to the type of judicial review. You know, we learned that Smoky the Bear actually 

didn’t do America any favors because we built up a tremendous 

amount of dead wood in America’s forests. I have forests near my 

district, and we all are aware that this is an issue that needs to 

be dealt with. But all of the good science indicates that the way to 

address that is to remove the undergrowth and the small trees in 

a plan that should be vigorously funded and accomplished, and not 

to go after the older trees; and that older trees that rot should be 

allowed to rot into the forest for the health of the forest. 

And, unfortunately, if you take a look at the other parts of the 

bill—you know, why didn’t I think of that? We are against forest 

fires, so let us cut down all the trees. I mean, what a solution. That 

is basically what the Interior Department is prepared to do. I think 

it is very clear that they are in the pocket of the logging companies. 

And the only—the way this is crafted, the only protection that 

Americans are going to get from the logging companies that have 

captured the Administration and the Interior Department is in the 

judiciary. And what this part of the bill does is eliminate even that 

protection for the American people and the forests for the future 

of this country. 

So I think this is pretty outrageous. I hope that all Members will 

vote no. And I would yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

The point I want to make is much, much narrower than the one 

she is making. I would agree that maybe other Committees ought 

to be the Committees that make these decisions about how you control forest fires and the public policy considerations. But when it 

comes to our Committee—and then they say let us prostitute the 

courts to achieve whatever our objectives are or prostitute the process to achieve whatever our objectives are—then I think it is our 

Committee’s responsibility to look at whether the process is rational, the timing is rational. And I don’t think we can do that in good 

faith to the American people and say that we as the Judiciary 

73

Committee have done our job appropriately, regardless of how we 

come out on those issues, without having the time to do it. 

And so I think we end up appearing that we are just engaging 

in a charade that—and that is not an indictment of the Chairman—the Chairman probably got what he could—but it is an indictment of the way we are running this place around here that 

says that whatever the bottom line the leadership decides is important is more important than the democratic and legislative process 

under which we are operating. 

And I yield back. And for that reason, I am going to vote for Ms. 

Baldwin’s amendment just because I don’t think that—she takes 

these provisions out, and it seems to me that that is a better alternative than going through a charade of a process to change the 

process by which the court considers all of these things. 

I will yield back to the gentlewoman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman. I would just note that—

and I do appreciate the Chairman’s fight for our jurisdiction. I 

think all Members appreciate the fact that he has been aggressive 

in protecting our jurisdiction. But when you look at the scope of the 

review in addition to now the constraint of time, this is just a carte 

blanche to logging companies to wipe out forests. And I hope that 

Members will vote no. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. I rise to strike the last. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. This is troublesome legislation. I commend the 

Chairman for fully exercising the Chair’s ability for us to even be 

considered in this log-rolling process. 

Now, so what are we to do this Monday morning? And that is 

the question. And the question is that if we don’t act now, what 

little license we have been granted will be removed. And so with 

all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend that we 

both hold hearings and have a markup all between now and Thursday afternoon when we depart from this place. It may crowd our 

schedules, but that is what the majority leader has foisted on us. 

Mr. WATT. Would the gentleman yield just for a question? 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. 

Mr. WATT. Would just as acceptable an alternative not be to accept Ms. Baldwin’s amendment and consider those parts of the bill 

separately in a time frame that we could act on? If the bill doesn’t 

have the provisions in the bill, then they are not going to go to the 

floor for consideration. So it seems to me that that would be an alternative, too, although I am not—I am just thinking as we go 

along here. 

Mr. CONYERS. No, I appreciate that, Mr. Watt, and I think that 

is perfectly acceptable. What we have to do to give additional support to the Chair of Judiciary is that they can’t keep running this 

crap on us. You know, once we do this, what will it be next week 

or whenever? 

So all I am suggesting is that somehow we craft a way—what I 

am proposing, that the Chair—and if we need a few minutes on 

this, I would be happy to accede to a recess. But between my proVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:56 May 16, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR096P2.XXX HR096P2
74

posal and the gentleman from North Carolina’s proposal, at least 

we will retain as much integrity for the Committee as is possible 

under this circumstance. I have no reason not to want to accept the 

Baldwin amendment, but of course that is giving people about as 

much notice as the leadership gave us. 

So, what do you think, Mr. Chairman? I yield to you. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Sensenbrenner’s law says this: 

When one puts snout in trough too far, one runs the risk of getting 

head chopped off. 

My fear is—first of all, it is a given that there will be no extensions given on this sequential referral. I think that we are doing 

what we can in the time that we have available to us, and everybody will have a chance to put their views into a Committee report 

and that will be available to the Members when the bill comes to 

the floor next week. 

Also, the Rules Committee, I am sure, will entertain amendments to make either the Baldwin amendment or something similar to that in order when the bill comes up. 

Mr. CONYERS. Unfortunately, my experience with the Rules Committee runs exactly counter to that proposal. But maybe you know 

something that I don’t. 

Now, back to the Conyers proposal, which is this: Is that we hold 

hearings tomorrow; that we hold a markup either later that day, 

and we—and then we report the bill. I don’t see why we can’t do 

that. But to do this without a single witness—and, by the way, I 

have counted the makeup of the Committee. So, I mean, this is almost like a double whammy. I mean, first the leadership does it 

to us, and then in a Committee that is made up of 21/16, we act 

like we are trying, really trying to figure out how this is going to 

work out, when most of the votes in this Committee normally run 

in a very partisan——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I want the record to be clear that this 

Member, and I assume a lot of others, want to express our appreciation for you fighting for the little bit of jurisdiction that we got. 

But as the gentleman from Michigan indicated, it is very difficult 

under these constraints to do the kind of work that we need to do. 

So I would hope that we adopt the suggestion from the gentleman 

from Michigan, and I yield to him for any comments that he might 

have. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Well, this bill was introduced on May 1, referred to the Agriculture Committee, despite the fact that it contained provisions 

governing the judicial review of Cabinet department decisions, 

which are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Judiciary. 

Last week, after communications back and forth from the Chairman and myself, the bill was referred to this Committee as well. 

Now, there are serious concerns with the provisions that are in 

our jurisdiction, provisions unprecedented in law, and that in effect 

strip the judiciary of its independence by imposing time lines on 

75

decisions by the executive branch which can be challenged when 

the court must act on such challenges. 

An example: A local community has 15 days, including weekends, 

to challenge an Interior Department decision allowing controlled 

burns. They may not be able to even get into court in that short 

length of time, much less be prepared. A community would have to 

learn of these decisions, review it, agree to challenge it, get a lawyer, file a lawsuit, all within that time period. 

Now, this should insult the integrity of every lawyer on this 

Committee and everyone that is not a lawyer. And then it requires 

courts to notify the congressional Committees of decisions to extend 

injunctions that have been imposed on the Government. 

Mr. CANNON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. 

Mr. CANNON. I thank my friend. Two points that are, I think, important. In the first place, let me just remind the gentleman that 

we have a crisis coming. We are now——

Mr. CONYERS. Which crisis? 

Mr. CANNON. We have a particular fire crisis coming, and we 

also have a concern about the probity of what we do in this Committee. But we have, and now in Utah, grass that is a couple feet 

high. We are in the middle of May. 

Mr. CONYERS. But are you saying that that means that we can’t 

hold a hearing? 

Mr. CANNON. It is——

Mr. CONYERS. Between today and tomorrow? If it is so urgent, 

my friend, if it is so urgent, why don’t we all adjust our schedules 

accordingly? I mean, what are you talking about? It is urgent, but 

yet we shouldn’t have a hearing. 

Mr. CANNON. My point, sir, is that the bill needs to move. And 

the second part——

Mr. CONYERS. And that is my point, too. Wait a minute. I am for 

the bill moving. I am not trying to delay the bill. I am talking 

about today and tomorrow. What are you doing? It is your State. 

It is your fire disaster. Don’t you think the rest of your colleagues 

ought to have a hearing and listen to somebody tell us about this? 

You don’t. And I retake my time. That is it. Thank you. 

I also have a statement in support of the Baldwin amendment 

that I would like to introduce into the record. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

I support this amendment, which strikes out the provisions of the bill that, with 

one hand, give the executive branch unchecked administrative power and, with the 

other, take away the rights of citizens and the independence of our judiciary. 

Sections 104 and 105 of the bill give the executive branch virtually unchecked authority to establish administrative review and appeals procedures. For example, section 105 gives the Agriculture Secretary a blank check for streamlining the process 

for administrative appeals of agency determinations. The Secretary would not even 

be required to read any comments that might be filed with the Department. 

Sections 106 and 107 intrude on the rights of litigants and the courts by imposing 

rigid deadlines for filing court challenges to and ruling upon agency decisions. Section 106 says any lawsuit to challenge a decision by an agency must be filed within 

15 days of the issuance of that decision. If the government issues a rule allowing 

a controlled burn of trees, a local community near that area would have 15 days, 

76

including weekends and holidays, to hear of the decision, review it, and file a lawsuit challenging it. 

Moreover, these provisions could have ramifications far beyond this bill. First, to 

comply with the rigid deadlines of the legislation, courts would have to put on hold 

any cases dealing with civil rights, workers’ rights, civil liberties, etc. Second, such 

egregious and anti-plaintiff proposals set a dangerous precedent for giving undue 

deference to agency decisions on civil rights matters. 

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. And I return my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the Baldwin 

amendment. Those in favor will say aye. 

Mr. CONYERS. Record vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Opposed, vote no. 

The noes appear to have it. 

Ms. BALDWIN. rollcall. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. rollcall will be ordered. 

Those in favor of the amendment by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin will, as your names are called, answer aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

And the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble votes no. 

Mr. Smith. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, no. 

Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, no. 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. 

Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. 

Mr. Cannon. 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. 

Mr. Bachus. 

Mr. BACHUS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, no. 

Mr. Hostettler. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, no. 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, no. 

Mr. Keller. 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. 

Ms. Hart. 

Ms. HART. No. 

77

The CLERK. Ms. Hart, no. 

Mr. Flake. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, no. 

Mr. Forbes. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, no. 

Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carter, no. 

Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. 

Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Blackburn, no. 

Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. 

Mr. Berman. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. 

Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, aye. 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, aye. 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. 

Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan, aye. 

Mr. Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, aye. 

Ms. Baldwin. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin, aye. 

Mr. Weiner. 

Mr. WEINER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, aye. 

78

Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. 

Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, aye. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there additional Members who 

wish to cast or change their votes? The gentleman from New York, 

Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 17 noes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum is present. 

The question occurs on the motion to report the bill, H.R. 1904, 

favorably. 

Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. 

Mr. CONYERS. Record vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A rollcall will be ordered. 

Those in favor of reporting H.R. 1904 favorably will, as your 

names are called, answer aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

And the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, aye. 

Mr. Smith. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, aye. 

Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, aye. 

Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. JENKINS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. 

Mr. Cannon. 

Mr. CANNON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, aye. 

Mr. JENKINS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. 

79

Mr. Bachus. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, aye. 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, aye. 

Mr. Keller. 

Mr. KELLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, aye. 

Ms. Hart. 

Ms. HART. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Hart, aye. 

Mr. Flake. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, aye. 

Mr. Forbes. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, aye. 

Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carter, aye. 

Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, aye. 

Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Blackburn, aye. 

Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, no. 

Mr. Berman. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, no. 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. 

Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, no. 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, no. 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. 

80

Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, no. 

Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. MEEHAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan, no. 

Mr. Delahunt. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, no. 

Ms. Baldwin. 

Ms. BALDWIN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin, no. 

Mr. Weiner. 

Mr. WEINER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, no. 

Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, no. 

Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, no. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Additional Members who wish to 

cast or change their vote? The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Vote aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 

Bachus. 

Mr. BACHUS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their vote? If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 18 ayes and 13 nays. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the motion to report favorably 

is agreed to. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to 

move to go to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming 

changes, and all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by 

House rules, in which to submit dissenting supplemental or minority views. 

(81)

1The White House, Healthy Forests: An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities (Aug. 22, 2002). Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthyforests/

Healthy—Forests—v2.pdf. 2See H.R. 1904, §§ 104–107. At the full Committee markup on the bill, Rep. Tammy Baldwin 

(D-WI) offered an amendment that would have struck the objectionable sections, but the Majority unfortunately rejected it. See MARKUP OF H.R. 1904, HOUSE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 108th 

Cong., 2d Sess. (May 14, 2003) [hereinafter H.R. 1904 Markup]. 3See, e.g., Few Wildfire Project Delays, GAO Finds, WASH. POST, May 15, 2003, at A27 (‘‘The 

conclusion [of the General Accounting Office report] runs counter to the case the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have made for scaling back studies and appeals.’’). 4Letter from Natural Resources Defense Council et al., to U.S. Representatives (May 8, 2003) 

[hereinafter NRDC Letter].

DISSENTING VIEWS

We support initiatives to protect our communities from the 

threat of wildfires. We dissent from H.R. 1904, the ‘‘Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003,’’ because that is not what this legislation would do. The bill, in the guise of limiting an alleged boom in 

dilatory challenges of government measures to reduce wildfire 

threats,1 instead gives the executive branch unfettered administrative discretion to implement land management decisions, deters administrative and Federal court reviews of such actions, harms 

plaintiffs’ rights, and intrudes on the independence of our courts.2

Such provisions are even more egregious considering that the 

General Accounting Office has found few, if any, delays in the implementation of projects to reduce wildfire threats.3 As stated earlier, the alleged existence of such delays was the rationale for these 

provisions. It is for these reasons that H.R. 1904 is opposed by numerous organizations concerned with: 

(1) the enforcement of our environmental laws (including the 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), The Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, the Endangered Species 

Coalition, the National Audobon Society, the World Wildlife 

Fund (WWF), American Lands Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, EarthJustice, the Center for Biological Diversity, the 

National Environmental Trust, the Sierra Club, the National Forest Protection Alliance, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group).4

(2) the fair administration of justice and the enforcement of 

our civil rights laws (including ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights, Alliance for Justice, Americans 

for Democratic Action, the Bazelon Center for Mental 

Health Law, the Mexican American Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund (MALDEF), the National Association for 

the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees, the National Organization for Women (NOW), People for the American Way, 

82

5Letter from ADA Watch et al., to U.S. Representatives (May 13, 2003) [hereinafter ADA 

Watch Letter]. 6 H.R. 1904, § 104(b). 

7 NRDC Letter. See also Letter from Lois Schiffer, Adjunct Prof. of Environmental Law, 

Georgetown University Law Center, et al., to the Honorable James Hansen, Chairman, House 

Comm. on Resources, & the Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, House Subcomm. on Forests 

& Forest Health (Oct. 7, 2002) (analyzing similar provision in earlier, yet similar, legislation). 8 16 U.S.C. 1612 note. 

9See H.R. 1904, § 105(c). 10 H.R. 1904, § 106(a). 11 Id. 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice); 5 and 

A. THE LEGISLATION WOULD GIVE UNCHECKED ADMINISTRATIVE

AUTHORITY TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

A primary concern with H.R. 1904 is that it proposes to give the 

executive branch virtually unchecked authority to implement decisions and to consider administrative appeals of such decisions. For 

instance, the bill empowers the relevant cabinet department by 

stating it would no longer be required to consider any alternatives 

to an original proposal when issuing forest-related decisions.6 The 

heart of the environmental analysis process is for the agency to 

consider alternatives to its plans so that the best plan can be chosen; 7 this bill essentially turns that concept on its head and says 

that an agency’s first idea is the best idea. 

The legislation goes further and gives agencies additional power 

in quashing administrative appeals of their decisions. Current law, 

in the form of the Appeals Reform Act, imposes strict requirements 

on the process for administrative appeals of U.S. Forest Service decisions, such as letting public participants submit written or oral 

comments, requiring Forest Service employees to offer to meet with 

any individual who files an appeal, and the triggering of an automatic 45-day stay of Forest Service decisions.8 The bill explicitly vitiates these protections, such that the Forest Service would be empowered not only to dismiss certain public comments and the individuals who submit them but also to proceed with its plans immediately.9

B. THE LEGISLATION WOULD HARM PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHTS AND TIE

THE HANDS OF THE COURTS

In addition, the legislation would restrict the rights of all Federal 

court plaintiffs and subject Federal courts to rigid deadlines. The 

bill’s requirement that any actions filed against the United States 

to challenge hazardous fuels reduction projects be filed within fifteen days (including weekends and holidays) of the final notice of 

such projects would make it impossible to seek redress for improper 

or illegal agency decisions.10 Moreover, the bill expressly provides 

that neither the government nor a court could waive the filing 

deadline under any circumstance.11 As a result, if the government 

issues a decision authorizing an entity to conduct a controlled burn 

or cut timber in a certain wooded area, a community living near 

that wooded area would have fifteen days to learn of the decision, 

determine what it does, determine whether it affects the community’s residents, decide whether to file a legal action, retain an attorney, prepare the legal documents, and file the action against the 

83

12 Id. 13 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b). Such notice requirements also apply to citizen suits under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-8(b)); the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7604(b)); the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6972(b)); and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9659(d)). 14See ADA Watch Letter. 15S. 220, the ‘‘Bankruptcy Reform Act,’’ 2001: Hearings on S. 220 Before the Senate Comm. 

on the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (2001) (statement of the Honorable Edward R. Becker, 

Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States). 16See ADA Watch Letter. 17 NRDC Letter. 18 H.R. 1904, § 106(b). 

entity that is exercising the decision. The fifteen-day deadline 

would apply regardless of weekends, holidays, or even in the event 

the residents of the community were evacuated from their homes 

because of some emergency. 

Moreover, the fifteen-day limitation would apply to every other 

Federal law. More specifically, it would supercede any other provision in any law that pertains to notices of intent to file suit or to 

filing deadlines.12 For example, at least sixty days before filing a 

citizen suit against an entity for non-compliance with the Clean 

Water Act, notice must be given to the government and the potential defendant.13 Under this bill, if a community determined that 

a hazardous fuels reduction project violated the Clean Water Act, 

it would have only fifteen days to file suit instead of the minimum 

sixty days it has under current law. 

The bill also seeks to impose unprecedented deadlines that would 

tie the hands of the courts and relegate unrelated, yet important, 

cases to the bottom of the pile. In suggesting that courts issue rulings on lawsuits and appeals on cases arising under the bill within 

100 days of the initial filing date, section 106(c) virtually holds 

courts hostage to agency timing. Such a deadline also would place 

hazardous fuels reduction project lawsuits above all other Federal 

cases on the dockets, as the reduction project lawsuits would be 

considered first. This means that all other Federal cases, including 

those pertaining to terrorism, criminal violations, civil rights law, 

worker rights, and employment discrimination, would be delayed in 

favor of cases arising under this legislation.14 It is not surprising, 

then, that the courts have noted that ‘‘individual actions within a 

category of cases inevitably have different needs of priority treatment, which are best determined on a case-by-case basis.’’ 15

Finally, the bill would politicize and threaten the independence 

of our judiciary. When reviewing decisions of Federal agencies, the 

courts would have to give unprecedented deference to the issuing 

agencies.16 It has been noted that ‘‘this is an attempt to force 

courts to defer to agencies to allow projects to go forward even after 

the court has ruled that the agency actions are illegal.’’ 17

By making courts submit reports to congressional committees on 

decisions to extend injunctions,18 the bill would subject the courts 

and even individual judges to the constant scrutiny of politicians 

and thus violate separation of power principles. Furthermore, while 

various Federal laws do require the courts to submit reports to 

Congress, there are two major distinctions between those laws and 

this bill: (1) currently, reports are filed on an annual, semi-annual, 

or other periodic basis and not on the basis of specific decisions; 

84

19See H.R. 1904 Markup. Moreover, despite the Majority’s assertions to the contrary, H.R. 

1904 was not subject to hearings in either the Agriculture or Resources Committees. 

and (2) currently, reports are filed by the administrative arm of the 

courts and not by individual judges. 

C. THE LEGISLATION WAS NOT PROPERLY REVIEWED IN COMMITTEE

Finally, we note that the legislation did not receive a thorough 

review by the Committee on the Judiciary. Despite containing provisions regarding administrative and Federal court procedures, 

H.R. 1904 was referred initially only to the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Resources. We are pleased the Judiciary Committee not only sought and received a referral of the bill 

for those provisions within its jurisdiction but also held a markup 

before letting the bill proceed to the floor. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee held no hearings on these far-reaching provisions; 

in fact, the Majority objected to Democratic requests for a hearing 

on the same or next day, before the expiration of the referral, so 

that Members of Congress and of the public could understand the 

full impact of the proposed changes.19

In conclusion, proper administrative and judicial review of executive decisions and regulations are among the cornerstones of our 

system of government, which counts checks and balances as a basic 

tenet. This legislation attempts to eviserate these checks and balances to give cabinet and Federal agency officials virtually unchecked decisionmaking authority, seeks to subject plaintiffs and 

courts to rigid deadlines, and endeavors to place every Federal lawsuit except those pertaining to this legislation on the back burner. 

For these reasons, we respectfully dissent.

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

ROBERT C. SCOTT. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

ZOE LOFGREN. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

MAXINE WATERS. 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN. 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT. 

ROBERT WEXLER. 

TAMMY BALDWIN. 

ANTHONY D. WEINER. 

ADAM B. SCHIFF. 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ.

Æ