Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment for Mr. Brownback of Kansas and ask for its consideration.

Mr. BURNS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. I thank my chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. BURNS. Two. That is all I need.

Mr. BURNS. I will take the first 4 minutes. I thank my good friend from West Virginia also for allocating the time. As he believes very much in the Constitution of the United States, I also believe in some of the rulings of the Senate. And I think I would be remiss as ranking member on this committee and a comanager on this bill if I did not fight for the rights of the rest of the Members in this body to have a vote. I think it is what it is all about. That is for debate. I haven't heard anybody come down here and talk against the merits of this second-degree amendment. It will not go away. And silence tells me that maybe the case has already been made and hard to defend of what we are trying to do as far as forest health is concerned. Twenty years, 25 years is a track record, a known track record. And now we see the culmination of those management practices over that many years in the growth of the forest and what it can lead to if we allow folks who probably don't have all the experience in the world, on the ground management of a renewable resource, what that brings us to. So I would hope that we would support cloture or deny cloture so this issue can be talked out because it will not go away. I am not real sure it is not the shortest way to arrive at a vote and settlement of the issue. I thank my good friend from West Virginia.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the majority leader makes a very good point. I am struck by what we are debating off the floor, which is timber health. At the heart of that is how we deal with judicial appeals, which has brought a new dynamic to that debate on forest health and how we manage our public lands; that is, not a denial of judicial appeals, but also in the area of timber restraining orders. People can file appeals--we do not want to deny that--but also how we deal with the decision-rendering process, which does cause some concern with folks using timber restraining orders as a tool in the process to get their way. Basically, that is what we have here. We are on a time line, if we go off this. Those who do not want to see anything move press us into a time line, and then we go on home knowing there is a timeframe on that debate. Given the time we have and the leader's decision to double-track these two issues in order to facilitate and deal with these issues in a short time line, we have to take a look at that. I know the leader is. I congratulate him for his push on this and to make it a reality. But so far, it hasn't come to be and does not get us to where I think we want to be before we go home in October. We want to move forward as fast as we can. But also there is lingering debate out there that a lot of folks are concerned about--especially on our forests. I want to bolster the leader's contention that drought relief and disaster relief in farm and ranch country are still with us. Just on Sunday past--here we are in the middle of September with football in the air--it was 92 degrees in Billings, MT. The Yellowstone River is as low as I have ever seen it. Above the Bighorn River where it spills into the Yellowstone, you can walk across that river just about anywhere and not get your knees wet. We still have that concern. The leader is right. It passed this body overwhelmingly. It should be allowed to move forward with the apparatus in front of us in which to get that relief out to our people who are suffering at this time. I appreciate his leadership on that. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I cannot sit idly by and not offer some comment on the Senator's statement. No. 1, the Senator has flopped the money in regard to the President's budget. I might add that at least the president completed a budget. Seventy percent of this money would go to wildland urban interface, and 30 percent goes to the less populated areas, not the other way around as the Senator from Nevada suggested. In this amendment, we change no environmental law. We deny no one the appeal process. Both administratively and judicially, those things don't change. What I am asking Senators and this country to consider are environmental laws, NEPA, clean water, clean air, and the Forest Management Act, which has been in effect for some 25 years. We have been operating and managing under those laws for that long without some reform. Look at the track record. I'm asking for proof you are right to deny this; prove us wrong. For years and years, I have followed football a little. I guess what makes that game great is there is only one rule book, and it is in every State across the Union. If we want to bring some discipline, look at that fact and compare it to what we are doing in our judicial system. When I look at the appeals process--as the chief of the Forest Service said the other day, if you get 999 people out of 1,000 to agree on a management decision, it can all be stopped by one person. That has been the case ever since these laws were put into effect. We see the result, we get growth, and we burn. We do away with grazing, and we burn. If we do away with active management of a renewable resource, what was there before? We saw younger trees that grew old, matured, died, and regrowth occurred. Once again, look at the track record of the management we have been under for the last 25 years. We see great regrowth and reforestation even in clearcuts where that management has worked: New trees, new forests, a renewable resource that is in demand by the American public, to carry on into the next generation and the next generation, a renewable resource that can be used by all Americans, all Americans; that is, if housing and the use of lumber appeals to you. I realize some folks don't worry about the cost of a home or people getting into their first home. The folks on the other side of this issue are less caring about it. The League of Conservation Voters--who are a pretty moderate group, have a little radical group among them that actually makes the policy to carry out their appeals process in this situation. Make no mistake about it, if they who want to manage the forests differently want us to prove why we think this plan would work, then I ask for the other side to use the same system to prove theirs has worked. For 25 years, those management practices have all but culminated, in the last 4 years, in the destruction of a renewable resource which could have been somewhat prevented. Yes, there will always be fires. They even slash and burn after harvest is over. Do you know what? They grow back. They are wonderful. They are beautiful. But what I fear is that the way this system is now, people who have never had any dirt under their fingernails are making the management decisions on a resource that should be used for generations to come. It just does not make a lot of sense to me. Compare the track records. No money goes to corporations. No law is changed. All rights are preserved. We are saying let's put the football at the 50-yard line. Nobody likes to start on their own 20. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wyden and Senator Feinstein. There is no one better to work with as we have moved through the negotiations to change the way we look at management areas with regard to reduction of the fuel load on the floors of our forests and dealing with diseased forests. It is most troubling to me that we are seeing the results of 20 years of frivolous appeals and putting the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management under such review that they cannot manage with any common sense; 20 years' experience, with a lot of folks on the ground who probably do not have 2 days' of education in their whole life, but they have been in the forest all their life, saying we are going in exactly the wrong direction and this will lead to disaster. But because they do not have a certain standing in the process to get their voice heard, their warning goes unheeded. So we come to the years of 2000, 2002, even 1998. My State of Montana is just completing its fifth year in drought and also in low snowpack. We had devastating fires in 2000, with a lesser amount this year because we got a little rain. But now when the rains come, we see the mud slides, devastating mud slides that take streams out, destroy water quality, damage watersheds. I have heard people give endless speeches on watersheds. They have been damaged beyond repair. It will take years and years for them to be restored. It impacts municipalities and also impacts wildlife--fish. How much do we have to show America that the past 20 years have been a disaster, an unmitigated disaster? This policy was recommended by groups who, at times you have to believe on the management of forests-- there is an old saying that says they don't know the difference between ``sic 'em'' and ``come here.'' Hocus-pocus science--a theory. Feel good, warm and fuzzy--but it burns. That is what we are talking about here and that is what should be at the crux of our discussions with one another in this Senate. How do we avoid continuing this in a commonsense way, where if you want to debate the science or the decision made by an agency or a person with regard to the management of that land, that it cannot be open and all cards have to be on the table? That is what we are looking at here. So I am going to work with my chairman, Mr. Byrd, as we try to move this piece of legislation along. I will tell you, I have never seen more earnest and dedicated people, people dedicated to solving a problem, than those in this debate, in the private meetings, the endless hours that negotiation have gone on. I appreciate that because basically I think we are driven to take care of our forests. But past practices have not given us much help. Mr. President, I now yield time to my good friend from Colorado.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I suggest and recommend to the chairman of the committee that we move forward on this vote. I know Senators have made their schedules around the vote that was determined to happen at 10 o'clock this morning. We have other business to do on the Interior appropriations bill and a short time within which to do it. I suggest to the chairman that we move forward.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I understand there are only 58 seconds remaining on the side of the opposition. I still want to protect their right to speak for some time before the vote, and we are now passed the time limit now. If the Senators who want to speak can be allowed at least 5 minutes, then we will go immediately to the vote.

Mr. BURNS. I don't know how much time I have to yield.

Mr. BURNS. In other words, those who oppose this amendment have not seen fit to come to the floor. That is the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. That would be fine. I say to my friend from Montana, I am trying to protect those who oppose, but I have no problem with yielding 5 minutes.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield to the senior Senator from Wyoming for his statement?

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will not object--I need a clarification, though, how that could be disposed of. Then would the Senator from Connecticut lay his amendment aside after it being offered to the main bill or to the underlying bill?

Mr. BURNS. I yield 2 minutes to the senior Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Minnesota. Senator Byrd will be a little bit late this morning. If the Senator would like to give his statement now, that is perfectly OK with me. I think there will be more speakers on our side. I am supporting the amendment. We will make those points at a later time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. BURNS. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. BURNS. I ask the Chair if the time of those who support the amendment has been used?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.