On the recordOctober 30, 2003
I rise to oppose the proposed amendment from the Senator from California, not because I disagree with her point that we need to make sure we adequately protect the wildland/urban interface, but because the bill, as it is currently drafted, not only adequately provides for that but provides even broader flexibility so we can, in addition, protect the watersheds, the water quality for communities. It will actually allow communities to have a greater input into the management decisions relating to the forests that surround them. The amendment would require that 70 percent of all of the money that is provided in this bill for fuels reduction be expended in the wildland/urban interface. The bill, as drafted, provides that not less than 50 percent of the funds will be allocated for projects in the wildland/urban interface. Nothing in the bill, as drafted, would prohibit our forest managers from doing exactly what the Senator from California says she thinks they ought to do, if that is the right decision. On the other hand, our bill follows the recommendations of the Western Governors' Association, which allows communities to make proposals to the Forest Service about how the forests in their communities should be managed.
Source
govinfo.gov




