In this briefing

My Goals
Agenda Items
Conclusion

Online Resources

US Dept of the Interior
The White House:
—Energy —Environment —Healthy Forests

My Western Agenda goals:

• Work to establish federal policies that are responsive to the needs and interests of Idaho and the West.

• Lead in developing natural resource and energy policies that protect Western water and ensure a clean, safe environment, consistent with sound science, community stability, economic growth and the principle of multiple use.

Balancing the needs of the people with the needs of the land.

I am a fiscal conservative who believes in the principles of multiple use, conservation, and management at the local level. I believe these fundamental ideas should guide all natural resource decisions. Natural resource management is about balancing the needs of the people with the needs of the land.

I have never met someone who wants dirty air, undrinkable water, or devastated forests. We all want a livable environment. Where people differ is over how these goals will be accomplished.

Our Western Agenda is designed to provide suggestions on specific Idaho and western issues. It proposes a compass for how our natural resource policy should address these issues. These Western principles are the touchstone for my service in Congress and I will continue to work to advance them.

Western Agenda Items:
Access Collaborative Conservation Active Public Lands Management Energy Policy Endangered Species Act Wolves Weeds		Grazing Mining Recreation Fire Management Western Water Rural Revitalization Conclusion

Access

Like a lot of Westerners, I come from pioneer stock. My grandmother rode west in a covered wagon. The first wave of pioneers came here for the freedom of the open land. They were not raised as cowboys, or loggers, or miners, but they were willing to become whatever the times needed. The land supported their families and dictated their activities.

Ask these newcomers, these amenity migrants, what they do, and they generally will not tell you, "I'm a computer analyst, or a stockbroker or a businessperson." Instead, they will say, "I am a rock climber", "I am a hunter", "I ski", "I am a rafter", "I kayak" or "I hike the high country".

Now we are witnessing a second major migration, a new wave of pioneers, as likely to come from the West Coast as the East Coast. They come to do what they could do anywhere: to be computer analysts, to sell financial services, to open restaurants, and to build a community. Like the pioneers before them, they are drawn to the West by its abundant natural resources - - but for different reasons. A term for this movement could be "amenity migrants."

In their own way, these people are tied to the land like the pioneers of old. As a result, in the 21st Century, public lands still define the West. We still have an Old West, a rural society centered on the original commodity-producing industries and agriculture - - and then there is a New West, centered on the vigorous quest for a quality of life that includes the enjoyment of the outdoors. What ties "the old" and "the new" together is an appreciation for the resources and the value that multiple uses contribute to our livelihoods and communities.

In order to maintain the values of public lands, I believe the most critical characteristic that needs to be preserved is access. Conservation and multiple use, for a century now the dominant policy of our public lands, require access. Only by accessing these areas can active management take place, providing protection for our public lands against disease, wild fire, and insect epidemics.

The people of the New West are starting to discover that restricting access to public lands affects their way of life just as much as it affects that of the people of the Old West. Those who never want to hear a chainsaw in a National Forest also never want to hear a snowmobile. The same people who never want a miner's or oil driller's bit to cut the earth also never want a rock climber to place a bolt in a canyon wall. Those who want to block access intend to prevent any kind of human use, whether it is for work, play, or management of the resources themselves.

Preservationism has at its core a desire to protect the rare, the wild, and the most beautiful. Within the last forty years Congress has accomplished this through designating 95 million acres of wilderness, four million of which are preserved in Idaho. We have protected virgin forest, wild species, and pristine areas and are proud to have this as one part of our Western legacy.

Extremists have, however, taken protectionism a political step further, seeking to limit any human presence whatsoever in these areas. Nowhere is it stated that part of our legacy is to refuse access to our public lands.

"National Forests are made for and owned by the people. They should also be managed by the people. They are made, not to give the officers in charge of them a chance to work out theories, but to give the people who use them, and those affected by their use, a chance to work out their own best profit."

-Gifford Pinchot, first chief of the Forest Service

This is the West of Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the Forest Service (quoted at left). The hopes and desires of these men can only be accomplished by preserving access to our public lands. If our public lands are locked away, the values of the Old West will be destroyed and the quality of life of the New West will be lost. That will not just harm local communities, but the rest of the country as well because a disconnect will be created between the land and those who seek to benefit from it.

Radical preservationism that embraces an extreme political agenda has no place on our public lands because it is inflexible. It refuses to acknowledge the salutary role of multiple use. It sees every acre of public land, set aside for the people, as a wilderness in the making. It seeks preservation, but sows conflict and degradation. In order to ensure the future of our public lands, we need to preserve access to them.

Action: I convened Access 2000, a conference that brought diverse groups together to discuss public lands issues, including access. This conference provided participants with a forum to share and discuss ideas that affect access to public lands and gave me new ideas and insights into people's expectations from their public lands.

→I will work to design and support legislation and processes that protect access to our public lands for multiple-uses.

Collaborative Conservation

The long struggle over public access to our lands has left many with battle fatigue. Clearly, we need a new approach to solving natural resource conflicts, user conflicts, and management conflicts. In order to resolve conflict, all the players need to come "to the table" to explore our shared ideals instead of reinforcing our disagreements.

I think we should adopt the strategies of some local activists who have turned away from the existing national standoff. Instead, they are working to bridge differences, to find a common solution that reflects the national environmental ethic. In a phrase: collaborative conservation.

Collaborative conservation includes the following:

• We must discard the doctrine of national communities of interest, where decision makers are selected from national organizations, and return to a doctrine of local community interest. We should not allow federal bureaucracies and national organizations to upset the fragile process of local consensus making.



• We need a process of continuous improvement in reducing our impacts on the land. We must stipulate that for all the progress made by commodity-producing industries, loggers and ranchers, and recreationists - we can always do better.



• Federal government policies desperately need modernization. The government needs to manage better. It must not allow restrictive approaches based upon inflexible national mandates to trump what would otherwise be environmentally sound activities and shut out local people who have to live with the consequences of federal decisions.

As a community, we need to come together to solve the challenges of multiple-use in order to achieve conservation and balance on our public lands.

For more on the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act read my Senate Floor statement

Action:In 2000, Senator Wyden and I authored a significant piece of legislation entitled the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Unfortunately, this law expired last fall - it was a six-year temporary safety-net. It is clear to me that the safety-net payments need to continue, but in a manner that encourages and focuses on building collaboration - - one of the cornerstones of this Act.

As the time has passed to reauthorize the law, we have a new compromise. Once again, we had differences in opinions in how the law should be shaped for the future. However, the foundation for the compromise was shaped by discussions I had with Senator Bingaman earlier this year. In the end, a large bi-partisan group of senators came together and agreed to put aside our differences in order to ensure success for our rural schools and counties.

Our new bi-partisan compromise, which the Senate voted 74-23 to include as part of the FY2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, incorporates the same successful principles of the original Act. It recognizes the fact that communities want economic activity more than a check; that the formula needed to be more equitable to get through Congress; and that the greatest achievement of the original law was as much about the RACs as the safety-net payments.

While the fate of the FY2007 Emergency Supplemental has yet to be determined, I will continue to work to ensure a successful outcome for our rural schools and counties.

As I look back over the past six years, I couldn't be prouder of the accomplishments we have seen from this law. It epitomizes the reason we do what we do here in Congress.

→I am committed to encouraging federal policies that promote collaborative conservation and to bring groups, including stakeholders and user groups, together at a local level to foster collaborative conservation.

Active Public Lands Management

Forests and rangelands are dynamic systems that constantly change in response to both natural and man-made events. They are never static. Any scientist will tell you that a healthy forest or rangeland requires active management. Like your backyard garden, you can't just let it go and expect it to be productive and healthy. You have to actively manage the resource by doing everything from thinning trees, to spraying for weeds, to maintaining roads. Without access to our public lands, it is impossible to manage our them properly. Without access, we will end up with unhealthy lands that are prime candidates for catastrophic wildfires and insect infestations of epic proportions.

It is time to move our public lands management agencies away from a "one-size-fits all" management policy and back toward their original mission. As set forth in law, the missions are to achieve high quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of all users.

An example of a "one-size-fits-all" management concept is the Roadless Initiative of 2000. The Clinton Administration attempted to side-step Congress and lock the American people out of their own lands under the questionable guise of protecting resources. The Initiative did not meet the mission of the Forest Service "to manage for the sustainable multiple-use to meet the diverse needs of the people." The denial of access by user groups to the public lands achieves, only one management goal: preservation. When applied to vast areas of public land, this became management by exclusion, not inclusion.

The Roadless Initiative of 2000 set aside the land for a select few and locked out most of the American public. While wilderness designations serve a valuable purpose, just two percent of the population who uses our public lands choose to visit a wilderness area. Current wilderness designations, combined with the Clinton rule, resulted in more than half of the 192 million acres of National Forest being managed as wilderness, off limits, with little opportunity for public enjoyment, and where "man is an infrequent visitor." In creating the Wilderness Act, Congress never intended huge expanses as proposed by the Clinton Administration to become off limits.

The Bush Administration has rectified this ill fated rule by replacing it with state specific rules. The Bush Administration=s roadless rule, affecting 9 million acres in Idaho, is a positive step toward resolving the roadless debate. This rule recognizes that the previously broad dictate encompassing over 60 million acres is simply unacceptable. The new rule establishes a process for governors to work with the Forest Service to develop locally supported rules for managing roadless areas in their states.

By empowering states to offer suggestions on the management of roadless areas within their borders, the Forest Service can craft management plans to local conditions, reflecting local priorities while maintaining the lands for everyone. The new rule offers the governors the opportunity to work with the Forest Service on collaborative, State-specific rulemakings for the conservation and management of roadless areas. Petitions will identify areas for inclusion, and ways to protect public health and safety, reduce wildfire risks to communities and critical wildlife habitat, maintain critical infrastructure, such as dams and utilities, and assure citizens access to private property.

We in the West recognize the value those lands hold for natural resources, such as timber, minerals, oil, and wildlife, and no one can deny the opportunity they hold for recreation. Since the lands are in the public domain, they are generally open for all to use without discrimination. We must find ways to protect our resources and provide for multiple-uses of our public lands.

Action: I have used my position on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to ensure that legislation promotes and fosters active public lands management to ensure healthy forests and rangelands for generations to come.

→I will work with the Bush Administration to find ways to accommodate both public access and protection of our environmental resources. Also, I will work with the Administration to restore the mission of the public lands agencies to provide for multiple-use management.

Energy Policy

Energy Secretary Bodman has stated that a stable and affordable supply of energy is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. Failure to guarantee that supply will threaten our nation's prosperity, compromise our national security, and literally alter the way we live our lives. Here in the West, power shortage alerts over the past several years in neighboring states have weakened our job base and limited our opportunities for growth.

In addition, the events of September 11, 2001 have made us all too aware of the need for increased national security. We need to increase our domestic production in order to decrease our foreign energy dependence and vulnerability. During the past decade, we have heard a chorus of energy marketers and environmentalists sing the praises of natural gas as a cost effective and environmentally sensitive energy source. Scientists and past Administrations have hailed natural gas as the cleanest fuel for home heating and aggressively pushed utility companies to convert oil and coal-fired electric plants to gas.

The irony is that this aggressive promotion has not been backed by commensurate efforts to ensure supply. Locking up federal land deposits of this valuable energy source complicates our ability to retrieve adequate supplies of gas. An estimated 40 percent of potential gas resources in the United States are located on federal lands that are either closed to exploration or covered by severe restrictions. Increases in federal red tape and bureaucratic inefficiency raise consumer costs and deny consumers the choices they need. Our nation lacks a readily available and sufficient supply of natural gas to satisfy current demand, let alone the increasing demand that we expect in the immediate future. Consequently, natural gas prices are so exorbitantly high that the average citizen cannot afford to take advantage of this option.

This will not change until we reverse government policies that have foreclosed opportunities for choice of fuels. Furthermore, failure to encourage investment in the transmission of electricity has threatened the reliability of service throughout the country. The Department of Energy has estimated that we will need to construct over the next several years an additional 255,000 miles of distribution lines, at an estimated cost of $120 to $150 billion, to ensure that our electric system remains the most reliable in the world.

The notion that our nation can rely so heavily on natural gas, maintain severe restrictions on exploration and production, and still enjoy low fuel prices has proven itself grossly incorrect. Gas prices reached an all-time high in 2004, and are unlikely to drop significantly anytime soon without a change of course.

What is clear at this time is the need for a National Energy Policy. In May of 2001, President Bush presented to our country the first comprehensive national energy plan in a decade. That plan promoted affordable, reliable, and secure energy supplies through conservation, investment in new technology, and finding and producing new domestic sources of energy. Under the Administration's leadership, nearly 75 percent of the recommendations put forward in the president's energy plan have been implemented, and our nation is the better for it.

However, it is not enough. Last year, Congress came very close to enacting comprehensive energy legislation that contained numerous provisions to expand our domestic production of traditional energy resources, modernize our energy infrastructure, expand our use of renewable energy sources such as hydropower, wind and solar power, make wiser use of energy, and pursue new forms of energy production that would help reduce pollution and lessen America's dependence on foreign oil. I was frustrated by its failure to pass the Senate, and am eager to see it become law this year. We must define a clear strategy-a strategy that will allow environmentally responsible exploration and recovery of our domestic resources, enhance our commitment to conservation and energy efficiency and encourage investment in new technology to further development of renewable sources. I am, and will continue to be fully engaged in protecting the American people by ensuring that our country's homes and businesses have reliable, safe and affordable supplies of energy.

Learn more in my Energy Resources Issue Briefing

Action: I have been heavily engaged in the effort to produce energy legislation during both the past Congresses. The efforts of the 108th Congress produced energy legislation that would have strengthened our nation's economy and national security, and encouraged important investment in our transmission infrastructure. However, the Senate was unable to vote on the bill's final passage.

→I will work to develop and implement an energy policy that protects the energy needs of the West.

Endangered Species Act

Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973 to protect designated wildlife. In the beginning, the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Defense were to protect listed species, and only insofar as consistent with their primary purposes, to preserve the habitats of such species. As the Act was amended and "improved" upon, all federal agencies were required to undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and were prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its "critical habitat". The Act has now evolved into a catch-all trump card for federal agencies that is shutting down activities on our public lands - all in the name of the endangered species protection.

As an example, Boundary County, the most northern county in Idaho, took roughly 30 years to pass a levy to build a much needed school. Why? With the tremendous amount of federal land in Idaho (63 percent of the land), counties have very little tax base to pull from. The federal government has programs to help compensate counties for the erosion of the tax base; however, in counties like Boundary County, these programs depend on revenues, such as recreation and timber receipts, generated on the federal lands in the local area. Because of at least nine endangered and threatened species listings in Boundary County, revenues from national forests have become virtually non-existent. Not only does this take the floor out from under the economy, but also it dramatically decreases the amount of revenue the local county receives. The result: hardworking families are left without jobs and their children are stuck going to school in overcrowded, deteriorating buildings - all in the name of endangered species protection. Fortunately the Bush Administration is interested in moving forward to find ways to resolve many of the problems with ESA.

I feel the Endangered Species Act is plagued with problems ranging from the listing process to the recovery process to the delisting process. I believe the Act has evolved to have more control over natural resource policy and decisions than was originally intended. As a result, all activities -- from wildlife management to recreation to industry use -- are severely hampered by the restrictive nature of the Endangered Species Act. I think the Endangered Species Act should be used as a tool in making natural resource and multiple-use decisions, not a threat.

Action: I sponsored the Endangered Species Listing and Delisting Process Reform Act, S. 369, a bill that would amend the Endangered Species Act to streamline the processes for listing, recovery planning, and delisting.

→I will support legislation that reforms the Endangered Species Act and brings a common sense approach to resource management decisions. I will work with the Administration to find common sense solutions to the Acts' shortcomings.

Wolves - The Non-Experimental Population

One word: thriving. While I wish wolves did not reside in our state, they do -- and they are not going away. I believe we must find ways to ensure accurate counting and monitoring of the population. With a sustainable and thriving population, the wolves must be delisted and removed from the stifling restrictions of the Endangered Species Act. By delisting the population, the affected states of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho will gain control over the management of the wolves. Once this occurs, I will work to provide compensation for state management, because the federal government should bear the costs of managing the wolves they thrust upon us.

How the wolf population is managed affects the way we plan for recreation activities, wildlife management, grazing permits, and personal safety. The states need the ability to manage the population in a collaborative manner that does not create conflict, but ensures safety for all. With the adoption of the "10(j)" rule, states are now in a position to address the needs of affected persons. The 10(j) rule provides for wolves that are attacking livestock to be taken by landowners without prior written authorization. This measure is a significant step toward controlling the overabundance of wolves and brings us one step closer to complete state management.

Wolves will be delisted once the population totals thirty breeding pairs within the recovery area of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. As of the fall of 2002, this goal was obtained and states are working to initiate the "delisting clock."

It is unacceptable for the federal government to dictate management of the wolves in our own backyard. If a state is to be forced to provide resources for a re-introduced species, then the state should also have control of the management conditions.

Action: I have used my position on the Appropriations Committee to secure funds for the purposes of monitoring and delisting of wolves in Idaho.

→I will work with the Administration to provide Idaho with flexibility in managing the wolf population that meets the needs of those most affected by the wolves.

Weeds

Noxious weeds are a serious problem on both public and private lands across the nation. They are particularly troublesome in the West, where much of our land is entrusted to the management of the federal government. Like a "slow burning wildfire," noxious weeds take land out of production, force native species off the land, and interrupt the commerce and activities of all those who rely on the land for their livelihoods -- including farmers, ranchers, recreationists, and others.

I have seen firsthand the destruction caused when noxious weeds are not treated, eradicated, and are left to overtake native species. Because of this, I have declared war on noxious weeds.

The Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) has developed a Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds through a collaborative effort involving private landowners, state and federal land managers, state and local governmental entities, and other interested parties. Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) are the centerpiece of the strategic plan. CWMAs cross jurisdictional boundaries to bring together all landowners, land managers, and interested parties to identify and implement noxious weed strategies within a CWMA in a collaborative manner. The primary responsibilities of the ISDA are to provide coordination, administrative support, facilitation, and project cost-share funding for this collaborative effort.

To build on this collaboration, I introduced S. 144, the "Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act", which was signed into law October 30, 2004. The law provides assistance to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, noxious weeds on public and private land. This legislation, endorsed by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, and The Nature Conservancy, provides a mechanism to get funding to the local level where weeds can be fought in a collaborative approach. Working together is what this entire initiative is about.

Funds will be allocated based on several factors, including but not limited to: the seriousness of the problem in the State; the extent to which the federal funds can be used to leverage non-federal funds to address the problem; and the extent to which the State has already made progress in addressing weed problems.

Noxious weeds are not only a problem for farmers and ranchers, but also a hazard to our environment, economy, and communities in Idaho and the West. The Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act is an important step to stop the spread of these weeds. I am confident that if we work together at all levels of government and throughout our communities, we can protect our land, livelihood, and environment.

As this legislation is implemented by the Administration, I will ensure that assistance for local weed management efforts remains intact. Several challenges still exist to address noxious weed control. This legislation is a major step in the right direction. I remain committed to fighting this "silent scourge" that has taken over millions of acres in the West.

Action: I have used my position on the Appropriations Committee to secure funds for the implementation of cooperative weeds management areas. In addition, I will continue to work to increase federal funding for both research and weed eradication.

Grazing

As a former rancher, I know firsthand the problems and benefits of grazing. In Idaho, cattle is the second most valuable agricultural product, and live animals and meat are our third highest export commodities.

I continue to support grazing rights because I believe multiple use of public lands is a win-win situation. Ranchers are good stewards of the land. They all know that their livelihoods are dependent upon the land, and if they abuse it, they will not prosper. Ranchers work with range consultants to determine the best use and longest period of use for an allotment. Through rotating allotments and fencing sensitive stream habitats, ranchers strive to protect the resources. Grazing also reduces the risk of fire potential by reducing the fuel load of the land.

A critical issue for ranchers is access to public lands. In Idaho, ranchers cannot use only private land and make a living. If public land access is denied, then herds must be decreased to a size that can be supported by private land. Generally this is not a number that is profitable, and economic impacts are felt throughout the industry and state.

Restricting access by all, as a way of punishing a few, benefits no one. The vast majority of ranchers obey the rules and work to keep the land productive and healthy for future generations. We must ensure that public land grazing continues to respect our environment and we must avoid punishing those who obey the rules.

I am committed to preserving the use of public lands for grazing while protecting our environment.

Action: I have used my position on both the Appropriations Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to ensure that grazing permits and leases will not expire or be interrupted until the Bureau of Land Management processes the permits. This provides ranchers with continuity and the opportunity to improve their operations as needed.

→I will work to improve and protect the livelihood of the grazing community by ensuring access to our public lands and by working with the Administration to develop policies that are supportive of ranching families.

Mining

Mining has long been associated with Idaho and the West, and the history of mining is interwoven with the history of our region. Although one of our current challenges is dealing with the environmental legacy of these past practices, I believe we can protect and restore our environment in a way that is based on common sense and sound science, that will not devastate north Idaho communities in the process. The United States leads the world in developing and employing highly efficient and advanced environmental technologies to supply the world with minerals. Although in this technological age, most of us do not give much thought to the role minerals play in our lives and in the wealth of products we use and consume, mining is vital to our national economy. Mining is also vital to our national security through the provision of strategic materials for national defense purposes.

For these reasons, I support this critical industry. At the same time, I support the development and use of advanced production and environmental technologies, which will make for more efficient mining processes and a more sustainable mining industry.

Also important are industry partnerships with federal, state and local governments, and citizens. These partnerships are necessary to create a legal and regulatory system that supports a more timely development of sound mining operations. They also further national appreciation for the importance of mining as an employer and as a source of both income needed by communities and materials needed by every citizen in our country.

Action: I will perform Congressional oversight through my Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee and will work with agency officials to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of permitting and regulatory processes for mining operations in this country.

→I will support a viable mining industry that works to provide minerals to the country while applying environmentally sound practices.

Recreation

Recreation is the greatest example of the New West's needs and expectations from public lands. It is the opportunity to use our public lands for the hiking, skiing, camping, riding, and exploring that brings people of diverse backgrounds together. Recreational opportunities also provide a sound economic base for our communities. Gateway communities, as they are named, provide the essential amenities for recreation users as they venture onto our public lands. In turn, these valuable jobs provide communities with a stable income and infrastructure.

As recreation plays an important role in the multiple use of our public lands, recreationists need to be ensured "a seat at the table." In order to resolve user conflicts, all involved parties need to be a part of the decision making process. In this way, a management plan can be developed that allows for the use of all public lands by all of the public. Thus, it is possible to have snowmobiles and cross country skiers enjoy the snow, to have jet boaters and rafters enjoy the water, and have hikers and off-road vehicles enjoy the same areas.

While many of my colleagues and I objected to the inclusion of Amenity Recreation Fees in the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill, in the end, the language was included and is now law. At this point, I do not anticipate a repeal of this new law.

Lessons have been learned from the pilot programs of the past, and as a result, the new law is not as burdensome as originally envisioned. For instance, the law limits the use of entrance fees, or general access fees, to only National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service Units.

In addition, criteria now establish how amenity fees may be charged by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. At a minimum, in order to charge an amenity fee, a site must provide parking, a permanent toilet facility, a permanent trash receptacle, interpretive signing, picnic tables, and security services.

Last, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture are required to establish and obtain input from Recreation Resource Advisory Committees, who may make suggestions and recommendations concerning the fee program for the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.

It's worth recalling that the pilot program proposed by the Forest Service had good intentions. It was supposed to make up for budget shortfalls that the natural resource agencies perceived they were experiencing. Our public lands receive so much recreational use that, in certain areas especially, we are literally loving them to death. We must continue to work with the agencies to find ways to minimize over-use, including dispersing this use to less traveled areas. Rest assured, I will work with the agencies to ensure this law is implemented in a fair and responsible manner.

Action: My conference, Access 2000, provided diverse groups with an opportunity to discuss how our public lands can be managed through multiple use.

→As chairman of the Public Lands Subcommittee, I will work with the agencies to ensure that any amenity fee program is implemented in a manner that is responsive to the needs of the public.

→I will support legislation and management policies that provide for the multiple-use of our pubic lands.

Fire Management

It is said that if you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. On August 20th and 21st of 1910, fires consumed over 3 million acres of land in Idaho and northwestern Montana.

It was reported that fire whorls, the size of a man's arm, carried along on 50 mile-per-hour winds, swept through towns 50 miles to the east of these fires. The sun was completely obscured in Billings, Montana, a town 500 miles to the east, and the sky was darkened as far east as the State of New York. Some of those forests are still recovering today from those fires.

And now the perfect storm is ripe yet again, unless we do something about it. The combination of re-growth of a mono-culture from the 1910 Fire, drought conditions, and a lack of active management in the most crucial areas of our public lands is setting the stage for yet another catastrophic fire throughout Idaho and Montana.

Fire is a natural component of any ecosystem. It stimulates plant growth, maintains a plant understory, and creates diversity. All of these aspects are healthy characteristics of a thriving forest. However, when fire is suppressed and active forest management activities (thinning, prescribed burns, etc.) that mimic fire behavior are ignored, this is a prescription for disaster. The neglectful management practices of the past will continue to plague our public lands unless we pursue active management practices that result in a balanced ecosystem.

In order to prevent devastating fires, the agencies need the resources and flexibility to make management decisions that maintain our public lands. Increased fuel loads create catastrophic fires, contribute to declining watersheds, increase sedimentation and decrease water quality, and lead to the demise of fisheries. This disastrous spiral must be stopped.

I have learned that every great journey starts with a small step, and that first small step is to support the President's Healthy Forest Initiative. As part of this effort, Congress passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA).

This new law will result in a more public, expedited process for moving hazardous fuels projects through the National Environmental Policy Act review process. It prioritizes treatment of up to 20 million acres in the Wildland Urban Interface, as well as outside the Wildland Urban Interface in the highest risk areas.

HFRA increases the amount of up-front public input into project development by adding a process for communities to develop a community fire protection plan to help inform the federal land managers of a community's priorities and by requiring all projects be developed through the collaborative process developed by the Western Governors Association.

It provides for the development of a new and improved pre-decisional protest process for projects authorized under this bill. The new process will replace the highly contentious, time consuming appeals process that currently delays many forest health projects.

Finally, it reminds the courts that when weighing the equities, they should balance the impacts to the ecosystem of the short and long-term effects of undertaking the project, against the short and long-term effects of not undertaking the project.

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a significant improvement over the status quo and will provide our communities with a stronger sense of safety from the devastation of catastrophic fires.

With this additional tool in their toolbox, land managers will be able to work with communities to set treatment priorities and implement projects that protect homes, wildlife, and watersheds. The task ahead of our land management agencies is not taken lightly, and this law will provide the opportunity they need to get straight to work on projects that directly improve forest health.

Action: I have worked to secure funds for the National Fire Plan and through the committee on Forests and Public Lands Management will continue to monitor the progress of the plan's implementation.

→I will work with the Administration to restore public lands management goals to include the use of all possible management tools to restore the health of our public lands.

→I will also work with the Bush Administration to help provide funding for the fire budgets of both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.

→I worked with a bi-partisan coalition to pass of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, and I will work to ensure that the goals of this legislation are met.

Western Water

The West is an arid place. Therefore, the federal government's policy to develop the West required the establishment of the reclamation laws and programs that developed recreation, power and irrigation dams and waterways.

Today water scarcity is realized at a greater level than ever before. Western states are growing at an unprecedented rate while continual droughts plague the West. I have worked with the Bureau of Reclamation to create forward looking programs like Water 2025 that address our increasing water scarcity quandary pushing us ahead of the foreseeable water shortages by promoting collaboration, technology, and conservation.

Woody Guthrie's ballads during the Great Depression foretold the great potential of the Columbia and indeed helped to build a national purpose to "harness" the river. Much of that potential has now been recognized. The river played a major role in winning a world war and in developing a thriving economy from the headwaters of the Snake to the mouth of the Columbia. But as the Columbia has become a "working river," conflicts have arisen. Similar conflicts can be found in each river basin throughout the West, and to a lesser extent, the East.

There is one area of Western water policy I believe is sacrosanct and should be recognized as a baseline. That area is Western water law and the prior appropriation doctrine that lies at the very heart of Western culture and society. I will not waver from my strongly held belief that in the area of Western water law, States are supreme, and State water sovereignty cannot in any way be diminished.

Action: As part of the Farm Bill debate, I worked with other Western Senators to strike a proposal to reserve the associated water rights of lands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program for endangered species. This program would have created a defacto water right for the Federal Government and goes against everything I believe.

→I will work diligently to protect the water rights of the West to ensure that our Western values are not compromised.

Rural Revitalization

As our economy continues to develop and the needs of our society change, so changes the face of our resource dependent communities. Over the years I have witnessed the closure of mills and the abandonment of agricultural lands. The reasons vary from market conditions to public lands access, but the results are always the same—economic crisis.

Rural communities are a staple of the West. They provide points of access to our public lands. They are close-knit families who look out for one another, while respecting "space" between neighbors. Last, they have supplied the rest of the nation with the basic resources that provide for everyday amenities such as shelter, food, and energy.

While change is often considered an opportunity, many barriers exist that prohibit Western resource-dependent communities from transitioning successfully into an enhanced economy. Rural communities do not have the same easy access as larger cities to a developed infrastructure. More often than not, these communities have difficulty providing adequate telecommunication access, transportation infrastructure, and energy resources. Any improvements remain a constant challenge to a limited tax base, but without them, industries will not invest their resources in a new area.

In order to avoid developing ghost towns throughout the West, we must invest in the future of our rural communities. Current resources need to be used to develop utilities, provide access to telecommunications, and support the movement of new businesses to smaller communities.

Action: I have used my position on the Appropriations Committee to secure funding for the University of Idaho extension networks throughout the state to facilitate training and education to help rural Idaho take advantage of new communications technology

Conclusion

Our Western Agenda lays out my thoughts and feelings on prominent Western issues. While the list of issues that touch the West is much longer than this, I believe these ideas comprise the core. In sum, access must be guaranteed to our public lands for multiple uses - including ranching, mining, and recreation. Through collaborative conservation, mutual goals of various user groups can be accomplished. As the Energy Policy continues to develop, we will continue to look to have access to our public lands to provide resources. Last, a common sense approach will protect our public lands against catastrophic fires, weeds, and exclusive policies. Natural resource management is about bringing the Old West and the New West together to balance the needs of all the people with the needs of the land.