[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     THE FOREST HEALTH OF THE WEST

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for a few moments this evening I would like 
to visit with the Senate about a problem that is plaguing the 
intermountain West that I believe this administration is not willing to 
address or be responsive to.
  I say that in your presence, Mr. President, because it is fortuitous 
that you are in the chair at this moment in time because on August 29 
you came to Boise with me and brought along the Forestry Subcommittee 
of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which you chair. At that time we 
held some very critical hearings in Idaho pertaining to the forest 
health of the West, and especially the intermountain west, an area of 
the Western United States that for the last 8 years has been plagued 
with an unprecedented drought that has plunged the forests of that area 
of Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and northern California into a 
tremendous state of illness that has in part produced the tragedy and 
the catastrophic events of this past summer.
  What am I talking about? As the chairman knows, in August when he 
flew into Boise, ID, he flew across a blanket of smoke that was spread 
across the Western States from Oregon to Yellowstone and through 
Wyoming that was a product of forest fires that were burning at an 
unprecedented rate in total acreage that region of the country had 
never witnessed. Over 3.7 million acres of forested lands and 
rangelands burned in the States that I have just mentioned this past 
summer.
  As we speak in the early part of October, fires are still smoldering 
in the unroaded forested areas of Idaho only to be put out by the snows 
that are beginning to fall in the high country of the Bitterroots and 
the Rockies of this inland area. Three point seven million acres of 
land, primarily forested land, has burned; 26 firefighters have lost 
their lives; $700 million in fire suppression costs have been extended 
to date and 5 billion board feet of timber--5 billion board feet of 
timber--have been tremendously damaged or destroyed.
  Those were the statistics that were building on August 29 when you, 
Mr. President, and I held that hearing in Boise, ID. It was at that 
time that the chief of the Forest Service Jack Ward Thomas came before 
that hearing to announce a western forestry health initiative that he 
was going to put together in a team-like fashion to deal with the 
forest health problem that that hearing was speaking to and that you 
and I have been concerned about for nearly a year now as we held 
hearings and attempted to examine what the condition of these forests 
were, not just in my State or in that region, but in your own region, 
and also to understand what kinds of practices and policies were coming 
forth from the U.S. Forest Service that might in some way begin to 
alleviate this catastrophic problem.
  The chief said at that time:

       I will put together a western forest health initiative 
     team, and I will report to you initial recommendations by 
     September 30.

  It takes a simple glance at the calendar to know that September 30 
has come and gone. And it was then because of that concern that staffs 
of myself, you, Senator Daschle, Senator Lugar and Senator Leahy 
arranged for a briefing on this very subject on the 4th of October of 
this past week. The Forest Service sent an individual to the Hill who, 
in my opinion, had never had any experience on the ground, and 
suggested to us that they were not ready yet to make their 
presentation, that it was proprietary information, and that sometime in 
the future, 30 or 40 days out, they might consider the possibility of 
being able to make their first presentation to us.
  I would guess, Mr. President, that in the normal span of time that 
sounds a little reasonable; 30 to 40 days off from the mark that the 
chief had set for himself and for us on August 29.
  Why then am I here at this late hour of the session talking about 
this issue? The reason I am or for all the figures that I have just 
given, the 3.7 million acres of land that has been destroyed or 
damaged, the 26 forest fighters' lives that were lost, the $700 million 
spent in fire suppression, but more importantly the 5 billion acres of 
timber that is standing out there at this moment that must be addressed 
and a solution must be brought as to how that timber will be managed.
  This past week, yesterday to be exact, a group of forest industry 
representatives from my State brought back by Attorney General Larry 
Evelhoff, met in the Executive Office Building of this Presidency with 
Katie McGinty and a variety of other people from the administration to 
talk about this urgent problem. They brought with them a proposal that 
I have in my hand tonight that I would like to ask unanimous consent 
become part of the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Up From the Ashes--Ecosystem Restoration, rehabilitation, and Timber 
                  Recovery in Western National Forests


                                summary

       This summer's wildfires have created challenges that 
     require decisive, prompt action. Huge volumes of burned 
     timber now stand dead in forests throughout the west. This 
     timber is still valuable, if it can be recovered before it 
     deteriorates. Thousands of acres of watersheds are denuded, 
     the soil to be washed into important spawning streams unless 
     the are stabilized and reforested. Clearly, it is a time for 
     leadership from the Administration to not only meet these 
     challenges, but to use them as opportunities for developing 
     innovative, constructive land management policies.
       There are barriers to implementing the needed on-the-ground 
     actions. They include:
       Pending injunctions against logging in salmon habitat until 
     consultations on comprehensive forest plans can be completed 
     (Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas).
       The requirement for complete environmental analyses of the 
     potential affects of salvage logging and watershed 
     rehabilitation efforts.
       The likelihood that salvage logging decisions will be 
     stalled by administrative appeals, and thereby delayed until 
     the timber no longer has commercial value.
       Leadership and firm decisions from the Administration can 
     help overcome these barriers, and, in fact, will be vital to 
     the success of the effort to recover the value of the burned 
     timber and rehabilitate damaged watersheds. A comprehensive 
     strategy is needed in order to assure that fire damaged 
     timber can be sold by June 1, 1995. Specific actions needed 
     include:
       A statement of policy from the Administration setting 
     timely rehabilitation, reforestation and the salvage of 
     burned timber for commercial use as the principal objectives 
     to guide federal agency actions on post-fire projects.
       Direct the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Forest 
     Service to develop a plan that will lift any injunctions 
     against logging based on Endangered Species Act consultation 
     requirements and which expedites this process as it applies 
     to salvage operations and rehabilitation of burned 
     watersheds.
       Where it is legally sufficient, order the use of relatively 
     simple ``environmental assessments'' to meet NEPA 
     requirements for salvage ad rehabilitation plans and assign 
     additional staff to update this work.
       Exempt, using emergency rulemaking authority, salvage and 
     rehabilitation decisions from the administrative appeals 
     process.
       Approve and encourage the use of a ``single-contract'' 
     approach to implementing all aspects of post-fire treatment 
     plans. This would include watershed rehabilitation, 
     reforestation, and salvage recovery to allow industry 
     diversification and participation in the full range of post-
     fire treatment needs.
       Earmark receipts from the sale of burned timber for 
     investment in fire rehabilitation projects and for 
     appropriate thinning and prescribed burning of overcrowded, 
     high fire-risk timber stands.
       Move quickly to assess the burned timber values and 
     watershed rehabilitation needs of each area affected by this 
     summer's wildfires. The assessment and action plan for each 
     area should be completed and ready for implementation by June 
     1, 1995, in order to ensure the viability of salvage logging.


   proposal for expediting salvage, restoring watersheds in western 
                                forests

       Problem: This summer's wildfires have killed valuable 
     stands of trees and wreaked havoc with watersheds in many 
     western national forests. Forest Service managers are now 
     faced with a dual challenge--recovering burned timber which 
     will quickly deteriorate, and assuring that burned watersheds 
     are rehabilitated before erosion damages important fisheries, 
     including endangered salmon.
       Unfortunately, it is almost certain that the Forest Service 
     will encounter numerous obstacles as they try to meet these 
     challenges. Those who oppose logging and other well-
     established uses of the national forests will use all avenues 
     the law provides to stop those activities with which they 
     disagree. Because of the time sensitive nature of logging 
     burned timber, even delaying the Forest Service's efforts can 
     effectively stop proposed salvage of burned timber. Perhaps 
     nowhere will the essence of the debate over the national 
     forests--whether to log or not to log on these public lands--
     become clearer than in the struggle to decide how to deal 
     with the aftermath of the fires of 1994.
       While the challenges are great, the discussion over logging 
     fire-killed timber provides the opportunity to explore new, 
     efficient, economically and environmentally sound ways to 
     manage the national forests. Salvage logging, if it can 
     proceed, can serve as a way to not only utilize the dead 
     timber, but to fund needed rehabilitation efforts, as well as 
     to treat overcrowded, unhealthy forests to reduce the risk of 
     future catastrophic fires where the danger is now 
     unacceptably high.


                              the barriers

       There exist in either case law or in administrative 
     regulations all the tools necessary to enable those who 
     disagree with salvage efforts to stop them. They are:
       (1) As a result of the Federal Court's decision in Pacific 
     Rivers Council v. Thomas an injunction is pending that would 
     stop all logging and road building activities in salmon 
     spawning drainages in six national forests in Idaho. These 
     same forests hold most of the region's burned timber. If such 
     an injunction is granted--and it likely will be--it can only 
     be lifted through a court-approved process for consultation 
     on the effects of the implementation of these comprehensive 
     forest plans on salmon recovery.
       (2) In addition to consultation on forest plans, the Forest 
     Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service must also 
     complete consultation on individual timber sales envisioned 
     in these plans. This process is proving cumbersome and 
     unclear even to those who must adhere to it.
       (3) Irrespective of the Endangered Species Act requirements 
     for consultation on the effects of logging on listed species, 
     each proposed timber sale is subject to a rigorous analysis 
     of its effects on the environment. Through this process, an 
     adequate array of alternatives must be examined, and the 
     effects of each recorded. This can easily become a time 
     consuming process.
       (4) Once the Environmental Assessments or Environmental 
     Impact Statements and any required consultation among the 
     involved federal agencies for the proposed action are 
     complete, the ultimate decision is subject to administration 
     appeals. Those who disagree with the decision can appeal the 
     decision to higher levels of the Forest Service. This 
     process, so long as the appellants choose to pursue it, can 
     forestall actual logging beyond the point which the dead 
     timber still has merchantable value.


                             The Solutions

       The Administration can take actions to either remove each 
     of the barriers to logging the burned timber and 
     rehabilitating watersheds or make them easier to overcome. 
     Specific actions might include:
       Clear direction from the Administration is needed. A 
     statement of policy confirming the goals of prompt 
     rehabilitation, reforestation and the salvage of commercial 
     timber killed by the fires is a critical first step in 
     assuring that the U.S. Forest Service understands the urgency 
     of the situation.
       The Federal Court's recent decision in Pacific Rivers 
     Council v. Thomas will likely require that the Forest Service 
     and the National Marine Fisheries Service develop a process 
     for consultation on all forest plans in forests where salmon 
     spawn. Leadership from the Administration is needed to assure 
     that development of an adequate process is given a high 
     priority within the two agencies and that the process itself 
     can be completed quickly and efficiently.
       Apart from the need to consult on forest plans, 
     consultation on specific projects between NMFS and the Forest 
     Service needs clarification and direction. The Administration 
     can plan a key role in facilitating a process that is simple 
     and effective.
       The Forest Service has some flexibility in determining the 
     level of environmental analysis that will be given each 
     salvage timber sale and rehabilitation project. With 
     direction from the Administration, the agency can choose less 
     expensive and time consuming Environmental Assessments as 
     opposed to the more expensive and time consuming effort to 
     produce full Environmental Impact Statements, where it is 
     legally appropriate to do so.
       The Forest Service can define the harvest of all timber 
     burned in this summer's fires as an emergency. Through 
     emergency rulemaking, the Administration can exempt such 
     timber sales from the appeals process. With an emergency 
     declaration it is also possible to shorten the time period 
     for filing and deciding appeals or limiting appeals to only 
     one level of review.
       These actions would expedite the harvest of timber that has 
     been killed by the fires and now must be salvaged while it 
     still has value (approximately one to two years). There are 
     two other aspects of national forest management consequential 
     to the fires that demand equal attention.
       First, burned watersheds need stabilization and 
     rehabilitation. Erosion must be checked with barriers to 
     deflect running water or to capture the sediment and ash it 
     will carry. Bare soil must be seeded and reforestation 
     initiated. In addition, plans are needed to monitor burned 
     watersheds, both to gauge levels of damage to wildlife 
     habitat and streams, but also to assess the effectiveness of 
     various rehabilitation efforts.
       Second, it is essential that we learn from the fires of 
     1994 and begin now to prevent such devastating fires in the 
     future. We now know that by controlling wildfires in the 
     past, we have allowed many forests to accumulate fuels and 
     grow more trees than natural for the site. Coupled with that, 
     some of these now overcrowded, stressed stands are close to 
     homes and other human developments. The combination of such 
     fire prone stands in areas of high human use constitutes a 
     risk that is now unacceptable. The Forest Service has a clear 
     obligation to identify these stands, thin them and use 
     prescribed fire to lower fuel levels to an acceptable, and 
     more natural range.


                         a strategy for success

       Foremost among the Administration's efforts to resolve the 
     issues raised by the fires of 1994 must be a process to 
     categorize the burned areas and identify appropriate land 
     management practices for them. Again, timeliness is the 
     byword; unless the assessment of salvage opportunities and 
     rehabilitation can be completed promptly, salvage values will 
     disappear and the ravages of weather will complete the damage 
     to watersheds where ground cover has been burned away. The 
     process should assess several key variables, among them:
       The value and technical feasibility of logging specific 
     stands of burned timber,
       Watershed values that are at risk from accelerated erosion,
       The types of watershed stabilization or rehabilitation work 
     needed for each drainage,
       The type of environmental analysis needed to allow recovery 
     of burned timber or watershed rehabilitation work to proceed,
       The nature of any needed consultation to assess impacts to 
     species listed under the Endangered Species Act, and,
       Any ancillary issues that may be specific to a burned area 
     but which must be addressed.
       The forest industry stands ready to become a partner with 
     the Forest Service in meeting the challenges posed by this 
     year's fires.
       Salvage logging can be a source of both income and manpower 
     for completing watershed rehabilitation work. There are three 
     ways to utilize the helpful potential of salvage logging. 
     First, logging, thoughtfully planned and carefully conducted, 
     can actually help stop erosion from burned lands. Fires 
     harden the soil surface and water flows across it unless 
     there are areas for it to permeate the soil. Skid trails and 
     roads built perpendicular to the natural flow of water slows 
     runoff and allows it to sink into the subsoil.
       Second, proceeds from logging, can be utilized to fund 
     current rehabilitation efforts. Wildlife and watershed 
     management funds are always lacking within the Forest 
     Service's normal budget. With the Administration's direction, 
     salvage sale proceeds can help support critical projects in 
     these areas. Funds could be used for stream cleanup, 
     reforestation, grass seeding on erosive areas, and plantings 
     of wildlife food. Moneys should also be earmarked to monitor 
     burned watersheds, both to gauge the levels of damage to 
     wildlife habitat and streams, but also to assess the 
     effectiveness of various rehabilitation measures in limiting 
     the fires' impact.
       Provisions should be made to use some of the money from 
     salvage sales to treat overstocked timber stands where the 
     risk of future fires is unacceptably high. Such stands 
     include those where fuel loads are abnormally high and where 
     fires, if they occurred, would threaten private lands or high 
     fisheries or wildlife values in adjoining stands. Timber 
     lands meeting ``high risk'' criteria should be thinned and/or 
     lightly burned under controlled conditions to reduce the 
     hazard.
       Finally, through the use of a ``single-contract'' concept, 
     salvage logging could not only fund, but also complete 
     watershed rehabilitation work. Such contracts would include 
     not only the right to harvest salvageable timber at some 
     specified dollar amount, but also the obligation by the 
     purchaser to actually complete the rehabilitation projects 
     specified in the contract. Forest products companies would 
     bid for the timber offered in these contracts knowing that 
     the contract obligated them to also build erosion control 
     structures, reforest or reseed burned areas, or otherwise 
     help reach the Forest Service's rehabilitation goals for the 
     area. The rehabilitation objectives in the contract would 
     reduce the price paid for the timber (thus, the value of the 
     timber helps fund the work), and the Forest Service can 
     specify and supervise not only the timber to be harvested, 
     but the rehabilitation work to be completed.


                               conclusion

       The Forest Service has long been heralded for its unique 
     ability to fight wildfires. The skill, energy and resources 
     they apply to this task is remarkable. But the fires of 1994 
     call for the same dedication and ingenuity to be directed 
     toward both forest rehabilitation, the recovery of burned 
     timber, and forest treatments that will prevent such fires in 
     the future. Meeting that challenge is a major issue at the 
     U.S. Forest Service moves toward ``ecosystem management'' in 
     the 1990s. It is a task that will require firm leadership and 
     decisive action.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it was a simple proposal. It talked about 
the fires of the summer of 1994. It talked about the billions of board 
feet of timber that had been lost. It talked about the lives that had 
been lost. It talked about the thousands of denuded acres of land, 
soil, spawning beds in streams that were now at risk unless there was 
an immediate management proposal put in place that would begin to 
redress the problems of these destroyed or damaged acreages. It talked 
about what National Marine Fisheries was attempting to do with the 
Forest Service in developing a plan to respond to all of these issues 
consistent with the endangered species issues out in the Western 
States.
  While that plan was presented in a comprehensive and well-thought-out 
way, the word that came from this administration was very simple. We 
are not yet ready to respond. We have at least a 30- to 60-day need to 
consult with friends of ours in the environmental community and to 
decide what they want to do as it relates to the possibility of the 
management of these lands that would deal with civil cultural practices 
and salvage sales and a variety of other things.
  Mr. President, that kind of response is irresponsible. That kind of 
lack of interest or lack of care is almost unbelievable coming from an 
administration that places its mark high on the environmentalist as 
someone who is responsive and caring about the lands of the West and 
the lands of our country to say we are not yet ready to talk about a 
problem; that we are not yet ready to even begin to look at a plan to 
respond to the 3.7 million acres of charred and destroyed land of the 
Western intermountain States, both for environmental reasons and for 
management reasons.
  Why am I concerned? A lot of that land lies within the boundaries of 
the State of Idaho. But I am concerned well beyond that because our 
Nation today cries out for a responsible and reasonable management plan 
for our forested public lands that recognizes salvage sales, that says 
there is a need to respond quickly when you have a bug infestation or 
when you need to change the nature of a forest because of a 
catastrophic event that will result in negative environmental activity. 
That catastrophic event has occurred. It occurred in the summer of 1994 
when these lands with huge fuel buildups of trees and underbrush began 
to burn in the drought States of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana, 
and northern California.
  What is the problem? Why can I not wait? Why cannot everyone wait for 
the 30 or 60 days that this administration talks about? For just a 
moment, let me tell you what that problem is.
  It is demonstrated on this diagram tonight because this 
administration--and I would not ask them to do otherwise--should stay 
within the laws of the land that this Congress has created for the 
purposes of managing our public lands. I am talking about the Forest 
Planning Act. I am talking about the National Environmental Policy Act. 
I am talking about a course of activity that is standard when you ask 
for a human activity on the public land. But there is a problem in 
using the time line with an administration that simply wishes to drag 
its feet until it is consulted appropriately with the environmental 
community as to what they ought or ought not do on this 3.7 million 
acres. Here is the problem.
  If they consult now, and they begin to act with all of the natural 
analyses that are necessary under existing law and the National 
Endangered Species Act, here is a time line that would suggest that if 
all worked well without appeals, without any objections, we might 
actually be able to have a management plan in place in a year and 4 or 
5 months. What is wrong with that, Senator Craig? Why can you not 
accept that? Is that not a reasonable approach to management? That is 
an entire seasonal cycle. That is the winter and the spring and the 
summer and the fall and the winter and the spring again. And that is 
moisture and runoff and erosion, and the lands go unmanaged, and the 
lands go untreated for environmental purposes, and to protect the 
ecosystems and to protect the critical habitat in the stream beds where 
fish are trying to spawn, and the environment is trying to rejuvenate.

  I say to Katie McGinty and this administration: You are doing the 
most antienvironmental act I have yet to see. Do not hide behind your 
green cloak. Come forward with a reasonable management plan that does a 
variety of things. Let me suggest to you what they ought to be. That is 
to move immediately--I mean tomorrow --to work with the professionals 
on the grounds of the U.S. Forest Service that have the talent and the 
unique quality we have demanded over the years, to put together a 
management plan that does a variety of things, and does not just cut 
trees. It begins to stabilize the streams and the banks. It begins to 
take the steep hillsides and to make sure that this fall, before the 
winter snows come, that grasses are seeded so that they can sprout in 
the spring and build a root base that will disallow the kind of erosion 
that can happen as a result of these catastrophic fires. But, no, that 
will not happen because they will be caught up in the business of a 
bureaucratic morass, because they are afraid to lead, based on the 
policy that is available to them today. That is one side of the story.
  Here is the other side of the story, and I will be brief. Five-
billion board feet of timber; it is burned and it is dead. But much of 
it is still standing, and much of it still has a commercial value. But 
that window of opportunity, before that commercial value will fade, is 
less than a year--in some species, it may be a little more--before it 
is worthless, before it could only be cut for firewood.
  So what I am suggesting to this administration is the reason why 
their 30- or 60-day timeframe is simply too long is because that plan 
needs to be in place now. Some of that logging could occur this winter, 
and some of it could be done on the snow and frozen ground, where it 
would not damage the environment at all. Yet, it could remove a variety 
of those types of fiber that could be used for paper or dimensional 
timber or all of those kinds of things.
  What does it mean in my State? It literally means thousands of jobs. 
It means millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury. It means hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in stumpage fees to the counties and schools and 
road systems of my State. In Grangeville, ID, today, a small logging 
community and agricultural community in north central Idaho, just this 
last week, Ida Pine Mill gave the 60-day notice to its 100 employees 
that the mill was shutting down. There was no more timber. As far as 
they were concerned, that would be a permanent shutdown.
  That mill is located less than 100 miles from nearly 500 million 
board feet of the very kind of timber that I have just described--less 
than 100 miles from enough timber to keep that mill operating for 4 or 
5 years. Yet, not one signal, not one green light from this 
administration have we heard. When our staffs came together and asked 
for a briefing, we were told: Oops, priority information, cannot talk 
to you. We do not have our act together.
  When my forest products people came back here yesterday, they were 
told: Stand in line until the environmental communities of this country 
tell us what to do. Since when do the environmental communities of this 
country run the public policy as administered by any President or 
administration? They do now, apparently. That is what we heard 
yesterday.
  Well, OK, 100 workers at Ida Pine Mill in Grangeville, ID. That is in 
the mill, and there are 100 others in the woods. Over 200 families in 
Grangeville, ID, you are going to be out of work, and you are not going 
to be able to put food on the table this winter. Happy Thanksgiving and 
Merry Christmas from the Clinton administration.
  Is that tough talk? No, it is angry, frustrated talk. It is not me 
understanding what they are doing, because they are not giving us any 
signal that they are doing anything. And we know now that you act when 
these things occur. On the State lands in Idaho right now, the State 
Lands Department is out and the trees are being marked that ought to be 
pulled out. They are even logging today in the burns. Grass is being 
seeded, and stream banks are being stabilized. That is what is going on 
on the State lands.
  On the millions of acres of Federal land, not one thing is going on. 
Until the management team is put together--and I assume it is now, 
although we do not know--and until we get a policy put together--
because this appears to be some extraordinary event; yet, it really is 
not--we cannot do anything.
  Well, let me close at this moment. The Senator from Georgia has been 
more than patient. I know he has some issues to talk about. I will 
conclude with these thoughts:
  We are talking about 5 billion board feet of charred timber that 
could be logged and turned into dimensional lumber. A million homes in 
America could be built from the trees that were burned this summer in 
that intermountain area on the 3.7 million acres that I am talking 
about. I would not expect that all of those trees could or should be 
logged. But I would expect that a good many or a good amount should 
come out, because that would be the right practice. If they are left, 
they will rot and die, and they generate bug populations and endanger 
surrounding forests that were not burned, and it all goes on in a very 
damaging way.
  There is the time track that apparently they are going to stay on 
board with, because that is in the law. But they have not even started. 
Mr. President, a few years ago, when I and others here worked to change 
the appeals process in the U.S. Forest Service, we made sure that 
within it was a clause that said in salvage sales, it would be 
unappealable, that up to a certain amount of board feet, that was an 
administrative action, a decision-making process on the part of the 
professionals inside the Forest Service, and that they could go ahead 
with salvage sales. This administration said ``no'' when they wrote the 
regulations to that new law. Even though we in the Senate said ``yes,'' 
Jim Lyons of the Forest Service, an appointee of the this 
administration, said ``no.'' Therefore, he subjected all of what needs 
to be done in the intermountain West to the ability of a 29-cent stamp 
and a group that wants to appeal, outside the professional judgment and 
the necessary actions of the professionals of the U.S. Forest Service.
  We had a crisis all summer in the West. Tragically enough, that 
crisis has not gone away. The crisis of the summer was 3.7 million 
acres of land, timberland, that burned; the loss of 26 firefighters' 
lives; the unprecedented expenditure of $700 million of taxpayers' 
money to extinguish those fires. That was the crisis of the summer of 
1994.
  What will the crisis of the winter of 1994 and 1995 be? The inability 
of this Clinton administration to make a simple management decision 
about the responsibility that they must undertake in the management of 
the public lands of the West, and to the thousands of people that could 
lose their jobs, and to the economy of regions that are threatened, 
simply because they will not act in a responsible fashion?
  Well, I know by direct conversation with Jack Ward Thomas that he 
means well. When he said, ``On August 29, I will assemble a team and I 
will have you an answer by September 30,'' he meant it. The problem is 
that he has not been able to do it. It has not been because of him. It 
has been because of others, in my opinion, who have disallowed his 
ability to make those kinds of sound decisions and move us ahead in a 
direction that will resolve that problem.
  Mr. President, that is the issue. I have sent a letter, along with 
other Senators, to Jack Ward Thomas asking that we get a quick 
response. I hope he can fulfill that, and I hope this administration 
can be responsible in the wise and appropriate balanced management of 
our critical public lands. We have a crisis, and it needs to be 
resolved in an expedited fashion. I hope they can respond.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

                          ____________________