[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
PHASING IN IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS BY THE DEPARTMENT 
                             OF AGRICULTURE

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn 
to the immediate consideration of S. Res 285, a resolution submitted by 
Senator Lott and others, expressing the sense of the Senate concerning 
phasing in implementation of forest management plans by the Department 
of Agriculture; that the resolution be adopted, the motion to 
reconsider be, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and 
that a statement by Senator Lott appear in the Record, as if read.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the resolution (S. Res. 285) was agreed to.
  (The text of the resolution will be printed in a future edition of 
the Record.)
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President. My resolution is straightforward. It ensures 
that common sense and economic issues are factored into implementing 
policies which change Forest Management Plans.
  My resolution is necessary to preclude devastating economic impacts 
from public policies which amend or revise a forest plan to increase 
the population of a species to a specific number in a particular 
national forest or district. These policies reduce annual timber 
harvests and produce significant job losses and financial ruin for many 
small communities. This is wrong.
  My approach is to head off adverse economic consequences before 
implementation by anticipating problems. It makes sense to create a 
smooth glide path for timber-dependent communities as Forest Management 
Plans are changed. It makes double sense to do this up front, not after 
families and communities have been disrupted and devastated.
  My effort will restore the essential balance which the Forest Service 
must maintain. The Forest Service must not emphasize a single resource 
at the expense of other resources.
  Let me first start by telling my colleagues what my resolution will 
not do. It will not gut any environmental policies. It will not 
jeopardize any efforts to protect endangered species. In fact, I 
believe it will cause a greater public acceptance and respect for 
environmental policies.
  Let me share with my colleagues a hypothetical example of how this 
resolution will enhance current public policy. My illustration involves 
efforts to increase the population of a species to a specific number in 
a particular forest or district: First my resolution does not challenge 
that a habitat foraging area is required to support a species; second, 
my resolution leaves in place the decision that the total habitat area 
will be set aside when the target population is reached; third, my 
resolution provides for a phased-in set-aside commensurate with the 
current population of the species plus a reasonable annual increase 
based on biological and financial resources realistically available; 
fourth, my resolution provides a smooth path for absorbing the economic 
consequences of the set-aside and permit adjustments by all affected 
parties; and fifth, my amendment is a cash-flow approach.
  It will just add a basic rational dimension to the implementation 
process for changes to Forest Management Plans, both pending and in the 
future. My approach is both reasonable and realistic. It is responsible 
legislating.
  It will require the Forest Service to examine, consider, and publicly 
comment on the following issues before it modifies a Forest Management 
Plan to provide a protected habitat for any endangered or threatened 
species increased beyond that currently occupied: First, feasible 
biological resource which would be annually available to increase the 
population over time from existing population, by introduction of 
additional populations from outside the particular forest, or both; 
second, realistic financial resources--appropriations--which would be 
annually available to increase the population; third, alternative 
implementation schedules which reflect both feasible biological 
potential and realistic appropriations; fourth, the social and economic 
costs associated with each alternative implementation schedule; and 
fifth, selection of the alternative which is feasible biologically, 
realistic financially, and minimizes social and economic impacts.
  My legislative intent is clear. It is to require the Forest Service 
to add a logical step in its decision process to ensure that up-front 
analysis of the social and economic consequences is incorporated into 
the modification of a Forest Management Plan. It does not challenge or 
prohibit the policies which protect our public forests. It recognizes 
and explicitly acknowledges that our National Forests have a multiple-
use mission which cannot be ignored.
  The Forest Service, under current policies, would immediately set 
aside the full habitat area for foraging even though the species 
population would not require this area for well into the next century. 
This is neither environmentally nor economically sound. It is an 
arrogant abuse of public assets entrusted to the Forest Service. I 
believe current Forest Service practices reinforce hostility toward 
environmental policies, and this is counterproductive.
  I hope you will support my sense of the Senate for economic sanity as 
Forest Management Plans are modified. It assists any State with a 
national forest. It respects both the environment and communities by 
offering a prudent and balanced approach.

                          ____________________