[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3148-H3154]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  2230
                     CLICHES AND THEMES IN POLITICS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to continue the colloquy begun 2 
weeks ago with the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich] and, Mr. 
Speaker, you will recall that during that colloquy we talked about 
themes in politics and cliches in politics and the unfortunate fact 
that politics in America in the 1990's has become theme-driven.
  You hear often the phrase, ``They don't get it.'' Well, the problem, 
Mr. Speaker, is ``They don't get it,'' so now the American taxpayer is 
going to get it, and I hope that what we have heard on this floor 
tonight and what we have heard in this country over the last few months 
has received the attention of the American people, because the American 
people, I think, need to hear what the opposition is saying about the 
Contract With America and the importance of themes like personal 
responsibility, stopping the micro management of the private 
sector from Washington, a return to true free enterprise in this 
country that runs throughout the Contract With America.
  It seems the loyal opposition truly believes government does it 
better, and we on this side of the aisle sincerely believe individuals 
do it better, Mr. Speaker.
  This new Congress is made up of people who are willing to take a 
stand, who are willing to challenge accepted assumptions in this 
country for the last 40 years, and as a result of the Contract With 
America, what do we get? We get stories about the 1950's, about 
Governors from the 1950's, about the fact you can no longer trust 
States in the 1950's, in the 1960's, in the 1970's, in the 1980's, in 
the 1990's. You just cannot trust the States.
  We get gross misrepresentations of fact. We get misinformation. We 
get horror stories. We get phony numbers. We get scarce tactics. And, I 
say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich], we get class 
warfare, because class warfare is the bottom line. It is what we hear 
time and time again, hour after hour, day after day, week after week on 
the floor of this House.
  And an example is the School Lunch Program. Just this week, a few 
quotes: A Boston globe columnist wrote that the country is simply not 
too broke to feed poor schoolchildren. The food services director in 
Omaha, NE, for the west side community schools of Omaha, said it is 
unconscionable to allow more of our children to suffer from hunger in 
addition to the 12 million who do now; health and nutrition are not a 
priority in Washington, she alleged, quoting a Government estimate. She 
said school lunch funding would be cut by 17 percent.
  Now, on the floor of this House, we have seen the real numbers 
tonight. We have seen the real numbers every day in the newspaper. The 
real numbers. Mr. Speaker, are that nutrition programs have been funded 
at a level $4.3 billion for fiscal year 1994; under the Republican 
budget, they are projected to increase to $6.78 billion in 1996, and to 
increase further to $7.8 billion in the year 2000.
  By eliminating the administrative costs, by cutting out the Federal 
middleman, by cutting out the Federal micromanager, we are giving more 
money to the States for nutrition programs. Those are the numbers. 
Those are the facts. And by the way, they are the true facts getting 
through to the American people, because the message coming from towns 
and
 cities and districts and counties and the people across this country 
back to Washington today is, ``We are not buying that old class warfare 
anymore.''

  I say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich], I know you 
would like to comment on that, and I yield.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, I say to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Ehrlich], for yielding.
  I guess the point I think that needs to be made in what is happening 
on the floor of this House, the changes that the new majority, the 
Republican Party, is wanting to make is that which is a return to local 
control and privatization of what we are doing right here in Washington 
right now, and I think that some of the basic messages of those who so 
desire a strong central government that reaches in and controls the 
lives of so many people is the basic message is you cannot trust 
anybody else but those on the floor of this House including the 2 of 
us, but not excluding 433 other Members of this House.
  And I guess my comment is that, and to reinforce what the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] is saying, is that government is best done 
at the local level, and problem-solving is best done at the local 
level. I can take care of things much better in my district much better 
than the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] could, because he 
probably has never been to Fresno, probably has never been to my 
hometown.
  Mr. EHRLICH. I intend to visit this year.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. You will be there someday. But you have never been. 
But nobody knows my problems better than I do, and I believe nobody can 
solve my problems better than those elected officials in my district 
who are on the local and State level, and I think that in reference to 
the reference by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] to class 
warfare, it seems to be the defense of those who defend a strong 
central Federal Government that whenever people like us who are elected 
and come in and try to solve that problem, we get accused of being in 
favor of class warfare, being against the poor, being against the 
middle class, being for the rich, and I am a Republican, and, ``I ain't 
rich.''
  But those seem to be the arguments that are posed here, and I cannot 
help but go back to two things. First is, there is a deep mistrust of 
local elected officials on behalf of the Democratic 
[[Page H3149]] leadership, and there is also, in order to defend what 
they see as solving problems from a strong Federal Government, where if 
we raise your taxes a little bit more we just get a little bit more 
money in the Federal till, we will be able to solve welfare, we will be 
able to solve, we will be able to solve the dilemma of so many women 
becoming pregnant, unmarried mothers, we will be able to solve it, we 
will just spend a little bit more money on it. Implicit in that is a 
recurring theme that only the Federal Government can have empathy for 
poor people.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Right. And only the Federal Government knows best what 
people need, not just the poor, but middle-class, working-class 
Americans.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Exactly. You know, I think there are probably 435 
very caring people here, but I would not exclude it to us. I mean, 
there are thousands of elected officials out there that take their 
commitment to their public office just as seriously as you and I, and 
maybe more seriously than some people in this body. I do not see any 
reason why they cannot be trusted with more responsibility and, 
frankly, that is what this is all about.
  Mr. EHRLICH. I agree. The horrow stories we
   hear, the horror stories that we have heard, regardless of the 
issue, fill in the issue, there is a horror story that we hear put out 
night after night on the floor of this House.

  The regulatory, just going back 2 weeks, with respect to the 
regulatory reforms that we have enacted, the regulatory moratorium 
bill, cost-benefit analysis, risk analysis, paperwork reduction, 
private property rights, we heard the same horror stories then as we 
hear now. Forget the issue, if it is part of the Contract With America, 
it is horrific, it is bad, it is anti-working people it is antipoor.
  And there again, we see the analogy, the class warfare time and time 
again.
  The gentleman will recall that with respect to this whole issue of 
regulatory power, micromanagement from the Federal Government, I talked 
2 weeks ago about the Department of Labor and the fact that the 
Department of Labor has made enforcement of child labor laws a top 
priority over the past several years. In particular, grocers, grocery 
store owners all over the country are being cited for violations of 
hazardous occupation order No. 12 which we discussed 2 weeks ago, and 
that order prohibits employees under the age of 18 from operating or 
assisting to operate balers, machines used to compact used cardboard. 
Inspectors routinely go to such lengths as issuing citations based on 
responses to questionnaires mailed to former employees. That is how bad 
it has gotten in this country today.
  DOL recently decided, without seeking public comment, without seeking 
comment from the people impacted by this regulation, they recently 
decided that compactors are covered under HO 12 the same way that 
balers are covered. Therefore, no employee under age 18 is allowed to 
load or operate a baler or compactor.
  Now, the history of this particular order is quite interesting. HO 12 
was adopted in 1954 under authority of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 
Its rationale was based on a 1954, 40 year, 41 years ago report 
entitled ``Operation of Paper Products Machines'' that assessed the 
danger to teenagers of operating certain machinery used in the paper 
industry. The section on balers was based on a type of machinery used 
on a type of machine that was common in the paper industry back then. 
But it is far removed from the ones used in today's modern grocery 
stores.
  HO 12 has never been updated to reflect the changes brought about by 
safety advances. Today's balers bear very little resemblance to the 
huge machines of 41 years ago, when HO 12 was issued.
  The most serious injury assumed by the 1954 DOL report, and I quote, 
``for a person's arm to be caught by the descending plunger should 
someone else operate the control mechanism, * * * could only happen 
with balers of that era, 41 years ago,'' which did not have loading 
chamber doors, so the accidents could occur. They cannot occur today, 
yet we have a regulation that lives forever, and, of course, as we have 
discussed in the past in our first colloquy, that seems to be the whole 
idea behind bureaucracy and regulation; once you create a bureaucracy, 
a governmental bureaucracy or a new regulation, it lives forever.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Beyond that, it is a process of justification. Then 
those in the bureaucracy have to justify their existence so they will 
come up with new programs that are less and less applicable to the real 
world.
  Mr. EHRLICH. And more money.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. And more money. I have got an example, too, if I may. 
This is on the eating disorders of pigeons. There is a million dollars 
spent on discussing the eating disorders of pigeons. I will tell you, 
if I had an endangered species person, I was a pigeon, and had an 
endangered species person following me around day to day, watching 
everything I did, I would have an eating disorder, too. These are 
things, again, another example of how when you get a centralized 
government that is far removed from reality in the day-to-day business, 
you begin to get things that are unapplicable and have no sense to our 
daily lives.
  Now, I am not against research, you know, of one kind or another, but 
I think what you get after a while is stuff that is not applicable to 
reality, and I think that that is basically the problem that we are 
facing right now.
  Those that are criticizing what the Republicans are doing in the 
House right now in the Contract With America, with the goals of 
achieving privatization and local control, in my mind, have a real hard 
time. I would be embarrassed, frankly, if I had to defend the system 
that we have here in Washington right now, and yet it seems to me that 
with the Democratic leadership on the other side of the aisle, or 
however you are supposed to say it, I would be embarrassed to defend 
what Washington does right now, rather than saying, ``Let's both agree 
that what is going on is wrong right now. Let's both come up with 
plans, and let's introduce them on the floor and go back with new 
ideas.'' Who on Earth would want to have to defend what Washington is 
doing right now?
  It is a ludicrous system back here that is bankrupting America, 
enslaving the lives of poor, unfortunate people who do not know better, 
under a system that is just doling out money. And, you know, frankly, I 
think that the Federal Government is such a poor substitute for 
personal responsibility that I would be embarrassed to be sitting on 
this floor defending all of the things that the Federal Government does 
right now.
                              {time}  2245

  But that is all we hear. That is all we hear, and it has been 
interesting for us to just arrived here 70 days ago, 10 weeks ago, to 
hear the defense of the welfare state we hear time and time again on 
the floor of this House. And the fact is, and it is an observation that 
many of us have discussed privately, there are no ideas. There are no 
new ideas. There are no new initiatives across the aisle. It is the 
same old stuff and the American people rejected it on November 8 and 
they are rejecting it in March 1995 and they are going to reject it in 
July 1995 and they are going to reject it in 1996.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I would like to make a point too at this particular 
stage and that is, a lot of what you hear on the other side of the 
aisle from their leadership is, when our party was in the minority, we 
resorted to a lot of hit tactics of their leadership. We did a lot of 
things that they didn't like, and now they are going to turn around and 
do it to us, as thinking that in some means by doing that they are 
going to get back the majority of the House.
  My point is, I think that whatever the party did before I got here is 
fine, but I tell you, the only reason why I am here today and the only 
reason we are in the majority is not because we took hits to the then 
majority, but because we went before the American people with a plan 
and we said, listen, this is what we are going to do. We promise that 
we will do these things 1 through 10. You send us to Washington, we 
will do it.
  Now, if that is the case and I believe it to be, gosh darn it, come 
up with your plan. Stop hitting, stop defending a miserable losing 
system that we have here in Washington right now.
  Mr. EHRLICH. That is a wonderful point, a great lead-in to my next 
point, because we were not here. We have heard the stories about how 
the former 
[[Page H3150]] minority, the present majority, was treated.
  And let me relay your observation to the tort reform debate that 
occurred on this floor last week, and as you well know, Republicans are 
of different minds with respect to individual initiatives under the 
rubric of tort reform. But the fact is, the Democrat majority never 
allowed real tort reform measures to be brought to the floor of this 
House ever, and the American people demanded it and the Democrat 
majority said no, it is not important.
  And what the new Republican majority did last week was bring very 
important initiatives to the floor of this House in the way of legal 
reform.
  Now, as the gentleman knows, I opposed the loser pays provision, but 
I supported the securities litigation reform, the joint and several 
liability reform, punitive damages, the products liability reforms. 
These are reforms that the American public is demanding today. And what 
the Democrats seem to conveniently forget is they never allowed this 
debate to occur, and that is the whole idea behind the contract.
  The whole idea behind the contract is not that 230 Republicans agree 
with every plank of the contract, but it was, we have a deal with the 
American people, a contract with the American people and we promise to 
bring these important initiatives to the floor of this House to debate 
them honestly, in substantive terms, so that the people of America can 
see a party that knows how to run the place and to restore that sense 
of pride and respectability that we saw the American people have lost 
when it comes to this institution, and I believe we have begun to do 
that, and the fact that we have begun to regenerate that pride is 
reflected in the poll results.
  Getting back to tort reform and this whole theme that we are talking 
about, they do not get it, and a lack of individual initiative and 
individual pride, there is a psychology in this country, and I know the 
gentleman as a businessman suffers as a result of this psychology, and 
that psychology basically is, if some real or perceived ill befalls me 
at any point in society, well, there has to be a legal cause of action, 
there has to be a remedy, there has to be a bureaucrat to make you feel 
better, there has to be a regulation, and there has to be money in my 
pocket and it is costing all of us billions of dollars.
  Now, many of us on this side know, and the American people know, 
there are legitimate plaintiffs in civil cases and they deserve, in 
some cases, major awards. But the fact is, this foundation that I am 
owed something, that if something happens to me, I have to have a 
lawyer, I have to file a lawsuit, I have to get the money, somebody has 
to pay for it, it goes back to this theme of a lack of individual 
responsibility. The American people are crying out to us saying, stop 
it, we are not that greedy, it is costing us too much money. We 
literally cannot afford it.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Can I make a point?
  Mr. EHRLICH. Absolutely.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. It does harken back to personal responsibility and 
what a privilege it is to live in a country such as America that was 
based on the principles of self government, and I think that somewhere 
in some good book it says, do not be so anxious to be suing your 
neighbor, and I think that the law system in this land, the court 
system in this land, really is a privilege, and I think that when you 
abuse a privilege, you end up getting restrictions on the privilege or 
the privilege gets taken away.
  And I admire the fact that the Democrats for so many years defended 
the right to sue and the open legal system that we have had in the 
past, but I think what we are seeing right now is such an abuse of the 
system, and when you, through lack of personal responsibility and 
personal accountability for your own actions, you begin to abuse the 
system, you have to clamp down restrictions on that system and, to me, 
it is a perfect example, again, of where we have lost the idea of 
personal responsibility and personal accountability in this country.
  Stop suing each other. We have sued each other too much. Now because 
of that and because we have placed such a burden on the system, we have 
got to clamp down on it. I think that is basically it.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Just an aside, but very relevant to your point, as you 
know, I have practiced law for the last 12 years in the State of 
Maryland and I have seen one practice occur time and time again. And 
that practice is, in a run-of-the-mill tort case, personal injury case, 
a punitive damage count is included, even where there is no evidence of 
punitive damages.
  Now, the opposition told America last week, there are not that many 
punitive damage judgments. The Republicans have a strident and 
ridiculous remedy for a problem that is not that large. We can count on 
the fingers of one hand how many punitive damage judgments were paid 
out in a particular jurisdiction. But that is missing the point. That 
is missing the point, because the fact that those punitive damage 
counts are included in complaints drives up the settlement value of 
cases.
  Most cases, as the gentleman is well aware of, never go to trial, but 
the insurance company, the carrier, has to value a case, even a garbage 
case, at a higher figure because of the presence of a punitive damage 
count. Result, higher settlement. Result, cost passed on to consumer. 
Result, higher prices. Result, we got a big problem in this country.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. You know, gentleman from Maryland, it seems to me 
that there are in a book somewhere, and I do not think it said Uncle 
Sam is my shepherd, it said somebody else, and I think that in America 
we have just begun to depend too much on Uncle Sam for being a little 
bit more than what he is and I think that some of the Representatives 
in the House of Representatives over the years, probably over the last 
30 to 40 years, have gotten to the point where they justified their 
existence by expanding the role of what Federal Government does, and 
unfortunately, what it has led to is a lot of tragedy, I think, and 
into a current situation that, again, I am embarrassed to have to 
defend. I really am.
  We have gotten to the point in this country where it is sad, frankly, 
the way we treat one another in this country and based upon this 
overriding dependence on Federal Government, and, again, my word to the 
opposite party, to the Democratic leadership, is, you should be very 
embarrassed to defend the way things are in Washington right now. And I 
just got out of a budget hearing today, a markup on bills where we are 
cutting budgets right now, and I am here to say that nobody is being 
treated any better than anybody else. The rich are going to get it, the 
middle class is going to get it, and the poor is going to get it. That 
is kind of the way it is right now. And the use of the Republicans 
wanting to do this to reward the rich is a pathetic argument, it really 
is.
  Mr. EHRLICH. We here hear it time and time and time again.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Reinforced by the President as well. Through all that 
garbage must get some common sense to what we are really trying to 
accomplish here, and that is, reducing Federal Government by localizing 
it and privatizing it, and that extends to all areas of Federal 
Government.
  Mr. EHRLICH. And in the process, I, we are looking to your leadership 
to let the American people know the real facts. I hope the leadership 
from the Democratic party in this House will begin to engage in an 
honest debate. If they have nothing to hide, if they want to defend the 
welfare state, let's face it, reasonable people can disagree about 
rescission bills, about welfare reform, about regulatory reform, about 
tort reform. Just do not hide in the failed policies of the past. Be 
proactive, look to the future, join us in serving the American people, 
but to the extent they continue to engage in phony numbers and 
misrepresentations to the American people on the important issues of 
the day, we need to call them on it, because to the extent we indulge 
them, we share the blame and rightfully so.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. And it is a disservice to the American people flat 
out. I mean, what they are doing is clouding what the issues really are 
on the floor of this House. I have got an issue from one of the 
Senators in my State regarding a balanced budget amendment, which, in 
my view, is necessary in order to get spending under control and to 
achieve privatization and localization, where at one point during that 
Senator's election, voted 
[[Page H3151]] for the balanced budget amendment, no limitations 
whatsoever. In the political race of that person's life, voted for the 
balanced budget amendment and won the election and then afterward it 
comes up to the Senate that person voted against the same balanced 
budget amendment measure. And what I would caution I think on both 
sides of the party is that people are going to come back to Washington, 
they better come here with some convictions and they better keep them 
once they get here because the voters are going to see right through 
them.
  Mr. EHRLICH. We talked about that 2 weeks ago. Cliches, rhetoric, 
they do not get it. Class warfare. Right here is where the rubber meets 
the road and the American people can open their newspaper, tune in C-
SPAN, listen to the radio, receive our correspondence, and find out who 
stuck by their guns, who cast tough votes.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. And I would say to the Democratic party, rather than 
hurling stones and misrepresenting what is going on back here, come up 
with a plan, for God's sake. Bring it up here and let's debate the 
merits of it. But to use the same old tactic, admitting that maybe they 
worked for the Republicans in achieving the majority, which I think 
they are wrong, it was the Contract With America that got us the 
majority, do what we do, but do the things we did right. Do a plan and 
sell it to the American people. If they are not going to buy it, then I 
would suggest you change your plan.
  Mr. EHRLICH. You hear time and time again the Democrat spin artists, 
the Democrat pollsters say, Hey, no one heard about the Contract With 
America, it is phony, folks, it was just one of those things. It was a 
bad year. We had an unpopular President, whatever. But the fact is, 
people may not have identified the Contract With America, but they knew 
about regulatory reform and they knew about tax reform and they knew 
about a stronger national defense.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Balanced budget.
  Mr. EHRLICH. A balanced budget amendment, a line-item veto. They knew 
about these things. Maybe they did not label it as the Contract With 
America, but they recognized it when they saw it and they supported it 
and they voted accordingly and they are very happy with it.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. And frankly I think that is why we are here, but I 
think the point, too, as to why we are here tonight is to get a point 
across, that point, and that is the fact that we are here for 
localizing government to the local level and also privatizing certain 
functions that Washington does, and that can't be said too many times. 
It just needs to be said over and over again.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Well, I thank the gentleman from California. I look 
forward to continuing this colloquy in a few weeks with the gentleman 
with respect to budgetary issues.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Maybe next time we will have a 1-800 number and the 
people can do call-ins on. I do not know.
  Mr. EHRLICH. I look forward to that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Cooley.


                             timber salvage

  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about timber salvage. 
For those watching or listening, I would first like to define this term 
briefly and then outline the course of my remarks.
  Timber salvage is not a difficult concept. Presently, millions of 
acres of our public forest lands contain trees that have been burned, 
ravaged by disease or insects, or blown down.
  These trees, like any other crop, such as wheat or apples, lose their 
value if not harvested in a timely fashion. After an apple has dropped 
from the tree it can still be used for eating if it is picked up 
quickly; if it is picked up after a few days, it may only be good for 
cider.
  Trees have a little longer timeframe and are a good deal more hardy. 
Depending on the type of tree, some species may be taken for quality 
timber a year after falling.
  After that, the quality of the wood products derived from these trees 
decreases. The final stage of downed timber's usefulness comes after 
the second year as it is sold for chips to be used in making pulp and 
paper.
  Clearly, the commercial life of this crop is limited. If we are to 
reap some benefit from this resource that would otherwise be wasted, 
then we must act quickly. This harvesting of trees is known as salvage.
  In short, timber salvage is the harvesting of trees that are dead or 
will die shortly. These trees have value and must be harvested quickly 
to assure that their economic value is not lost.
  Tonight, I want to talk about timber salvage and what it accomplishes 
for us. I have some pictures that illustrate the effects of our timber 
policies and the need to continue our careful management of these 
resources that does not preclude harvesting timber.
                              {time}  2300

  I also want to explain the provisions of the bill that will be 
considered this week to implement a timber salvage program. I will be 
joined by several of my other colleagues, if time permits. I would like 
to show them something here.
  Here is a photograph, I hope you can pick this up, of a lava butte on 
October 30, 1992, before man ever came, before the harvesting was ever 
accomplished on this property. You can see the effects of diseased and 
dying timber and the effects of fire.
  I want to show you the same area on December 8, 1993. This is exactly 
the same timberland. You can see the greenness and the ability of 
protecting this forestland. The only intrusion in this entire line was 
the intrusion of a highway in this area.
  This is good management of our natural resources. This is bad 
management of our natural resources.
  We talk about what man has done to our natural resources, Mr. 
Speaker, and you can see the difference. Before man ever got involved, 
this is the picture we had in this particular area. In 1993, this is 
the results of man's intervention and what we have done to improve our 
forests.
  The language that will authorize the salvage of timber is found in 
section 307 of title III in H.R. 1159.
  Briefly, this will allow expedited preparation, advertising, 
offering, and awarding of contracts without being held up in court 
while the wood rots on the ground.
  In the first year, 3 billion board feet are authorized to be 
harvested from Federal lands; an additional 3 billion board feet are to 
be harvested in the following year.
  On Bureau of Land Management lands, an additional 115 million board 
feet are to be harvested each year.
  The Secretary may not designate timber stands for sale that belong to 
the national wilderness preservation system or roadless areas in 
Colorado and Montana.
  Section 318 provisions are written into the bill to award and release 
previously offered and unawarded timber sale contracts.
  Environmental assessments must be prepared by the Secretary pursuant 
to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species 
Act. If the sale fails on these counts then it will not be allowed.
  Each section of land that is harvested must be replanted; the 
Secretary is given the authority and responsibility to carry this out.
  Finally, no restraining order, injunction, or granting of relief may 
be given to prevent these sales. All civil actions to prevent sales 
must be completed within 45 days.
  This is an extremely important provision that will prevent sales from 
being held up in court while the need for the sale becomes mute.


        effects of timber salvage on the economy and environment

  The effects of this bill are three-fold:
  First, this bill means better forest health. As I mentioned earlier 
when I showed the picture, active management means more and better 
forests.
  If we allow diseased trees to stand, we are setting the stage for 
more catastrophic fires and the spread of diseases and infestations. In 
1994, 33 young men and women, some of them from my district, lost their 
lives battling forest fires that consumed 4 million acres of forest 
land.
  The American taxpayer picked up the tab--roughly $1 billion. Had we 
not pursued a fire-suppression policy and paid this price, millions 
more acres may have been lost.
  [[Page H3152]] The 4 million acres that burned destroyed 3.6 billion 
board feet of timber. The value of the burned timber is nearly $800 
million, which amounts to the board footage needed to build 330,000 
single-family homes.
  It is no secret that wood burns--dry and dead wood burns even better. 
Lighting strikes or stray sparks from campfires that might have gone 
out in healthy forests become raging forest fires that consume the 
unhealthy trees and dead wood with the healthy growth.
  Many fires are naturally occurring and even have some beneficial 
effects. However, the fires that become too intense, scorch the Earth 
and destroy the helpful nutrients, organisms, and seeds that are needed 
to regenerate the Earth.
  U.S. forests contain an estimated 20 billion board feet of dead or 
dying timber. This is a huge amount of tinder.
  Further, assuming the forests do not experience the ravages of fire, 
the biological balance is not served by having billions of board feet 
rot into oblivion on the ground. New growth is stifled.
  Second, this bill means revenue for Uncle Sam. In a time of massive 
cutbacks, such as the rescissions bill we will be considering tomorrow, 
it is important to generate more revenue through increased commerce.
  It is estimated that the salvage acreage in the bill will generate 
approximately $1.2 billion in gross revenues over the next 2 years. The 
release of old sales pursuant to section 318 will bring in over $115 
million.
  Mr. Speaker, to date, the efforts of our Federal agencies concerning 
timber salvage and forest health have been inadequate.
  I believe this bill rectifies these errors in judgment and prevents 
deliberate attempts to lock up timber from any responsible management.
  All this is not to mention the money saved from a reduced need to 
suppress fires. This could be as much as $200 million.
  Third and finally, we will keep timber workers from the unemployment 
lines. The tension in these communities is high. Fewer harvests mean no 
jobs and the destruction of the economic base in many small logging 
towns. As the logger goes, so goes the town.
  Other small businesses in these towns depend on the timber worker to 
spend his paycheck. Rather than describing this as a ripple effect, you 
could call it a tidal wave. As timber becomes scarce, communities begin 
to fold.
  I'll wager that most of those who oppose even the most responsible 
logging haven't compiled statistics on the human damage that their 
antics create. Broken homes, drinking problems, and abuse abound when 
the pressures to find work increase.
  Can the damage we have done by destabilizing these timber communities 
be fully calculated? Doubtful.
  For some mills it is too little, too late. Last week, one mill in my 
district, the Modoc Co., announced that it would be closing its doors. 
To date, thousands of workers have been thrown out of work.
  This bill will at least stop the carnage. For those who remain there 
will be timber to harvest and process.
  I have received an estimate of the economic benefits that will accrue 
to these communities and would like to share some of the more important 
numbers: Employment will increase by 22,900; wages earned by workers 
will total $976.1 million; Federal income tax revenues will equal $150 
million; finally, increased payments to the States will bring in $82.5 
million.
  As I conclude, remember that timber salvage will help the 
environment, raise $1 billion in revenue, and provide jobs for 
thousands of hard-working, honest people.
  When we were receiving testimony on timber salvage last month I heard 
a story that underscores the idiocy of the policy we are pursuing 
presently.
  A mammoth Douglas-fir had fallen somewhere in the West--a tree whose 
timber would have brought $60,000. Instead, while the bureaucrats 
fiddled, the tree lost its fine timber value, finally being sold for 
firewood at a cost to the buyer of $5 a cord.
  I believe we can manage our resources better. We must, or the next 
generation will answer for our negligence. Tomorrow, let us take that 
step and approve the salvaging of dead and dying timber.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the 
statements of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] about the forest 
salvage bill. It will come up as an amendment on Thursday to the 
emergency supplemental and rescission package that will be before the 
House, and the comments the gentleman just made from Oregon are very 
timely, and I think the whole Nation is beginning to realize that we 
have in many respects mismanaged our resources over the years.
  The question has come up about the Forest Service management of 
property many times on this floor, and I am not here to defend the 
Forest Service categorically. I am one who believes that the Government 
generally will mess up a one-car funeral, and consequently most 
Government agencies are certainly not perfect. But the Forest Service 
has a history in the main of taking a nation at the beginning of this 
century where we had ravaged many of our forests and turned those 
forests into productive forests to the point that we are growing far 
more timber today than we are cutting. In fact, Mr. Speaker, more die 
in the forest than we harvest, and that is a shame when you consider 
that just in the last 3 years the price of lumber for a home has gone 
up from $4,000 to $6,000 for an average couple, and it is growing, and 
we have to substitute metal studs, for instance, and other metal 
components and plastic components for wood components in the home, and 
that is going to cost the average family more. In addition it is going 
to be against the environment because when we take metal, which must be 
mined, first of all creating environmental problems, than it has to be 
smelted, using a great deal of energy, and then manufactured in a more 
toxic process, many times greater than wood. In the end of its life 
disposing of it is much more difficult than wood.

                              {time}  2310

  And the same thing with plastic. We have to import the oil from 
outside the country. Often it is spilled on the way here. We have to 
fight many times to be able to retain our source of oil. And then the 
manufacturing process for the plastic is often more toxic and its 
disposal is more difficult.
  So I am saying to you if you take the environmental path, a renewable 
resource like wood for making the table, or the dais or the chairs that 
we have, or many other good products, it is much better for us to use 
that renewable resource of wood than it is to use finite resources such 
as metal or plastic.
  And yet as our country grows and as more homes are needed, we have no 
alternative but to use some source of materials. The renewable resource 
of wood is the environmental resource to use. Saying that, we have two 
sources providing it: First of all from the private sector, from 
individual farms and individual tracts that are purchased, and a great 
deal of our forest products come from that. But we also created the 
National Forest Service at the end of the last century and the 
beginning of this century to provide fiber for our Nation.
  Now, the Forest Service is under the Department of Agriculture 
because it is to be harvested and grown in our national forests. We 
have a National Park Service under the Interior Department that is not 
harvested. There is very little management that goes on inside national 
parks. We have also set aside over 34 million acres inside the U.S. 
Forest Service in wilderness designation that is not harvested and is 
managed much like the national parks. There are other specific set-
asides such as wilderness designation, wild and scenic rivers, where no 
harvest is allowed.
  We are down to probably one in five acres of the one-third of this 
Nation that is publicly owned that even gets any consideration for 
harvest. The other 80 percent of our publicly owned land is not 
harvested. And that certainly, I think, disputes the fact that any sort 
of harvest will ravage our publicly owned lands because we only give 
attention to approximately one out of five acres.
  We need the forest and the harvest also for the economy. We talked a 
moment ago about the costs going up for 
[[Page H3153]] the average person buying a home because of the limited 
sales that are in this Nation now from our Forest Service and from many 
private lands because of
 the maze of regulations that have been ensnarled around them.

  We know that home building, of course, is a very important part of 
our economy. But as we force homes higher, we are going to decrease the 
numbers of homes people are able to buy and we are going to hurt the 
economy and jobs in that way.
  I often hear comments made on the floor about the forest sales go to 
big timber companies. That just is not true. Over 90 percent of the 
forest sales that are made in this country go to small family-owned 
organizations, all the way from the operation that may be harvesting 
the timber to the operation that is manufacturing it.
  The major timber companies in this country, by the great portion, 
harvest a great portion of the timber from their own lands. So most 
sales that are made are small sales and they are made to small 
businessmen, in most cases family-owned businesses. It is just not true 
that there is any big amount.
  They also are sold at a public bid. That means that the Forest 
Service advertises the timber that is for sale and the highest bid then 
is accepted and the Forest Service has the right to decline a bid if it 
is too low. So the government gets the top price in the bid process for 
its timber in most cases.
  Now, what are we talking about tonight in this amendment? We are 
talking about not green timber that needs also to be harvested. We are 
talking about dead and dying trees. We are talking about timber that 
has been burned. We are talking about almost 30 billion board feet of 
timber in this country that will rot and die and be wasted unless some 
of it is harvested. We are harvesting only a fraction of it now because 
of the maze of regulations.
  It is important for jobs, as we pointed out, because it can put in 
the stream in badly harmed areas in the south, southeast, in the 
Pacific Northwest and other areas, timber that is needed to start the 
mills going and to provide lumber for homes and for personal use.
  But it is not just jobs that are involved. Forest health is involved. 
And it is a question all over this country. In the south and the 
southeast, pine beetles have ravaged thousands of acres of timber and 
used those trees as host trees to spread to other healthy parts of the 
forest and to spread to private lands.
  We had one member of our Committee on Appropriations from Texas that 
pled that we try to start harvesting in his particular area because the 
host insects from the Forest Service were going on to private farms all 
around and destroying timber there.
  The gypsy moth has done a great deal of damage. In the Appalachian 
region, oak decline. Natural disasters, winds, storms, hurricane, and 
tornadoes, things of that nature have ravaged, broken down timber in 
the forest. And if it cannot be harvested, it is almost impossible to 
go in and replant those areas that are destroyed because of the twisted 
and broken timbers.
  In the areas out west where you have had devastating fires, you bake 
the soil, you create a charcoal mass that goes into the streams. It is 
almost impossible for vegetation to come back. Certainly not selected 
vegetation or a species that would be harvestable, a species that would 
be the best species for that forest.
  And so, all across the Nation, we need for forest health to address 
the question of harvesting salvaged timber. And this amendment that we 
are offering on Thursday, that will be in the bill and will be voted on 
on Thursday, would allow the Forest Service to go in and harvest, over 
a 2-year period, approximately 6.2 billion board feet of timber.
  The timber would amount to, probably by that time, about 20 percent 
of the down and dead timber. We are increasing salvaged timber about 6 
billion board feet a year due to natural disaster, so we will not be 
getting all of the salvaged timber. It will allow the Forest Service to 
make the decision of which areas are to be harvested. They can pick 
those that are least sensitive; those that can be harvested the 
quickest and with the highest return to the government.
  The Forest Service professionals make this decision, not people who 
are buying the timber, not the mills, not the timber loggers or the 
harvesters. It will be made by the forest professionals. They will 
determine which timber will be put on sale.
  We know that this will be a plus for the taxpayer, because the CBO 
has scored a positive return to the taxpayer. The estimates range 
anywhere from $36 million the first year all the way up to $650 
million. And it would be difficult to tell exactly the positive return 
until the sites are selected. But we know that there will be very 
little effort, little
 expenditure, put out for these because during the 2 years of this 
emergency provision there will not be time for road construction or a 
great deal of activity to go on in preparation.

                              {time}  2310

  They will have to go to the commercial areas of the forest. And that 
is all this applies to, not wilderness areas, park areas, or areas 
where we cannot cut now, it is to the commercial areas of forest 
already subject to being harvested. They will have to go to those areas 
ready and reachable in order to harvest 6.2 billion board feet over the 
next two years.
  So we are saying to you that far too often in the past we have 
allowed people to use hysteria under the guise of environmentalism, to 
actually harm the environment, to cost thousands of jobs in the Nation, 
to drive up the cost of people's individual homes, and to hurt the 
environment, under the guise of environmentalism. Some of it is from 
individuals who are well-meaning, who just do not have the expertise or 
the knowledge. Some of it is deliberate hysteria, because many of those 
organizations take in hundreds of millions of dollars here in 
Washington, and by scaring people into sending money to protect 
something not endangered they can continue to take in those funds. 
That, unfortunately, is a shame.
  With this bill we are using cooperation with professionals, with the 
Forest Service, with the best knowledge we have in managed 
silviculture, to go after a resource that is wasting and provide jobs, 
taxes, and forest health for this Nation. I hope the people of this 
Nation will all support us and the Members of this body when we vote on 
that measure Thursday.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland giving me the time.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. 
Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I like to read old books. I was poking 
around the other day in an old bookstore and found a book on Executive 
orders, and some of the Executive orders that were issued by President 
Teddy Roosevelt.
  Because force management is an important issue to me, I found this 
very interesting Executive order that was issued in 1905. It talks 
about the formation of the Forest Service, and it states in this order 
that during the year of 1908, severe droughts visited many parts of the 
country and forest fires were frequent and destructive. But during this 
time, the National Forest suffered little loss, owing to a system of 
patrol by which many smaller fires are extinguished before gaining 
destructive headway. In pursuance of the policy that the forests are 
for the use of the people under proper restrictions, grazing 
privileges, timber cutting, haying, and other small privileges are let 
under government supervision.
  I think Mr. Roosevelt's Executive order pretty well lays out what the 
responsibilities of the Forest Service were and the Forest Service's 
relationship to the States.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we in the West are very proud of our 
forest reserves, and it is my concern that we be able to bring back to 
this Nation the proud heritage that our fathers and forefathers left in 
beautiful stands of timber. We have learned our lessons from 
unfortunate timber harvest practices.
  In the early seventies, a number of environmental pieces of 
legislation passed this body and were signed into law. Some of the 
legislation has been characterized as dooming the productive sector. I 
do not think so. In fact, I wish to rise this evening to defend the 
National Environmental Policy Act, one of the pieces of legislation 
which 
[[Page H3154]] began the movement of more environmental legislation.
  The issue is not the environmental legislation that was passed. The 
issue is today how we are carrying out that environmental legislation. 
I want to read to you the purpose statement set forth by the Congress 
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, known as NEPA.
  That purpose and policy statement reads as follows: To declare a 
national policy which will encourage production and enjoyable harmony 
between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent 
or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the 
health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the 
ecological systems and natural resources important to this Nation.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, NEPA is a very important document that has been 
for too long overlooked. First, NEPA is the national policy which 
recognizes the importance of production from our natural resources. In 
fact, the first purpose listed uses the words ``encourage production.'' 
Second, NEPA recognizes man as an important element of our environment 
when it states ``Harmony between man and his environment.'' Not only 
does NEPA recognize man as extremely important in this equation, but 
recognizes
 that the environment is his. NEPA indicates that man has the right of 
possession of the natural resources, but that these resources are to be 
used in a responsible manner, not to be locked away without man's use. 
Then NEPA recognizes that man has a role to prevent damage to the 
environment, so as to stimulate the health and welfare of man.

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, NEPA tells us that we must enrich that 
understanding and importance of natural resources to our Nation. While 
NEPA clearly defines the role of man with his environment, we as a law 
making body have failed--failed to provide proper management of our 
natural forests. The Federal agencies have diverted congressional funds 
to other programs such as affirmative action programs and ecosystem 
management programs, multiple agreements with other agencies which are 
diverted into programs such as ecosystem management. And while this has 
happened, we have allowed a huge buildup of fuel to build up on the 
forest floor, creating tremendous potential for fires. That is the 
reason for this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, last year in the Northwest alone we had 67,000 fires. We 
burned 8.135 billion board feet of timber. That is enough to construct 
542,000 homes and provide 1.5 million jobs just in home construction.
  After 9 years of continuous drought in the West, and without proper 
thinning and harvest, and contrary to the acts of Congress that 
established the national forests in the beginning, the health and 
stability of these Federal lands have deteriorated rapidly. Wild fires 
have devastated millions of acres.
  Mr. Speaker, unless these dead stands of timber, the dead and dying 
timber, is removed immediately through proper harvesting and we return 
to a proper role of management in our national forests, there will be a 
tremendous amount of eroded soil to flush into our mountain streams 
that destroy critical spotting and rearing habitat for our endangered 
species, the listed salmon.
  Although Federal authorities have authority under present law to 
remove dead and dying timber from our national forests, they have 
failed to do so, and this is why at this time Congress must intervene 
to correct this mismanagement.
  Timber salvage and proper forest health not only makes good sense for 
the environment, it makes good sense for our rural communities, our 
schools, and our roads and the national Treasury.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to close my comments by stating just a few 
things that wood provides, including rayon, photographic film, alcohol, 
football helmets, piano keys, on and on and on. This Nation cannot do 
without wood.
  Mr. Speaker, I just hope that this body will recognize that and we 
can return to a multiple use, sustained yield policy in our national 
forests.

                          ____________________