[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 59 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4868-S4882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous-
consent agreement. I believe that both sides will indicate support.
  I now ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the D'Amato 
amendment for the consideration of an amended amendment by Senator 
Gorton and Senator Murray, raising an amendment to that; that there be 
an hour equally divided; and then we return back to the status where we 
are now, with the D'Amato amendment the pending business.
  This would incorporate an amendment by Senator Burns to the Gorton 
amendment, which is about a 90-second action; there would then be the 
hour divided equally between Senator Murray to offer an amendment, and 
Senator Gorton; then return again to the status where we are now. And, 
in the meantime, maybe we can find some way to resolve the current 
status.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding that the unanimous consent will include language that 
says there will be no second-degrees to the Murray amendment?
   [[Page S4869]] Mr. HATFIELD. I am sorry, I did not hear the Senator.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Is it my understanding that the unanimous-consent 
language will agree that there will be no second-degrees?
  Mr. HATFIELD. And there will be no second-degree amendments to the 
Murray amendment. In other words, in the regular form.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object and I do not 
intend to object, but I just want to make it as clear as I possibly can 
that, while I am agreeing at this particular juncture to this approach 
to accommodate our colleague from Montana and a colleague from the 
State of Washington as well, I hope we could come to closure on the 
D'Amato amendment. Because I do want to make it clear that this is a 
matter which I take very, very, very seriously. I understand the desire 
of everyone to move on to the rescission package.
  This was not my intention to have this amendment come up. It is up 
before us. But I do not intend for it to be disposed of within an 
abbreviated debate. I am not suggesting a filibuster here at all. But 
it is an important matter that deserves a lot of consideration.
  So, while I am agreeing to this particular unanimous consent at this 
juncture, no one should interpret this agreement on this particular 
amendment to mean I will agree to future such requests. I say that with 
all due respect to my colleague from Oregon.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the chairman yield for a question?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I will.
  Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding, then, that upon completion of 
the Murray amendment, which will take an hour--at least there is an 
hour of time for consideration of the Murray amendment--and then I take 
it there may be a vote? Or not?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I think so.
  Mr. SARBANES. At the end of that we would be back on the D'Amato 
amendment, in the exact posture in which we find ourselves?
  Mr. HATFIELD. The circumstances of this moment will not be changed. 
They merely will be postponed for an hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the unanimous consent is 
agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like just a moment to thank 
Senator Dodd and Senator Sarbanes and others for cooperating on this, 
and Senator D'Amato on our side as the author of the amendment.
  Once again, it will be a Burns amendment to the Gorton amendment, and 
then Senator Murray will offer an amendment as a probable substitute. 
So that means no second-degree amendments to the amendment of Senator 
Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                 Amendment No. 428 to Amendment No. 420

(Purpose: To broaden areas in which salvage timber sales are not to be 
                               conducted)

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 428 to Amendment No. 420.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 69, strike lines 7 through 10 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(A) expeditiously prepare, offer, and award salvage 
     timber sale contracts on Federal lands, except in--
       ``(i) any area on Federal lands included in the National 
     Wilderness Preservation System;
       ``(ii) any roadless area on Federal lands designated by 
     Congress for wilderness study in Colorado or Montana;
       ``(iii) any roadless area on Federal lands recommended by 
     the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management for 
     wilderness designation in its most recent land management 
     plan in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act; or
       ``(iv) any area on Federal lands on which timber harvesting 
     for any purpose is prohibited by statute; and''.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is a perfecting amendment to the 
Gorton amendment that merely accedes to the House language of the bill 
in the timber harvest. The House-passed bill contains language 
regarding lands which are exempt from the timber provision. However, 
the language as reported out of the Senate Committee on Appropriations 
is more limited than that passed by the House. So my amendment is the 
same language as that of the House, as it was passed through the House 
of Representatives.
  It exempts land designated by Congress for wilderness study in 
Montana and Colorado, Federal lands recommended by the Forest Service 
or Bureau of Land Management for wilderness designation in its most 
recent land management plan in effect; the Federal lands on which 
timber harvesting for any purpose is prohibited by statute.
  In other words, what this does is prevents harvesting timber inside 
of now-designated wilderness areas, those study areas, and also those 
areas that have been proposed for wilderness by any forest plan that is 
now in effect under the forest plan. I believe this amendment addresses 
most of the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues. I hope the 
Senate will accept my amendment.
  I thank Senator Gorton of Washington for allowing me to perfect his 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment conforms the section of the 
proposal in the bill to what the House has passed. It clearly exempts 
wilderness areas and the like from the effect of the legislative 
language in the bill and I believe that, while the opponents to the 
whole section do not like it, they do like this addition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 428) to amendment No. 420 was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                   Amendment No. 429 to amendment 420

            (Purpose: To require timber sales to go forward)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 429 to amendment No. 420.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 68, strike line 9 and all that follows through page 
     79, line 5, and insert the following:
       (a) Definition.--In this section:
       (1) Consulting agency.--The term ``consulting agency'' 
     means the agency with which a managing agency is required to 
     consult with respect to a proposed salvage timber sale if 
     consultation is required under the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
       (2) Managing agency.--The term ``managing agency'' means a 
     Federal agency that offers a salvage timber sale.
       (3) Salvage timber sale.--The term ``salvage timber sale'' 
     means a timber sale--
       (A) in which each unit is composed of forest stands in 
     which more than 50 percent of the trees have suffered severe 
     insect infestation or have been significantly burned by 
     forest fire; and
       (B) for which agency biologists and other agency forest 
     scientists conclude that forest health may be improved by 
     salvage operations.
       (b) Salvage Timber Sales.--
       (1)  Direction to complete salvage timber sales.--The 
     Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the 
     Forest Service, and the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, 
     shall--
       (A) expeditiously prepare, offer, and award salvage timber 
     sale contracts on Forest Service lands and Bureau of Land 
     Management lands that are located outside--
       (i) any unit of the National Wilderness Preservation 
     System; or
       (ii) any roadless area that--

       (I) is under consideration for inclusion in the National 
     Wilderness Preservation System; or
       (II) is administratively designated as a roadless area in 
     the managing agency's most recent land management plan in 
     effect as of the date of enactment of this Act (not including 
     land designated as a Federal wilderness area); or
     [[Page S4870]]   (iii) any area in which such a sale would be 
     inconsistent with agency standards and guidelines applicable 
     to areas administratively withdrawn for late successional and 
     riparian reserves; or
       (iv) any area withdrawn by Act of Congress for any 
     conservation purpose; and
       (B) perform the appropriate revegetation and tree planting 
     operations in the area in which the salvage occurred.
       (2) Sale documentation.--
       (A) Preparation of documents.--In preparing a salvage 
     timber sale under paragraph (1), Federal agencies that have a 
     role in the planning, analysis, or evaluation of the sale 
     shall fulfill their respective duties expeditiously and, to 
     the extent practicable, simultaneously.
       (B) Procedures to expedite salvage timber sales.--
       (i) In general.--When it appears to a managing agency that 
     consultation may be required under section 7(a)(2) of the 
     Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2))--

       (I) the managing agency shall solicit comments from the 
     consulting agency within 7 days of the date of the decision 
     of the managing agency to proceed with the required 
     environmental documents necessary to offer to sell the 
     salvage timber sale; and
       (II) within 30 days after receipt of the solicitation, the 
     consulting agency shall respond to the managing agency's 
     solicitation concerning whether consultation will be required 
     and notify the managing agency of the determination .

       (ii) Consultation Document.--In no event shall a consulting 
     agency issue a final written consultation document with 
     respect to a salvage sale later than 30 days after the 
     managing agency issues the final environmental document 
     required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
       (iii) Delay.--A consulting agency may not delay a salvage 
     timber sale solely because the consulting agency believes it 
     has inadequate information, unless--

       (aa) the consulting agency has been actively involved in 
     preparation of the required environmental documents and has 
     requested in writing reasonably available additional 
     information from the managing agency that the consulting 
     agency considers necessary under part 402 of title 50, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, to complete a biological assessment; 
     and
       (bb) the managing agency has not complied with the request.

       (3) Streamlining of administrative appeals.--Administrative 
     review of a decision of a managing agency under this 
     subsection shall be conducted in accordance with section 322 
     of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1419), except that--
       (A) an appeal shall be filed within 30 days after the date 
     of issuance of a decision by the managing agency; and
       (B) the managing agency shall issue a final decision within 
     30 days and may not extend the closing date for a final 
     decision by any length of time.
       (4) Streamlining of judicial review.--
       (A) Time for challenge.--Any challenge to a timber sale 
     under subsection (a) or (b) shall be brought as a civil 
     action in United States district court within 30 days after 
     the later of--
       (i) the decision to proceed with a salvage timber sale is 
     announced; or
       (ii) the date on which any administrative appeal of a 
     salvage timber sale is decided.
       (B) Expedition.--The court shall, to the extent 
     practicable, expedite proceedings in a civil action under 
     subparagraph (A), and for the purpose of doing so may shorten 
     the times allowed for the filing of papers and taking of 
     other actions that would otherwise apply.
       (C) Assignment to special master.--The court may assign to 
     a special master all or part of the proceedings in a civil 
     action under subparagraph (A).
       (c) Option 9.--
       (1) Direction to complete timber sales.--The Secretary of 
     the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, and the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
     through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall expeditiously 
     prepare, offer, and award timber sale contracts on Federal 
     lands in the forests specified in Option 9, as selected by 
     the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture on April 13, 1994.
       (2) Establishment of rebuttable presumption.--A rebuttable 
     presumption exists that any timber sale on Federal lands 
     encompassed by Option 9 that is consistent with Option 9 and 
     applicable administrative planning guidelines meets the 
     requirements of applicable environmental laws. This paragraph 
     does not affect the applicable legal duties that Federal 
     agencies are required to satisfy in connection the planning 
     and offering of a salvage timber sale under this subsection.
       (3) Availability of funds.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall make available 100 percent of 
     the amount of funds that will be required to hire or contract 
     with such number of biologists, hydrologists, geologists, and 
     other scientists to permit completion of all watershed 
     assessments and other analyses required for the preparation, 
     advertisement, and award of timber sale contracts prior to 
     the end of fiscal year 1995 in accordance with and in the 
     amounts authorized by the Record of Decision in support of 
     Option 9.
       (B) Source.--If there are no other unobligated funds 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary 
     of the Interior, respectively, for fiscal year 1995 that can 
     be available as required by subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
     concerned shall make funds available from amounts that are 
     available for the purpose of constructing forest roads only 
     from the regions to which Option 9 applies.
       (d) Section 318.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to each timber sale awarded 
     pursuant to section 318 of Public Law 101-121 (103 Stat. 745) 
     the performance of which is, on or after July 30, 1995, 
     precluded under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1531 et seq.) due to requirements for the protection of the 
     marbled murrelet, the Secretary of Agriculture shall provide 
     the purchaser replacement timber, at a site or sites selected 
     at the discretion of the Secretary, that is equal in volume, 
     kind, and value to that provided by the timber sale contract.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--Harvest of replacement timber 
     under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the terms and 
     conditions of the original contract and shall not count 
     against current allowable sale quantities.
       (e) Expiration.--Subsections (b) and (c) shall expire on 
     September 30, 1996, but the terms and conditions of those 
     subsections shall continue in effect with respect to timber 
     sale contracts offered under this Act until the contracts 
     have been completely performed.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an alternative to 
the timber management authorizing language in this bill. I offer my 
amendment because I believe the language included in the bill by my 
colleague, the senior Senator from Washington, will backfire. I believe 
it will hurt--not help--timber communities and workers in the 
Northwest.
  The authorizing language contained in this bill is designed to 
accomplish three things: respond to a timber salvage problem resulting 
from last year's forest fires; speed up the rate of timber sales under 
the President's forest plan, option 9; and to release a few timber 
sales remaining from legislation passed by Congress 4 years ago.
  These are goals with which I can agree. My problem is with the 
method. I believe the language proposed by my colleague will cause a 
blizzard of lawsuits, cause political turmoil within the Northwest, and 
take us right back to where we were 4 years ago.
  Our region has been at the center of a war over trees that has taken 
place in the courtrooms and Congress for almost a decade. There is a 
history of waiving environmental laws to solve timber problems; that 
strategy has not worked.
  It has made the situation worse. Until 1993, the Forest Service was 
paralyzed by lawsuits, the courts were managing the forests, and 
acrimony dominated public discourse in the region.
  Now this bill contains language that will reopen those old wounds. I 
strongly believe that would not be in the best interest of the region.
  Let me briefly explain my amendment, and why I think it makes more 
sense than the underlying bill. There are two distinct issues in 
question: salvage of dead and dying timber in the arid inland west, and 
management of the old growth fir forests along the Pacific coast.
  There is a legitimate salvage issue right now throughout the West. 
Last year's fire season was one of the worst ever. There are hundreds 
of thousands of acres with burned trees sitting there. I believe these 
trees can and should be salvaged and put to good public use.
  I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to conduct salvage 
operations on Federal lands. The wrong way is to short cut 
environmental checks and balances. The wrong way is to cut people out 
of the process. The wrong way is to invite a mountain of lawsuits.
  The right way is to expedite compliance with the law. The right way 
is to make sure the agencies can make correct decisions quickly. The 
right way is to let people participate in the process--so they do not 
clog up the courts later.
  I believe we can offer eastside timber communities hope, not only in 
the short term--by delivering salvage volume--but in the long term, 
too. By following the law, we can immediately harvest timber--and 
sustain it in the future--because we will not be tied up in lawsuits; 
we conserve our natural environment by not allowing poorly planned 
clearcuts to slide into salmon-bearing streams; and we protect human 
[[Page S4871]] lives by building roads that are rationally planned, not 
hastily built without planning.
  The Chief of the Forest Service and many firefighters agree with me 
on this. I ask unanimous consent to have some letters and materials to 
that effect printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                   March 21, 1995.
       Letter to The Editor: I would like to answer to the 
     editorial ``From timber to tinder,'' published in the March 
     15 Washington Times. It argues that Congress should pass 
     Representative Taylor's Bill that would eliminate all 
     environmental and economic rules for Forest Service timber 
     sales of 6 billion board feet, in the name of forest health 
     and firefighter safety. Linking this initiative to the 1994 
     firefighters' deaths is an insult to those that died and a 
     shameless appeal to emotionalism. I lost my husband of 21 
     years, and the father of our two young children, Jim Thrash, 
     in the Colorado fire last year. He was a smokejumper with 16 
     seasons of experience.
       He also loved the forests. Jim and I owned and operated an 
     outfitting and guide business in the beautiful pristine 
     mountains of west-central Idaho. We took many people a year 
     into the backcountry to experience the ``wilderness''. He was 
     also the President of the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Assoc., 
     which represents an industry that takes thousands of 
     Americans each year into the backcountry. Jim was very much 
     at home in the forests. He worked for responsible forest 
     management practices with a high emphasis on maintenance of 
     clean, free-flowing streams and quality wildlife habitat. He 
     knew, understood and advocated the use of fire in a more 
     natural role in the ecosystem as well as prescriptive fires 
     to aid in the restoration of natural conditions. He did not 
     support further roading of Idaho's roadless lands or the use 
     of clearcutting.
       It is true that '94's fires were the result of the extended 
     western drought, but were also the natural fire cycles of 
     those ecosystems. There are those who are claiming that their 
     loved ones' deaths resulted from careless forest managers who 
     failed to log dead and dying timber elsewhere, resulting in a 
     shortage of firefighting resources. In reality, the Colorado 
     incident was not one of resource shortages, but one of 
     mismanagement. Firefighting managers and supervisors used 
     poor strategies (or had no strategies at all), and failed to 
     recognize and respond to the existing conditions (drought and 
     weather) and extenuating circumstances (resources shortages) 
     when making the decisions to put employees on the firelines. 
     Ultimately, this resulted in the deaths of 14 people.
     Holly Thrash.
                                                                    ____

                                                   March 27, 1995.
       Dear Madams or Sirs: I am writing to you regarding the 
     various ``Forest Health'' initiatives floating around 
     Congress these days. I am a wildland firefighter from McCall, 
     Idaho who has worked for the Forest Service as a helitacker, 
     a hotshot, and 12 years as a smokejumper. As I am sure you 
     understand, the opinions expressed herein are my own and do 
     not represent any government agency. Since I was smokejumping 
     on fires in Idaho and Montana last July, I was not on the 
     South Canyon Fire. Yet I lost good friends there, and I feel 
     a duty to them and to myself to speak out about the bills you 
     have under your consideration.
       Given my knowledge of fire and the health of our forests, I 
     cannot support S. 391 (Federal Lands Forest Health Protection 
     and Restoration) or any incantation of Mr. Taylor's amendment 
     (The Emergency Two-Year Salvage Timber Sale Program), or Mr. 
     Gorton's Bill. I believe a reasonable amount of salvage 
     harvesting should be carried out, and I believe this can be 
     carried out successfully within the confines of current law.
       I believe all these bills are based on the premise that the 
     salvaging cannot be done quickly enough to get the burned 
     wood before it becomes useless. But the evidence shows that 
     salvage has been occurring successfully in our forests. The 
     Boise National Forest successfully carried out the 
     historically biggest sale of any type in the Northwest as the 
     Foothills Salvage in 1992. The Forest Service anticipates 
     having all the salvage sales from the fires of 1994 on the 
     auction blocks by late this summer--with environmentally 
     sound analyses in place. I believe all of the bills mentioned 
     above call for forgoing this type of analysis. This does 
     nothing to help our forests. Given that it would be better to 
     have salvage available for harvest by the summer following a 
     burn, why not simply request that the Forest Service speed up 
     the analyses? Even in the present situation, they only need 
     to shave off three or four months to have salvage ready by 
     the summer following a burn. This could be easily done if 
     they were empowered (and given the necessary budget) to form 
     a salvage analysis team as soon as it became apparent that 
     there would be an opportunity for salvage. I believe this 
     change alone would shorten the process by three months.
       Some of the bills mentioned above propose increasing the 
     national annual cut from four billion board feet to over five 
     billion board feet. I believe the lower cutting levels are 
     much more reasonable since they are based on an accurate 
     level of a sustained yield. If the cut is allowed to continue 
     at the higher level, at some point in the next decade or two, 
     yield levels will begin to fall, and they will fall below the 
     four billion level. This is the scientific advice given to 
     you by the Forest Service. I urge you to ask yourself, what 
     sustainable level of harvest can our forests support? Then 
     who will you listen to for advice, industry or land managers?
       I talked to a logger friend just yesterday. He said, ``Why 
     not let the individual states and industry set the cut level 
     . . . Do you think they would cut themselves out of a job? 
     This is our land, not Congress' or some easterner's and we 
     know what is best for it.'' I told him that I had no doubt 
     that industry would cut themselves out of a job because they 
     are only concerned with short term profits.
       A true commitment to community stability would help these 
     mill towns read the writing on the wall. Find other 
     specialties for their community that will increase jobs. The 
     real growth industries in Idaho are information technology 
     and recreation--tourism. People with jobs to offer come to 
     Idaho because of the ``quality of life.'' This includes low 
     crime, a lack of urbanization and a healthy natural 
     environment. We need to make sure that our forest and water 
     environments are maintained and not sold for short term 
     profit.
       Let the land managers do the job they were trained to do. 
     The Forest Service will have all the salvage sales on the 
     auction blocks by this summer with environmentally sound 
     analyses in place. Mr. Taylor's bill calls for forgoing this 
     type of analysis, which does nothing to help our forests. And 
     to link any forest health bill to our fallen firefighters 
     mocks their deaths.
           Yours truly,
                                                   Patrick Withen.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Let me briefly discuss the salvage aspects of my 
amendment. Whereas the underlying bill suspends all environmental laws 
to allow salvage operations, my amendment does not permit the agencies 
to operate above the law. Instead, it requires them to expedite 
compliance with those laws.
  Second, the underlying bill allows salvage on any Federal lands 
outside of designated wilderness areas where there is insect- or fire-
damaged timber. That allows agencies to build roads in pristine 
roadless areas and harvest trees along our wild and scenic river 
corridors. My amendment restricts salvage operations to areas outside 
of the wilderness, roadless areas, and other congressionally designated 
areas, like wild and scenic river corridors.
  Third, like the underlying bill, my amendment would shorten the 
timelines allowed for appeals, but allow citizens' the right to 
challenge bad agency decisions. Where the underlying bill prohibits 
administrative appeals and does not allow temporary injunctions, my 
bill allows appeals, but dramatically shortens the timelines and 
procedural requirements.
  This is a reasonable, responsible approach. It ensures salvage 
operations will go forward. It protects workers and towns from the 
tangle of yet more lawsuits and insures that appropriate environmental 
protections are in place.
  We do need to work with timber communities; they have been waiting a 
long time. We also need to protect them from the uncertainties of 
prolonged litigation. My amendment will do that.
  Until very recently, the old growth Douglas fir forests in the 
Pacific Northwest had been shut down because Judge William Dwyer had 
ruled the agencies were not following the law.
  When President Clinton held his forest conference in Portland 2 years 
ago, he promised a scientifically credible, economically sustainable, 
legally defensible plan to resolve the crisis. Option 9 is the result 
of that pledge. Let's be clear about this: Everybody dislikes option 9. 
The timber communities felt it was inadequate. The environmental groups 
felt it allowed too much harvesting.
  Whatever people felt about it, option 9 was the first serious attempt 
to resolve an issue that plagued my region for years. Therefore, I 
supported it.
  Judge Dwyer has recently ruled that option 9 satisfies the 
requirements of Federal law. Today, timber communities are back in the 
Federal timber harvest business. Unfortunately, they are not back to 
the degree that they should be. I am very unhappy that the Forest 
Service has not produced promised volumes.
  I wrote the President last week to request a schedule for timber 
sales under option 9. He responded with details on both option 9 and 
the salvage program. I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed 
in the Record.
  [[Page S4872]] There being no objection, the material was ordered to 
be printed in the Record, as follows:
                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Clinton,
     President, The White House, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. President: I know you are as concerned as I about 
     the seeming inability of the Forest Service to produce a 
     reasonable supply of timber for Pacific Northwest timber 
     communities under Option 9. You and the rest of your 
     Administration worked hard to find a solution to the forest 
     crises we were facing. Despite protestations from all sides, 
     you supported a compromise plan to provide both 
     scientifically sound management of our forests and a 
     sustainable supply of timber to our communities.
       Now, almost a year after the Record of Decision and 9 
     months after the lifting of the injunction, fewer than 300 
     million board feet of timber have been sold in the 17 
     National Forests managed under Option 9. I'm sure you agree 
     that this is unacceptable.
       Legislation has passed the House and will soon be 
     considered by the Senate to suspend all federal environmental 
     laws applicable to the Forest Service in order to enable the 
     agency to sell the volume set forth in Option 9 (and to meet 
     salvage and section 318 sale targets). As a rule, I do not 
     support such ``sufficiency'' language because I strongly 
     believe agencies should not be above the law. However, I am 
     very frustrated by the Forest Service's inability to deliver 
     on the Option 9 sale targets.
       Mr. President, I must have assurances this week that the 
     Forest service will meet its Option 9 target levels by the 
     end of this year. I need to know specific plans, timelines, 
     and changes that the Forest Service intends to take to get 
     this timber out. And I need to know what, if anything, you 
     need from Congress.
       I believe Option 9 and existing law can produce a 
     sustainable flow of timber. Unfortunately, my belief has been 
     shaken by the facts.
       Finally, I would appreciate knowing your plans for how the 
     Forest Service will conduct its salvage operations and any 
     problems you foresee in this area. Thank you for your 
     continued interest in finding solutions to these thorny 
     forest issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Patty Murray,
     Senator.
                                                                    ____

                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 1995.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Patty: Thank you for your letter regarding the status 
     of the Northwest Forest Plan. I appreciate your concerns and 
     want to make clear the progress that is being made.
       As you know, from the time I took office, I made resolution 
     of the long-standing Northwest forest dispute--which had 
     produced years of conflict and litigation--a high priority 
     for my Administration. The completion of my Northwest Forest 
     Plan in April 1994 and the subsequent ruling by Judge Dwyer 
     upholding the plan in December marks the first time since 
     1991 that forest management has been pushed out of the courts 
     and back into the communities. That is clearly good news.
       I understand that you are concerned about the sales of 
     timber to date, but, as noted, we have only been out of the 
     courts since December. In FY 1995 we will offer for sale 
     approximately 600 million board feet (mmbf). This is 
     consistent with my commitment under the Forest Plan, which 
     was to offer 60 percent of the 1997 target (1.1 billion board 
     feet) in FY 1995. Furthermore, I am assured by the U.S. 
     Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
     that we will meet our commitment under the Plan of 800 mmbf 
     in FY 1996, and finally 1.1 billion board feet (bbf) in FY 
     1997. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of 
     Land Management will offer 1.664 bbf in salvage sales 
     throughout the country.
       The agencies are working hard to expedite the 
     implementation of the Plan. The FS and BLM, for example, are 
     now working with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and 
     the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) early in the 
     process of timber sale preparation. By engaging early on and 
     working simultaneously on project development, sale layout 
     and contract preparations will be significantly expedited.
       Let me also note that, in addition to getting timber sales 
     moving, we are engaging state governments and local 
     communities as never before to create new economic 
     opportunities. In FY 94 the federal government invested 
     $126.6 million in the region combined with $164.3 million in 
     SBA loan guarantees. For example, the U.S. Forest Service 
     allocated $6.3 million for over 200 Jobs-in-the-Woods 
     contracts in the Gifford Pinchot, Okanogan, Olympic, Mount 
     Baker-Snoqualmie, and Wenatchee National Forests. In FY 95, 
     we will offer $301 million to the region under the Forest 
     Plan in grants and loan guarantees.
       Additionally, with regard to salvage sales, we will be 
     reducing the time it takes to prepare a salvage sale by about 
     30 percent.
       Let me be clear that legislation to bypass existing 
     environmental laws and mandate a minimum level of salvage 
     sales may not increase the flow of timber. In fact, the 
     Department of Justice has advised that such mandates could 
     reduce timber, grazing, and mining activities because they 
     could result in new litigation over every land management 
     plan, including the Forest Plan.
       I share your desire and commitment to a sustainable flow of 
     timber in Washington. As you know, the gridlock created by 
     the actions of previous administrations will take years to 
     turn fully around. But again, our significant investment in 
     this issue is now beginning to offer hope to communities in 
     Oregon, Washington, and Northern California. I look forward 
     to working with you toward productive solutions for the 
     people of Washington and the entire Pacific Northwest. 
     Enclosed you will find a schedule of timber sales and a 
     summary of agency activity to facilitate the flow of timber 
     in the region.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
     Bill Clinton.
                                                                    ____

                       Timber Schedule Attachment

     FOREST SERVICE AND BLM OR/WA/CA TIMBER SALE PROGRAM FOR FY 1994    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Non owl          
               Volume Sold                 Owl range    range     Total 
                                             (mmbf)     (mmbf)          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service...........................        233        257      490
BLM......................................       18.5          0     18.5
                                          ------------------------------
  Total..................................      251.5        257    508.5
                                          ==============================
Forest Service\1\........................      851.0        376    1,227
BLM\1\...................................      154.0          0      154
                                          ------------------------------
  Total\1\...............................    1,005.0        376    1,381
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Volume harvested.                                                    


                      FOREST SERVICE OR/WA/CA TIMBER SALE PROGRAM FOR MAR. 1 TO MAY 1, 1995                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Owl range                               Nonowl range                          
   FY 1995 sale   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Region 5 
 period Mar. 1 to     Green        Salvage        Total        Green       Salvage                   and 6 total
      May 1           (mmbf)        (mmbf)        (mmbf)       (mmbf)       (mmbf)     Total (mmbf)             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon (Region 6)          2.8           10.7         13.5         13.8         27.0           40.8         54.3
Washington                                                                                                      
 (Region 6)......           .2            0             .2          4.4          6.2           10.6         10.8
California                                                                                                      
 (Region 5)......          7.6            6.8         14.4  ...........  ...........            0           14.4
                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Categorical                                                                                                 
     totals......         10.6           17.5         28.1         18.2         33.2           51.4         79.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              FOREST SERVICE OR/WA/CA TIMBER SALE PROGRAM FOR FY 95                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Owl range                             Nonowl range                         
                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Region 5 
 FY 1995 sale period      Green       Salvage       Total        Green       Salvage       Total     and 6 total
                          (mmbf)       (mmbf)       (mmbf)       (mmbf)       (mmbf)       (mmbf)               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon (Region 6)....        138.5         79.8        218.3         54.4        231.6          286        504.3
Washington (Region 6)         57.9         91.6        149.5         20.0         54.0           74        223.5
California (Region 5)         65.4         33.1         98.5  ...........  ...........            0         98.5
                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Categorical total        261.8        204.5        466.3         74.4        285.6          360        826.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                                                
[[Page S4873]]
                                                   BLM OREGON/WASHINGTON TIMBER SALE PROGRAM FOR FY 95                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Western Oregon                         E. Oregon and Washington                        
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  OR/WA BLM 
                FY 1995 sale period                     Green       Salvage       Total        Green                                            total   
                                                        (mmbf)       (mmbf)       (mmbf)       (MMbf)     Salvage (mmbf)     Total (mmbf)               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October-May 1......................................         12.6            6         18.6            0  OR/4.8-WA/0.6...  OR4.8-WA/0.6....           24
Oct.-September 30..................................          104           16          120            0  OR/23.4-WA/0.6..  OR/23.4-WA/0.6..          144
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Additional volume that will be made available in FY 1995

                                                                 (mmbf)
1. Marbled Murrelet volume From Unoccupied Units:
    Oregon.........................................................20.3
    Washington......................................................2.6
    California......................................................3.4
                                                               ________

      Total........................................................26.3
                                                               ========

2. Section 318 Rogue River Forest-Judge Marsh Case (Sales will be 
  awarded within 60 days)..........................................13.9
3. Going forward at purchasers' discretion from BLM................70.0
4. Willamette Horse Byers & Red 90 (Volume will be awarded this spring; 
  delayed by Supreme Court Decision)...............................11.1
5. Siskiyou Forest.................................................12.7
                                                               ========

      Total Miscellaneous Sales...................................134.0
                     Summary of Ongoing Activities

   (Prepared by E. Thomas Tuchman, Director, Office of Forestry and 
                 Economic Development, March 23, 1995)


                  increasing short-term timber supply

       The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northwest Forest Plan 
     allowed all timber sales that were sold and awarded prior to 
     the effective date of the ROD to go forward at the 
     purchasers' discretion. Those that were sold but not awarded 
     could go forward provided they met the requirements of the 
     Endangered Species Act (ESA). As of January 1, 1995, 96% of 
     the total Section 318 volume offered had been released. The 
     remaining volume is awaiting completion of surveys to comply 
     with the ESA. Agencies are working vigorously to complete the 
     required analyses and move these sales. A portion of the 
     remaining Section 318 sales, 13.9 mmbf from the Rogue River 
     Forest, will be awarded within 60 days. There will be an 
     additional 20.3 mmbf offered by mid-summer pursuant to 
     issuance of a biological opinion by the U.S. Fish and 
     Wildlife Service on unoccupied units for Marble Murrelets. 
     Please note the attached chart which contains a timber sale 
     schedule for FY 95 and includes salvage and green sales, in 
     addition to some outstanding miscellaneous sales that will be 
     offered by September 30, 1995.


       immediate attention to actions improving forest conditions

       We agree completely that we ought to move aggressively to 
     improve the health of forests in the Northwest; therefore, 
     several months ago we directed the agencies to move 
     expeditiously forward with immediate actions, such as salvage 
     sales. On March 8, the heads of four Federal agencies--Bureau 
     of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service (FS), U.S. 
     Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries 
     (NMFS)--signed an agreement detailing new consultation time 
     lines and streamlining processes for forest health projects. 
     Pursuant to this agreement, compliance with the National 
     Environmental Policy Act, the ESA, and other statutes will be 
     significantly accelerated. In fact, by ``reinventing'' the 
     consultation process, we will be able to cut the time 
     required to prepare salvage sales by about 30%. These process 
     improvements will accelerate the flow of timber in Oregon, 
     specifically on the ``east side.''
       Additionally, a meeting is scheduled between BLM, FWS, FS, 
     and NMFS biologists and others involved in consultation to 
     work on screens to expedite consultation for salvage sales in 
     the region. Other streamlining actions will also be 
     discussed.
       With regard to your suggestion concerning proceeds from 
     commercial thinning, the Forest Service currently has the 
     authority to fund timber stand improvements and other 
     restoration from timber receipts under the Knutson-Vandenberg 
     (K-V) Act. It is current practice for the Forest Service to 
     utilize these funds through the K-V Act from thinnings and 
     other timber sales to do timber stand improvements and to 
     conduct riparian restoration where
      applicable. Another option is to consider the use of 
     stewardship contracts. This is a mechanism we have piloted 
     in other areas where timber sales pay for activities like 
     watershed restoration, recreation improvements, and 
     thinning and salvage sales. This is a tool we are 
     exploring in your region. If you have any questions about 
     it, please have someone contact us.


                      simplify plan implementation

       This Administration is committed to maximizing our 
     flexibility in implementing the Forest Plan. For example, the 
     U.S. Forest Service and BLM are expediting Plan 
     implementation by, for example, working with the FWS and the 
     NMFS to engage in the appropriate consultations early in the 
     process of timber sale preparation. By engaging early on and 
     working simultaneously on project development, we will 
     expedite sale layout and contract preparation. Further, by 
     involving FWS and NMFS biologists early in project 
     development, we should alleviate problems that would 
     otherwise arise in the final stages.
       Also, we are on an accelerated track to complete half of 
     all the necessary watershed analyses under the Forest Plan by 
     the end of 1995. As you know, watershed analysis--utilized to 
     help make informed management decisions--is a new requirement 
     under the Forest Plan. As the watershed analyses are 
     completed and timber sales are awarded over the next year, 
     the timber pipeline will slowing be replenished after having 
     been fully depleted during the three and-a-half year period 
     (1991-June 1994) that timber sales were enjoined. This will 
     allow for an even and steady flow of timber under the Forest 
     Plan for Oregon and the region.
       Overall, the agencies are pursuing better regional 
     oversight through a prioritization of consultation actions 
     and quality control of biological assessments submitted to 
     NMFS. Priorities will be coordinated regionally, rather than 
     for each Forest or BLM district. This will allow for smoother 
     implementation under the Forest Plan, as well as facilitate 
     forest salvage actions in the region.


          expedite endangered species act consultation process

       We too are concerned about the time it has taken in the 
     past to consult on management actions and are working to 
     expedite the process. As a result, land managers are 
     involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 
     National Marine & Fisheries Service at the beginning of a 
     project rather than at the end. In addition, they are 
     ``batching'' projects for consultation in larger groups, 
     wherever possible, rather than consulting on a sale-by-sale 
     basis.
       Moroever, Secretary Babbitt has asked FWS to conduct an 
     evaluation of the consultation process with the goal of 
     further streamlining consultation for forest plan and salvage 
     sale activities. Additionally, on March 6, Secretary Babbitt 
     announced a ten point plan for easing ESA restrictions on 
     harvests from private lands. These and other efforts are 
     underway to facilitate responsibility the sale of timber in 
     your region.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the administration needs to fulfill its 
commitment to the region. If Congress can help, so much the better. But 
we must be very careful not to go too far.
  The Chief of the Forest Service told me last week he is well on his 
way to providing promised timber sales levels. But he lacks the human 
resources to do so. My amendment transfers money from road construction 
programs to need personnel to get these sales out. It does not simply 
waive the rules.
  When Judge Dwyer approved option 9, he did so with conditions. He 
expects full funding for implementation, and he expects monitoring and 
assessment for compliance with the standards and guidelines.
  Mr. President, I am concerned that if we do not heed his advice, 
Judge Dwyer will rule option 9 invalid and once again forbid all 
harvesting in the Northwest. Our communities simply cannot afford that 
blow.
  My amendment provides needed financial resources. Additionally, it 
says that if the agencies follow the rules set forth in option 9, 
anyone challenging a timber sale will have to cross a very high legal 
hurdle to prove that a timber sale is environmentally harmful.
  Let me say one final word about option 9. If people have a problem 
with option 9, they have a problem with the laws: National 
Environmental Policy Act, and National Forest Management Act. If we are 
going to revisit the merits of option 9, we should instead take a broad 
look at the laws governing it. We should not take short cuts in a 
rescissions bill without the benefit of hearings and public 
involvement.


                              section 318

  Finally, my amendment directs the Forest Service to find replacement 
volume for sales old under fiscal year 1990 appropriations bill, dubbed 
section 318, that are tied up because they may contain the threatened 
marbled murrelet. The companies who bought these sales years ago 
deserve what we promised them: timber. My amendment delivers that.
  Mr. President, two of the provisions of this bill have only regional 
effects. The primary provision--salvage of damaged Federal lands--is 
national in scope and affects the health of forests 
[[Page S4874]] throughout this Nation. We must not give the agencies 
free rein to cut timber without regard to environmental considerations.
  My amendment is a moderate, reasonable alternative. It expedites 
salvage. It expedites option 9. It ensures appropriate levels of 
environmental protection. And most importantly, it protects communities 
and workers from burdensome, frustrating litigation. Such litigation is 
sure to result from the underlying bill.
  Mr. President, 10 days ago I went to Gray's Harbor in my home State 
of Washington, and I talked to people who have lived through the 
nightmare of Congress and the courts deciding their lives. They are 
just starting to get back on their feet. Hope is beginning to return. 
They do not want more empty promises. They do not need congressional 
interference that may backfire. They do need promises kept, and they do 
need Congress to act with common sense.
  That is what my amendment does, and I urge my friends here in the 
Senate to support it.
  Mr. President, I retain the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, who controls the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Washington yield time?
  Mr. GORTON. Does the Senator from Alaska wish to speak in support of 
the amendment?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska would like to speak in support 
of the Gorton salvage amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, before I do so, I ask unanimous consent 
that privilege of the floor be granted to Dave Robertson and Art 
Gaffrey, congressional fellows attached to Senator Hatfield's staff.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from 
Washington.
  Mr. President, I rise to again commend the Gorton salvage amendment. 
I share, as Senator from the State of Alaska, a dilemma facing all of 
us; that is, a shortage of timber. We have seen our industry shrink by 
about three-quarters by a combination of the inability of the Forest 
Service to meet its proposed contractual agreements. As a consequence, 
the industry has shrunk. As I see the issue before us, we have an 
opportunity, because of an unfortunate act of God, to bring into the 
pipeline a supply of timber that otherwise would not be available. 
Clearly, without the help of the Gorton salvage amendment the Forest 
Service is absolutely incapable--make no mistake about it--incapable of 
addressing this in an expeditious manner.
  So those who suggest that we simply proceed under the status quo will 
find that the timber will be left where the bugs or the fire last left 
it when we are here next year and the year after. So, do not be misled 
by those who are of the extreme environmental bent to see this as an 
opportunity simply to stop the timber process. It is unfortunate that 
we could not make the decision on what to do with this timber based on 
sound forest practice management--what is best for the renewability of 
the resource.
  The Gorton salvage amendment is an essential response to an emergency 
forest health situation in our Federal forests as evidenced by last 
year's fire season. Our committee, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, has held oversight in the area, has recognized the severity 
of the problem, and I strongly recommend we do a positive step of 
forest management practice and support the Gorton amendment as an 
appropriate emergency response to the problem.
  I have listened to the critics of the amendment both on the floor and 
off the floor. I have come to conclude that they must be discussing 
some other provision than the one offered by the senior Senator from 
Washington.
  First, they say the Gorton amendment mandates increased salvage 
timber sales. The Gorton amendment does not mandate timber sales. It 
provides the administration with the flexibility to salvage sales to 
the extent feasible. I trust the administration to properly utilize 
that flexibility. Opponents of the Gorton amendment apparently do not 
trust this administration. I cannot tell whether they do not want to 
rehabilitate burned forests or whether they need individual sign off 
from the Forest Service Chief, Jack Ward Thomas, the Secretary of 
Agriculture, or maybe even Vice President Gore to trust the 
administration.
  Second, they say that the Gorton amendment suspends all environmental 
laws. The Gorton amendment expedites existing administrative procedures 
under the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy 
Act, and other measures. If the agency successfully follows the 
expedited procedure, their performance is deemed adequate to comply 
with existing environmental and natural resource statutes. These 
expedited procedures are essential as we must appropriately respond to 
the forest health emergency, and it is an emergency that we face. If 
you have an emergency, Mr. President, you respond to it and you 
expedite a process. That is what the Gorton amendment is all about.
  Third, they say the Gorton amendment eliminates judicial review. It 
simply does not. The amendment provides an expedited form of judicial 
review that has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in previous 
litigation.
  Fourth, they would say the Forest Service cannot meet the salvage 
targets. The amendment does not have any targets. I wish it did. Today, 
the Forest Service is working on its capability statement on the House 
version of this amendment. There are strong indications that with the 
expedited procedure the House bill will match in pertinent part the 
Gorton amendment. The agencies can meet the House targets and still 
comply with substantive requirements of existing environmental and 
natural resources.
  Fifth, they say the amendment will cost the Treasury. This is simply 
false. The Gorton amendment has received a positive score from CBO.
  Sixth, they say the amendment may disrupt and actually reduce timber 
sales. Well, if that were true, I would expect them to strongly support 
the Gorton amendment. But it is not true. The Gorton amendment contains 
protective language to assure potential environmental litigants cannot 
disrupt other agencies' functions due to this amendment.
  Finally, Mr. President, I have been genuinely perplexed by the 
misconceptions that accompany the attacks on this amendment, but today 
perhaps I know why this is the case. Yesterday, Senator Gorton and 
Congressman Charles Taylor along with Senator Craig, the author of S. 
391, which is a measure directed at another aspect of this problem, 
offered to meet, as I understand, with groups of activists opposed to 
both the Gorton amendment and S. 391 together. It is my understanding 
they cleared time on their calendars at 9 a.m., but they found that the 
activists were evidently more interested in preparing for their 9:30 
a.m. press conference than meeting with the authors of the three 
provisions which they proceeded to lambaste. That sort of interest 
group behavior I do not think can be tolerated if we are to continue to 
have informed debates in this body.
  So, Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gorton amendment, and 
against other modifying amendments. I encourage my colleagues to 
proceed with what this is, an emergency.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as recently as half a dozen years ago, 
there was a booming, successful forest products industry in rural towns 
all up and down the north Pacific coast of the United States. In region 
6, in Washington, Oregon, and northern California, approximately 5 
billion board feet of timber was being harvested. Towns were prosperous 
and optimistic. Families were happy and united. Schools were full. The 
contribution that these people made to the economy of the United States 
is difficult to underestimate. It was easier and less expensive to 
build homes, to publish newspapers, to engage in all of the activities 
which 
[[Page S4875]] arise out of the forest products industry. And even 
during that time of maximum harvests every year in the Pacific 
Northwest more board feet of new timber was growing than was being 
harvested.
  Beginning with the controversy over the spotted owl in the Pacific 
Northwest--in which incidentally, the recovery goal at the time of its 
listing has now long since been exceeded by the discovery of additional 
spotted owls--at the time of the beginning of that controversy, that 
harvest began to drop precipitately, to the point at which in the last 
few years the harvest on lands of the United States of America has been 
close to zero. Communities have been devastated. Families have broken 
up. Small businesses have failed. Homes purchased by the work of many 
years have become useless because they cannot be sold.
  And we have constantly heard from those whose conscious policies 
drove the litigation leading to this end that the people in these towns 
should seek other employment in some other place or be the subject of 
various kinds of relief activities. So where they provided a net income 
to the United States from their income taxes, they now are a net drain 
on the people of the United States for welfare programs which have 
benefited primarily planners and contractors and advisors and not the 
people who lost their jobs.
  Mr. President, these people, these communities, their contributions 
to America have been largely ignored by the mainstream media of this 
country. Their professions have been denigrated. They who live in this 
country and have a greater investment in seeing to it that it remains 
booming and prosperous have been accused of utter indifference and 
attacks on the environment.
  Mr. President, that only has not been terribly unjust but it has been 
destructive of balance and destructive of the economy of our country.
  Now, into this controversy some 3 years ago came the then candidate 
for President of the United States, Bill Clinton, promising in a well-
attended meeting in Portland, OR, balance and relief, promising to 
listen to the people of the Pacific Northwest, to protect the 
environment but at the same time to restore a significant number of the 
lost jobs and some degree of hope and prosperity to those communities.
  The first part of later President Clinton's promise was kept in 1993 
when as President he returned to Portland, OR, and held a timber 
summit.
  Long after the completion of that summit came what is now known as 
option 9, an option which the President stated met all of the 
environmental laws in the United States which he was unwilling to 
change in any respect but also promised something more than 1 billion 
board feet of harvest of timber to the people of the Northwest--1 
billion as against 5, or 20 percent of the historic level.
  I did not then and I do not now believe that that constitutes balance 
or that it was at all necessary to protect the environment. But it was 
a promise, Mr. President, of some form of relief.
  Since then, the President has had that option validated by a U.S. 
district court judge who has taken charge of this area in Seattle. But 
do our people have 1.1 billion board feat of harvest? No, Mr. 
President, they do not. In spite of the time at which that promise was 
made, they are nowhere close to that because the Forest Service in its 
personnel cuts has cut mostly the people who work in the woods 
preparing these sales and because the Clinton administration knows that 
almost no single action taken pursuant to this option will escape an 
appeal within the Forest Service and a lawsuit being stretched out 
forever and ever.
  That is one element, Mr. President.
  The second is that last summer, regrettably, was a time of major 
forest fires in almost every corner of the United States--loss of life 
in Colorado, huge fires in Idaho and Utah, large fires in my own State 
of Washington. Those fires have left billions of board feet of timber 
that is now dead, absolutely dead, but for a relatively short period of 
time harvestable. If it is not harvested, Mr. President, it will become 
worthless very quickly by rotting away and at the same time will be 
tinder for future forest fires.
  And yet the opponents to harvest say that's nature's way. Forest 
fires start; let them burn. Very few of them live in communities near 
where these fires have taken place, whose summers have been ruined by 
them, may I say, incidentally.
  And so in this bill, as in the bill produced by the House, we attempt 
to enable the President of the United States to keep his own promises; 
nothing more than that, Mr. President.
  It is true that the provisions in the House bill set a mandated 
harvest level roughly double what the administration deems to be 
appropriate. The proposal attacked by my colleague from the State of 
Washington, however, has no such requirement in it. It simply says 
that, after all of these years, all of these promises, all of this 
devastation, that we will liberate the administration to do what it 
wants to do.
  And yet, this is attacked as if, somehow or another, this 
administration had no concern for the environment whatsoever; that 
Secretary Babbitt was simply out to cut down the forests of the Bureau 
of Land Management; that President Clinton's Forest Service wanted to 
do nothing else but that, and to ignore environmental laws from one end 
of this country to another. It is astounding, Mr. President, that the 
administration itself does not wish help in keeping its own 
commitments.
  Now, both the amendment which is a part of this bill and the 
substitute amendment by the junior Senator from Washington cover three 
distinct, separate but related subjects.
  One on salvage timber is nationwide in scope. The administration 
proposes in this fiscal year to sell something over 1.5 billion board 
feet of salvaged timber, dead or dying timber. In region 6, which is 
the Pacific Northwest, the figure is about one-fifth of that total. 
Four-fifths of it are from other regions of the country and they 
include every Forest Service region in the United States.
  My proposal, the proposal in the bill, does not require the 
administration to double that offering. In fact, it has no number in it 
at all. But it says that the administration, having carefully 
considered every environmental law, is enabled to do what it tells us 
that it wants to do.
  Does this suspend the environmental laws? No, Mr. President. This 
administration has certainly tried its best to abide by all of them and 
all of them remain on the books, those I agree with and those I 
disagree with.
  And I cannot imagine that Members of this body will accuse the 
administration of wanting to ignore those statutes. It simply says that 
the administration's own decisions will not further be attacked in 
court by the often inconsistent provisions of six or seven or eight 
different statutes passed at different times with different goals.
  The amendment that is sought to be substituted for that which is in 
the bill does not reduce litigation in the slightest, Mr. President. It 
calls for certain expedited procedures, but it still allows every 
timber sale to be appealed within the Forest Service or the BLM, and 
every one to go to court. And they all will go to court, Mr. President, 
because those who will attack them, those who want nothing to be done, 
will recognize that all they have to do is to delay it for another 
season and there will not be anything to sell, because it will be 
worthless. So that portion of the substitute amendment is simply an 
invitation to have no salvage at all.
  The second and third elements in both amendments have to do with 
option 9 and with so-called section 318 sales. Section 318 was a part 
of the Appropriations Act in 1990, designed to provide some interim 
help for the forest in the two Northwest States. But many of the sales 
directed by this Congress pursuant to that law have been held up by 
subsequent environmental actions.
  The proposal that the committee has made simply says that those sales 
would go ahead unless they involved places in which endangered species 
are actually found, in which case, substitute lands will take their 
place.
  Our option 9 provision, I repeat, Mr. President, simply says that the 
President can keep the promises he made some time ago, almost 2 years 
ago, under option 9 and not be subject to constant harassing lawsuits. 
That is all that it says. It does not require him to get to the 1.1 
billion board feet of harvest that he promised, and he will not. 
[[Page S4876]] It does say that he can do what he wishes to do.
  Now, the substitute amendment, in each case, for all practical 
purposes, makes dealing with this issue at the level of Congress 
pointless. All of the lawsuits will still be able to be brought, but 
perhaps we will actually find ourselves in a damaging situation.
  The Presiding Officer is from the State of New Hampshire. I presume 
that some small portion of this salvage timber is in his State. But if 
this substitute amendment passes, all of the personnel of the Forest 
Service from the rest of the United States will have to go to 
Washington and Oregon in order to meet the requirements of the 
substitute amendment, at the cost of every other region in the United 
States.
  Now I would like to have that kind of service in my State, but I do 
not believe it to be fair. I do not think we can say that we are the 
only ones who under any circumstances should get anything out of one of 
these amendments.
  The definition of what salvage timber is in the bill is the Forest 
Service's own definition. The definition in the substitute amendment is 
a different definition, one highly susceptible to further litigation.
  The exceptions provided by the amendment of the Senator from Montana 
keeps this kind of salvage logging out of wilderness areas and certain 
other well-defined areas. The proposal by the junior Senator from 
Washington keeps them out of any area that is under consideration for 
inclusion in the national wilderness preservation system.
  Mr. President, under that proposal, one bill by one Member of the 
House of Representatives introduced to put the entire National Forest 
System included in a wilderness preservation system would stop any 
harvest anywhere. It would be under consideration by Congress. What it 
does, in effect, is to give any of the 535 Members of Congress a veto 
power over the entire proposal.
  Mr. President, the issue in this case is clear. Do we care at all 
about people, not just in the Pacific Northwest but all across the 
United States, who live in timber communities? Do we care about our 
supply of lumber and of paper products? Or do we only care about the 
well-being of certain environmental organizations and their lawyers?
  That is what we are debating with respect to this amendment. Do we 
want the President of the United States to be able to keep his 
commitments, his promises, however inadequate they are? Or do we have 
so little trust in him that we believe that he will ignore every 
environmental law and decide suddenly to cut down our national forests?
  Mr. President, that is not going to happen. The lawsuits will, under 
this proposed substitute amendment, provide relief for people who need 
relief. Income for the Treasury of the United States will only come 
from rejecting the substitute amendment and accepting the bill in its 
present form.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Washington yield me 5 
minutes?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and distinguished 
Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray].
  Mr. President, this timber salvage language in H.R. 1158--so people 
understand the history, this represents the 12th time since 1984 this 
body would vote to exempt timber sales from environmental laws; 12 
times since 1984.
  Frankly, I find that disturbing. It means that the American people 
are going to be asked to believe that when it comes to cutting national 
forests, somehow environmental laws do not apply. These exemptions, 
which should have been, if at all, in emergency situation, instead are 
becoming routine and standard practice. It is not a short-term 
solution. I have to wonder how long this will go on. To me the 
exemption from environmental law is an extreme position. The majority 
of the American would not accept, nor should they. The distinguished 
Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, and I streamlined the process in 
1992. We are speaking of public lands, and in public lands, every 
American has a right to express his or her public interest. H.R. 1158 
takes away the opportunity to participate in public land management. I 
do not see how the U.S. Senate can accept a provision that strips 
people of this right and takes the right out of the people's hands and 
puts it solely into the hands of bureaucrats. This would not create any 
more open government. In fact, this seals the same government agents 
off from public interest.
  I respect the concerns of my fellow colleagues from other timber 
States. Even though I am a tree farmer, that is not my sole source of 
livelihood. I have talked with people in that area. It makes sense to 
address the problem, but with a sensible, responsible, moderate 
solution that respects the true interests of the American people and, 
in the long term, the apolitical needs of the forest resource.
  I believe Senator Murray has proposed a fair solution. In fact, she 
inherited this divisive timber issue when she was elected. She promised 
the people of Washington a responsible solution. I have discussed this 
with her since she has come here. I believe that since her election, 
she has helped put the timber industry on a reliable path that the 
timber industries can bank on.
  In fact, with the work she has done, there has been an increase of 
400 jobs, not a decrease in the lumber, paper, and allied wood products 
industry in the State of Washington since her election. She has an 
alternative that moves toward long-term sustainability, not a quick 
fix. Above everything else, what Senator Murray has done is what 
timber-dependent communities want, especially the younger generations--
long-term sustainability. People go into this for the long term, not 
with the idea that every 10 months, or year, or 14 months we are going 
to suddenly change the rules of the game.
  So I urge my colleagues to support Senator Murray and abandon the 
extreme approaches that failed us in the past and removed any kind of 
public input from the process. Look at her long-term solution and adopt 
her amendment.
  I am going to yield my time back to the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington controls the time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I assume the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton, 
will yield time to the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment 
offered by Senator Murray of Washington. This amendment severely 
weakens what this provision is intended to do--respond to our forest 
health emergency, restore our forests to health, and create jobs. This 
substitute amendment is only a clever way to do nothing.
  The committee-passed provision is responsive to not only forest 
health, but to the people who support their families in the wood 
products industry. But this amendment is no more than status quo. And 
Montanans do not want status quo.
  This substitute amendment does not streamline the process, limit the 
frivolous appeals, or allow for salvage sales to be expedited. Instead 
this amendment forces agencies to consult with other agencies, and does 
nothing to cut through the environmental red tape and still allows for 
endless delays.
  It replaces the Forest Service definition of ``salvage timber sale,'' 
which is included in the committee's bill, with a new definition. This 
definition doesn't take into account overcrowded forests which need to 
be thinned, and it forces the land managers to always consult with 
biologists.
  This amendment also eliminates the legal sufficiency language which 
is needed in the preparation of sale documents. If we are truly serious 
about salvaging timber, we need to have sufficiency language included, 
and we need to retain streamlined timeframes to assure that the 
environmental procedure process is not abused.
  Currently, delays in Federal land management arise primarily from two 
sources--multiple analysis requirements and administrative appeals and 
judicial review. Without this sufficiency language, we will continue to 
have lengthy delays which will substantially lead to the more dead and 
dying timber in our forests.
  [[Page S4877]] Congress needs to act on the salvage issue. We have 
the authority to establish the law, rather than leaving it to the 
judicial branch to declare what the law is. Yet, this amendment moves 
this authority toward the courts.
  This amendment is worse than the status quo. It requires the agencies 
to jump through more holes than it already has to, and it makes some 
land currently available for harvest off limits. It wouldn't result in 
any more timber salvaging activities. And most importantly, it will 
stop the creation of jobs in Montana. I strongly oppose this amendment. 
The wood products industry comprises almost half of western Montana's 
economy, and this amendment is not responsive to those folks who make 
their living in this sector of our economy.
  I just want to make one simple little evaluation here about this 
conversation. We have had the status quo long enough. I know what the 
status quo is. We do not salvage any, or we do not log any of our 
salvage lumber. It is finite. If it goes another year, it is not worth 
anything. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about 
areas that have been burned and areas that are infested with disease. 
The lumber is finite.
  Everybody can stand around and grin while people are not working and 
we are not taking care of the forests like they should be managed. They 
think they are doing a great thing for America, when they are not doing 
anything for America and are doing worse for the people who depend on 
public lands for their living. You are making your check; they are not. 
You think about that whenever you place this vote today.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana, Senator 
Baucus.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how best to deal with the salvage timber 
issue is a matter of judgment. We in the Pacific Northwest have seen a 
lot of dead timber, caused both by forest fires and by disease. And we 
are frustrated by the Forest Service's inability to get some of this 
timber cut. We know it can be done responsibly, with minimal impacts to 
the environment, yet it just isn't happening as quickly as it should.
  The real question is: What is the best way to go about dealing with 
this problem?
  We have many competing values that must be accounted for when we 
manage our national forest land. One value is timber. But there are 
many other values that must be considered: wildlife; maintaining the 
quality of our lakes and streams; and recreation.
  I remember not too long ago reading a statement by H.L. Mencken, a 
former Baltimore Sun journalist. He said, ``For every complicated 
problem, there is a simple solution--and it is usually wrong.'' And he 
is right. In many cases, where we face a complicated problem and 
somebody comes up with a simple solution, it tends to be wrong, too 
simplistic. It often tends to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
  I am very respectful of the underlying concept that we are 
considering here. Mr. Gorton's language attempts to address some of the 
frustration we have in the Pacific Northwest about the Forest Service's 
inability to harvest salvage timber in a timely manner.
  I think if you look closely at the Gorton language in this bill, 
which is tailored after the so-called Taylor amendment in the House, 
you will see that it goes too far. It rides roughshod over the statutes 
that this country demands be in place to protect water, wildlife, and 
to maintain the very integrity of our national forests.
  For example, the Gorton language says that ``if any potential salvage 
sale is in the works by the Forest Service''--not up for bid but going 
through the hoops--``it is OK.'' We will ignore environmental statutes 
in the interest of saving a few weeks or months. We will ignore the 
public's right to make sure that their lands are being cared for in a 
responsible manner.
  I ask for 2 additional minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 2 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. On the other hand, the Senator from Washington, Senator 
Murray, is also attempting to address this problem. She has a different 
approach--an approach that balances competing uses and respects the 
need to adhere to environmental laws. And the Murray amendment does not 
ignore the underlying public interest in speeding up the timber sale 
process. It carries a firm mandate to the Forest Service that salvage 
sales are a national priority. It eliminates many of the existing 
procedural hoops without sacrificing environmental protection. It 
shortens the administrative review process by almost half, without 
sacrificing the rights of the public to have their voices heard. Plain 
and simple, the Murray amendment directs the Forest Service to move 
much more expeditiously. To get on with it.
  We love our forests. It is a cornerstone to the way we live in 
Montana. And logging is critical for Montana. Salvage sales are 
critical. But so are outfitters. Like the timber industry, our guides 
and outfitters stake their livelihoods on the national forests. Folks 
come from around the world to hunt and fish in Montana. The outfitting 
industry is economically critical to our State, and it should be given 
equal respect when management decisions are made in our national 
forests.
  Unfortunately, the Gorton language is unbalanced. It goes way too 
far, and does not consider other stakeholders in the national forest. 
The Murray amendment is balanced. It recognizes that there are 
competing values at stake. It recognizes that we can speed up salvage 
sales and create timber jobs without jeopardizing those jobs that 
depend on our forests having clean rivers and lakes, and abundant 
wildlife.
  I urge Members to support the Murray amendment. I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield such time as may be consumed to 
the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Washington for yielding to me.
  This is a very complex issue, and I understand both sides of it. I 
come down on the side of the junior Senator from Washington, because I 
think it is the correct side for the Nation.
  I think to go with the language of Senator Gorton sets a very 
dangerous precedent. Nobody argues with harvesting infested, burnt, 
salvaged timber. I am for that. Every Member of this Senate is. The 
language of the Gorton amendment says that the Forest Service will 
harvest the maximum extent practical.
  Then it goes ahead to say we are going to suspend all environmental 
laws including the Endangered Species Act. This is called sufficiency 
language saying, cut all you can possibly cut that is practicable, and 
do not worry about the environmental laws or any other law. And do that 
in 1995 and 1996.
  It is a dangerous precedent. If we go with that, we do not know where 
we are headed. The pressures from the industry on the Forest Service 
will be intense. That is the reason the fishermen in the Northwest are 
very upset and concerned about this. They are concerned that excessive 
logging will hurt the habitat of the salmon which is disappearing at an 
alarming rate.
  I know the Senator from Oregon wants to provide jobs in those mills, 
and I want to help him but not by suspending all environmental laws. I 
have a letter from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's 
Association, and they adamantly oppose sufficiency language. I would 
like to read an excerpt from their letter.

       We oppose the current Congressional effort to approve 
     ``sufficiency language'' or to mandate minimum timber harvest 
     levels in the Northwest. However well meaning, these are 
     nevertheless bad ideas. Sufficiency language would simply 
     override all current protections for salmon and other aquatic 
     species. Mandatory timber harvest levels would essentially do 
     the same. . . . The result would only be additional 
     degradation of already severely damaged salmon spawning 
     habitat.

  That ought to weigh heavily with somebody. It does with me. This is 
the biggest fishing organization in the West.
  Mr. President, finally, there is language in this bill, as I read it, 
that allows the Forest Service to reemploy people who have received a 
$25,000 buyout.
  Mr. President, 3,000 Forest Service employees, approximately, have 
taken their $25,000 under the Reinventing Government proposal and 
retired.
  Now, here is an incomplete sentence, but if I could have the 
attention of the Senator from Oregon for a moment, here is what the 
provision in the bill says--the provisions of section 3D1 of 
[[Page S4878]] the Federal Work Force Restructuring Act of 1994: 
``Separation incentive payment authorized by such Act and accepts 
employment pursuant to this paragraph''--now that is an incomplete 
sentence. I do not have a clue as to what this means. My impression of 
it is that the Forest Service can take these people who have just taken 
their $25,000 and retired and put them back to work in order to comply 
with this maximum extent practicable.
  Does the Senator from Washington agree with that?
  Mr. GORTON. No.
  Mr. HATFIELD. No, I do not agree with that at all.
  Mr. BUMPERS. What does this sentence mean?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Let me just go back and put this in the context, if I 
could.
  First of all, every timber sale preparation made by Jack Ward Thomas 
or Secretary Babbitt are required to prepare those timber sales with 
existing law in which the regulations on fish are there in place.
  Those timber sales have to be prepared within that conformity. The 
so-called sufficiency language takes place after the fact in order to 
deliver the timber sale that has been prepared under those 
restrictions.
  The Senator is absolutely wrong on this.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Here is what the first sentence of the paragraph says:

       Sale preparation. The Secretary concerned shall make use of 
     all available authority, including the employment of private 
     contractors and the use of expedited fire contracting 
     procedures, to prepare and advertise salvage timber sales 
     under this section.

  Following that, page 71 of the bill, Senator, following that is the 
incomplete sentence. If that is not right, I still do not quite 
understand what it means, because it alludes to the $25,000 buyout.
  Mr. HATFIELD. If the Senator will yield for just a moment, let us go 
back and take the precedent of section 318. Because the same arguments, 
the same invalid arguments are being used today that were used then.
  Let me quote. We went through that whole process underlying laws of 
NEPA, the National Forest Management Practice Act, and then we declared 
sufficiency. The Supreme Court ruled.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Can the Senator continue this on his time?
  Mr. GORTON. I can answer the specific question. The version has been 
corrected. The sentence is complete in the bill that is before us, and 
it simply says that someone who has been brought out of the Forest 
Service and paid, say $25,000, can be hired back temporarily for this 
purpose without losing the $25,000.
  Mr. BUMPERS. But only temporarily?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is the Senator's understanding?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask I be permitted to continue for 2 
additional minutes without the time being charged on the 1-hour 
allocation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will not object if I can add 2 more 
minutes to the time of Mr. Craig.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Fine. We just took up some time here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I like to think I do not have two better 
friends than the senior Senator from Oregon and the senior Senator from 
Washington. They have helped me over the years on many issues of 
concern to my State. However, I cannot support them on this issue.
  I will remind my colleagues that the Senator from Idaho, who is on 
the floor right now, has introduced a forest health bill that was the 
subject of a hearing by the Energy and Natural Resource Committee. In 
fact the bill will probably be marked up in the next few weeks. We 
should let the authorizing committee do its job. I can assure you that 
I will do everything I can to make sure that a responsible bill emerges 
from that committee. I am not going to support something with 
sufficiency language in it.
  If a responsible forest health bill emerges from the Committee, I 
hope it will automatically supersede the Gorton amendment. What is the 
Senator from Washington's understanding of this matter?
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to answer the question but I do not 
wish to use my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Arkansas yielding to the 
Senator from Washington?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I do not want to yield on my time.
  Mr. President, I will close by saying one of the things I think the 
country is concerned about, about what is going on right now--they 
wanted change. They wanted regulatory reform. But they do not want to 
throw the baby out with the bath water.
  I have seen that old expression: If you think education is expensive, 
try ignorance. If you think the environmental laws of this country are 
too tough--and sometimes they can be very frustrating, try living 
without them and see the kind of damage that will be inflicted on our 
environment. The Gorton amendment goes too far. I simply cannot support 
it and urge my colleagues to support the amendment by Senator Murray.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Washington controls the time.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 4 
minutes and 40 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand today in support of the Gorton 
amendment as now amended; certainly in opposition to the amendment of 
my colleague, the junior Senator from the State of Washington.
  A good many things have been said this afternoon about what these 
amendments do and do not do. What I really think is important for all 
of us to understand is the state of the U.S. Forest Service and why we 
are engaged in a debate this afternoon in attempting to bring about 
emergency measures to deal with a very sick problem.
  I use the word sick because the forests of the inland West are sick. 
They are the product of 8 years of drought and decades of mismanagement 
that have resulted in one of the largest fuel buildups, acre by acre, 
ever in the history of the U.S. Forest Service.
  When fuel becomes dry and conditions are right, and Mother Nature 
comes along with thousands of lightning strikes, what happens is what 
happened in Idaho last summer and what happened in Colorado and Montana 
and eastern Washington and eastern Oregon and parts of northern 
California. Millions and millions of acres burn, wildlife is 
destroyed--in the instance of the infernos of last summer, 35 human 
beings lost their lives in an effort to stop these. This was not 
something that just happened. This was not just an ordinary 
circumstance. There are many who would like to argue this is Mother 
Nature at her finest.
  Let me suggest it was Mother Nature at her worst. But it was also 
Mother Nature who had been assisted for decades by the mismanagement of 
a Forest Service, by allowing the buildup of a phenomenal fuel 
structure, of timber across these lands that had not been properly 
managed or thinned or allowed to be like they were before man came 
along with the tremendous ability to put out fire.
  In my State of Idaho before my ancestors came along there were 
approximately 25 to 30 trees per acre. Today there are hundreds of 
trees per acre. And as a result of that, there are a million less acres 
of them and a couple of billion less board feet of them, because they 
went up in an inferno last summer. So what we are trying to tell 
Senators here this afternoon is that we have a very sick patient. That 
patient is called the U.S. public forests of this country, especially 
in the inland West.
  For those who counsel comity, and for those who counsel slowness and 
process and procedure and time and let us work this out, let me suggest 
when you have somebody in the emergency room and the life support 
systems are attached and the heartbeat is very faint, you do not 
counsel long-term 
[[Page S4879]] strategy. You counsel short-term, immediate, emergency 
relief to resolve some of the problem while you then look at the long 
term down the road to see if you cannot make it better.
  The Senator from Arkansas just a few moments ago spoke to the forest 
health bill I introduced a couple of weeks ago in the forestry 
subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That is the 
long-term approach. That is what we ought to be doing, by allowing the 
Forest Service to manage critical situations, be it fires or bug kill 
or a natural environment that has created this tremendous problem that 
exists in the West.
  But in the short term, with billions of board feet of timber at stake 
and watersheds and wildlife habitat and trying to avoid a cataclysmic 
situation of massive runoffs in the next couple of years that could 
result in the loss of fisheries, in the loss of water quality and 
stream quality, we need emergency measures now that protect the 
environment.
  What is the offshoot? Well, the offshoot is some timber and some 
thousands of jobs and a few hundreds of millions of dollars that might 
come to the Treasury of this country. That is not the first goal. That 
is the latter goal. That is the fallout. That is the receipt from what 
we are trying to do here this afternoon.
  Here is what we faced in Idaho and across the West last summer. This 
is not normal. This is one of the hottest fires ever recorded in the 
history of our environment. It destroyed the soil structure. It created 
an unnatural problem.
  Today we are taking one small step back toward a process and 
procedure that allows Mother Nature, cooperating with human beings, to 
make a better environment and in the long term solve a problem that now 
perplexes the intermountain West and creates a cataclysmic environment 
that could go on for a long time.
  Let us deal with the emergency problem now as this bill does. Let us 
deal with the long term, with quantitative and qualitative changes of 
the public law that allow the proper management of the U.S. Forest 
Service.
  Mr. President, a strong 2-year salvage amendment is absolutely 
necessary to work hand-in-hand with your longer-term forest health 
bill, S. 391.
  Salvage and restoration of the 4 million acres of 1994 fire-burned 
areas must be started immediately. Without this salvage language, it 
will not happen. Those in opposition will employ every effort to delay, 
confuse and derail the agencies' attempts to conduct responsible 
salvage activities.
  Last year's fires burned 4 billion board-feet of timber. If done 
quickly, much of this timber can be salvaged at considerable return to 
the Federal Treasury. But, the value of standing, burned trees 
deteriorates rapidly.
  Let me use this display to illustrate the rapid loss of value of 
trees burned in wildfire:

                          PONDEROSA PINE VALUE                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    6 months after fire                2\1/2\ years after fire          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$725/MBF lumber                                       $0                
$70/ton chips                                         $0                
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Six months have now passed since the 1994 fires in Idaho. It is 
estimated that 2 billion board feet of timber burned in those fires. 
Since there are mixed species involved, let us estimate that the value 
of that timber today is $200 per thousand board feet on average. That 
means it is worth $400 million to the taxpayers today, maybe $200 
million 1 year from now, and practically nothing a year beyond that. 
And let's not forget that 25 percent of this revenue will be returned 
to local counties. In my State of Idaho, Shoshone County officials have 
watched their budget drop sharply as a result of the lack of national 
forest timber sales. They are desperate for some solutions to this 
situation. They are among the many who have pointed out the absurd 
situation of no timber sales being offered while dead forests abound.
  Let me make another point. The forest fires we are witnessing are not 
normal and they are not beneficial to the environment. They destroy 
fish and wildlife habitat and can result in hydrophobic soils. 
Hydrophobic soils will not percolate water and will cause rainwater to 
run off the surface in torrents.
  We can no longer accept the cost of fighting these first. Cost to 
Federal agencies alone was $1 billion last year. It makes sense to 
promote revenues to Federal, State, and county coffers through timely 
salvage rather than bear the increasing burden of wildfire suppression 
costs.
  I am sorry to report that yesterday was a sad day for the community 
of smokejumpers around this Nation. Instead of meeting with me as I 
requested, a group of five smokejumpers rushed to meet with press to 
impugn the integrity of those of us who support some measure of salvage 
logging. Their statements about salvage logging are filled with 
inaccuracies. Until now, smokejumpers have enjoyed a good deal of 
reverence and support in the Congress. Now, the reputation of all 
smokejumpers has been called into question by the conduct of these five 
from within their ranks.
  Under the tutelage of preservation discontents, these jumpers have 
become self-pronounced forest policy experts. Their tactic was, first, 
make a splash in the press, and then meet with their elected 
representatives to discuss the facts. It seems they are attempting to 
characterize me as using the deaths of 35 firefighters in 1994 fires as 
a means to promote salvage logging. I am incensed at this insinuation. 
Such personal attacks have no place in the debate over this issue. 
These smokejumpers have disgraced themselves.
  However, this incident illustrates perfectly why this salvage 
amendment is so necessary. As the process stands now, activists of 
every stripe find it easy to be obstructionists using appeals, threats, 
intimidations and false accusations in the media to slow down or stop 
the agencies' salvage efforts. It is past time for Congress to step in 
and clear a procedural path which the agencies can use to make 
responsible salvage decisions and carry them out. That is what this 
salvage provision will do, and that's why it must remain in this 
rescission legislation.
  I compliment Senator Gorton and Senator Hatfield for providing 
leadership on this issue. And the Senator from Montana for his 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent letters to me on this subject be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               Potlatch Corp.,

                                     Lewiston, ID, March 28, 1995.
     Senator Larry Craig,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: I am writing to ask for your continuing 
     strong support for the Emergency Timber Salvage Amendment to 
     the Omnibus Recissions Bill.
       As you know, more than 600,000 acres of Idaho National 
     Forests burned last summer. The fires resulted from years of 
     drought combined with years of mismanagement allowing 
     overstocked, diseased and dying timber stands to go untreated 
     until finally fire reset the ecological clock.
       Nationwide, the federal government spent over $900 million 
     fighting forest fires on 4 million acres with lives lost, 
     private property destroyed and fragile wildlife and plant 
     species put at risk.
       This bill is a common-sense approach for quickly salvaging 
     burned timber which will be converted to useful products for 
     American families supporting rural economies in the process.
       Opponents claim that all environmental laws are being by-
     passed. This is simply not true. The Amendment streamlines 
     some of the time-consuming requirements of those laws in 
     order to ensure timely action. But environmental assessments 
     and biological reviews still must be done, and the Secretary 
     of Agriculture still can veto any proposed sale.
       You and I know this is an emergency and that salvage 
     efforts must begin immediately to minimize values lost from 
     rapidly deteriorating burned timber. The environmental 
     safeguards are sufficient and the costs of delay are too 
     great.
       I hope you agree and will support the Salvage Amendment. 
     Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions 
     about the Amendment or its impacts.
           Sincerely,

                                              Kevin C. Boling,

                                          Director Public Affairs,
     Northwest Region.
                                                                    ____

                                         Crown Pacific Inland,

                                                   March 27, 1995.
     Senator Larry Craig,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: I am writing to ask your support for 
     the Emergency Timber Salvage Amendment to the Omnibus 
     Recissions Bill.
       [[Page S4880]] Last summer, more than four million acres of 
     forests burned, largely because of buildups of dead and dying 
     timber. Over $1 billion was spent to control those fires, and 
     several lives were lost in the process.
       The amendment would allow the Forest Service to recover 
     some of the fire-damaged trees, and dying timber elsewhere, 
     through emergency salvage sales. No new money is needed to do 
     this; it's already contained in the agency's salvage trust 
     fund.
       As a bonus, the amendment would return millions of dollars 
     to the Treasury, provide jobs for forest service workers, and 
     give federal foresters the ability to convert dead, dying and 
     burned forests into healthy young forests in order to 
     stabilize soils, protect streams, reduce the risk of 
     catastrophic fire, and develop habitat for wildlife.
       Opponents claim that all environmental laws are being by-
     passed. This is simply not true. The amendment cases some of 
     the time-consuming requirements of those laws in order to 
     ensure timely action. But environmental assessments and 
     biological reviews still must be done, and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture still can veto any proposed sale.
       Remember we are dealing with an emergency. Salvage work has 
     to begin immediately to gain value from already-burned timber 
     and to remove dead and dying timber before it is consumed in 
     this year's firestorms. I believe environmental safeguards 
     are sufficient, and the costs of delay are too great.
       I hope you agree and will support the salvage amendment. 
     Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions 
     about the amendment or its impacts.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry Isenberg,
     Manager Timber & Lands.
                                                                    ____

                                                     Lewiston, ID.
     Senator Larry E. Craig,
       Dear Senator Craig: I just received a notice that said that 
     efforts were being made to weaken the language on fire killed 
     timber salvage. As you already know, we here in Idaho have 
     been plagued by punishing droughts for the last several 
     years. Most likely this drought condition has been the major 
     cause of the fires we had last year. We need to salvage and 
     use all the timber we can. Punishing us further does not make 
     any sense.
       The salvage levels and accountability need to be the same 
     as the recently approved House version (Taylor-Dicks 
     Amendment).
           Very truly yours,
     Sue Knoll.
                                                                    ____

                                                    Boise Cascade,


                            Timber and Wood Products Division,

                                       Emmett, ID, March 27, 1995.
     Hon. Larry Craig,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: This letter is to thank you for your 
     continued support of the Emergency Timber Salvage Amendment 
     to the Omnibus Rescissions Bill.
       Salvage made available under this amendment will help 
     maintain jobs in the local communities where we operate, 
     while providing funds for reforestation and payments to 
     counties.
       Your efforts on this issue are greatly appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                               Dave Van De Graaff,
     Region Timberlands Manager.
                                                                    ____

                                   Schweitzer Mountain Resort,

                                                    Sandpoint, ID.
       Date:  March 29, 1995.
       Fax No:  202-226-2573.
       Facsimile To:  Sen. Larry Craig.
       Company/Branch:  U.S. SENATE.
       Facsimile From:  Barbara Huguenin.
       Message:  The Salvage levels and accountability need to be 
     the same as the recently approved House version (Taylor-Dicks 
     amendment).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 2 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Leahy be added as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent a letter submitted to the 
Members of Congress from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's 
Associations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                          Pacific Coast Federation


                                  of Fishermen's Associations,

                                                   March 13, 1995.
     Re fishing industry groups oppose ``sufficient language'' and 
         mandated timber harvests.

     Members of Congress,
     Capitol Hill,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: The Pacific Coast Federation of 
     Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) is the largest organization 
     of commercial fishermen on the west coast, with member 
     organizations from San Diego to Alaska. We represent working 
     men and women of the Pacific fishing fleet who generate tens 
     of thousands of jobs and are the economic mainstay of many 
     coastal communities throughout the Pacific coast region. We 
     are joined in this letter by the Northwest Sportfishing 
     Industry Association (NSIA), which represents the many 
     sportfishing businesses in the Northwest. There are more than 
     5,000 such businesses in this region, with several thousand 
     more in Alaska. Between our two organizations we represent 
     several billion dollars annually in economic productivity, 
     and more than 100,000 jobs along the Pacific coast as well as 
     far inland.
       We oppose the current Congressional effort to approve 
     ``sufficiency language'' or to mandate minimum timber harvest 
     levels in the Northwest. However well meaning, these are 
     nevertheless bad ideas. Sufficiency language would simply 
     override all current protections for salmon and other aquatic 
     species. Mandatory timber harvest levels would essentially do 
     the same, since many levels could not be reached without 
     severe damage to other resources. The result would only be 
     additional degradation of already severely damaged salmon 
     spawning habitat, more economic dislocation within fishing 
     communities, and more lost jobs in our industry. Salmon 
     throughout the region have already been severely depressed 
     because of past timber harvests done without regard to their 
     environmental consequences. This region cannot afford to go 
     down that road once again.
       We also are a natural resource dependent industry. We are 
     sympathetic to the plight of timber communities, and are not 
     opposed to harvesting timber through the existing Forest Plan 
     or in ways that are legal under current law. However, it 
     makes no economic sense to harvest timber on the backs of 
     fishermen and at the expense of the jobs and coastal 
     communities which salmon support. This would be a form of 
     economic suicide for the region.
       Federal management agencies already have an aggressive fire 
     salvage program, and all the legal authority they need to 
     implement it. However, they should not be forced by law to 
     move faster than they can complete the necessary 
     environmental assessments and watershed analyses so they can 
     take the proper steps to protect fragile salmon and other 
     aquatic resources. The solution is not ``sufficiency 
     language,'' nor is it mandated levels. The real solution 
     would be to accelerate funding to the USFS and BLM to enable 
     them to more quickly complete the necessary watershed 
     analyses for their own planned salvage and harvest programs.
       Sufficiency language and mandated harvest levels are simply 
     bad ideas. If enacted, they would further deplete salmon and 
     other aquatic resources which it is vitally important to 
     protect. They would also further devastate fishing economies 
     throughout the region. They would throw our industry further 
     into economic chaos. They would make it just that much 
     tougher, and just that much more expensive, to restore the 
     Northwest's valuable salmon runs back to full productivity.
       We urge you to oppose every attempt to impose ``sufficiency 
     language'' to override current environmental protections as 
     well as the setting of mandatory harvest or salvage levels on 
     our nation's forests--whether by appropriations rider, 
     amendment or separate legislation. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
     Zeke Grader,
       Executive Director,
         Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.
     Liz Hamilton,
       Executive Director,
         Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association (NSIA).

  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am very disturbed by the content of the 
amendment of the senior Senator of the State of Washington. The 
language of this amendment would allow the suspension of all 
environmental laws applicable to logging on certain forests managed by 
the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM--all environmental laws.
  This language would cover any timber offered through September 1996, 
in a salvage sale, a term that is so broadly defined as to apply 
virtually to any kind of timber sale.
  The language of the bill says:

       A salvage timber sale means a timber sale for which an 
     important reason for entry includes removal of diseased, 
     damaged trees or trees affected by fire and imminently 
     susceptible to fire or insect attack.

  Mr. President, as I read this amendment, that language means to limit 
salvage timber sales to areas where the trees are still made of wood; 
all wood would be susceptible to insect or fire. Therefore, all would 
be included in this amendment, and environmental laws for the logging 
of such timber would be not relevant.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that we will support the amendment of the 
Senator from Washington. I think she has taken a politically difficult 
and dangerous course, and has done so on the stand of principle and in 
a way that does not savage the environmental law. I salute her for 
doing this.
  Sometimes in haste, in an effort to respond to what is a crisis, we 
make big mistakes. This should not even be 
[[Page S4881]] on an appropriations bill. It should be in the 
authorizing committee. It is not. It is the wrong piece of legislation 
on the wrong bill at the wrong time, and it should be rejected because 
it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, in my State, and throughout most of our 
Federal forest nationwide, we are experiencing a forest health crisis 
of epic proportions. In 1994, 80 years of fire suppression and almost a 
decade of drought conditions culminated in one of the worst national 
fire seasons on record. Thirty-three fire fighters lost their lives and 
$900 million was spent fighting these fires. Fourteen of the fire 
fighters who died were from Prineville, OR, a small town in my home 
State. Congress must act swiftly to address this situation or face a 
1995 fire season as bad or worse than 1994.
  Congress has known about the forest health and fire danger problem 
for a long time. In July 1992, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee held a hearing on forest health. At this hearing, Jack Ward 
Thomas, then a researcher and now Chief of the Forest Service, stated 
``we should proceed with salvage as soon as possible, and as carefully 
as possible.'' In fact, at that 1992 hearing, the Forest Service 
identified 850 million board feet of timber in eastern Oregon and 
Washington alone that needed to be salvaged in 1992 and 1993. Only half 
of that volume, however, has been actually salvaged.
  The forest health crisis exists nationwide, but in my State it is 
particularly acute. Of the 5 million acres of Oregon's Blue Mountains, 
50 to 75 percent contains predominantly dead or dying trees. According 
to the Forest Service, the land management practices of the past 80 or 
100 years are the primary reasons for the poor health of Oregon's, and 
the Nation's, forests. Fire suppression, the single largest 
contributing factor, has prevented naturally occurring, low-intensity 
fires to clear out the understory of forest stands. This has allowed 
less-resilient, shade tolerant tree species such as white fir, and 
Douglas fir, to flourish. These trees have been prime targets for 
disease, insect infestation, and now wildfire.
  It is time to begin the healing process in our forests that Jack Ward 
Thomas felt was so important 3 years ago. Congress can live up to its 
responsibility to provide direction to the land management agencies by 
passing the Gorton salvage amendment.
  As many of my colleagues know, salvage logging is not without 
controversy. Although it is part of regular Forest Service practice, 
some seek now to block the salvage of diseased and bug infested timber 
as a land management option. To put their position in perspective, 
these same voices have publicly stated that their preferred goal is to 
eliminate the harvesting of any and all trees from Federal lands--even 
for the enhancement of forest health. This dogma is so stringent that 
the catastrophic loss of our natural resources through disease, insect 
infestation and fire is preferable to having the health of these 
forests restored for future generations.
  The radical doctrine of no use, which certain groups are now 
advocating, not only threatens the future health of our forests, it 
threatens the underlying base of political support for one of our 
Nation's most important environmental laws--the Endangered Species Act.
  I was the original sponsor of the 1972 version of the
   bill which eventually went on to become the Endangered Species Act. 
I believe the act epitomizes the respect we, as a nation, hold for our 
environment and our natural surroundings. While I have made it clear 
that I believe some fine tuning of the act needs to occur during the 
upcoming reauthorization debate, I worry that when moderate positions, 
such as the one put forth in the Gorton amendment, become polarized, 
fodder is given to those whose goal is to abolish or gut the act. I 
will do my best to prevent this from happening, but the position of 
some groups on this salvage amendment simply perpetuates the attitude 
that all environmental laws, including the ESA, have gone too far and 
need to be significantly altered or scrapped.

  These concerns are merely symptoms of a larger problem--the breakdown 
of our Nation's land management laws. The result of this breakdown is a 
problem of national significance with little ability in the law for 
land managers to take care of the problem in a timely manner.
  Unfortunately, for those of us who have been around a while, this 
situation is all too familiar.
  Almost 6 years ago, I stood here on the floor with my colleagues from 
the Pacific Northwest, the Senate Appropriations Committee and the 
Senate authorizing committees to announce a temporary solution to a 
crisis in the Pacific Northwest. This compromise was sponsored by 
myself and then-Senator Adams from Washington State, and was supported 
by every member of the Pacific Northwest delegation. It was truly an 
extraordinary measure, meant to address an extraordinary situation.
  Recognizing the temporary nature of this solution, many Members of 
Congress believed that larger issues loomed and needed to be addressed. 
Namely, that the forest management and planning laws, originally 
enacted in 1976, were in serious need of revision. During the course of 
the debate on the Hatfield-Adams amendment I entered into a colloquy 
with then-chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Leahy, 
to proclaim the temporary nature of the amendment and announce our 
intentions to pursue a long-term solution through the review and 
revision of our Nation's forest management laws in the authorizing 
committees.
  Six years later, however, our forest management laws are unchanged.
  When the Northwest timber compromise was developed in 1989, I took 
the promises of my colleagues to address our Nation's long-term forest 
management laws very seriously, and I was determined to do my part to 
address this growing dilemma. In 1990, I introduced legislation, called 
the National Forest Plan Implementation Act, to assist with the 
implementation of forest plans developed as a result of the 10-year 
planning processes enacted by Congress in 1976. Two years later, 
another comprehensive bill was introduced by Senator Adams to address 
the long-term issue. Both of these measures were referred to the Senate 
Agriculture Committee where no hearings were held and they died in 
committee.
  The next year, in 1991, I was a primary cosponsor of Senator 
Packwood's Forest and Families Protection Act, which dealt with a 
number of the same issues as my 1990 bill and also addressed the issues 
of rural development and workers. This legislation was referred to the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, of which I am a member, 
where we were able to hold several hearings and a markup on the bill. 
Unfortunately, the bill never made it to the floor for consideration.
  My point is, Mr. President, many of us have undertaken significant 
efforts to live up to the commitments of 1989 to address the long-term 
management of our forest resources through the authorizing committees. 
Unfortunately for the entire Nation, the other Senate authorizing 
committees with jurisdiction over this issue have not felt compelled to 
do the same.
  The Gorton amendment to the rescission bill begins to address this 
problem by doing three things to address the emergency situation that 
now exists in many forests. The first is national in scope and provides 
our Federal land management agencies with the flexibility to conduct 
environmentally sensitive forest health/salvage activities. These 
activities will be done using the agencies' own standards and 
guidelines for forest and wildlife management.
  Second, the Gorton amendment releases 375 million board feet of 
timber sales in western Oregon that were previously sold to timber 
purchasers. Most of these sales, originally authorized by the Northwest 
timber compromise amendment of 1989, were determined by the record of 
decision for President Clinton's option 9 plan not to jeopardize the 
existence of any species. To ensure further protections, the Gorton 
amendment includes provisions prohibiting activities in timber sale 
units which contain any nesting threatened or endangered species.
  Finally, the Gorton amendment gives the Clinton administration more 
tools with which to implement timber sales in the geographic area 
covered by its option 9 plan. As a vocal critic of option 9 and the 
process that was used to develop it, I have some concerns about this 
section of the Gorton amendment. Nevertheless, I applaud the sponsor's 
[[Page S4882]] efforts to give the administration all possible tools to 
meet its promises to get wood to the mills of the Pacific Northwest in 
the next 18 months.
  While the first portion of the Gorton amendment is national in scope, 
these last two sections will assist the President in meeting his 
commitments to the workers, families, and environment of both western 
and eastern Oregon and Washington.
  I came to the floor in 1989 to offer the Northwest timber compromise 
because we were witnessing what was then a crisis for the rural 
communities of my State. Since that time, 213 mills have closed in 
Oregon and Washington and over 21,800 workers have lost their forestry-
related jobs. In addition, the forests in the eastern half of these two 
States are in the worst health in a hundred years.
  These national forests and communities cannot wait through another 
fire season like 1994 for Congress to finally meet its commitments to 
rewrite the Nation's forest management laws. I have every confidence 
that the new Republican Congress will do its best to meet that 
challenge, but the Gorton amendment is necessary to help us bridge that 
gap. It is a much needed piece of legislation for our Nation's forests 
and timber dependent communities.
  There are those whose agenda is to prevent people from managing our 
forests altogether. They would rather let our dead and dying forests 
burn by catastrophic fire, endangering human life and long-term forest 
health, than harvest them to promote stability in natural forest 
ecosystems and communities dependent on a supply of timber from Federal 
lands. The Gorton amendment says we can be reasonable in what we do in 
the forests and harvest trees for many uses--forest health, community 
stabilization, ecosystem restoration, and jobs for our workers.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Gorton amendment to the fiscal 
year 1995 rescissions bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). All time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to table the Murray amendment, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from 
Washington to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from 
Washington [Mrs. Murray]. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr.Conrad], 
the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] and the Senator from Florida 
[Mr. Graham] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Faircloth] is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] and the 
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] are absent due to a death in the 
family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Graham
     Grams
     Kassebaum
  So the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________