[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 141 (Tuesday, September 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8788-H8800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      ISSUES OF IMPORT TO AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 

[[Page H 8789]]
  12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I have three items that I wish to speak 
with you on and address tonight.
  The first item that I very briefly would like to address are comments 
on the Endangered Species Act reform. I do want to say that I did 
attend all 12 of the task force hearings on the Endangered Species Act 
Task Force, from one end of this country to another, and what I heard 
from the American people was very, very clear.
  No. 1, I heard that the current Endangered Species Act is not working 
for people or for wildlife.
  No. 2, I heard that we need reform that does not trample on States' 
rights.
  No. 3, I heard from the American people, thousands of them, that we 
need reform that offers incentives to landowners, not punitive measures 
by a government that has grown too large and too prosperous at the 
expense of private property owners.
  We heard that we need a bill that does not increase our regulation, 
but decreases it in the Endangered Species Act. We also heard that we 
need a bill that compensates landowners immediately for any taking 
under any authority designated by Congress under the Endangered Species 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, for the record, I will work toward these goals. I will 
work very hard toward these goals, as we debate the Endangered Species 
Act reform. It is critical that people are put in this equation of the 
endangered species, because truly, the American producer, if the trend 
continues, will be the endangered species.
  I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this time, because I want to 
speak on my second issue. I want to speak about the nature of power and 
the threat posed to our freedoms when those in power act against the 
law.
  Nearly 70 years ago Justice Louis Brandeis, in the U.S. Supreme Court 
in his opinion in a case involving Olmstead, observed that decency, 
security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be 
subjected to the same rules of conduct that are the commands to the 
citizens. He said that if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it 
breeds contempt for the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I am saddened tonight to say that I am convinced at this 
time that our Government finds itself in the dangerous position about 
which Justice Brandelis warned us back in 1928. Tonight in the two 
issues that I will be discussing, two very, very different issues, it 
will show a set of circumstances that brings the Justice's warning to 
mind.
  Although the individual cases could not be more different, they both 
indicate a shared contempt at this time among some of our highest 
ranking public officials in our land for the very laws of our land.
  Mr. Speaker, one of my highest priorities when I was elected to the 
U.S. Congress was to pass legislation to salvage the dead, dying, 
burned, diseased, infected, and windblown timber that is now rotting on 
our forest floors, in Idaho and throughout the Northwest. Yet I and my 
colleagues have been thwarted at nearly every turn by the Clinton 
administration as we have tried to enact tough legislation that will 
salvage the burned timber and put our loggers back to work, as we 
restore our forests to a healthy condition.
  Let me share some history with you on why timber salvage legislation 
is so important for our Western States and how our efforts in the House 
to pass legislation has been turned on their head by President Clinton 
and his administration.
  Last year, in the Northwest alone, we had 67,000 fires, which 
devastated millions of acres of Federal forested lands. The fires 
burned 8 billion board feet of timber and that is enough to construct 
542,000 homes and provide 1\1/2\ million jobs.
  Nearly 9 years of drought in the West, along with insect infestation, 
disease, and irresponsible Federal management of our western forests, 
culminated in catastrophic wildfires last summer in the Western States 
of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and northern California.
  Thirty-five human lives were lost in the fires. Countless animals 
were savagely burned and destroyed and more than 4 million acres of 
Federal forest land burned with over $1 billion being spent to fight 
the fires.
  When President Theodore Roosevelt established the National Forest 
System, he made it very clear in his writings that the uses for these 
lands would be very careful utilization, which was essential for our 
Nation.
  The President stated that the forests are for the use of the people 
under proper restrictions; grazing privileges, timber cutting, haying, 
and other similar privileges. In addition, the mission of the Federal 
land management agencies, as directed by Congress, is to meet the 
diverse needs of the people, not the grizzly bear, not the wolf, not 
the marmot, but the people, by advocating a conservation ethic in 
promoting the health, productivity, diversity, and the beauty of the 
forests and associated lands, listening to people and responding to 
their diverse needs in making decisions and protecting and managing the 
National Forests and grasslands to best demonstrate the sustainability 
of the multiple use management concept. Theodore Roosevelt, the father 
of the concept of the Forest Service.
  The wildfires in the Western States were sparked by nature, but the 
intensity of these fires could have been prevented with good 
stewardship in our forests, good fire suppression techniques by the 
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and good overall 
management by these agencies.
  After the fires of last summer, Members of Congress from the Western 
States requested swift action of the administration to log the burned 
timber. Time was of the essence as burned timber loses its value 
rapidly and can cause environmental damage to riparian areas, 
watersheds, erosion control, streams and spawning habitats in our 
rivers and streams.
  The administration shuffled its feet while we lost these valuable 
national resources, but there was no action from the administration. I 
came to Congress ready to pass legislation to move that timber into 
mills, put loggers back to work, and restore economic health along with 
my other colleagues from the West, to these devastated communities.
  When I arrived in Washington, I was pleased to find that other like-
minded colleagues who believe that immediate removal of this salvage 
timer, as required in the Multiple Use-Sustained Use Act, the Resource 
Planning Act, and the National Forest Management Planning Act, which is 
already required and we were not making new law, and the return to 
well-established forest health practices, was a priority.
  The situation was so extreme that hearings on the emergency salvage 
situation were held within a month of the start of the new Congress, in 
spite of the heavy load that we had with the Contract With America.
  Together, many of us in the House with heavily forested districts 
forged the basis for legislation which was included in the fiscal year 
1995 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions bill.
  This language set very clear goals for the administration to remove 
dead and dying timber. However, the administration snubbed our goals of 
renewing our forests and putting money back into our local economies 
and the Treasury, and the President vetoed our rescission bill, H.R. 
1159 on June 7, 1995.
  In his veto message the President expressed his opposition to the 
timber salvage proposition of the bill, and I quote the President's 
words that said that, ``They would override existing environmental laws 
in an effort to increase timber salvage.'' He said, ``I urge the 
Congress to delete this language and separately to work with my 
administration on an initiative to increase timber salvage and improve 
forest health.''
  When is this man going to learn what a real contradiction is? That is 
it.
  I find it interesting that the President, Mr. Clinton, paid lip 
service to forest health, when his land management agencies have 
essentially abdicated their responsibilities toward managing our 
forests for multiple use. The fires could have been prevented if the 
agencies were managing the forests properly.
  During the post-veto negotiations with the White House, several 
changes were made to accede to administration demands. These changes 
prompted a 

[[Page H 8790]]
June 29, 1995, letter from President Clinton to Speaker Gingrich on 
reinforcing and reenacting the timber salvage provision. The President 
stated, in his own letter signed in his hand, that said to Speaker 
Gingrich, ``I want to make it clear that my administration will carry 
out the program of timber salvage with its full resources and a strong 
commitment to achieving the goals of the program.''
  I would like to enter this letter for the Record, and I will do that, 
Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The President's words remain a mystery to me, because, Mr. Speaker, 
they have not shown in any instance to be carrying out the very 
legislative goals that he agreed to.
  After passage of the rescission bill, the President then issued, 
after he got everything or much of what he wanted from this Congress, 
then the President reversed himself. After signing this into law, he 
issued a memo to the land management agencies on August 1 in which he 
stated, ``I do not support every provision of the rescission bill, and 
most particularly the provisions concerning timber salvage.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter this into the Record also.
  I find this statement to be incredibly egregious, after the President 
held up our legislative process on timber salvage through his veto. 
Days, weeks, and months were lost trying to negotiate this bill with 
him and the value of the burned timber declined.
  But this is only the beginning of the administration's outrageous 
actions on this issue. Shortly after the August 1 memo, the Secretaries 
of Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, and the Administrator of the EPA, 
under the President's direction, entered into a memorandum of 
agreement. I will enter this memorandum of agreement into the Record, 
Mr. Speaker.
  This memorandum of agreement outlines a bureaucratic process that is 
nothing more than a smoke screen to prevent the agencies from 
harvesting timber. It is a heartbreaker for those of us who wanted to 
break through the administrative paralysis that has encompassed this 
country for the last number of years.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear, the rescissions bill did not 
tell the administration to create a new bureaucracy. We did not tell 
the administration that they could take their time to get the timber 
out.
                              {time}  2130

  Let me tell you what this lawmaking body, the U.S. Congress, did say 
very clearly. We said expedite salvage timber immediately, that this 
was an emergency. The President of the United States is sworn to 
enforce the law. In fact, in article 2, section 3, as the President 
puts his hand on the Bible and swears an oath to his new duties and his 
new office, in article 2, section 3, he stated that he will faithfully 
take care that all of the laws of the land are faithfully executed. 
That is what the President of the United States pledged to when he 
became President.
  Our Constitution does not give the President the choice of 
determining which laws he wants to faithfully execute. In fact, I 
remind you, Mr. Speaker, that he signed this law into law with his own 
hand.
  I would like to take just a few moments to highlight some of the 
language from the rescission bill and show just how the President is 
knowingly circumventing law. The rescissions bill states that upon 
completion of timber salvage sales, the preparation, advertisement, 
offering and award of such contracts shall be performed notwithstanding 
any other provisions of law, including a law under the authority of 
which any judicial order may be outstanding on or after the date of the 
enactment of this act. This is what the President signed into law.
  The language of the memorandum of understanding states that the 
parties will agree to comply with previously existing environmental 
laws except where expressly prohibited by Public Law 104-19, notably in 
the area of administrative appeals and judicial review. This is a 
blatant disregard of the law. Clearly, the legislation says to 
undertake additional salvage notwithstanding any other provision of 
law. The administration has created arbitrary requirements that do not 
exist in an effort to slow this process down.
  Second example: The law that we passed that was signed into law by 
the President states that there shall be expedited procedures for 
emergency salvage timber sales and lays out very clearly the sales 
documentation. Yet the language in the memorandum of understanding is 
contrary once again. It states that the parties agree, and now this is 
the Government agencies agreeing among themselves; this never came to 
the Congress, but the parties agree, the agencies of the Federal 
Government agree to adhere to the standards and guidelines of 
applicable forest plans and land use plans and their amendments and 
related conservation strategies, including but not limited to, the 
western forest health initiative and those standards and guidelines 
adopted as part of the President's forest plan for the Pacific 
Northwest, PACFISH, INFISH and the red-cockaded woodpecker, long-term 
strategy, as well as the goals, objectives and guidelines contained in 
the Marine Fisheries Service biological opinion on the Snake River 
Basin land resource management plans through the interagency team 
approach agreed to in the May 31, 1995, agreement on streamlining 
consultation procedures.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not emergency salvage procedures. That is not 
streamlining procedures.
  The President's forest practice, PACFISH, INFISH and the National 
Marine Fisheries Services' biological opinion are nothing more than 
staff opinion. Yet the agencies have put these initiatives above the 
law passed by this Congress, signed by the President of the United 
States, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that
 is outrageous.

  The memorandum of understanding or agreement expands the authority of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and 
the National Marine Fisheries Service far beyond their congressionally 
mandated current authority. It is time we held the administration 
accountable for violations we have seen as it relates to timber salvage 
and the blatant abuse of a President who, without care, discharges the 
oath of office that he took. This President is doing everything in his 
power to tear down the rural economies that have been built in this 
great Nation and in the West.
  Mr. Speaker, lest anyone cast any doubt, there is a war on the West. 
This in only one of the battles that we will fight, but we will fight. 
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the West was not settled by wimps and 
faint-hearted people, and we will not give it up easily.
  This Representative from Idaho will not back down until I am secure 
in knowing that my President and my Government are upholding the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I now would like to turn to another example of how some 
agencies of the Federal Government have become law breakers. The 
consequences of this incident have been not merely economic but 
actually resulted in three deaths. There has been another casualty as 
well in the tragic incidents at Ruby Ridge: public confidence in 
several of our Federal agencies we depend on to enforce laws and 
administer justice. I am speaking, of course, Mr. Speaker, of the 
ongoing investigation into the Government's ill-fated siege directed 
against the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, ID, in my district, which is 
the first district in Idaho, which I represent.
  I am encouraged that the Senate and this Congress is finally 
beginning to review this matter. However, it is unfortunate that it has 
now taken 3 years for us to get to this point. I am saddened that we 
will never be able to restore a mother and her son who were unjustly 
ripped away from a family. Moreover, we will never be able to ignore 
the fact that the Weavers were unfairly and tragically targeted because 
of their religious beliefs, and we will never be able to end the grief 
and the lack of justice the Weavers have experienced in the 3 years 
since their tragic loss. But I believe that some good can result from 
this, and as out of the ashes, we will always have hope that the 
Phoenix will rise. We must be able to hope that this tragedy will yield 
a courage and a will from this Congress to take a hard stand by 
recommending that there be severe punishment for those who have wronged 
not only the Weaver family but this country and our confidence in our 
law enforcement agencies.

[[Page H 8791]]

  We as a Congress must have the courage and the will to set down a 
hard-line rule so that this never again happens to another family in 
the United States of America, the land of the free, the home of the 
brave, and it used to be the hope and the light of the world. We want 
to see America there again.
  Since the beginning of the siege on the home of Randy and Vicki 
Weaver, I have closely followed the developments that have occurred in 
the 3 years after that. I have spent a considerable time studying the 
details of the events surrounding Ruby Ridge, including spending time 
at the trial and speaking with people who were there and who were 
directly involved. Some have said that what happened at Ruby Ridge was 
merely the result of minor oversights made by a few Federal officials 
in one incident involving an individual whose religious beliefs are 
generally
 misunderstood and spurned by society.

  Some have even suggested that this was merely a case of using venom 
against venom and should not be receiving the attention it is getting 
and are questioning the wisdom of even holding the hearings. Nothing 
could be further from the truth.
  I commend my senior Senator, Senator Larry Craig, and Senator Specter 
for their participation, for their study and the time that they have 
given to this incident in the Senate hearings. I am very proud of the 
search for truth by the Senate and also by the Congress.
  What I have observed, though, as I have kept track of the 
developments of Ruby Ridge and this incident, has deeply concerned me 
even to the point that what has been uncovered is, in part, what 
motivated me to run for Congress. In fact, the issues that have arisen 
because of Ruby Ridge involve basic principles that govern this Nation.
  I believe that the result of the congressional investigations into 
Ruby Ridge will have significant ramifications on how our people view 
our Government and how Federal law enforcements will respond to the 
constitutional rights of citizens in the future, because this incident 
involved several law enforcement agencies ranging all the way from 
BATF, the U.S. marshals office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
the Army, the National Guard, the U.S. district attorney's office, and 
on and on, and includes actions from the most basic field agents to 
heads of departments in the administration. It allows us to take a 
close look at the principles and rules our law enforcement agencies are 
governing themselves by.
  In essence, Ruby Ridge is not only the seminal incident that created 
citizen distrust and citizen questioning of our law enforcement 
agencies, but it has become the litmus test on the Government, on how 
it will treat the most basic rights of individuals.
  I do think that there are many, many wonderful and hardworking 
individuals in law enforcement who are doing a fine job keeping the 
peace and of pursuing real criminals. However, I also believe that 
lately there are some rogues in law enforcement as well who are 
dictating policy.
  I have attended the hearings that are ongoing in the Senate, the 
other body, and I believe that so far these hearings have revealed very 
interesting facts, and the Senators are doing an excellent job of 
getting to the heart of the matter.
  Last week, I, along with a lot of the American public, viewed the 
Randy Weaver testimony and Mr. Weaver's description of how agents from 
the U.S. Federal Marshals Service for 16 months had executed an 
intensive reconnoitering surveillance, as they call it, of his home, 
that included hundreds of hours of filming the everyday proceedings of 
his family with the satellite-powered cameras, which included plans to 
kidnap his daughter Sarah, which included plans and the execution of 
setting up command centers in the homes of neighbors and sending many 
undercover agents posing as supporters to the Weavers' home, enjoying 
their openness, their friendliness and their hospitality.
  The committee listened to Mr. Weaver as he explained how never once 
not once did a U.S. marshal come to his home and identify himself as a 
Federal agent desiring for Mr. Weaver to come down from the mountain 
and appear in court. Never once did any agent discuss complying with 
the simple terms that Mr. Weaver requested before surrendering: that 
his home and his family be protected and that certain officials that 
had offended him apologize. What a small thing
 to ask for to keep the peace.

  It is our responsibility as Federal elected officials and the 
responsibility of Federal agents to maintain the peace and tranquility 
of this country. This kind of action did not further the peace and 
tranquility of this country, Mr. Speaker.
  In fact, the only terms the agents would allow him, offered in 
messages that were given through neighbors instead of directly by the 
agents, was that Mr. Weaver admit his guilt, without any trial or due 
process. Instead of negotiating, the U.S. Marshal's Service initiated 
military like reconnaissance missions to determine what would be the 
best way to invade the Weaver home. U.S. marshals on one of these 
missions excited the family dog by throwing rocks at it, drawing the 
attention of the family who thought that the dog might be responding to 
one of the many wild animals in the area.
  The committee listened, rivited, to Mr. Weaver's agonizing depiction 
of how he made the most regrettable decision of his life when he sent 
his 14-year-old son Sammy down the road with a rifle to see what the 
dog was barking at, and how those agents shot a young boy's dog at his 
feet, and how a Federal marshal, dressed in a terrifying paramilitary 
uniform, jumped out of the bushes and yelled to Sammy, halt, and how 
these events led to a gun battle that ended with the tragic death of 
the young boy, Sammy, barely 14 years old, barely weighing 80 pounds, 
shot first in the arm and then twice in the back. The last words his 
father heard him say were, ``I am coming home, Dad.''
  Mr. Weaver and his wife, Vicki, no longer caring if they were fired 
at, went down the hill to retrieve the small body of their son.
  We listened as Mr. Weaver narrated the events of the following day: 
of how, in the dead silence of late afternoon, and without any warning 
or even an announcement of the presence of the FBI, as he was 
attempting to enter the shed where the body of his slain son lay, he 
was shot in the back without warning by a trained sniper from the FBI 
hostage rescue team, a group that is trained by the military for crises 
that involve international terrorists.
                              {time}  2145

  Mr. Speaker, I hardly think that Randy Weaver was an international 
terrorist. We were mortified, as we listened, to hear how the FBI 
sniper fired again, this time into the Weavers' home, striking Vicki, 
the wife, in the head. This mother was holding nothing more dangerous 
than her 10-month-old baby. The bullet struck her face. The human 
shrapnel struck Sara in the face. The mother was killed instantly, and 
Sara was wounded, and the Pershing bullet entered into a family friend, 
Kevin Harris, severely wounding him.
  Mr. Weaver recounted how he and what was left of his family--in their 
home and not some military compound--were surrounded for almost 2 weeks 
by an army of over 400, complete with tanks, and helicopters, 
personnel, armored personnel carriers, et cetera. They had to keep 
clear of the windows and stay low to the ground for fear of being shot. 
In the meantime, the Government made little or no attempt to negotiate 
with the Weavers. The agents did, however, torment the family by 
broadcasting morbid messages over loud speakers to Vicki Weaver, who 
lay dead under the family's kitchen table.
  The Federal agents tunnelled under Mr. Weaver's house and his home, 
and they sent a tank-like robot up to the house with a phone placed on 
one arm, and a shot gun mounted on the other with commands to Mr. 
Weaver to come out, pick up the phone, and negotiate with him. When Mr. 
Weaver saw the shotgun mounted on the robot, of course, as any American 
would or anyone in their right mind would do, he declined to pick up 
the phone.
  Mr. Weaver found out later that the FBI was considering measures to 
inject CS gas into the home, or placing explosives to blow out the 
walls of the home.
  These are all the documents that are now in the court documents.
  This vast array of Government force was brought to bear against a 
small, 

[[Page H 8792]]
but loving, Idaho family, the Randy Weaver family, and, although the 
family owned several legal firearms, they were owned legally, as were 
the rounds that Randy Weaver had stored there. They were legal.
  After the initial exchange of shots with U.S. Marshals, the Weavers 
never even aimed or fired their guns at anyone. Those initial shots 
were those shots that were fired at the Y when Sammy Weaver was shot in 
the back. Kevin Harris responded not knowing who was shooting the small 
boy who went down right in front of him. That was all the shots that 
were fired by anyone who lived in the Weaver home.
  However, the U.S. Marshals' office and the U.S. Marshals called the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation stating that they were taking hundreds 
and hundreds of rounds of ammunition from the Weavers. I hardly think 
so. A grieving mother and father who went down to the Y, picked up the 
dead body of their 80-pound son was not firing hundreds of rounds at 
the marshals.
  We grieve at the death of Vicki and Sammy Weaver, and we grieve at 
the death of Marshal Deacon, but, as I listened to these frightening 
details of the Government siege on the Weaver home which began well 
before the shootout, it became very clear to me that one of the 
elemental freedoms of this country that it is founded upon had been 
violated in the very worst way. It is a tenant basic to our democracy, 
characterized well by patriots in the 1760's that simply states ``a 
man's house is his castle; and while he is quiet, he is well guarded as 
a prince in castle.'' This is an idea that has its roots as early as 
the Magna Carta of 1215. William Pitt eloquently expressed this concept 
in stating: ``The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all 
the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind 
may blow through it, the storm may enter, but the King of England 
cannot enter, all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined 
tenement.''
  Can anyone find a better metaphor to describe what happened at Ruby 
Ridge than that statement?
  And also, at a Boston Town Hall meeting in 1772, it was stated that 
without the Bill of Rights ``officers may under the colour of law and 
cloak of general warrant break through the sacred rights of the 
domicil, ransack men's houses, destroy their securities, carry of their 
property, and with little danger to themselves commit the most horrid 
murders.''
  This was 1772 that this quote came out of a Boston town meeting.
  Ladies and gentlemen, our Founding Fathers understood that, unless we 
respect what is in the Bill of Rights and the protections afforded to 
us in the U.S. Constitution, that someday we will be living through 
what we are having to live through today.
  In fact, revolutionaries such as Patrick Henry and others, used the 
Crown's regular practice of aggressive search and seizures as a battle 
cry for the addition of our Bill of Rights. It was Patrick Henry who 
said that without those rights added to the Constitution ``the officer 
of Congress may come upon you now, fortified with all the terrors of 
paramount federal authority. Excisemen may come in multitudes; for the 
limitations of their numbers no man knows.''
  Ladies and gentlemen, these words were spoken by Patrick Henry. Again 
I challenge anyone to come up with a more accurate description of the 
gross excessive force used on Ruby Ridge than that.
  For several hours the committee listened to the testimony of Randy 
Weaver, and the blatant infringements on his and his family's rights, 
the tragic loss of life that occurred as a result, and the year and 
half of imprisonment--all because he had been inaccurately 
characterized as a terrible threat to society on a web of fabricated 
charges, some stemming out of the mere fact that he had a newly 
purchased pickup sitting in his front yard, that he had a TV dish, and 
that, surely because of all these things, maybe he could have been 
involved in some bank robberies when all Randy Weaver and his family 
wanted was to be left alone, and, for refusing to come down from his 
home because he was afraid, because he had been told by a Federal judge 
that he would lose everything he possessed, including his property and 
his children, over his children he chose to stay with his family.
  But what I found amazing and even admirable about Randy Weaver, even 
though I do not agree with his political views, is that despite all the 
unjust actions directed toward his family, he sat before the Senate 
Committee and the country and admitted his mistakes.
  ``If I could do it over again,'' he stated, ``I would never have sold 
those sawed-off shotguns, and I would have come down that mountain and 
gone to court.'' He even apologized for any actions or words that have 
harmed anyone. He said this despite the fact that a jury of his peers 
had found conclusive evidence that he was deemed to be innocent of 
selling those weapons because that jury of his peers determined that he 
had been entrapped by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
  I believe that anyone could understand why he would not want to come 
down from the mountain to face law enforcement officers when the first 
time he was arrested, he was bushwacked by several BATF agents posing 
as stranded motorists, and his wife, who was not even charged with 
anything, was thrown face first into the snow and hand-cuffed.
  Moreover, the judge incorrectly threatened--the Federal judge, the 
Federal magistrate, incorrectly threatened Mr. Weaver that, if he lost 
his case, he would have to pay the court's cost, and that would mean 
losing everything that he owned.
  What was even more astounding about Mr. Weaver's testimony, was that 
this man, who was deemed by the Government to have a ``propensity for 
violence,'' and considered ``dangerous to society,'' in his final words 
before the committee expressed his respect and affection to those 
Senators for allowing him to tell them his story. He even left with 
them his hope and trust that justice would occur for the wrongful 
deaths of his wife and son.
  I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does this sound like a man who is an enemy to 
society? Mr. Weaver faced the court of public opinion. Some of the 
informants used by the BATF were shielded, and their voices were 
disguised. Mr. Weaver's 19-year-old daughter and Mr. Weaver himself 
faced the hard truth of having to recount what happened to them. They 
were not shielded; they were not protected. They stood before the 
Senate and the American people and told their story.
  The truth of the mater is that whatever acts Randy Weaver has 
committed against society, he has paid for them. I say ``acts,'' 
because in this country, we are judged by how we act, not how we think. 
Mr. Weaver has more than paid his debt to society--our attention must 
now be turned to the actions of Government officials.
  I do want to say that many of us would have stood beside the rights 
that Mr. Weaver and all Americans have. I disagree politically. We even 
disagree in our religious foundations. Two people could not have 
disagreed more than Gerry Spence and this Congressman, and yet in spite 
of our political and religious differences, we both stand up, as did 
many people in this Nation, for the protection of everybody's rights of 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  What I have seen so far of the response of Federal officials to their 
actions before, during, and since the Ruby Ridge incident has been in 
stark contrast to the humble admission by Randy Weaver. In fact, it has 
been disturbing.
  The first duty of any public institution is to maintain the public 
trust. In a situation in which the public trust was betrayed, the 
leaders of these institutions responded by attempting to protect 
themselves and their colleagues rather than acting to protect the 
public trust.
  Instead of conducting a thorough investigation of the abuses that 
were committed by agents, and immediately disciplining them for their 
subpar performance, the Justice Department went about finding ways to 
whitewash the situation.
  The FBI is now on their third investigation.
  Officials seemed more determined than ever to portray Mr. Weaver as a 
religious zealot who belonged in the company of real criminals that had 
committed repulsive crimes, and when a jury found no basis whatsoever 
for all of the charges against Randy Weaver 

[[Page H 8793]]
with the exception of failure to appear in court, the Justice 
Department decided to spin the story another way, by initiating another 
still un-released report admitting to a few sloppy ``oversights,'' and 
even some violations of the Constitution, but resulted in the mere 
censuring of a few agents.
  What was even more a ``slap in the face'' of justice was the 
promotion of Larry Potts to the second highest position in the FBI; 
this man who was in part responsible for issuing the unconstitutional 
``shoot on sight'' rules of engagement. Those rules of engagement 
translated as death warrants for Vicki Weaver.
  Only now, after 3 long years, and public outcry, is the Justice 
Department beginning to investigate possible criminal actions of 
Federal agents.
  The Justice Department has even settled monetarily with the Weavers--
emphasizing that by doing so, the Department was not admitting any 
injustice. As far as I know, the Government has not even publicly 
apologized to the Weaver family.
  Last Thursday and Friday, as the Committee began to hear the BATF's 
version of the story, I was outraged again to see BATF officials in a 
complete show of arrogance.
  They refuse to acknowledge any error or wrongdoing by any of their 
agents who carried out the original investigation and fabrication of 
charges against Randy Weaver.
                              {time}  2200

  The Director of the BATF, John Magaw in his testimony stated that he 
was ``convinced that the BATF's agents conduct was lawful and proper in 
every respect.'' He said this despite the fact that the Committee had 
before them numerous pieces of evidence that prove that the Weaver 
investigation was poorly conducted and unfairly maligned Mr. Weaver.
  The purpose of the BATF's investigation of Mr. Weaver was not to stop 
a suspected law-breaker at all. The purpose of the investigation was to 
try to trick Mr. Weaver into breaking the law so that the agency could 
then force Mr. Weaver to become a spy for the agency.
  This scenario is like some sort of paranoid movie script. 
Unfortunately, it really happened.
  All of the information about supposed criminal intentions by Randy 
Weaver originated solely from an undercover informant whose real name 
we still do not know. This man pretended to be Mr. Weaver's friend for 
3 years as he worked to set this elaborate trap on a law-abiding man.
  This mysterious informant had testified at the trial that he assumed 
his pay would be based on whether or not there would be a conviction. 
In other words, he would be paid on how well he would be able to coerce 
someone into committing a crime. That is called ``entrapment,'' and is 
against the law.
  After the BATF succeeded in getting Mr. Weaver to illegally saw off 
two shotguns, the agency needed to convince the U.S. Attorney to press 
charges.
  In letters to the Federal prosecutor, BATF agent Byerly communicated 
several untruth's, pure hearsay, and clear embellishments of real 
events about Mr. Weaver.
  Without substantiating evidence, Agent Byerly portrayed a dangerous 
criminal, a kind of Nazi ``Rambo'' monster that made U.S. Marshals and 
the FBI believe that it was necessary to unleash a massive show of 
force on Ruby Ridge.
  My question is, How can the Director of BATF ``review'' these details 
of the investigation, and determine that the actions of his agents were 
``lawful'' and ``proper in every respect?''
  I am reminded of the war crimes cases that followed World War II, and 
which helped establish certain important legal principals.
  One case involved Japanese Gen. Tomayuki Yamashita. He was tried and 
sentenced to death for failing to properly discharge his duty by 
permitting the members of his command to commit atrocities against 
Americans and Filipinos during the final year of the war.
  Fifty years ago, Yamashita's direct command and control over the 
individual actions of his soldiers was far less than what leaders have 
now--in this age of satellite communications, fax machines and jet 
airplanes.
  Writing of the incident in the Harvard Law Review, Leonard Boudin 
observed that ``The serious question confronting all citizens, however, 
is whether the ultimate responsibility lies * * * with the highest 
civilian authorities. * * * While presumably horrified at the details 
of such individual atrocities * * * they certainly are aware of 
creating a general environment in which those atrocities become 
inevitable.''
  I am concerned that the leadership of these agencies may be 
responsible for creating a general environment in which an incident 
such as this became inevitable.
  What I found equally troubling was Director Magaw rejecting the 
verdict of a Jury of Citizens who had found Mr. Weaver innocent of 
weapons charges because he was entrapped.
  Mr. Magaw instead chose to disregard most of the arguments presented 
in a court of law, and create a new version of the details to suggest 
that the Jury was incorrect in its verdict.
  It was Thomas Jefferson who said ``I consider trial by jury as the 
only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held 
to the principles of its Constitution.''
  With that statement in mind, what happens when the Government ignores 
the decision of jury?
  This is the type of arrogant and unchecked behavior by Government 
agencies that concerns Americans, and contributes greatly to the sense 
of fear and distrust that many Americans have of their Government.
  Moreover, it portrays a bad image for those who work in our 
Government whose service is exemplary and upstanding. I strongly 
believe words by Attorney Gerry Spence in his book about Ruby Ridge, 
``From Freedom to Slavery,'' in which he attests that ``the ultimate 
enemy of any people is not the angry hate groups that fester within, 
but a government itself that has lost its respect for the individual.''
  Mr, Weaver has quoted his father, who said that the Government and 
society is like a garden--sometimes a garden grows some weeds, and 
those weeds need to be plucked, or they will choke the garden. With 
that in mind, I stand on the floor of this House of Representatives and 
strongly urge our government to put their courage in the sticking place 
and pluck some of those weeds.
  I call for the firing of Agent Herb Byerly. His deceitful tactics 
created the ideal atmosphere for a deadly and unnecessary conflict. I 
call for the complete firing of Larry Potts, and any others who 
contributed to the development of death warrants for the Weaver family.
  I think FBI Director Freeh should, himself seriously consider 
stepping down as director. His decision to promote Larry Potts to the 
2nd highest position in the FBI calls his judgment into question.
  What is even more deplorable was his willingness to protect and 
defend Mr. Potts and his indefensible actions, simply because Mr. Potts 
was his close friend.
  I call for the firing and prosecution of HRT sniper Lon Horiuchi--for 
firing a weapon into a man's home knowing that children were in that 
home. Some may say that he was simply following orders.
  Have we not learned from the past war crimes trials that unlawful 
orders from superiors do not act as a shield for unlawful actions by 
those following those orders?
  I call for a thorough investigation into the actions of all the 
Government agents involved in Ruby Ridge--from top to bottom--to see 
what prosecutions need to occur. Many of these agents are still 
entrusted with the enforcement of our laws today.
  Some will call these stern recommendations ``overreacting,'' but I 
believe they are not. What happened at Ruby Ridge is far reaching in 
scope. It exposes some very ugly attitudes that are currently inherent 
in law enforcement. These elements must be quickly and forcefully 
expelled to prevent them from growing more abusive, and to also return 
the faith of a somewhat agitated people to its Government. In my 
opinion, the best way to prevent future Government abuses is to make 
those who have committed such abuses accountable for their actions.
  In closing, I would invoke the words of Justice Brandeis in their 
entirety * * *

       The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious 
     encroachment by men of zeal, well-

[[Page H 8794]]
     meaning but without understanding. Decency, security and liberty alike 
     demand that Government officials shall be subject to the same 
     rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.
       In a government of laws, existence of the government will 
     be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our 
     Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good 
     or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime 
     is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it 
     breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law 
     unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the 
     administration of the criminal law the end justifies the 
     means--to declare that the government may commit crimes in 
     order to secure the conviction of a private criminal--would 
     bring terrible retribution.

  The Ruby Ridge tragedy is worth our attention. Our form of Government 
is the greatest on earth. I believe that, if we as a Congress act 
decisively in this matter, this will be a golden opportunity for the 
people of this country to witness once again that the system our 
founding father established works--and that no one, including a 
government official, can live and act above the law and expect to get 
away with it.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the items referred to earlier.
         Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Department of 
           the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Department of 
           Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department 
           of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 
           Environmental Protection Agency.

     Date: August 18, 1995.
     Subject: Salvage Sale Provisions of P.L. 104-19
     To: Regional Foresters, USDA Forest Service,
     State Directors, USDI Bureau of Land Management,
     Regional Directors, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service,
     Regional Directors, USDC National Marine Fisheries Service,
     Regional Administrators, Environmental Protection Agency.
       On July 27, 1995 the President signed the Rescission Act 
     (Public Law 104-19, Enclosure 1) which contains provisions 
     for an emergency salvage timber sale program as well as for 
     ``Option 9'' and ``318'' sales. The salvage provisions of the 
     Act, which are the subject of this letter, are intended to 
     expedite salvage timber sales in order to achieve, to the 
     maximum extent feasible, a salvage sale volume above the 
     programmed level to reduce the backlogged volume of salvage 
     timber. The authorities provided by P.L. 104-19 are in effect 
     until December 31, 1996.
       President Clinton has directed the Secretaries of 
     Agriculture, the Interior, and Commerce, the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, and the heads of other 
     appropriate agencies to move forward to implement the timber 
     salvage provisions of P.L. 104-19 in an expeditious and 
     environmentally-sound manner, in accordance with the 
     President's Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, other existing 
     forest and land management policies and plans, and existing 
     environmental laws, except those procedural actions expressly 
     prohibited by Public Law 104-19 (Enclosure 2). Consistent 
     with the President's direction, an interagency Memorandum of 
     Agreement (MOA) on timber salvage has been developed 
     (Enclosure 3). The undersigned Agency heads attest that they 
     understand the direction in the MOA and will fully comply 
     with that direction.
       The purpose of the MOA is to reaffirm the commitment of the 
     signatory parties to continue their compliance with the 
     requirements of existing environmental law while carrying out 
     the objectives of the timber salvage related activities 
     authorized by P.L. 104-19. In fulfilling this commitment, the 
     parties intend to build upon on-going efforts to streamline 
     procedures for environmental analysis and interagency 
     consultation and cooperation. Interagency collaboration is 
     vital to achieving this purpose. Working together, we have an 
     opportunity to show our professionalism and meet the 
     challenge before us. We expect you to work cooperatively to 
     give this high priority program your very best effort.
       Enclosure 4 provides clarification and direction for those 
     portions of the MOA that are not self-explanatory or that 
     require follow-up actions. Additionally, Forest Service/
     Bureau of land Management monitoring guidance, which includes 
     involvement of other agencies, is provided for your use 
     (Enclosure 5).
       Separate guidance will be provided for other items not 
     covered by the MOA and items needing additional detailed 
     explanation. Separate direction also will be sent regarding 
     the Option 9 and ``318'' sales provisions of P.L. 104-19.
     (Signed)  Jack Ward Thomas
     for Jack Ward Thomas,
       Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.
     (Signed)  John G. Rogers
     for Mollie Beattie,
       Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the 
     Interior.
     (Signed)  Richard E. Sanderson
     for Steven A. Herman,
       Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 
     Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency.
     (Signed)  Nancy K. Hayes
     for Mike Dombeck,
       Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the 
     Interior.
     (Signed)  Gary Matlock
     for Rolland Schmitten,
       Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of 
     Commerce.
                              Enclosure 1

                 Emergency Salvage Timber Sale Program

              (Text of Section 2001 of Public Law 104-19)

     SEC. 2001.

       (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means 
     the Committee on Resources, the Committee on Agriculture, and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
     Forestry, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
       (2) The term ``emergency period'' means the period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this section and 
     ending on September 30, 1997.
       (3) The term ``salvage timber sale'' means a timber sale 
     for which an important reason for entry includes the removal 
     of disease--or insect-infested trees, dead, damaged, or down 
     trees, or trees affected by fire or imminently susceptible to 
     fire or insect attack. Such term also includes the removal of 
     associated trees or trees lacking the characteristics of a 
     healthy and viable ecosystem for the purpose of ecosystem 
     improvement or rehabilitation, except that any such sale must 
     include an identifiable salvage component of trees described 
     in the first sentence.
       (4) The term ``Secretary concerned'' means--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to lands 
     within the National Forest System; and
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to Federal 
     lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land 
     Management.
       (b) Completion of Salvage Timber Sales.--
       (1) Salvage timber sales.--Using the expedited procedures 
     provided in subsection (c), the Secretary concerned shall 
     prepare, advertise, offer, and award contracts during the 
     emergency period for salvage timber sales from Federal lands 
     described in subsection (1)(4). During the emergency period, 
     the Secretary concerned is to achieve, to the maximum extent 
     feasible, a salvage timber sale volume level above the 
     programmed level to reduce the backlogged volume of salvage 
     timber. The preparation, advertisement, offering, and 
     awarding of such contracts shall be performed utilizing 
     subsection (c) and notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, including a law under the authority of which any 
     judicial order may be outstanding on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Use of salvage sale funds.--To conduct salvage timber 
     sales under this subsection, the Secretary concerned may use 
     salvage sale funds otherwise available to the Secretary 
     concerned.
       (3) Sales in preparation.--Any salvage timber sale in 
     preparation on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be 
     subject to the provisions of this section.
       (c) Expedited Procedures for Emergency Salvage Timber 
     Sales.--
       (1) Sale documentation.--
       (A) Preparation.--For each salvage timber sale conducted 
     under subsection (b), the Secretary concerned shall prepare a 
     document that combines an environmental assessment under 
     section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) (including regulations implementing 
     such section) and a biological evaluation under section 
     7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1536(a)(2)) and other applicable Federal law and implementing 
     regulations. A document embodying decisions relating to 
     salvage timber sales proposed under authority of this section 
     shall, at the sole discretion of the Secretary concerned and 
     to the extent the Secretary concerned considers appropriate 
     and feasible, consider the environmental effects of the 
     salvage timber sale and the effect, if any, on threatened or 
     endangered species, and to the extent the Secretary 
     concerned, at his sole discretion, considers appropriate and 
     feasible, be consistent with any standards and guidelines 
     from the management plans applicable to the National Forest 
     or Bureau of Land Management District on which the salvage 
     timber sale occurs.
       (B) Use of existing materials.--In lieu of preparing a new 
     document under this paragraph, the Secretary concerned may 
     use a document prepared pursuant to the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act, a biological 
     evaluation written before such date, or information collected 
     for such a document or evaluation if the document, 
     evaluation, or information applies to 

[[Page H 8795]]
     the Federal lands covered by the proposed sale.
       (C) Scope and content.--The scope and content of the 
     documentation and information prepared, considered, and 
     relied on under this paragraph is at the sole discretion of 
     the Secretary concerned.
       (2) Reporting requirements.--Not later than August 30, 
     1995, the Secretary concerned shall submit a report to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress on the implementation of 
     this section. The report shall be updated and resubmitted to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress every six months 
     thereafter until the completion of all salvage timber sales 
     conducted under subsection (b). Each report shall contain the 
     following:
       (A) The volume of salvage timber sales sold and harvested, 
     as of the date of the report, for each National Forest and 
     each district of the Bureau of Land Management.
       (B) The available salvage volume contained in each National 
     Forest and each district of the Bureau of Land Management.
       (C) A plan and schedule for an enhanced salvage timber sale 
     program for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997 using the 
     authority provided by this section for salvage timber sales.
       (D) A description of any needed resources and personnel, 
     including personnel reassignments, required to conduct an 
     enhanced salvage timber sale program through fiscal year 
     1997.
       (E) A statement of the intentions of the Secretary 
     concerned with respect to the salvage timber sale volume 
     levels specified in the joint explanatory statement of 
     managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 1158, 
     House Report 104-124.
       (3) Advancement of sales authorized.--The Secretary 
     concerned may begin salvage timber sales under subsection (b) 
     intended for a subsequent fiscal year before the start of 
     such fiscal year if the Secretary concerned determines that 
     performance of such salvage timber sales will not interfere 
     with salvage timber sales intended for a preceding fiscal 
     year.
       (4) Decisions.--The Secretary concerned shall design and 
     select the specific salvage timber sales to be offered under 
     subsection (b) on the basis of the analysis contained in the 
     document or documents prepared pursuant to paragraph (1) to 
     achieve, to the maximum extent feasible, a salvage timber 
     sale volume level above the program level.
       (5) Sale preparation.--
       (A) Use of available authorities.--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 subsection (b).
       (B) Exemptions.--The preparation, solicitation, and award 
     of salvage timber sales under subsection (b) shall be exempt 
     from--
       (i) the requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 253 et seq.) and the implementing regulations in 
     the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued pursuant to section 
     25(c) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 
     U.S.C. 421(c)) and any departmental acquisition regulations; 
     and
       (ii) the notice and publication requirements in section 18 
     of such Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and 8(e) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)) and the implementing regulations in 
     the Federal Acquisition Regulations and any departmental 
     acquisition regulations.
       (C) Incentive payment recipients; report.--The provisions 
     of section 3(d)(1) of the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act 
     of 1994 (Public Law 103-226; 5 U.S.C. 5597 note) shall not 
     apply to any former employee of the Secretary concerned who 
     received a voluntary separation incentive payment authorized 
     by such Act and accepts employment pursuant to this 
     paragraph. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     and the Secretary concerned shall provide a summary report to 
     the appropriate committee of Congress, the Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate regarding the number of incentive payment 
     recipients who were rehired, their terms of reemployment, 
     their job classifications, and an explanation, in the 
     judgment of the agencies involved of how such reemployment 
     without repayment of the incentive payments received is 
     consistent with the original waiver provisions of such Act. 
     This report shall not be conducted in a manner that would 
     delay the rehiring of any former employees under this 
     paragraph, or affect the normal confidentiality of Federal 
     employees.
       (6) Cost considerations.--Salvage timber sales undertaken 
     pursuant to this section shall not be precluded because the 
     costs of such activities are likely to exceed the revenues 
     derived from such activities.
       (7) Effect of salvage sales.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     not substitute salvage timber sales conducted under 
     subsection (b) for planned non-salvage timber sales.
       (8) Reforestation of salvage timber sale parcels.--The 
     Secretary concerned shall plan and implement reforestation of 
     each parcel of land harvested under a salvage timber sale 
     conducted under subsection (b) as expeditiously as possible 
     after completion of the harvest on the parcel, but in no case 
     later than any applicable restocking period required by law 
     or regulation.
       (9) Effect on judicial decisions.--The Secretary concerned 
     may conduct salvage timber sales under subsection (b) 
     notwithstanding any decision, restraining order, or 
     injunction issued by a United States court before the date of 
     the enactment of this section.
       (d) Direction to Complete Timber Sales on Lands Covered by 
     Option 9.--Notwithstanding any other law (including a law 
     under the authority of which any judicial order may be 
     outstanding on or after the date of enactment of this Act), 
     the Secretary concerned shall expeditiously prepare, offer, 
     and award timber sale contracts on Federal lands described in 
     the ``Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and 
     Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range 
     of the Northern Spotted Owl'', signed by the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture on April 13, 1994. 
     The Secretary concerned may conduct timber sales under this 
     subsection notwithstanding any decision, restraining order, 
     or injunction issued by a United States court before the date 
     of the enactment of this section. The issuance of any 
     regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)) to ease or reduce 
     restrictions on non-Federal lands within the range of the 
     northern spotted owl shall be deemed to satisfy the 
     requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), 
     given the analysis included in the Final Supplemental Impact 
     Statement on the Management of the Habitat for Late 
     Successional and Old Growth Forest Related Species Within the 
     Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, prepared by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior in 1994, 
     which is, or may be, incorporated by reference in the 
     administrative record of any such regulation. The issuance of 
     any such regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)) shall not 
     require the preparation of an environmental impact statement 
     under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
       (e) Administrative Review.--Salvage timber sales conducted 
     under subsection (b), timber sales conducted under subsection 
     (d), and any decision of the Secretary concerned in 
     connection with such sales, shall not be subject to 
     administrative review.
       (f) Judicial Review.--
       (1) Place and time of filing.--A salvage timber sale to be 
     conducted under subsection (b), and a timber sale to be 
     conducted under subsection (d), shall be subject to judicial 
     review only in the United States district court for the 
     district in which the affected Federal lands are located. Any 
     challenge to such sale must be filed in such district court 
     within 15 days after the date of initial advertisement of the 
     challenged sale. The Secretary concerned may not agree to, 
     and a court may not grant, a waiver of the requirements of 
     this paragraph.
       (2) Effect of filing on agency action.--For 45 days after 
     the date of the filing of a challenge to a salvage timber 
     sale to be conducted under subsection (b) or a timber sale to 
     be conducted under subsection (d), the Secretary concerned 
     shall take no action to award the challenged sale.
       (3) Prohibition on restraining orders, preliminary 
     injunctions, and relief pending review.--No restraining 
     order, preliminary injunction, or injunction pending appeal 
     shall be issued by any court of the United States with 
     respect to any decision to prepare, advertise, offer, award, 
     or operate a salvage timber sale pursuant to subsection (b) 
     or any decision to prepare, advertise, offer, award, or 
     operate a timber sale pursuant to subsection (d). Section 705 
     of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to any 
     challenge to such a sale.
       (4) Standard of review.--The courts shall have authority to 
     enjoin permanently, order modification of, or void an 
     individual salvage timber sale if it is determined by a 
     review of the record that the decision to prepare, advertise, 
     offer, award, or operate such sale was arbitrary and 
     capricious or otherwise not in accordance with applicable law 
     (other than those laws specified in subsection (i)).
       (5) Time for decision.--Civil actions filed under this 
     subsection shall be assigned for hearing at the earliest 
     possible date. The court shall render its final decision 
     relative to any challenge within 45 days from the date such 
     challenge is brought, unless the court determines that a 
     longer period of time is required to satisfy the requirement 
     of the Untied States Constitution. In order to reach a 
     decision within 45 days, the district court may assign all or 
     part of any such case or cases to one or more Special 
     Masters, for prompt review and recommendations to the court.
       (6) Procedures.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the court may set rules governing the procedures of any 
     proceeding brought under this subsection which set page 
     limits on briefs and time limits on filing briefs and motions 
     and other actions which are shorter than the limits specified 
     in the Federal rules of civil or appellate procedure.
       (7) Appeal.--Any appeal from the final decision of a 
     district court in an action brought pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be filed not later than 30 days after the 
     date of decision.
       (g) Exlcusion of Certain Federal Lands.--
       (1) Exclusion.--The Secretary concerned may not select, 
     authorize, or undertake any salvage timber sale under 
     subsection (b) with respect to lands described in paragraph 
     (2).

[[Page H 8796]]

       (2) Description of excluded lands.--The lands referred to 
     in paragraph (1) are as follows:
       (A) Any area on Federal lands included in the National 
     Wilderness Preservation System.
       (B) Any roadless area on Federal lands designated by 
     Congress for wilderness study in Colorado or Montana.
       (C) 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 the enactment of this Act.
       (D) Any area on Federal lands on which timber harvesting 
     for any purpose is prohibited by statute.
       (h) Rulemaking.--The Secretary concerned is not required to 
     issue formal rules under section 553 of title 5, United 
     States Code, to implement this section or carry out the 
     authorities provided by this section.
       (i) Effect on Other Laws.--The documents and procedures 
     required by this section for the preparation, advertisement, 
     offering, awarding, and operation of any salvage timber sale 
     subject to subsection (b) and any timber sale under 
     subsection (d) shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of 
     the following applicable Federal laws (and regulations 
     implementing such laws):
       (1) The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 
     Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
       (2) The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       (3) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (4) The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.).
       (5) The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 
     472a et seq.).
       (6) The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 
     528 et seq.).
       (7) Any compact, executive agreement, convention, treaty, 
     and international agreement, and implementing legislation 
     related thereto.
       (8) All other applicable Federal environmental and natural 
     resource laws.
       (j) Expiration Date.--The authority provided by subsections 
     (b) and (d) shall expire on December 31, 1996. The terms and 
     conditions of this section shall continue in effect with 
     respect to salvage timber sale contracts offered under 
     subsection (b) and timber sale contracts offered under 
     subsection (d) until the completion of performance of the 
     contracts.
       (k) Award and Release of Previously Offered and Unawarded 
     Timber Sale Contracts.--
       (1) Award and release required.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, within 45 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned shall act to 
     award, release, and permit to be completed in fiscal years 
     1995 and 1996, with no change in originally advertised terms, 
     volumes, and bid prices, all timber sale contracts offered or 
     awarded before that date in any unit of the National Forest 
     System or district of the Bureau of Land Management subject 
     to section 318 of Public Law 101-121 (103 Stat. 745). The 
     return of the bid bond of the high bidder shall not alter the 
     responsibility of the Secretary concerned to comply with this 
     paragraph.
       (2) Threatened or endangered bird species.--No sale unit 
     shall be released or completed under this subsection if any 
     threatened or endangered bird species is known to be nesting 
     within the acreage that is the subject of the sale unit.
       (3) Alternative offer in case of delay.--If for any reason 
     a sale cannot be released and completed under the terms of 
     this subsection within 45 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned shall provide 
     the purchaser an equal volume of timber, of like kind and 
     value, which shall be subject to the terms of the original 
     contract and shall not count against current allowable sale 
     quantities.
       (l) Effect on Plans, Policies, and Activities.--Compliance 
     with this section shall not require or permit any 
     administrative action, including revisions, amendment, 
     consultation, supplementation, or other action, in or for any 
     land management plan, standard, guideline, policy, regional 
     guide, or multiforest plan because of implementation or 
     impacts, site-specific or cumulative, or activities 
     authorized or required by this section, except that any such 
     administrative action with respect to salvage timber sales is 
     permitted to the extent necessary, at the sole discretion of 
     the Secretary concerned, to meet the salvage timber sale goal 
     specified in subsection (b)(1) of this section or to reflect 
     the effects of the salvage program. The Secretary concerned 
     shall not rely on salvage timber sales as the basis for 
     administrative action limiting other multiple use activities 
     nor be required to offer a particular salvage timber sale. No 
     project decision shall be required to be halted or delayed by 
     such documents or guidance, implementation, or impacts.
       Now, therefore, the parties agree to:
       1. Comply with previously existing environmental laws 
     except where expressly prohibited by Public Law 104-19, 
     notably in the areas of administrative appeals and judicial 
     review. In particular, the parties agree to implement salvage 
     sales under Public Law 104-19 with the same substantive 
     environmental protection as provided by otherwise applicable 
     environmental laws and in accordance with the provisions of 
     this MOA.
       2. Achieve to the maximum extent feasible a salvage timber 
     sale volume level above the programmed level in accordance 
     with Public Law 104-19 within a framework of maintaining 
     forest health and ecosystem management. Adhere to the 
     standards and guidelines in applicable Forest Plans and Land 
     Use Plans and their amendments and related conservation 
     strategies including, but not limited to, the Western Forest 
     Health Initiative and those standards and guidelines adopted 
     as part of the President's Forest Plan for the Pacific 
     Northeast, PACFISH, INFISH, Red Cockaded Woodpecker Long-Term 
     Strategy, as well as the goals, objectives, and guidelines 
     contained in the NMFS biological opinion on Snake River Basin 
     Land Resource Management Plans (LRMPs), through the 
     interagency team approach agreed to in the May 31, 1995 
     agreement on streamlining consultation procedures. The 
     agencies will direct their level one and two teams to apply 
     to goals, objectives, and guidelines contained in the NMFS 
     biological opinion on the Snake River Basin LRMPs as the 
     teams deem appropriate to protect the anadromous fish habitat 
     resource.
       3. Involve the public early in the process so that there is 
     opportunity to provide input into the development of salvage 
     sales, particularly in recognition of the importance of 
     public involvement given the prohibition to administrative 
     appeals contained in Public Law 104-19. Maintain and promote 
     collaboration with other Federal, Tribal, State and local 
     partners.
       4. Reiterate their commitments to work together from the 
     beginning of the process, particularly in salvage sale 
     design, building on existing joint memoranda that streamline 
     consultation procedures under Section 7 of ESA including the 
     following two agreements, other applicable agreements, and 
     improvements thereon:
       The May 31, 1995, agreement on streamlining consultation 
     procedures under section 7 of the ESA, between Forest Service 
     Regional Foresters of Regions 1, 4, 5, and 6; Bureau of Land 
     Management State Directors for Oregon/Washington, Idaho, and 
     California; Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director; and 
     National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Directors.
       The March 8, 1995, agreement on consultation time lines and 
     process streamlining for Forest Health Projects, between the 
     Chief of the Forest Service, Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, Director of the National Marine Fisheries 
     Service, and Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
       The March 8, 1995, agreement as it applies to consultation 
     time lines and processes streamlining will be revised to 
     apply nationwide.
       5. Ensure that personnel from their respective agencies 
     work cooperatively and professionally to implement faithfully 
     the objectives of Public Law 104-19 and Executive Branch 
     direction in a timely manner. In the event that disagreements 
     cannot be resolved at the regional level (Level 3) of the 
     process, a panel consisting of appropriate representatives of 
     the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National 
     Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and EPA, 
     will review the evidence and make a binding decision within 
     14 days of notice of the disagreement.
       6. Agree to conduct project analyses and interagency 
     coordination consistent with NEPA and ESA (as set forth in 
     paragraph 4 of this MOA) in a combined joint environmental 
     assessment (EA) and biological evaluation (BE) called for in 
     Public Law 104-19, except where it is more timely to use 
     existing documents. There will be a scoping period, as 
     described in agency guidelines, during the preparation of all 
     salvage projects. Sales that would currently fall within a 
     categorical exclusion promulgated by the Forest Service or 
     Bureau of Land Management in their NEPA procedures will 
     require no documentation absent extraordinary circumstances. 
     For sales that the Secretary determines, in his discretion, 
     ordinarily should require an EA under the land management 
     agencies' NEPA procedures, agencies will prepare the combined 
     EA/BE, including a determination of affect under ESA and 
     circulate the analysis for 20 days of public review and 
     comment. For sales that the Secretary determines, in his 
     discretion, ordinarily should require an EIS under the land 
     management agencies' NEPA procedures, the combined EA/BE will 
     include analysis consistent with section 102(2)(c) of NEPA 
     and will be circulated for 30 days of public review and 
     comment. The decision maker will respond to substantive 
     comments on the EA/BE, but will not be required to 
     recirculate a final EA/BE.
       7. Develop and use a process which will facilitate 
     interagency review of proposed salvage sale programs on a 
     regional scale, thus allowing other agencies to identify 
     broad-scale issues and help set priorities for allocation of 
     their resources.
       8. Include mitigation needs identified in the environmental 
     assessment in timber sales design to the extent possible 
     within existing authority. As appropriate, funds will be used 
     for mitigation work not included in the timber area.
       9. Measure performance of all parties' and individuals' 
     efforts involved in the development and implementation of 
     timber prepared pursuant to this MOA based upon the combined 
     achievement of the goals set forth in this MOA.
       10. Monitor and evaluate timber sale objectives and 
     mitigation requirements as an integral part of salvage sales 
     and the salvage 

[[Page H 8797]]
     program as prescribed in Forest Plans, Land Use Plans and agency 
     direction. Public and stakeholder involvement in monitoring 
     and evaluation will be encouraged. There will be a national 
     salvage program review involving regions and States with 
     significant activity under this Act.
       11. Recognize and use the definition of salvage timber sale 
     as contained in Public Law 104-19, which is a timber sale 
     ``for which an important reason for entry includes the 
     removal of disease or insect-infested trees, dead, damaged, 
     or down trees, or trees affected by fire or imminently 
     susceptible to fire or insect attack.'' This definition 
     allows for treating associated trees or trees lacking the 
     characteristics of a healthy and viable ecosystems for the 
     purpose of ecosystem improvement or rehabilitation as long as 
     a viable salvage component exists. While this definition 
     provides necessary flexibility to meet
      salvage objectives, care must be taken to avoid abuse by 
     including trees or areas not consistent with current 
     environmental laws and existing standards and guidelines 
     as set forth in this MOA.
       This Memorandum of Agreement is intended only to improve 
     the internal management of the Federal Government and does 
     not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, 
     enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United 
     States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or 
     employees, or any other person.
       The undersigned Agency heads attest that they understand 
     the direction in this Memorandum of Agreement and will fully 
     comply with that direction.
         James R. Lyons, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and 
           Environment, Department of Agriculture.
         Robert P. Davison for George T. Frampton, Jr., Assistant 
           Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of 
           the Interior.
         Katherine W. Kimball for Douglas K. Hall, Assistant 
           Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of 
           Commerce.
         Robert L. Armstrong, Assistant Secretary for Land and 
           Minerals Management, Department of the Interior.
         Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement 
           and Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection 
           Agency.
         Jack Ward Thomas, Chief, Forest Service, Department of 
           Agriculture.
         John G. Rogers for Mollie Beattie, Director, Fish and 
           Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
         Rolland Schmitten, Director, National Marine Fisheries 
           Service, Department of Commerce.
         Mike Dombeck, Director, Bureau of Land Management, 
           Department of the Interior.
  Guidance Concerning Items in the Memorandum of Agreement on Timber 
           Salvage Related Activities Under Public Law 104-19

       Item 1. Comply with previously existing environmental laws, 
     except where expressly prohibited by P.L. 104-19. The Act 
     expressly prohibits administrative appeals (Section 2001(e), 
     and it limits judicial review (Section 2001(f)).
       Item 2. P.L. 104-19 does not include specific volume 
     targets for salvage timber sales. However, it does contain 
     the following direction:
       ``During the emergency period, the Secretary concerned is 
     to achieve, to the maximum extent feasible, a salvage timber 
     sale volume level above the programmed level to reduce the 
     backlogged volume of salvage timber.'' (Section 2001(b))
       Section 2001(c)(2) of P.L. 104-19 is a reporting 
     requirement. No later than August 30, 1995, the Secretary 
     concerned is required to report to the appropriate committees 
     of Congress on implementation of the salvage provisions of 
     the Act, and to update and resubmit the report every six 
     months thereafter until completion of all salvage timber 
     sales covered by the Act. As required by Section 2001(c)(2), 
     these reports will include a plan and schedule for an 
     enhanced salvage timber sale program by National Forest and 
     BLM District for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997 using the 
     authority provided by the Act.
       The teams referred to in Item 2 of the MOA are the 
     interagency teams established to implement the streamlined 
     Section 7 consultation process in northwestern states under 
     the Endangered Species Act, pursuant to the interagency 
     agreements referenced in Item 4 of the MOA. The explanation 
     of Item 4, below, describes the team process and its 
     expansion nationwide.
       The reference in Item 2 to the National Marine Fisheries 
     Service (NMFS) biological opinion of March 1, 1995, on the 
     Snake River Basin Land and Resource Management Plans is made 
     specifically to clarify that the interagency consultation 
     teams in the Snake River Basin will deal with implementation 
     of the goals, objectives and guidelines contained in that 
     biological opinion as related to the anadromous fish habitat 
     resource.
       Item 3. Due to the abbreviated time frames it is important 
     to have public involvement early in the process and 
     continuing through the review of the document developed. You 
     should also promote collaboration with other federal, Tribal, 
     State and local partners as appropriate. An interagency 
     communication plan is being finalized and will be sent 
     separately.
       Item 4. Consistent with the President's direction and Items 
     1 and 2 of the MOA, agencies will work together to design 
     salvage sales so as to avoid or minimize adverse effects to 
     threatened or endangered species, and no salvage sale will be 
     offered if it would be likely to jeopardize the continued 
     existence of a listed or proposed species, or if it would be 
     likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification 
     of designated or proposed critical habitat. The March 8, 1995 
     interagency agreement signed by the heads of the FS, BLM, FWS 
     and NMFS provides direction for streamlining interagency 
     consultations under the Endangered Species Act for forest 
     health and salvage
      timber projects on National Forest System and BLM lands in 
     several western states. Key elements of this streamlined 
     process are:
       Use an interagency team approach to facilitate early input 
     to the NEPA process concerning species proposed or listed as 
     threatened or endangered, as well as proposed or designated 
     critical habitat, under the Endangered Species Act.
       Informal or formal consultation/conferencing, if needed, 
     will occur concurrently with project development so that 
     consultation is completed within the NEPA timeframes.
       The MOA states that the consultation/conferencing timelines 
     and processes described in the March 8 agreement will be 
     expanded to apply nationwide. Regional and State Office 
     agency leaders who are not covered by the agreements 
     mentioned below should meet on a regional basis as soon as 
     possible to implement this direction. A copy of the March 8 
     agreement, plus an interagency letter explaining the 
     streamlined process in more detail, will be sent under 
     separate cover to each Regional/State office not already 
     covered by that agreement.
       The MOA provides that the agencies will build upon existing 
     joint memoranda, applicable agreements, and improvements 
     thereon that streamline the consultation/conferencing 
     process. This means:
       The interagency agreement of April 6, 1995, between the FS 
     and FWS for implementing the streamlined consultation process 
     on National Forest System lands in Montana will continue to 
     apply.
       The interagency agreement of May 31, 1995, among the FS, 
     BLM, FWS and NMFS for consultation/conferencing on actions 
     involving National Forest System and BLM administrative units 
     in Washington, Oregon, California, and portions of Idaho and 
     Montana, as identified in that agreement, will continue to 
     apply.
       The April 6 and May 31 agreements can be used as examples, 
     but need not be duplicated by other Regions/States if a 
     different approach will accomplish the timelines and 
     streamlined process called for in the March 8 agreement. You 
     are expected to establish and use an interagency team process 
     to facilitate information flow, emphasize early input into 
     project design to avoid or minimize adverse effects to listed 
     or proposed species and designated or proposed critical 
     habitat, and ensure timely resolution of any disagreements 
     that may arise. See the descriptions for Items 5 and 6, 
     below, for additional clarification.
       Item 5. It is imperative that the agencies work 
     cooperatively to implement the objectives of P.L. 104-19 and 
     the MOA in a timely manner. This includes promptly resolving 
     any disagreements that may arise.
       Interagency coordination, especially early in project 
     planning, will be crucial to avoiding or minimizing 
     disagreements. It is expected that most disagreements will be 
     resolved by technical specialists at the field level. Any 
     issues which cannot be resolved will be promptly elevated to 
     the next
      appropriate level for resolution. An interagency, tiered 
     process will be used for resolving disagreements, 
     beginning at the field level and moving up through 
     decision-makers until the issue is resolved. The MOA 
     specifies that in the event that an issue cannot be 
     resolved at the region/state level, a national issue 
     resolution panel consisting of appropriate representatives 
     from the FS, BLM, FWS, NMFS, and EPA, will review 
     information provided and make a binding decision within 14 
     days of a request by the interagency regional/state level.
       For example, it is expected that EPA specialists will work 
     with the National Forest or BLM interdisciplinary planning 
     team for a project to quickly identify and resolve any issues 
     that might arise concerning compliance with the Clean Water 
     Act, NEPA, or other environmental laws involving EPA input. 
     If an issue cannot be resolved at this level, it will be 
     promptly elevated to the Forest Supervisor or District 
     Manager and the appropriate EPA counterpart for joint 
     resolution. If they are unable to agree, they would jointly 
     elevate the issue to the Regional Forester or State Director 
     and the EPA Regional Administrator for resolution. In the 
     effort to reach agreement, it is expected that the ``line 
     officers'' will seek input from regional/state technical 
     specialists concerning the particular issue. The national 
     issue resolution panel will address an issue if it cannot be 
     resolved at the regional/state level.
       The April 6 and May 31, 1995, interagency agreements on 
     streamling consultations for Forest Service and BLM projects 
     in northwest states establish tiers of interagnecy teams to 
     coordinate on projects and resolve issues involving the 
     Endangered Species Act. These existing teams and the issue 
     resolution process will continue to apply. If a regional/
     state team cannot resolve an issue, the team will elevate it 
     to the national issue resolution panel. Although the existing 
     team process in the northwestern states was formed to deal 
     with consultation issues, it is expected that the ``Level 2'' 
     and higher teams established through the April 6 and 

[[Page H 8798]]
     May 31, 1995 agreements will work with EPA to resolve issues that do 
     not involve Endangered Species Act implementation and cannot 
     be resolved at the Interdisciplinary team level.
       Item 6. The action agency is responsible for completing the 
     combined environmental assessment (EA) and biological 
     evaluation (BE) for each salvage timber sale, as required by 
     Section 2001(c)(1) of P.L. 104-19. The combined EA/BE will 
     indicate that the project is being carried out under a 
     different authority than a normal salvage sale. The only 
     exception to preparing a combined EA/BE will be for those 
     situations in which using existing documents will be more 
     timely (e.g. an EIS is almost final).
       The MOA provides clarification regarding scoping and other 
     public involvement. Public and agency comments received on 
     the combined EA/Be will be evaluated and a response to 
     substantive comments will be provided in an appendix to the 
     EA/BE. The decision document will reflect the public and 
     agency input as appropriate.
       The normal agency procedure for documenting a decision 
     (e.g. preparation of a Decision Notice by the Forest Service 
     and a Record of Decision for the Bureau of Land Management) 
     will be used and the public will be informed of the decision 
     following normal agency procedures. The decision document 
     will include:
       A statement explaining that pursuant to Subsection 2001(e), 
     the salvage sale is not subject to administrative review.
       A statement indicating that under the provisions of 
     Subsection 2001(i) of P.L. 104-19, the documents and 
     procedures required for preparation, advertisement, offering, 
     awarding, and operation of the salvage timber sale are deemed 
     to satisfy the requirements of applicable environmental laws 
     as listed in 2001(i).
       An explanation of the expedited judicial review process 
     provided for in Subsection 2001(f) of P.L. 104-19.
       All anticipated environmental effects and mitigation and 
     monitoring requirements will be disclosed in the EA. This 
     includes an analysis of effects on listed, proposed and 
     sensitive species, and proposed or designated critical 
     habitat, for all alternatives analyzed. The EA/BE should be 
     no longer than necessary to adequately address the issues. A 
     Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will not be 
     required.
       To implement the MOA direction for interagency coordination 
     and compliance with the Endangered Species Act, all of the 
     required elements of a biological assessment (BA), as 
     described in 50 CFR Part 402, must be included in the 
     appropriate section of the combined EA/BE for the preferred 
     or selected alternative. These elements can be included in 
     appropriate sections of the EA/BE or can be attached as a 
     separate section. For the purposes of Public Law 104-14, the 
     BE shall meet the requirements of a BA. The action agency and 
     the consulting agency will mutually agree on the BE prior to 
     the EA/BE being issued for public comment.
       If the project is determined to have no effect on listed or 
     proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat, 
     consultation or conferencing is not required and the EA/BE 
     should so indicate.
       If the interagency consultation team agrees with the 
     determination that the project may affect but is not likely 
     to adversely affect listed species, or is not likely to 
     result in destruction or adverse modification of designated 
     or proposed critical habitat, informal consultation will 
     occur using the streamlined process per Item 4 of the MOA. 
     The letter of concurrence from the consulting agency will be 
     discussed and incorporated by reference in the decision 
     document for the project.
       If the project is determined to be likely to adversely 
     affect listed species, or likely to jeopardize a species 
     proposed for listing, or likely to result in destruction or 
     adverse modification of designated or proposed critical 
     habitat, the consulting agency will provide a biological 
     opinion or conference report using the streamlined 
     consultation process. The results of the biological opinion 
     or conference report will be discussed and incorporated by 
     reference in the decision document.
       To summarize the process:
       1. Scoping and interdisciplinary and interagency teams will 
     determine the issues to be addressed in the combined EA/BE.
       2. The completed EA/BE will be sent to the public for 
     review. The action agency and the consulting agency will 
     mutually agree on the BE prior to the EA/BE being issued for 
     public comment.
       3. Public comment received will be analyzed and the 
     response documented in an appendix to the EA/BE prior to 
     completion of the decision document.
       4. The decision document will reflect public input as 
     appropriate. In those instances when a letter of concurrence, 
     a biological opinion, or a conference report is needed from a 
     consulting agency, it will be discussed and incorporated by 
     reference in the decision document.
       Item 7. Region/State agency heads will work together to 
     develop a process to facilitate interagency review of the 
     proposed salvage sale program on a regional or state scale, 
     as appropriate. This process will provide an opportunity for 
     identification of broad issues. It should include an 
     understanding of priorities in relation to projects other 
     than salvage timber sales (e.g. grazing permits, green timber 
     sales) which involve interagency action. This is intended to 
     allow interagency coordination to occur on highest priorities 
     first and to facilitate allocations of staff and time 
     accordingly.
       Item 8. Self-explanatory
       Item 9. Self-explanatory
       Item 10. In addition to the requirements of the Act, it is 
     important for us to monitor our actions to ensure ourselves 
     and the public that we are carrying out the salvage program 
     in an environentally sound manner and that the requirements 
     identified in the decision document are being met. Monitoring 
     guidance has been developed for your use (see Enclosure 5).
       Item 11. Self-explanatory
                               monitoring

       In addition to the requirements of P.L. 104-19, it is 
     important for us to monitor our actions to assure ourselves 
     and the public that we are doing the right things for the 
     right reasons, that we are doing what we said we would do, 
     and that the effects are what we predicted. Below are some 
     thoughts and actions that each Forest Service Region/BLM 
     State should consider in developing a monitoring plan that is 
     responsive to your sales and situation.
       Public Trust and Involvement
       There will be lots of scrutiny and interest;
       We need to build trust and credibility;
       Do the right thing for the right reason;
       If we say we will do it, do it;
       Involve other Agencies, states, Tribes, the public and 
     interest groups.
       Key Agency Messages
       Monitoring and Evaluation are key and vital aspects in 
     implementing a successful stewardship salvage program.
       Monitoring and Evaluation are central to an adaptive 
     management approach which is a cornerstone for ecosystem 
     management.
       Existing Direction
       There is existing direction on monitoring in the agencies 
     directive system which identify and explain the three types 
     of monitoring and requirements for monitoring.
       Follow Standards and Guidelines in existing Forest Plans 
     and Resource Management Plans, as amended, and including any 
     biological opinions issued on such plans or amendments.
       Other Considerations
       A key for success is monitoring what is appropriate and 
     feasible, not the world. Monitoring programs must be designed 
     to address specific questions, and clearly identify who is 
     responsible for implementation.
       Monitoring should be hierarchical: every project will have 
     implementation monitoring;
       Forests and BLM Districts will develop a well designed 
     sampling scheme for effectiveness monitoring;
       Observation and documentation by anyone in the sale area is 
     helpful for implementing the monitoring. A key person will be 
     the Sale Administrator who will likely be the first to 
     observe problems.
       Any problems should be immediately documented, activities 
     suspended (if needed) and appropriate changes made to the 
     sale contract.
       Monitor and document successes as well as problems and 
     areas needing improvement.
       There must be a clear focus on oversight and 
     accountability.
       Line Officers will be held accountable.
       Regions/BLM States and Forests/BLM Districts should 
     schedule project reviews to sample the activities of salvage 
     sales and their effects; encourage public involvement.
       The WO will conduct salvage program reviews of every 
     Region/BLM State having significant activity under P.L. 104-
     19.
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 1995.
     Hon. Dan Glickman,
     Secretary, Department of Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Dan: We are gratified that leaders in the House of 
     Representatives and Administration representatives worked out 
     the remaining concerns regarding HR 1944 and are pleased with 
     the bill's solid passage by the House. We are writing to 
     follow up on the letter you sent the Speaker last night 
     regarding the Forest Service salvage sale program.
       Both of us spoke with Assistant Secretary Jim Lyons and 
     received the commitment of your Department and the Forest 
     Service to offer a minimum of 4.5 billion board feet of 
     salvage timber during the emergency period, which begins on 
     the date of enactment and expires December 31, 1996. Any 
     personnel resources needed to get the added volume are 
     provided in Section 2001 by granting the Forest Service 
     additional contracting authority and lifting restrictions 
     that could impede the Service's ability to hire adequate 
     personnel. As opportunities arise for more salvage volume, 
     you can utilize the expanded authority to increase 
     expectations.
       If you move quickly to implement this new salvage timber 
     policy, there is no reason the 4.5 billion board foot target 
     could not be met. The President has stated that the 
     Administration will carry out this program with its full 
     resources and a strong commitment to achieving the goals of 
     the program. We urge you to utilize the flexibility we have 
     provided to produce the maximum feasible salvage timber 
     volume available in our national forests.
       As you know, included in the emergency timber sale program 
     is a requirement for you to report on the Department's 
     progress in implementing the new policy. We look forward to 
     your first progress report and working together to achieve 
     the timber salvage 

[[Page H 8799]]
     objectives of the program set forth under HR 1944.
           Sincerely,
     Charles H. Taylor,
       Member of Congress.
     Norm D. Dicks,
       Member of Congress.
                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                               Natural Resources & Environment

                                  U.S. Department of the Interior,


                                  Land and Minerals Management

                                                  August 22, 1995.

                              [Memorandum]

     To: Jack Ward Thomas, Chief, Forest Service; and Elaine 
         Zielinski, Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land 
         Management.
     From: -- --. for James R. Lyons, Under Secretary of 
         Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment; and -- --
         . for Mike Dornbeck, Director, Bureau of Land Management.
     Subject: Section 2001(k) of the 1995 Rescission Act.
       Section 2001(k) of the 1995 Rescissions Act (Public Law 
     101-121) directs the Secretaries to award, release, and 
     permit to be completed the remaining section 318 timber 
     sales. Several parties have urged us to interpret section 
     2001(k) as applying to all timber contracts offered in the 
     geographic area described in section 318 of the Fiscal Year 
     1990 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, in 
     addition to the few remaining timber sales that were offered 
     subject to section 318. The language of section 2001(k) is 
     clear on its face, and applies only to the remaining section 
     318 timber sales.
       The section 318 sales have a turbulent history, having been 
     fiercely debated by Congress, by the press, by public 
     advisory boards, and before the Supreme Court. It is this 
     well-known and discrete set of sales, the sales offered in 
     Fiscal Year 1990 under the procedures establishes in section 
     318(b)-(j) of Public Law 101-121, which Congress refers to in 
     section 2001(k) of the 1995 Rescissions Act as ``subject to 
     section 318.''
       We have been involved in the debate over the federal 
     forests in the Pacific Northwest for a long time, as have 
     members of Congress. Our understanding of the section 2001(k) 
     release of timber sales ``subject to section 318'' is 
     informed by that experience. Unlike timber sales before or 
     after, the section 318 sales were developed based on specific 
     ecological criteria developed by Congress and were provided 
     limited judicial review. The Supreme Court approved section 
     318's limitation of judicial review, and about 4 billion 
     board feet of timber was sold subject to section 318. The 
     award or release of the few remaining 318 sales, totaling 
     approximately 300 million board feet, has been delayed due to 
     litigation, consultation based on the listing of the marbled 
     murreiet, and other events. Congress used section 318 as its 
     model in drafting section 2001 of the 1995 Rescission Act, 
     and included the provisions of section 2001(k) to require 
     resolution of the few remaining section 318 sales.
       The Executive Branch, particularly the Forest Service, was 
     involved in all stages of the development of section 2001, 
     providing technical information and, later, in the 
     negotiation of changes to provisions that concerned the 
     Administration. It was the remaining section 318 sales that 
     the Administration viewed as being affected by section 
     2001(k) at the time the bill was signed by the President. It 
     was the remaining section 318 sales that were the basis of 
     the April 27, 1995, Forest Service effects statement on the 
     proposed legislation that was transmitted to Congress and was 
     then used by members of Congress in their floor statements 
     and debates. The specific sale contracts that section 201(k) 
     addresses are only the sales offered under the unique 
     procedures of section 318(b)-(j). The interpretation of 
     section 2001(k) as applying to timber sales throughout 
     Washington and Oregon, and to timber sales that were not 
     developed subject to the ecological and procedural criteria 
     provided in section 318(b)-(j), is wholly inconsistent with 
     the history of the section 318 sales issue.
       In the 1995 Rescission Act, Congress seeks to end the 
     delays in the remaining section 318 sales and to expedite 
     implementation of the President's Northwest Forest Plan which 
     was designed with the section 318 sale program in mind. We 
     must read the law in a manner that makes sense of the entire 
     Act, including direction to expeditiously implement the 
     President's Northwest Forest Plan, and in a manner that 
     avoids reading section 2001(k) so expansively as to generate 
     windfall profits at the expense of the public and the 
     environment. We must faithfully implement the law as enacted 
     by Congress while acting with full consideration for the 
     environmental significance of the remaining section 318 
     timber sales and the fact that section 2001 reduces the usual 
     public policy protections that would otherwise guide our 
     implementation. For these reasons, any ambiguities in the 
     language of section 2001(k) is intended to apply only to 
     those remaining timber sales developed and offered subject to 
     section 318(b)-(j) of the Fiscal Year 1990 Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, as directly addressed in 
     section 2001(k)(1).
                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                               Natural Resources & Environment

                                  U.S. Department of the Interior,


                                  Land and Minerals Management

                                                 August 23, 1995. 

                              [Memorandum]

     To: Jack Ward Thomas, Chief, Forest Service; and Elaine 
         Zielinski, Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land 
         Management.
     From: -- --. for James R. Lyons, Under Secretary of 
         Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment; and -- --
         . for Mike Dombeck, Acting Director, Bureau of Land 
         Management.
     Subject: Additional Direction on Section 2001(k) of the 1995 
         Rescission Act.
       Yesterday we issued direction relating to section 318 sales 
     which are affected by section 2001(k)(l) of the 1995 
     Rescission Act (P.L. 104-19). The purpose of this memorandum 
     is to set forth the administration's interpretation of the 
     other subsections of 2001(k).
       As we stated yesterday, ``We must read the law in a manner 
     that makes sense of the entire Act, including direction to 
     expeditiously implement the President's Northwest Forest 
     Plan, and in a manner that avoids reading section 2001(k) so 
     expansively as to generate windfall profits at the expense of 
     the public and the environment.'' In support of these 
     principles, we will act to award, release, and permit to be 
     completed, subject to the exclusionary provisions of 2001(k), 
     all remaining section 318 timber sale contracts which are 
     currently being delayed. Those sales are:
       1. Sales for which apparent high bidders have been 
     identified, but the sales have not yet been awarded to the 
     high bidder, except that these sales will contain all 
     previously mutually agreed upon changes to the original 
     terms;
       2. Sales for which apparent high bidders have been 
     identified and the sale awarded, but where the contract has 
     not yet been executed by the high bidder, except that these 
     sales will contain all previously mutually agreed upon 
     changes to the original terms;
       3. Sales for which the apparent high bidder has been 
     identified, but the bid bond was returned before award of the 
     contract.
       Sales which have been awarded and executed will not be 
     modified or altered to the originally advertised terms, 
     volumes, and bid prices.
       Section 2001(k)(2) provides that sales subject to section 
     2001(k)(1) shall not be released or completed ``if any 
     threatened or endangered bird species is known to be 
     nesting'' within the sale unit. Although the phrase 
     ``threatened or endangered bird species'' certainly includes 
     northern spotted owls, Congress' primary attention was 
     focused on the impact of the remaining Section 318 sales on 
     the marbled murrelet. This direction will outline the 
     criteria used to determine whether any marbled murrelets are 
     ``known to be nesting'' within the remaining section 318 sale 
     units that are subject to section 2001(k).
       Congress did not define the phrase '`any threatened or 
     endangered bird species is known to be nesting.'' Therefore, 
     the implementing agencies must interpret this phrase in 
     accordance with general principles of law. In interpreting 
     this phrase, we choose to be guided by the best scientific 
     information available. We have consulted with agency experts 
     and they have provided us with the following information. The 
     marbled murrelet is a rapidly-disappearing sea bird that uses 
     old-growth forest areas only for nesting and breeding, or for 
     activities that are in support of nesting and breeding. The 
     remainder of its life is spent on the ocean. Murrelets are 
     believed to have a high nesting site fidelity, that is, adult 
     murrelets return to the same tree stands year after year to 
     nest. Therefore, if a stand of forest that murrelets use for 
     nesting is cut, they probably will not continue to reproduce. 
     Murrelets do not construct typical bird nests (they lay their 
     eggs on broad branches of older trees or in trees with 
     deformations) and they hide from predators during nesting, 
     which makes detection of nesting activity difficult. Indeed, 
     the first marbled murrelet nest was not discovered until 
     1974, and there are very few identified nests to this day.
       The consequence of adopting an interpretation of ``known to 
     be nesting'' that requires ``physical'' detection of nesting 
     activity is potentially quite dire for the entire marbled 
     murrelet population and for related conservation efforts, 
     including the President's Forest Plan. The remaining Forest 
     Service Section 318 sales encompass ten to twenty percent of 
     the known nesting sites for the marbled murrelet.
       We believe that there is a more rational interpretation of 
     the phrase '`known to be nesting'' that is based upon the 
     best scientific information available about the murrelets. 
     Because of its highly secretive behavior and lack of typical 
     nesting behavior, our agency experts inform us that actual 
     detection of a nest is not the only, or the exclusive, 
     reliable indicator of nesting. The Pacific Seabird Group--a 
     group composed of federal, state, private and academic 
     biologists--
      developed a reliable scientific protocol for determining the 
     existence of murrelet nesting activities. This protocol is 
     designed to determine more than mere ``presence'' of 
     murrelets. Surveys based on this protocol provide the best 
     scientifically valid information, available within the 45 
     days provided by Congress, on whether murrelets are known 
     to be nesting in these units. Based on the protocol's 
     scientific analysis, we conclude that the protocol's 
     criteria should be utilized in evaluating whether Section 
     318 sales are subject to section 2001(k)(2).
       Application of the protocol's criteria to determine whether 
     murrelets are ``known to be nesting'' in a particular area is 
     the way to provide for meaningful implementation of 
     subsection 2001(k)(2) given the needs of this species. Again, 
     agency experts inform us that murrelets do not ``nest'' or 
     ``reside,'' that is, nest or breed, in a way that permits of 
     typical nest detection, yet their nesting 

[[Page H 8800]]
     and breeding behavior is just as critically dependent on availability 
     of nesting habitat as any other species. In order to comply 
     with the directive to withhold sales where the murrelet is 
     nesting, the scientifically valid approach is to utilize the 
     criteria in the protocol. There simply is no other practical 
     or biologically justifiable method for identifying murrelet 
     nesting, or for insuring that our actions will not be likely 
     to jeopardize the continued existence of the murrelet.
       We are informed that within the 45 days allowed by 
     Congress, the Forest Service is completing a second year of 
     surveys for murrelets. Sale purchasers are being provided 
     with the survey data sheets and asked for their comments. As 
     an example of how the process has been used on a particular 
     forest, purchasers questioned the validity of 12 of the units 
     in the Siuslaw National Forest. Forest Services biologists 
     reviewed all applicant comments, conducted additional surveys 
     of 4 of the sales and determined that the data was sufficient 
     for another 4 sales. A purchaser hired a surveyor for the 
     remaining 4 sales, which confirmed the Forest Service's 
     findings. Additionally, government agencies are reviewing all 
     surveys data, verifying all ``questionable'' determinations 
     and continue to confirm the strength of all survey 
     determinations.
       In subsection 2001(k)(3), Congress included a provision for 
     alternative timber for the remaining Section 318 sales that 
     are not released within the 45-day timeframe specified in 
     Subsection (k)(l). This provision applies to any sale which 
     ``for any reason'' cannot be released within the 45-day 
     period. This provision is therefore applicable to sales or 
     units of sales that are not released under Subsection (k)(2).
       In accordance with the standards and guidelines for the 
     President's Northwest Plan, and within the limits of 
     available personnel and appropriated funds, we will assess 
     the availability of alternative volume.
                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to be able to address myself 
     to the question of the Emergency Salvage Timber Sale Program 
     in H.R. 1944. I want to make it clear that my Administration 
     will carry out this program with its full resources and a 
     strong commitment to achieving the goals of the program.
       I do appreciate the changes that the Congress has made to 
     provide the Administration with the flexibility and authority 
     to carry this program out in a manner that conforms to our 
     existing environmental laws and standards. These changes are 
     also important to preserve our ability to implement the 
     current forest plans and their standards and to protect other 
     natural resources.
       The agencies responsible for this program will, under my 
     direction, carry the program out to achieve the timber sales 
     volume goals in the legislation to the fullest possible 
     extent. The financial resources to do that are already 
     available through the timber salvage sale fund.
       I would hope that by working together we could achieve a 
     full array of forest health, timber salvage and environmental 
     objectives appropriate for such a program.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, DC, August 1, 1995.

                              [Memorandum]

     For: The Secretary of Interior, The Secretary of Agriculture, 
         The Secretary of Commerce, and The Administrator, 
         Environmental Protection Agency.
     Subject: Implementing Timber-Related Provisions to Public Law 
         104-19.
       On July 27th, I signed the rescission bill (Public Law 104-
     19), which provides much-needed supplemental funds for 
     disaster relief and other programs. It also makes necessary 
     cuts in spending, important to the overall budget plan, while 
     protecting key investments in education and training, the 
     environment, and other priorities.
       While I am pleased that we were able to work with the 
     Congress to produce this piece of legislation, I do not 
     support every provision, most particularly the provision 
     concerning timber salvage. In fact, I am concerned that the 
     timber salvage provisions may even lead to litigation that 
     could slow down our forest management program. Nonetheless, 
     changes made prior to enactment of Public Law 104-19 preserve 
     our ability to implement the current forest plans' standards 
     and guidelines, and provides sufficient discretion for the 
     Administration to protect other resources such as clean water 
     and fisheries.
       With these changes, I intend to carry out the objectives of 
     the relevant timber-related activities authorized by Public 
     Law 104-19. I am also firmly committed to doing so in ways 
     that, to the maximum extent allowed, follow our current 
     environmental laws and programs. Public Law 104-19 gives us 
     the discretion to apply current environmental standards to 
     the timber salvage program, and we will do so. With this in 
     mind, I am directing each of you, and the heads of other 
     appropriate agencies, to move forward expeditiously to 
     implement these timber-related provisions in an 
     environmentally sound manner, in accordance with my Pacific 
     Northwest Forest Plan, other existing forest and land 
     management policies and plans, and existing environmental 
     laws, except those procedural actions expressly prohibited by 
     Public Law 104-19.
       I am optimistic that our actions will be effective, in 
     large part, due to the progress the agencies have already 
     made to accelerate dramatically the process for complying 
     with our existing legal responsibilities to protect the 
     environment. To ensure this effective coordination, I am 
     directing that you enter into a Memorandum of Agreement by 
     August 7, 1995, to make explicit the new streamlining 
     procedures, coordination, and consultation actions that I 
     have previously directed you to develop and that you have 
     implemented under existing environmental laws. I expect that 
     you will continue to adhere to these procedures and actions 
     as we fulfill the objectives of Public Law 104-19.
                                               William J. Clinton.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Metcalf). The Chair would like to thank 
the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] for one of the great 
speeches from the House of Representatives.


                          ____________________