[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3022-S3023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Lott, Mr. Bennett, 
        Mr. Simpson, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kyl, 
        and Mr. Thomas):
  S. 1647. A bill to amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 to provide that forest management activities shall be subject 
to initial judicial review only in the United States district court for 
the district in which the affected land is located, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


  THE FEDERAL LAND AND POLICY MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 AMENDMENT ACT OF 
                                  1996

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
bring some common sense to the judicial review of land management 
activities. In 1995, every single proposed timber sale in the Black 
Hills National Forest was challenged by extreme environmental groups. 
Was this necessary? No. My legislation would prevent environmental 
activists from ``court shopping'' when they challenge Federal timber 
sales and other land management activities. Is this necessary? Yes.
  The Black Hills National Forest in western South Dakota, famous for 
its enormous stands of ponderosa pine, is an essential part of South 
Dakota's economy. The Black Hills forest products industry includes 18 
sawmills and 12 secondary manufacturers producing a full spectrum of 
lumber products, from housing quality lumber to particleboard and wood 
pellets. The list is endless. The industry sustains nearly 2,000 jobs. 
Preserving these South Dakota jobs and the future health of the forest 
requires careful management--both by the Forest Service and by the 
timber industry.
  Mayor Drue Vitter, of Hill City, SD, said it best:

       Good management of the forest by the Forest Service helps 
     sustain a good cut for the timber industry. If we groom the 
     forest well and keep it healthy, then we will have a healthy 
     economy.

  Mr. President, the very first Federal timber sale in the Nation took 
place in the Black Hills near Nemo, SD, in 1899. That same area has 
been harvested twice since then. Today, a new generation of healthy 
ponderosa pine stands tall and strong--a testament to the proper 
stewardship of our national forests.
  Recently, however, proper forest management has been hindered by 
lengthy court challenges of Forest Service timber sales. Environmental 
extremists challenge almost every proposed Federal timber sale--not 
just in South Dakota but across the country.
  In the past 10 years, the number of Federal timber sales has 
decreased dramatically. In 1990, the Forest Service issued nine timber 
sale decisions in the Black Hills National Forest. In 1994, the Forest 
Service issued only four timber sale decisions on the Black Hills.
  Why the decline? Mainly it is due to the never-ending court 
challenges. These reductions threaten the health of the forest, cause 
sawmills to go out of business, and cause loggers and other workers to 
lose their jobs. This is bad for the forests. This is worse for South 
Dakotans.

  Angie Many, founder of the Black Hills Women in Timber organization, 
described the situation in a poignant letter to the editor of the Rapid 
City Journal newspaper. ``When less timber is harvested, the dangers of 
losing major portions of the Black Hills National Forest to wildlife or 
insect infestations are increased . . . local mills shut down or 
decrease shifts, disemploying real people with effects that trickle 
down to many other businesses . . . families like mine are torn apart 
as loggers and mill workers travel to other areas to find work . . .'' 
Sadly, Angie's description is accurate.
  Often, when environmental extremists contest a Federal timber sale, 
they shop around for courts that will be most sympathetic to their 
environmental concerns and where they can get the longest delays. They 
seek court action in metropolitan areas--courts that frequently are 
busier and tend to be more liberal. Is this fair to loggers? Of course 
not.
  Court-shopping is a sad fact of life right now in South Dakota. 
Here's an example: Two years ago, the Forest Service prepared the so-
called Needles timber sale--a sale 6.77 million board feet in the 
Norbeck Wildlife Reserve. The Needles sale was aimed at thinning the 
stands of ponderosa pine which had become so dense from lack of 
management that wildlife no longer could survive there.
  This presented the Forest Service with an opportunity--an opportunity 
to achieve a balanced approach to forest management. By thinning the 
forest, the Forest Service intends to create new habitat areas that 
would encourage the return of wildlife to the area. That's good sense--
a plan that would result in both economic and environmental benefits.
  The Needles sale also was needed to ensure the long-term health of 
the forest within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. The Preserve is 
deteriorating rapidly and poses a severe fire risk. A fire in this area 
would be devastating. It could destroy the forest and could cause 
permanent damage to the faces of the Mount Rushmore National Monument 
which lies within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. The Needles timber 
sale would reduce drastically the risk of fire and insect destruction.
  Like almost every Federal timber sale in the Black Hills, the Needles 
timber sale was challenged almost immediately by a coalition of 
environmental extremists. For the past 2 years, this case has been 
pending in the Denver court system--with no hope of receiving any 
further attention. This just is not right.

  As many of my colleagues know, the Denver court system is currently 
one of the busiest in the Nation. The Needles timber sale is not a high 
priority for this court, particularly now that the Oklahoma bombing 
trial has been moved to Denver. But, this is what environmental 
extremists want. They wanted a delay. They got a delay. My bill would 
put an end to that.
  My legislation would require that Federal land management 
activities--including timber sales--be subject to initial judicial 
review only in the U.S. District Court in which the affected Federal 
lands are located. Under my bill, the Needles timber sale could have 
been heard in South Dakota--where there is no caseload logjam, so to 
speak.
  That means no more court shopping. No more court backlog. No 
unnecessary delays. No lost timber revenue. And most important, no lost 
jobs. A court in South Dakota will understand the needs of South 
Dakota's forest and rangelands better than a remote big city, Federal 
court with a clear liberal bias.
  Maurice Williams, the General Manager of Continental Lumber in Hill 
City, SD, agrees that South Dakotans are best equipped to determine how 
to manage the Black Hills:

       The proof is on the ground. The Black Hills National Forest 
     represents more than a hundred years of solid management. A 
     judge who never has seen the Black Hills just isn't qualified 
     to decide how the forest should or should not be managed.

  Mr. President, I agree with Maurice. I believe it is time to give 
States and conscientious timber harvesters the home court advantage. 
Already this legislation has been cosponsored by several of my 
colleagues, including Senators Craig, Lott, Bennett, Simpson, Stevens, 
Murkowski, Inhofe, Kyl and Thomas. I ask unanimous consent that a 
letter of support from the Black Hills Forest Resource Association be 
printed in the Record. I hope all my colleagues will take a close look 
at this bill and support its eventual passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S3023]]

                                S. 1647

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Title VII of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-579; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et 
     seq.) is amended--
       (1) in the title heading, by adding: ``; JUDICIAL REVIEW'' 
     at the end; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 708. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Definition of Forest Management Activity.--In this 
     section, the term `forest management activity' means a sale 
     of timber, the issuance of a grazing permit or grazing lease, 
     or any other activity authorized under a land use plan under 
     this Act or a land or resource management plan under section 
     6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 
     Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) to be carried out on Federal 
     land.
       ``(b) Judicial Review.--A forest management activity and 
     land use plan under this Act or a land or resource management 
     plan under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) (including an 
     amendment to or revision of a plan) shall be subject to 
     initial judicial review only in the United States district 
     court for the district in which the affected land is 
     located.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     prec. 1701) is amended--
       (1) in the heading relating to title VII, by adding ``; 
     JUDICIAL REVIEW'' at the end; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 708. Judicial review of forest management activities.''.
                                                                    ____

                                                Black Hills Forest


                                         Resource Association,

                                   Rapid City, SD, March 14, 1996.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pressler: We have reviewed your draft 
     legislation requiring that lawsuits involving forest 
     management activities be filed in the United States district 
     court in which the national forest is located.
       We strongly support this legislation. Too often plaintiffs 
     have ``shopped'' for courts that are backlogged or for the 
     judges most inclined to offer favorable judgments. In our 
     view, the public's interest is best served by keeping trials 
     as local as possible to facilitate appearances by witnesses, 
     other participants, and observers, as well as providing the 
     best opportunity for local citizens to be fully informed.
       Clearly, local decisions should be made locally, and the 
     public's interest is not well served by allowing cases to be 
     heard in far away courts with only a tangential stake in the 
     outcome.
       Thank you for your leadership on this issue.
                                                       Tom Troxel,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join Senator 
Pressler, my friend and colleague, as one of the original cosponsors 
for his timber sale proposal. This responsible legislative solution 
would cut court cost and remove delays which plague legitimate efforts 
to harvest timber from Federal lands.
  Those who oppose any and all timber activities go to great lengths to 
obstruct the process. Frequently, they shop around for a court which 
supports their agenda. This usually creates a situation where the court 
making the ruling has neither a geographical connection nor a genuine 
first-hand understanding of the case and its consequences. Does this 
make judicial sense to any of my Senate colleagues?
  Senator Pressler's proposal is direct and straightforward. It simply 
requires that the court which conducts the judicial review and renders 
the decision must include the land in question within its district. Why 
is a Denver court more qualified to review a Black Hills timber sales 
than one in South Dakota? Common sense says the opposite would be true.
  Senator Pressler's approach will not prevent groups from challenging 
the timber sales on Federal lands. This proposal will not roll back any 
environmental statutes. To the contrary, it actually means the judicial 
decisions will be made more promptly. Why would any of these groups not 
want their court challenges acted upon promptly?
  Senator Pressler's plan also would cover other public policy issues 
like grazing permits and resource management plans. It makes sense that 
these judicial decisions, like timber sales, are made by those who will 
be directly affected, and who have the most knowledge of the 
situations.
  Senator Pressler's approach can be characterized as a focused and 
precise fix to the underlying statues. It is in keeping with the 
administration's ``rifle-shot'' procedure. The fundamental law is left 
in place and mere fine tuning occurs.
  I ask all of my colleagues to give serious examination to this 
legislative proposal. It has merit and deserves both your support and 
your cosponsorship.

                          ____________________