[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 52 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3752-S3753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  IN OPPOSITION TO RIDERS ATTACHED TO THE INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today is Earth Day. It is a day that many 
young people and adults across our country take time out to plant a 
tree, clean up a river or a lakeside, and to make the statement that 
each of us has a responsibility to pass on a safe, clean, healthy, and 
secure environment to the generations that come behind us.
  Mr. President, today I use Earth Day to voice my concerns with the 
many riders that are attached to the Interior section I of the omnibus 
appropriations bill that is currently in conference. These riders, I 
believe, are not good policies for today or for tomorrow, and they 
certainly go against the concept that Earth Day was designed to 
highlight.
  Mr. President, I am particularly concerned about three riders that 
most directly affect my home State of Washington. The riders are the 
limitations to the interior Columbia basin ecosystem management 
project, the restricted timber salvage provisions, and the threats to 
the Lummi Nation.
  Mr. President, let me begin with the Columbia basin ecosystem 
management project. Most people in this Chamber know little about the 
Columbia basin project. I would like to change that today by explaining 
briefly what the project is and what its creators hope to accomplish.
  This project is a joint planning effort by the Forest Service and the 
Bureau of Land Management to develop a scientifically sound ecosystem-
based strategy for managing the forests and the lands of the interior 
Columbia basin. Its most salient feature is that it is one of the first 
attempts made in natural resource policy to get ahead of the problem, 
rather than simply reacting to it. Its original proponents, Senator 
Hatfield and former Speaker Foley, had dealt firsthand with the spotted 
owl controversy and wanted to attack the problems of the inland West 
differently.
  In addition--and this may come as a surprise to my colleagues--almost 
everyone, from commodity interests to environmental activists, agrees 
that we have problems with the ecosystems of the inland West. They 
agree on something. So let us use that consensus to figure out how to 
manage these damaged or unhealthy lands. We need to develop a plan to 
ensure sustainable commodity production, healthy fish stocks and 
wildlife populations, and protection of ecosystems. That is what the 
Columbia basin project attempts to do.
  Unfortunately, some commodity interests are afraid of this project. I 
don't want to discount their fear, because I know some businesses have 
been hurt by changing Federal policies and lawsuits. However, the 
limitations imposed in the Interior appropriations rider will too 
severely restrict sound

[[Page S3753]]

resource management, ecosystem restoration, and decisionmaking.
  At every stage of this lengthy appropriations process, I have tried 
to improve the Columbia basin provisions, since I knew I did not have 
the votes to strike the section. I was successful in two areas. First, 
we have allowed the agencies to spend up to $4 million to finish this 
important project. This is a dramatic improvement over the original 
House bill, which prohibited any money from being spent for 
implementation of the project and which allowed only $600,000 to be 
spent to complete the project.
  The second important change I fought for was the removal of shackles 
from the scientists. The bill had limited the scientific assessment to 
such things as forest land management and had prohibited study of 
anything else. The omnibus appropriations bill now allows a scientific 
assessment of the entire ecosystem, not just that portion of the system 
primarily affecting commodity production.
  So, the Columbia basin project provisions have improved somewhat from 
what the House originally proposed. However, serious, serious problems 
remain. The most wrongheaded provision is that shielding many timber 
sales, mining operations, and other projects from Endangered Species 
Act consultation. Any national forest or BLM district may, at its 
discretion, amend the plans in place for protecting threatened fish and 
wildlife, namely PACFISH and INFISH, and thereby avoid later 
consultation on potentially harmful activities.
  This provision is made worse by another limitation imposed in the 
appropriations bill: The agencies may not select preferred management 
alternatives in the draft environmental impact statements or publish a 
record of decision. These restrictions on implementation of the 
National Environmental Policy Act thwart decisionmaking about 
management decisions that affect diverse and wide-ranging species, such 
as salmon and bull trout. It allows individual forests to alter 
existing fish and wildlife protections in any manner they desire and 
then escape ESA consultation scrutiny on individual projects and timber 
sales.
  Mr. President, sufficiency language regarding the ESA and NEPA is 
very popular with this Congress. I believe that limiting consultation, 
restricting public review, and piecemeal management of public lands is 
a bad way to manage our Nation's resources. I urge the conferees to 
strip the entire Columbia basin project section. In the alternative, 
the conferees should delete the ESA and NEPA sufficiency language and 
allow the agencies to select a preferred alternative and publish a 
record of decision providing direction regarding the best management 
alternative.


                             TIMBER SALVAGE

  Last month I offered an amendment to repeal the timber salvage rider 
and replace it with a long-term timber salvage program. Unfortunately, 
the majority voted against my amendment, deciding the agencies should 
not be required to comply with environmental laws and should be 
protected from public challenge of their decisions. After the defeat of 
my amendment, the omnibus appropriations bill went forward with 
language contained in the chairman's mark designed to solve a few of 
the problems associated with the timber salvage rider, by only a few.

  Let me be clear. I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Hatfield to get 
these modest changes included in the timber salvage rider. They move in 
the right direction, but simply do not go far enough.
  The major flaws with the salvage provisions in the omnibus 
appropriations bill are: First, they do not give the agencies 
sufficient authority to withhold sales and/or suspend harvesting where 
there is serious environmental damage; second, they extend the 
sufficiency granted these controversial old growth sales indefinitely; 
third, they provide language in the report that attempts to influence 
ongoing marbled murrelet litigation; fourth, they give too much power 
to timber sale contract holders in negotiations; fifth, they restrict 
the timeliness for buy-one provisions and alternative volume; and 
sixth, they provide no money to fund buyouts.
  I urge the conferees to work with the administration to improve these 
provisions because they could provide needed flexibility on these 
highly controversial and damaging old growth sales. We need to provide 
timber purchasers with fair replacement volume or buy out their 
contracts as quickly as possible and ease growing tensions in the 
Pacific Northwest.
  The anger and frustration of many citizens concerned about ecosystem 
health and protection of our forests is increasing. We must act quickly 
to avoid harming key watersheds and important old growth ecosystems. 
The time is now.


                            the lummi nation

  Another provision I continue to oppose is that preventing the Lummi 
Nation, and potentially other tribes, from exercising their water 
rights on tribal lands. The Lummis and other parties, including non-
Indian landholders, are engaged in negotiations that appear to be going 
very well. I appreciate the willingness of Senator Gorton to remove 
language that would likely have derailed these negotiations. However, 
the language still existing in the omnibus appropriations bill is 
counterproductive and simply ignores the history of the dispute. In 
addition, that language represents a threat to tribal sovereignty and 
sets an extremely poor precedent for government-to-government 
relations.
  From the day I first became aware of this language I have been trying 
to remove or modify it because I respect tribal and local efforts to 
resolve the issue. Unfortunately, despite repeated efforts to develop 
compromise language that would serve all parties' interests; despite 
repeated opposition from leading tribal policy experts in Congress; 
despite veto threats, as evidenced in the statement of administration 
policy; and despite the continued progress of negotiations, the 
provision remains virtually unchanged.
  There is only one purpose for this provision: to threaten and coerce 
the Lummi people. This is the wrong way to encourage negotiated 
settlement of a controversial, far-reaching, and complicated dispute 
over tribal water rights. I urge the conferees to remove the punitive 
language and allow the affected people and governments to solve this 
problem.
  Mr. President, some of my colleagues have argued that the concerns 
expressed by the administration have been sufficiently addressed. While 
I agree that progress has been made and appreciated the many 
concessions both sides have made in the omnibus appropriations bill, I 
want to state clearly that serious concerns, expressed in writing by 
the administration, myself and others, remain unaddressed.
  Mr. President, we are already more than halfway through fiscal year 
1996. We need to rid this bill of these three controversial riders, 
other antienvironmental riders, and others, such as those addressing 
individual transferable quotas for our fisheries and HIV-positive 
military personnel.
  We need to govern. We need to fund our Government through the 
appropriations process and set policy through the authorizations 
process. Let us strip these riders and send a clean spending bill to 
the President--and get on with governing. It would be the right message 
for Earth Day.

                          ____________________