[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.
____________________