[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H3840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1330
      INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO REPEAL LOGGING SALVAGE RIDER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, last July it was about 10:30 at night, and 
this House passed the notorious timber salvage rider. That rider was 
slipped onto a bill that actually gave funding to the Oklahoma bombing 
victims. We knew at the time, some of us, that it was a bad idea, this 
bill. We knew this rider was a bad idea.
  Yesterday, it just got worse, much worse. Yesterday, the Ninth U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the logging rider, which is called 
by the people of this country the lawless logging rider, that this 
logging rider, requires the Forest Service to immediately release for 
logging every timber sale ever offered in every national forest in 
Washington and Oregon since 1990, even though those sales were stopped 
because they are old growth sales in environmentally sensitive areas. 
Not only are they old growth sales, Mr. Speaker, but they are critical 
for endangered fish and wildlife.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to tell people that this bill has been called the 
salvage rider, but let me tell the Members about some of the trees that 
are being cut. Some of those trees are nearly 1,000 years old. they are 
not salvage, they are the heritage of the people of this country. Those 
are trees on public land, land set aside for the people, and yet, under 
this lawless logging rider, under this rider, the people have been shut 
out. Under this rider, all laws that protect that public heritage have 
been suspended.
  Mr. Speaker, although the Forest Service is talking about salvage, we 
find that in fact they are reclassifying some healthy forests as 
salvage. So not only is this lifting the laws, not only is this 
shutting out the American people, but it is also a lie, because these 
trees are not salvage, they are healthy.
  I introduced on December 7 a repeal of the lawless logging rider, and 
I have been joined on a bipartisan basis by 139 cosponsors. Why did I 
introduce this repeal? First of all, I knew it was wrong, this bill, in 
the first place. But then the trees began to come down in my district. 
Then the letters began to pour in. I would like to mention, Mr. 
Speaker, some of those letters.
  Here is one from a small woodland owner. He said: ``I speak for a 
large, unheard constituency in this debate. We manage our property in a 
sound manner, economically and environmentally, and we object to the 
Government doing otherwise.'' He opposes the salvage rider.
  Here is someone from Asheville, NC, who wrote to me and said:

       Thank you for introducing the repeal of the rider. I have 
     worked all my career as a forest entomologist. I can assure 
     you that this bill is a Trojan horse intended to get at good 
     timber. It has been a practice for 9 years that to get a 
     timber operator to remove infested pine, it was tacitly 
     agreed that he would get plenty of good timber as an 
     incentive.

  I have heard from someone who says that he is a business person: ``If 
anyone tries to tell you that business interests oppose environmental 
interests, I will tell you that is old-fashioned bunk. I am a small 
business person and I object to the rider.''
  Then I got a letter from John Jonathan Alward. He said: ``Please 
continue to fight the salvage logging law. I am a Boy Scout. I believe 
the law is bad because it allows logging companies to strip away the 
natural beauty of the Northwest.''

  Here is one from a grandfather, who says he is outraged, outraged 
that it passed last summer.
  Then I have one from a 67-year-old grandmother, 40 years an Oregon 
resident. She says: ``I love this State, and I am sickened by what 
Congress is allowing to happen to its natural beauty and its 
environment.''
  A biologist. This is not a special interest group, Mr. Speaker. This 
is the people of the United States who own this land, who own this 
timber. He says: ``As a biologist, I am greatly concerned with the 
deleterious effect of the salvage rider.''
  So I introduced the repeal of the salvage rider. What does that mean? 
What does it mean to repeal the salvage rider? It means we just go back 
to the way it used to be with the laws that had been passed by the 
Congress protecting the public interest. What it means when we repeal 
the rider is that once again we put the law in the forest, and once 
again we put the public interest over the special interest. We need to 
protect public land. It is the American heritage. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in repealing the so-called salvage rider. Please support 
2745. Repeal the lawless logging.

                          ____________________