[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11564-S11565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           PUBLIC LANDS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this month marks the 20th 
anniversary of Congress' passage of the National Forest Management Act 
of 1976 [NFMA]. As many of you know, at the beginning of this Congress 
we embarked upon the first sustained oversight of the implementation of 
the NFMA, and the related statutes and regulations that govern the 
management of Federal forest lands--both those managed by the U.S. 
Forest Service, as well as by the Bureau of Land Management.
  During the course of last year and this, our subcommittee held 15 
hearings, receiving testimony from over 200 witnesses concerning the 
status of Federal forest management. We then participated in, and 
reviewed the results of, the Seventh American Forest Congress before 
finalizing our conclusions. These conclusions are summarized in a June 
20, 1996 letter that I sent to Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. 
Since the transmittal of this letter and its subsequent circulation, we 
have received a number of letters, calls, and comments from various 
individuals both inside and outside the federal land management 
establishment. Generally, they have been: First telling us that we are 
accurate in our diagnosis of the problems associated with federal 
forest management; and second urging us to address some of the problems 
and opportunities described in the June 20 letter.
  At the conclusion of our oversight hearings earlier this year we 
invited the administration to provide us with ideas about needed 
changes, basically making good on the commitment that Secretary 
Glickman made when he was confirmed by the Senate in March 1995. In the 
June 20 letter, we again offered to entertain the administration's 
proposals. On August 1 we received a response indicating that no 
proposals were ready to tender. We are distributing a copy of the 
letter and the Secretary's response to you.
  Last week, I met with the Secretary to see whether the administration 
was close to offering a proposal of any sort. Not surprisingly, they 
are not--nor will they be anytime before a certain date in November 
that seems to figure heavily in all of their planning.
  I also asked the Secretary whether he imagined that--if we were to 
introduce a legislative proposal before that magic date--we might have 
a thoughtful and substantive discussion detached from partisan 
wrangling and political recriminations? He thought not. What a 
surprise, but more the pity.
  Without being overly critical, I think we have to question both the 
seriousness of the administration's approach to these issues, and the 
depth of the Secretary's commitment to constructively engage Congress 
on Federal forest management. But I want to emphasize that my mind and 
my door are still open. As we move forward, we would still be happy to 
see a legislative proposal from the administration to put alongside 
what we propose.


  we must choose a coherent philosophy under which our Federal forest 
                        lands should be managed

  Today, I want to review the basic approach we took to our oversight 
task. In evaluating the need for change, we started by evaluating how 
well our current statutes are working. Then, having established that 
change is imperative, we stepped back and tried to evaluate the overall 
philosophy under which we want our Federal lands to be managed.
  We chose to reaffirm the multiple-use mandate that has guided the 
management of Federal forest lands since the early part of this 
century. We have refused to accede to the no-use philosophy that is 
currently being popularized by elements of the national environmental 
community and, to some extent, agents of this administration.
  We have chosen the former over the latter because any sentient being 
can see the results of the no-use philosophy on the land. Fires are 
burning out of control through forests that are inherently unhealthy 
because of stand conditions that have been allowed to deteriorate as a 
consequence of both simple administrative inaction, and a more basic 
and grievous confusion over the role of man in nature. The bill we will 
propose does not deal with the forest health issue alone. Rather, it 
will also deal with the health of the Forest Service and the other land 
managing agencies. It is our conclusion that the clear results of the 
implementation of no-use philosophies on the agencies have been as 
dramatic as the results of the application of similar philosophies on 
the land.
  Consider this--in over 15 hearings with 200 witnesses--no one 
supported the status quo. Let me repeat, no one from any walk, 
profession, interest group, or point of view provided any testimony 
that suggested Congress need not act to fix the current situation. In 
sum, the health of the Forest Service--or, more broadly, our Federal 
Government--as an enlightened advocate of professional resource 
management has reached a critical point. In an era of tightening 
Government budgets this might be the case even if this administration 
was not subjecting the agencies to unprecedented political 
interference. But, in fact, the amount of political interference that 
the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are facing is 
extraordinary.
  Thus, as we summarize our general philosophy, we flatly reject the 
preservationist philosophy that the best

[[Page S11565]]

thing we can do for our Federal forests is to walk away and leave them 
alone. Rather, we choose to: First, reaffirm and reinvigorate multiple-
use management; second, restore the health of our forests and the 
morale of our professional forest managers; third, fashion forest 
policy on hope instead of fear; fourth, develop solutions instead of 
conflict; fifth, encourage education instead of litigation; sixth, rely 
upon science instead of stoking emotions; and seventh, employ human 
resources in environmental stewardship, instead of destroying them in 
the interest of environmental purism.


    our approach to this process has necessarily been time consuming

  When we initiated this oversight process two Marches ago, I remarked 
upon the novelty of Congress wading into an area where it has been 
absent from the field for so many years. I also noted that, if our 
oversight uncovered the need for significant changes, these changes 
would take time. Indeed, legislative changes of this nature always take 
more than one Congress to achieve. When you write the environmental 
history of this Congress I hope you will remember that we expected it 
to take awhile, but we will get the job done.
  I relish the opportunity to quote Senator Hubert Humphrey's remarks 
20 years ago this week as he brought the conference report accompanying 
the 1976 National Forest Management Act to the Senate floor. He stated 
that:

       It is with a tremendous amount of pride and satisfaction 
     that I offer this measure for the consideration of the 
     Senate. It is a product of 3 years of work by four committees 
     of this Congress, as well as more than a dozen public 
     interest groups and business interests.

  These issues could not be viewed as the work of a single Congress or 
the result of an individual election, even then. They certainly cannot 
now. For those critical of Congress' efficiency, it is worth noting 
that the number of congressional committees has decreased, even as the 
panoply of interest groups has expanded exponentially.
  Generally speaking, significant change comes only through crisis or 
consensus. I would submit that, today, we have a consensus that the 
status quo is unacceptable. But there is not yet a shared sense of 
crisis, nor any specific agreement on an appropriate solution. 
Therefore, our proposal will represent a starting point to see if we 
can: First, build upon the only established consensus--that is, the 
status quo is unacceptable; and second, move toward some agreement on 
what kinds of appropriate solutions should be provided.
  By necessity, many parties will be involved in the deliberations that 
we will begin in a few weeks, and carry forward through the next 
Congress and perhaps beyond. But at the same time, many parties have 
already been involved in providing us useful insights that are 
reflected in the proposal we will circulate in the near future. Let me 
mention a few groups that have been involved and deserve recognition 
for the contributions made to date.
  First, I want to recognize the thousands of people involved in the 
Seventh American Forest Congress. Their coming together was a truly 
unique experience. I directed my staff to attend, and they benefitted 
greatly from the insights provided. We delayed introduction of this 
measure to benefit from their deliberations. I hope to continue this 
extraordinary dialog with this other Congress.
  Representatives of the environmental community have also been 
instrumental in providing both the backdrop for the discussions that 
have occurred in this Congress, as well as a number of specific 
suggestions for changes. While we do not agree with all they advocate, 
they nevertheless deserve the credit for elevating the public's 
interest in the state of our Federal forests.

  Third, I want to recognize the forest scientists that have begun to 
look at land management and ecosystem analysis at broader geographic 
scales. Many of the initiatives that have been pioneered by this group 
of devoted Forest Service and other Federal agency scientists over the 
last 4 years are going to be recognized and provided with a statutory 
basis.
  Fourth, I want to thank State and local officials who have provided 
considerable testimony about the current state of federalism, insofar 
as Federal resource management is concerned. They have suggested a 
number of improvements based upon their increasingly impressive 
capabilities to perform a number of the management functions that are 
currently entrusted solely to the diminishing number of Federal agency 
employees spread across the country.
  Fifth, I want to thank representatives of local, dependent 
communities and industries. I want to commend their patience in seeing 
us through these deliberations, while in many cases--and for 
justifiable reasons--they felt their concerns are of a more immediate 
nature.
  Finally and most importantly, I want to thank the Forest Service and 
other Federal agency employees who contributed so much to our oversight 
process both formally and informally. By elevating environmental 
considerations within the agency, Forest Service employees have made 
many of the changes that we will propose both reasonable and possible. 
There is less need now to use other Federal employees to police the 
work and commitment of Forest Service scientists, biologists, and land 
management professionals than there may once have been. For this, and 
for other efficiencies in better land stewardship that we will propose, 
Forest Service employees deserve considerable credit. I am also 
appreciative of the amount of time and effort that went into the 
development of agency testimony and support materials that provided the 
information necessary for our oversight and ongoing drafting processes. 
I deeply appreciate, the professionalism and commitment of these 
employees.
  I do not expect any of the above mentioned groups to be wholly or 
very satisfied--or, in a few cases, even remotely satisfied--with the 
proposal that we will unveil shortly. Nevertheless, all of their views 
were heard and in many ways reflected, even if not exactly the way they 
thought they would be.
  Now having reviewed the process that we used to develop the 
legislation, let me explain how we will proceed. Prior to meeting with 
the Secretary last week, I was prepared to introduce this measure 
immediately and start the process of discussing these ideas. The 
Secretary's responses to my questions have convinced me that this would 
result in little more than the most cynical exercise in political 
posturing at the present time.
  Therefore, I plan to wait and circulate this proposal immediately 
after the election. If the current administration returns, the 
invitation to come forward with their own proposal still stands. If 
not, I expect that their successors may well be more aggressive and 
communicative in their desire to proceed and address these issues. 
After I finish a little work I have back in Idaho, I will sponsor a 
series of workshops and/or hearings during the recess to secure 
specific comments and suggestions for change. I will also direct our 
staff to meet with interested groups to secure additional comments. I 
hope that we will then have an improved bill to introduce at the 
beginning of the next Congress in order to begin a more focused 
dialogue on legislation that I will strive to advance in a bi-partisan 
fashion.
  To this end, I look at the forthcoming proposal as a working draft--
even though I have been at it for 2 years. I urge people to review it 
carefully. I hope that, with a minimum amount of rhetorical overkill, 
they will tell us what they think the good parts and the bad parts are. 
I will not be seeking immediate support, and I will try to avoid 
immediate condemnation. This proposal is going to change--perhaps 
dramatically--as we listen and rework it to reintroduce in the next 
Congress.

                          ____________________