[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5296-S5297]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE 1897 ORGANIC ACT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to advise my colleagues 
that yesterday, unfortunately, we were not in morning business so I 
could not make this statement, but yesterday marked the 100th 
anniversary of the passage of the 1897 Organic Act which created the 
Forest Service. On that day, June 4, 100 years ago, Congress passed the 
Forest Service Organic Act which allowed the first on-the-ground 
management of the forest reserves.
  Prior to this date 100 years ago, forest reserves totalling 
approximately 17 million acres had been established in 1891 and 1893. 
In the spring of 1897, another 21 million acres of forest reserves were 
added to the system. This latter addition was the result of a 
Presidential Commission on National Forests established in 1896. The 
commission included notable scientific and conservation leaders at that 
time.
  However, the addition of the second round of reserves was 
sufficiently controversial that Congress moved in early 1897 to attach 
an amendment to the 1898 general appropriations bill to eliminate the 
reserves and transfer the 21 million acres back into the public domain 
for disposal. Outgoing President Grover Cleveland pocket vetoed the 
bill on his last day in office. This created a situation in which the 
Government had no money to operate and the new President, William 
McKinley, quickly called Congress into an extra session on March 15, 
1897, to reconsider eliminating the reserves.
  In this special session of Congress a compromise was framed which 
took the form of the Forest Service's 1897 Organic Act and which 
restored the 21 million acres of forest reserves. I think it is rather 
ironic, Mr. President, as we consider today various and sundry 
conflicts over salvage riders and the management of various forests, 
including the Tongass National Forest in my State, that 100 years ago 
Congress had the same kinds of conflicts. But the national forests that 
we have today serve as a living testimony to our ability to resolve 
those conflicts.
  My understanding is that other Members will join me today, Senator 
Smith and probably Senator Craig, with regard to further statements on 
the significance of this particular date, June 4, 100 years ago, 1897, 
and further elaborate on the circumstances and conditions of the 
forests and the transition that has occurred in that 100 years.
  However, I think it noteworthy that there are many changes in the 
names, many changes in the boundaries of the national forests in the 
years that have followed that event 100 years ago, but the basic land 
areas that were set aside in the Western States between 1891 and 1907 
are still with us today. From 1907 until today another 44 million acres 
have been added to our national forests, mostly in the Eastern States. 
These lands, for the most part, were old, worn out farms, lands that 
were cut over, but today represent some of the most important forested 
recreation and timber producing areas that we have in the Eastern 
United States.
  The Organic Act of 1897 allowed for the organization and active 
management of the reserves by forest rangers rather than no management 
at all, which had been the case from 1891 until that time. The well-
known and revered Gifford Pinchot was hired on June 25, 1897, and he 
recommended the adoption of three basic goals for the management of the 
forest reserves. The first was permanent tenure of forest land; the 
second was continuity of management; and the third was the permanent 
employment of technical trained foresters. Because the tradition within 
the Department of the Interior was to hire political appointees rather 
than technically trained foresters, Pinchot was successful in 1905 in 
securing the transfer of the forest reserves to the Department of 
Agriculture where it is today.

  I think it is a little bit ironic that today the new Chief of the 
Forest Service is a political appointee who most recently served in the 
Department of the Interior. Nevertheless, technically sound management 
continues within the Forest Service.
  The major section of the 1897 act was a statement of reason for 
establishing the forest reserves. The act stated, ``no public forest 
reservation should be established, except to improve and protect the 
forest within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable 
conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber 
for the use and necessity of citizens of the United States.'' Let me 
repeat that: ``securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to 
furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessity of 
citizens of the United States.'' That was the purpose.

[[Page S5297]]

  Mr. President, for the most part of 100 years of management of the 
reserves, the Forest Service has relied extensively upon the double 
provisions of water flows and timber. Today, however, with ecosystem 
management as the Forest Service envisions it, improving and protecting 
the forests seems to have taken the forefront. I, for one, believe that 
all three criteria are important to assure that we can continue the 
balanced, predictable, and sustainable management of our national 
forests.
  One interesting difference from the way the world seems to work today 
is the way the Forest Service was able to complete the implementation 
regulations for the Organic Act by June 30, 1897. Today it is difficult 
for the agency to produce regulations in 25 months, let alone get the 
job done in 25 days, which is what they did in 1897.
  Pursuant to the provisions of the Organic Act, which established the 
philosophy of active management of the forest reserves, the first 
national forest timber sale occurred in the Black Hills National Forest 
in South Dakota in 1899. This sale was offered in the spirit of the 
then recently passed Organic Act because Gifford Pinchot believed that 
the science of forestry could be applied to manage the forest reserves 
on a sustainable basis.
  We will be displaying a photograph as I speak. I think it is 
noteworthy, Mr. President, to recognize the significance of what this 
represents, because I have here for my colleagues' attention an 
enlarged photograph of the first timber sale that occurred in the 
United States on national forest lands. This is how it looks today, Mr. 
President. I think you will agree that this photograph shows a healthy, 
well-managed forest, which 100 years later confirms Pinchot's belief in 
forestry and the renewability of the resource. Since the time of that 
first sale, forestry and forest practices have progressed 
exponentially, reflecting modern knowledge and technologies and a 
heightened concern for ecology and all of the ecological functions of 
the forest.
  This picture is an actual portrayal of the area in question today. 
This area in the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota was cut in 
1899. I am going to have an easel put up so that during the remainder 
of my remarks it can be viewed.
  Finally, Mr. President, the Organic Act of 1897, although modified 
many times by the Congress, set the standards for the management of the 
national forests for an entire century. The vast national forest lands 
were set aside, and they are still in existence to this day. 
Controversy about the management of those forest lands, of course, 
continues, much as it did a century ago. The national forests are still 
under attack from some quarters. Management is being pressured to 
change. Special-interest groups are highly polarized. But the fact is 
that there are national forests, and I think it speaks well that 100 
years ago a young country with vast resources would save and manage 
millions of acres for the people, and that is just what we have done. 
Were we less forward-thinking people then, as some people seem to 
believe we are today? If we were, there would be nothing left to argue 
about. But that is not the case.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, for the most part, the legacy of the 
Forest Service for the last 100 years has been responsible stewardship 
by dedicated professionals within the Forest Service.
  Finally, as a commemoration of today's anniversary, I am sharing with 
each of my colleagues a most important book on forest ecology called 
``Pacific Spirit: A Forest Reborn.'' This book, which was written by 
Dr. Patrick Moore, is going to be given to each Member of this body. 
Dr. Patrick Moore is a forest ecologist and is one of the cofounders of 
GreenPeace. That is a rather interesting reference. Here is a cofounder 
of GreenPeace writing a book on forest ecology--``Pacific Spirit: A 
Forest Reborn.'' It is interesting that Dr. Moore now advises the 
Forest Alliance of British Columbia, an industry-sponsored organization 
in Canada. Some Members might think it ironic that I would send my 
colleagues a work by a former GreenPeace activist and founder of 
GreenPeace. But Dr. Moore sums up his position in this way:

       As a lifelong environmentalist, I feel the need to speak 
     out because I cannot agree with claims made to the world by 
     some of my environmentalist colleagues about the total 
     destructive impact of forestry in general and clear-cutting 
     in particular.

  It is the final irony today, I guess, that it takes a founder of 
GreenPeace to speak to us on the proposition that clear-cutting has 
value and is an adequate and recognized means of timber harvesting.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Am I correct that I am to be recognized under a previous 
unanimous consent agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senator has 30 minutes.

                          ____________________