[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5300-S5301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      100th ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOREST SERVICE ORGANIC ACT OF 1897

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, yesterday was the 100th anniversary of the 
passage of the Forest Service's Organic Act, so it is an appropriate 
time to reflect on how recent Congresses have addressed Forest Service 
issues.
  Let me also say to my colleagues, yesterday had sent to each one of 
your offices a book by Douglas MacCleery called ``The American Forests: 
A History of Resiliency and Recovery.''
  During the 104th Congress, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee conducted the first extended series of oversight hearings on 
the management of our Federal forests in almost 20 years. As these 
hearings proceeded, we also consulted with experts in the field of 
forestry management, participated in and evaluated the results of the 
Seventh American Forest Congress, and asked the General Accounting 
Office and others to evaluate the current state of the management of 
our national forests. As a consequence of these efforts, we have formed 
some conclusions about the management of our national forests, and 
today I would like to share these with my colleagues.
  Notwithstanding considerable contemporary controversy, the Forest 
Service remains a top performer among Federal agencies. The breadth of 
contemporary controversy over Federal forest management and the 
cacophony of interest group outcries from all ends of the spectrum tend 
to obscure the simple fact that much of the time the Forest Service 
carries out its duties quite effectively.
  Over the decade, the quality of management employed on our Federal 
forests have been reflected in the integrity of the resources involved. 
Since the turn of the century, and particularly over the last several 
decades, the science of resource management has improved dramatically. 
Our federally owned forests are arguably managed under the most 
advanced scientific principles and the most stringent environmental 
controls that have been applied to any managed ecosystem in the world.
  In a historic context, the return on this investment in scientific 
management is striking. Many Federal forests which some view today as 
pristine ecological preserves were, earlier in this century, little 
more than worn-out farm lots. Species of megafauna which were 
dangerously close to extinction at the turn of the century are now 
flourishing on our Federal forests.
  The National Forest System provides more recreation opportunities 
than any other land ownership category in the country. Wood from our 
national forests made a significant contribution to the American dream 
of affordable housing for post-war America, and must still continue to 
make an important contribution to our national fiber needs today.
  The heat generated by present-day conflicts over Federal forest 
management makes it easy to forget that our national forests are 
century-long success stories. But this perspective is essential to 
retain as we go about the task of addressing contemporary problems and 
improving on our performance in forest resource management.
  Notwithstanding the barrage of negative publicity generated by the 
pleadings of special interests, I remain highly impressed by the 
commitment of Forest Service professionals of all disciplines and at 
all levels. Moreover, after more than 15 hearings on an array of 
related subjects, I am convinced that the majority of people--those not 
vested in a particular resource management outcome--are, after a 
reasonable opportunity to offer their thoughts, prepared to defer to 
the judgment and expertise of the Forest Service in resource management 
decisions. In this regard, I have reached four specific conclusions 
from our oversight.
  First, budget reductions and downsizing have left the agency with 
significant management problems. Throughout the system their are 
national forests with critical gaps in resource management expertise 
and/or personnel shortages. I have come away from our oversight 
convinced that we simply must find a way to provide the agency with the 
resources to do the job we want done. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in this search.
  Second, despite these current fiscal constraints and various and 
sundry controversies, the spirit of Forest Service employees remains 
surprisingly strong. This spirit shone through in much of the testimony 
received from agency employees, particularly during field hearings. I 
believe we must act now to avoid squandering this endangered resource.
  Third, the breadth and quality of resource and environmental 
expertise within the Forest Service, even stressed by budget 
constraints, is nonetheless unique among related Federal agencies. For 
example, I have come to conclude that the Forest Service's specialists 
possess: as much or more expertise in endangered species conservation 
as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; as much or more expertise in 
managing anadromous fish habitat as the National Marine Fisheries 
Service; and as much or more expertise in maintaining or restoring 
water quality in rural, forested watersheds as the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  Fourth, in response to probative questions, we finally began to hear 
the acknowledgment, from other Federal agencies that this expertise 
exists and that the Forest Service could, in their view, be trusted to 
use it. I am not convinced that their actions yet reflect these words, 
but I was glad to hear them, nonetheless.
  Most people still strongly support multiple-use management despite 
well publicized assertions to the contrary. After listening to over 200 
witnesses from all quarters, I have come away convinced that we should 
continue to use our federally owned forests for a wide variety of 
purposes as long as these activities do not damage the lands. I believe 
that the majority of the populace agrees that we should protect 
wildlife habitat, allow recreation, permit harvesting of trees, grazing 
of animals, and development of minerals on these lands, and that these 
activities--if conducted judiciously--can be compatible. I do not 
believe that the ``zero harvest,'' or ``cattle free'' philosophies are 
as widely supported as their proponents maintain. For example, at the 
seventh American Forest Congress, the 1,500 participants voted 91 
percent to 4 percent to defeat an extremist proposal to eliminate 
commercial harvest on public lands.
  Moreover, I also strongly suspect from what we heard that most people 
believe that the way to decide the best mix of uses on Federal forests 
lands is to give the Forest Service--particularly the resource 
professionals on the ground--as broad and independent a responsibility 
as possible to conduct studies, develop comprehensive plans, consult 
with the public, and then implement the results. Unfortunately,

[[Page S5301]]

most of the developments in contemporary resource policy over the past 
15 years have worked to reduce the forest Service's responsibility.
  That is why last December, I began circulating comprehensive 
revisions to the 1976 statutes that govern the management of our 
Federal forest lands. These statutes have not been changed since 
Congress passed them two decades ago and are in dire need of 
modernization. The world that we face today is much different than the 
one we faced in 1976, even as it is different than the one that we 
faced in 1897.
  Over the course of the last 4 months I have held a series of six 
informal workshops on the draft that was circulated for the first time 
last December. These workshops included representatives from all points 
of view, and were conducted to be as informal and discoursive as 
possible in hearing all points of view. Since concluding these 
workshops a few weeks ago, we have been reworking our proposal for 
introduction this summer. I hope that we can, in this centennial year 
of the passage of the original Organic Act, make some positive 
changes--in a bipartisan fashion--that will provide a mandate to carry 
sustained and enlightened forest stewardship forward for another 
century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous-consent 
agreement, the Chair recognizes the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho. I commend 
him on the work he does in forestry, an area in which I have great 
interest. We have seen tremendous developments in this area. Agri-
forestry and many related concepts are very important new ways in which 
we cannot only benefit our environment, but maintain profitable 
revenue-producing opportunities for landowners, and we think that 
updating the law is very important.
  I look forward to working with my colleague. I appreciate his 
leadership.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, we have just heard about the 
history and origins of the 1897 Organic Act of the U.S. Forest Service. 
I would like to describe what our forests were like a century ago and 
compare this to where we are today as a nation of enlightened forest 
stewards. Consider the following turn-of-the-century snapshot of the 
condition of the Nation's forests and wildlife that confronted our 
early conservation leaders:
  Wildfires commonly consumed 20 to 50 million acres annually--an area 
the size of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware combined.
  There were about 80 million acres of cut-over land that continued to 
be either idle or lacking desirable tree cover.
  The volume of timber cut nationally greatly exceeded that of forest 
growth.
  There were no provisions for reforestation in our system of laws. 
Aside from a few experimental programs, long-term forest management was 
not practiced.
  Also at the turn of the century, wood was still relatively cheap. 
Because of this, large quantities were left behind after logging. 
Sawmills were inefficient. The use of wood in buildings was based on 
custom, rather on sound engineering. Huge volumes of wood simply 
rotted.
  Massive clearing of forest land for agriculture continued. In the 
last 50 years of the 19th century, forest cover in many areas east of 
the Mississippi had fallen from 70 to 20 percent or less. In the last 
decade of the 19th century, America's farmers cleared forests at the 
average rate of 13.5 square miles per day. And much of this land 
included steep slopes that were highly erodible.
  Formerly abundant wildlife species were severely depleted or nearing 
extinction.
  Now compare the unfortunate realities that the country faced at the 
turn of this century with a snapshot of how our forests look today as 
we prepare for a new millennium:
  Following two centuries of decline, the area of forest land has 
stabilized. Today, the United States has about the same forest area as 
in 1920.
  The area consumed by wildfire each year has fallen 90 percent. And 
this trend is continuing even with some severe fire seasons over the 
last couple of summers.
  Nationally, the average volume of standing timber per acre in United 
States forests is about one-third greater today than in 1952. In the 
East, the average volume per acre has almost doubled.
  Populations of whitetail deer, wild turkey, elk, pronghorns, and many 
other wildlife species have increased dramatically.
  Tree planting on all forest lands rose significantly after World War 
II, reaching record levels in the 1980's. Many private forest lands are 
now actively managed for tree growing. 70,000 certified tree farms 
encompass 95 million acres of privately-owned land.
  The tens of millions of acres of cut-over land that existed in 1900 
have long since been reforested. Many of these areas today are mature 
forests. Others have been harvested a second time, and the cycle of 
regeneration to young forests has started again. Eastern forests have 
staged a major comeback. We are seeing an increase in forested acreage 
throughout the Eastern States.
  Finally, forest growth nationally has exceeded harvests since the 
1940's, with each subsequent decade generally showing increasing 
margins of growth over harvests. By the early part of this decade, 
growth exceeded harvest by 34 percent and the volume of forest growth 
was 360 percent greater than it had been in 1920.
  Recreational use on national forests and other public and private 
forest lands has increased manyfold.
  The efficiency of wood utilization has improved substantially since 
1900. Much less material is left in the woods. Many sawmills produce 
more than double the usable lumber and other products per log than they 
did in 1900. Engineering standards and designs have reduced the volume 
of wood used per square foot of building space. Preservation treatments 
have substantially extended the service life of wood. These 
efficiencies have reduced by millions of acres, the area of annual 
harvest that otherwise would have occurred.
  These comparisons demonstrate what huge strides have been made in 
forest management between the turn of the century and today. It is 
important that we recognize the Forest Service for its contributions to 
this progress. In my home State of Oregon, which has some of the most 
productive forest land in the world, the Forest Service has been a 
responsible partner in managing our Federal lands.
  In fact, Forest Service employees in Oregon last year endured several 
physical attacks against their operations. Not only did arsonists burn 
the Oakridge Ranger Station to the ground, but they also destroyed a 
Forest Service truck at the Detroit Ranger Station. I want to thank 
those Forest Service employees in Oregon for enduring such deplorable 
acts of terrorism, and also recognize the agency's hard work all over 
the State.
  Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to commend the U.S. 
Forest Service for helping improve the stewardship of our natural 
resources over the last 100 years. The agency's efforts to use sound 
science and its ability to look forward have become a worldwide model 
for balancing the growing needs of our land. While we may not agree on 
every issue, I look to the Forest Service for equally successful 
leadership in the next 100 years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
York.

                          ____________________