Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 96 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 96 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4924-H4938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY ACT OF 1997

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 180 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 180

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 858) to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
conduct a pilot project on designated lands within Plumas,
Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests in the State of California
to demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource management
activities proposed by the Quincy Library Group and to amend
current land and resource management plans for these national
forests to consider the incorporation of these resource
management activities. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Resources. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources
now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as
an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant
to clause 6 of rule XXIII. That amendment shall be considered
as read. Points of order against that amendment for failure
to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 5(a) of rule
XXI are waived. No amendment to that amendment shall be in
order except an amendment printed in the Congressional Record
pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, which may be offered only
by Representative Miller of California or his designee, shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Dayton,
OH [Mr. Hall], and, pending that, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order H.R. 858, the
Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997
under a modified closed rule. While I share the sentiments of the
minority that bills of this nature should be considered under an open
amendment process, I believe a modified closed rule in this instance is
appropriate and justified.
The Quincy Library Group is a 41-member coalition of local
environmental organizations, the timber industry and local officials
that met in Quincy, CA. In 1993, the group developed an innovative
consensus-based pilot program to permit local management of 2.5 million
acres of three national forests in California. It is a responsible plan
that emphasizes local cooperation and balances environmental protection
with local economic needs.
H.R. 858 is intended to end the 4-year stalemate over the
implementation of environmentally sound management practices for the
Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests that are aimed at preventing
wildfires that are a serious threat to life and property.
The Committee on Resources has been negotiating for 8 weeks with
environmental groups, the Clinton administration and even our
California colleagues over in the Senate to address their substantive
concerns.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute that is made in order by
the rule addresses all of their concerns except the concern over local
control, which is the primary purpose of this bill. In particular, the
substitute amendment specifically states that the pilot project is
subject to all existing environmental laws and reviews. Let me
underscore that again, Mr. Speaker. The pilot project is subject to all
existing Federal environmental laws and reviews.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute accurately reflects the
plan that was painstakingly negotiated by this 41-member coalition.
There is a legitimate concern that efforts to substantively revise that
plan could cause that coalition to unravel.
The Quincy Library Group bill has bipartisan support. To strengthen
that support, the rule affords the respected ranking minority member of
the Committee on Resources, my colleague, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller], to offer a germane amendment to further address
additional concerns that, in the unlikely event, may be overlooked in
the substitute amendment.
The rule, Mr. Speaker, ensures ample debate by providing 1 hour of
debate on the Miller amendment in addition to the 1 hour of general
debate. So Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible rule that will ensure the
integrity of the Quincy Library Group while allowing for an innovative
and responsible forest management plan, a pilot plan to be developed by
local consensus so that we can move forward.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and of
the bill itself.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4925]]

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I thank my colleague from California, Mr. Dreier, for yielding
to me this time.
This resolution 180 is a modified closed rule. It will allow for the
consideration of H.R. 858. This is a bill that directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to conduct a 5-year pilot project for the management of
lands within three national forests in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in
the State of California.
As my colleague has described, this rule provides for 1 hour of
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. This modified
closed rule makes in order one amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller], the ranking minority member of the Committee
on Resources. No other amendments may be offered.
Reluctantly, I oppose the rule because it is an unnecessary
restriction of the rights of House Members to offer amendments to this
bill on the floor.
During the hearing of the Committee on Rules last night, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] testified that this is a
controversial bill. It is opposed by State and local California
environmental groups, and furthermore he testified that his concerns
could be taken care of with about a half a dozen amendments.
My principal opposition to the rule is not based on the procedure up
to this point. During the Committee on Rules hearing, the gentleman
from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources,
testified that numerous changes had been made in the bill to
accommodate the opposition. In general, the committee process has been
followed. The controversy that has resulted is part of the normal
process when basic disagreements continue to exist after fair debate at
the subcommittee and committee level.
The next step, which this rule will not permit, is to carry those
disagreements to the House floor. Members should have the right to
continue the perfecting process before the House in full view of the
American public. Instead, Members are offered the right to vote on only
one amendment and then to consider the bill on a take-it-or-leave-it
basis.
House tradition and custom encourage full and fair debate on the
House floor whenever possible. That tradition is particularly strong in
the Committee on Resources, which has rarely requested a restricted
rule. Supporters of this restrictive, modified closed rule have failed
to make the case that an exception should be made now, and as crowded
as the floor schedule is for this month, surely room could have been
found to take up the half dozen amendments that might be offered.
While the fire protections in the bill are needed soon by the people
of California, this bill has already been in development for 4 years.
The extra debate time to consider amendments will make little
difference.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about the management of the national
forests supported at taxpayers' expense to protect environmental
resources that belong to all Americans. The representatives of the
people should have the right to shape this legislation on the House
floor. I oppose this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], chairman of the
Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process and chairman of the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California, vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, acting chairman
today in the absence of the chairman, for yielding me this time.
I rise in support of what I think is a very fair rule for a very
important subject that I think in some ways is a bellwether to be used
again and again and again as a model in this controversy we have
between private property rights and the preservation of our natural
resources, which we generally speak of in terms of our environmental
legislation.
Obviously we are never going to entirely have a winner on one side or
the other of that debate. We are always going to have protection of our
natural resources because our quality of life demands it, and we are
always going to have private property rights because they are
guaranteed, as they should be, in the Constitution of the United
States.
Finding ways to work out solutions when they come in conflict is what
this bill is about in one narrow specific area of the United States. I
believe that the rule we have crafted works out quite well. It is a
modified closed rule. It ensures that the minority opposed to some
aspects of this bill, which I understand was reported out of the
committee nearly unanimously; that nevertheless there was a minority
and that that minority has the opportunity to improve the bill in their
view through a single amendment and, of course, through the traditional
motion to recommit. I am told, frankly, that this legislation is a
result of 4 years of discussion by the interested party, the Quincy
Library Group, which is a coalition of the environmental leaders,
timber industry officials, local citizens and other interested parties
in the area who would be immediately affected.

{time} 1100

It would be unfortunate, I think, to allow the diligent work they
have done to be compromised by misunderstanding here by those of us who
were not there or, frankly, to be derailed by mischief making in
Washington which, strangely enough, happens every now and then.
This rule does not shut off the amendment process but it does provide
for expedited consideration of this long-awaited bill and is supported
by local groups representing all ranges of the ideological spectrum.
The Quincy Library Group, in my view, should be commended. They have
been the conflict resolution forum for a compromise that has been
tailored and shaped to resolve a longstanding specific controversy in
their area.
In effect, H.R. 858 implements a locally conceived management plan
for three national forests in northern California. It establishes a 5-
year pilot program designed to conserve forest resources, protect
wildlife habitat, and provide economic stability for the region; jobs
and quality of life together. Most importantly, it represents a step
away from the Washington knows best mentality that has plagued our
environmental policy over the years.
This bill presents a long overdue cooperative, locally driven
approach to protect our precious resources and our jobs and well-being.
It is a fresh approach to land management. I applaud it. It is one that
empowers local folks to make decisions and find solutions that work for
them.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule, which I think preserves
the package, allows for the amendment if the minority wishes to make
it, and allows us to get on to reflect our own views on how we will
vote on the final bill, which I also urge support for.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for being so
generous with his time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. The fact is
that, I suppose in a sense, based on the past consideration of our
timber policies in the last Congress and this Congress, that this
represents a great liberalization of our opportunities to vote and
debate on issues that affect our national forests. The fact is we have
not had many votes on such national forest policies.
The last session, we had the discussion on the timber rider, as it
became known, the infamous timber rider, the salvage timber rider
which, under the auspices of timber salvage, basically opened up many
of our national forests to really an unregulated adventure in terms of
harvesting timber in the name of trying to suppress fires and so forth,
all with good words of intent; but the consequence of it was that not
just salvage operations, which are ongoing and an administrative
function of the Forest Service, was in place, but in fact they ran
counter to what would be sound forest health practices.
This measure that is before us and this rule, of course, does not
provide for the open-ended open amendments. I

[[Page H4926]]

do not know of any effort to offer a significant number of amendments
that would derail this particular bill, but it is an effort to
overcontrol and overmanage what should be an open process on this
floor. If there was a bill that could have an open amendment process,
this would be it.
I do not know the outcome, but I would just suggest to the Members on
the substance of this bill, because many Members have discussed the
substance, this is not an argument over private property rights; this
is a question of how we are going to manage three national forests all
public lands, three national forests and a land mass of about 2\1/2\
million acres. So it comprises a significant portion of our national
forests, the public domain not owned by private land holders.
Two-and-a-half million acres, and an area that has been of
significant controversy in the Pacific Northwest with regard to the
policy path for our timber harvest. The fact is that Congress has had
heavy hands in this area in terms of mandating legislative timber cuts
for a long time.
Finally, when the reality of an ecological crash really occurred with
regard to species and diversity of wildlife and so forth in the Pacific
Northwest, that resulted in lawsuits and a whole series of efforts that
basically denied the problem during the Bush administration, this
Clinton administration worked very hard to put in place a sound forest
plan, a forest plan or planning process that has been difficult for
everyone, concerned in terms of accepting the types of harvest and
limits that were necessary because of new scientific information.
Now, with these key forests, a group got together, and I think all of
us respect local input and respect the virtue of that, but this Quincy
group has not formulated fully all of the ideas in terms of how this
should be managed. The question is, should national forests be
controlled strictly by local policies based upon generalized
guidelines? A 22-page document that raises more questions than it
answers.
If we are going to replace the NFS with such a local group, Quincy
Library Group, in place of the Forest Service, which is significant
national policy change, are the guidelines in place that will in fact
best conserve and utilize the national forest resources, preserve the
resources of these 2.5 million acres, three national forests? My answer
to that is no. I think we need the Forest Service as a full partner at
the table. I think we need the existing laws in place, not set aside.
The effort here to pass this law is to in fact superimpose this over
the existing mosaic of Federal laws that guide the use of these
national lands. Not private lands, national public lands. This effort,
in my judgment, is an effort to hijack what is the Quincy Library
Group, the local input, to try to superimpose it and to use it for
other purposes. The end result here is to basically circumvent many of
the existing environmental laws that we have, in fact, superimpose this
particular policy path over such laws.
It is called a pilot project but, as I said, it involves 2\1/2\
million acres of land. It is not a pilot project. This is an effort to,
in fact, circumvent the existing limits, court decisions, other factors
that have provided a policy path today that in the Northwest is
working, admittedly not with controversy.
Now, I think the Quincy Library effort is an admirable effort. I
respect the people involved in it. I think they add significantly to
the policies that are being pursued in these areas, but I think the
idea is not fully developed. I think the Forest Service has not
completed some of the negotiations, furthermore, trying to allocate
nearly $100 million to the management of this plan for this particular
group is expensive and it will take away from many of the other
functions the National Forest Service is responsible for. While there
is no new authorization in this bill, the expectation is that that
hundred million dollars has to come out of the general budget of the
forests involved and the hide of the Forest Service.
I would suggest the rule is inappropriate, not necessary, it should
be opposed, as should this bill in its present form or with the
amendments that are being proffered by the majority at this time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] has 23\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 22 minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pleasantville, PA [Mr. Peterson].
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentleman from California for the chance to speak on this rule. As a
member of the Committee on Resources, I am proud to stand here today to
support the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability
Act, and to support the rule that has been designed to preserve the
locally generated compromise.
For more than 4 years this group has been meeting to find common
ground on the policy governing management of these forests. The title
of this bill is an accurate description of the proposal's intent to
recover forest health and to achieve economic stability.
Why would a Member from Pennsylvania be interested in this measure? I
support this bill because it serves to move the environmental debate
away from passion-driven arguments toward science-based and consensus-
based approaches to forest health issues and to the management of all
of our national forests.
In the Fifth District of Pennsylvania, where I serve, we have the
Allegheny National Forest, 520,000 acres, a forest that in no way is
similar to these forests in northern California, but the Allegheny
National Forest in Pennsylvania is 520,000 acres of the highest quality
hardwoods in the world. Unfortunately, in the past, the Forest Service
and this Congress has often tried to manage our national forests in
one-size-fits-all.
There is a great difference between the western forests and the
eastern forests. I am not as familiar with the western forests as I
would like to be, but I believe there is probably a difference in the
California forests and maybe the Montana and Wyoming forests, but yet
in the past we have tried to manage one-size-fits-all.
H.R. 858 steers us toward sound science and conflict resolution in
order to provide habitat protection for the California spotted owl,
preservation of the roadless areas for the length of the pilot project,
reduction of the fire risks through construction of fuel breaks, and
stability of the wood products industry.
My fellow colleagues, I know there has been a long-time debate on the
national forests. There are those who want to lock them up. There are
those who think we should just look at them. I believe these
investments were made years ago for many reasons and for many multiple
uses. I believe we should always support locally generated solutions
when we can have them.
I think this proposal steers us in a new direction of managing our
national forests in a way that suits the region upon which they are in,
in a way that protects the taxpayers of the great investment we made
and preserves the high quality of these forests. When local wisdom and
cooperation offer a solution to complicated emotional issues, I am
doubtful a federal government is better equipped to make these
decisions.
This is a good issue that has been worked out locally in northern
California and I, from Pennsylvania, urge all of those from the East to
look seriously at this compromise and accept it as a new way, a new
direction to go in managing our national forests.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Miller].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me speak to
the rule. I think this rule is incredibly unfair given the complexity
and the controversy surrounding this legislation that the Committee on
Rules would deem that we can only have one amendment when in fact this
is a multifaceted bill which now requires that we put all of the
problems with this legislation in one amendment and accept it up or
down, when in fact

[[Page H4927]]

there are parts of this bill that may very well be able to be fixed on
individual votes but we are not allowed that opportunity.
I want to say that in the future, I think that when the ranking
members of committees come before the Committee on Rules and ask for
the opportunity to present differences in the form of amendments and
those are not granted, I think we should just assume that the Committee
on Rules then owes us time. If we need five amendments and they give us
one, they owe us 4 hours of time. And we should take it out in terms of
motions to rise or motions to adjourn or whatever it is to take up and
get back that time, because this is unacceptable, an unacceptable
practice of shutting down the voices of many Members of Congress that
represent a different view on the reported legislation, and yet they
are not entitled to offer those amendments or to seek to have the House
record itself on those differences.
Now, to this legislation. This legislation is brought forth as a
suggestion that somehow this embodies the Quincy Library Group, which
was a group that was formed to try and see whether or not we could pull
together the disparate forces and interests in our national forests, to
see whether or not we could come up with a management plan for those
forests. Somewhere between the Quincy Library Group and the floor of
the House of Representatives today this process was hijacked. This
process was hijacked by those who were interested in cutting trees, not
in truly managing the forest.
That is why this legislation has very, very serious problems,
problems that are highlighted by the administration in its statement of
administrative positions, and that is why this legislation has terrible
problems with not only many, many environmental organizations within
the State of California but of the national environmental
organizations.
Let us understand what we are talking about. One of the previous
speakers got up and talked about private property or something. We are
talking here about the public's resources. We are talking about the
national forests of this Nation. These lands belong to the public. We
want to encourage, and in fact the administration is already
administratively doing a number of the things suggested in this
legislation to work with local groups, but we must understand that as a
Congress of the United States we are the stewards of those public lands
and we cannot let people willy-nilly do what they want with those lands
because they think, well, this would be good for me.
The fact of the matter is that this legislation exempts this pilot
project of 2\1/2\ million acres of the public's lands from the
environmental laws. It is not consistent with the environmental laws of
this Nation that all other plans have to be governed by, and that is
why the administration is opposed to this legislation at this time.
This legislation, in fact, contains the very same timber salvage
rider that got this Congress into so much trouble with the American
public when they saw that the cutting of trees took precedence over
every other multiple use in the forest, whether it was fisheries or
recreation or species protection or riparian protection, all of a
sudden we found out that we could cut the trees without those
considerations. This is a rerun of that language. If we read the
language from the salvage rider and we read the language in this
legislation, in fact, they are identical.
This legislation would exempt this pilot project if we complete the
changes in the forest management plan for these particular forests, the
Plumas and Lassen and Tahoe National Forests. It would exempt them from
that if in fact they were done prior to the 5 years.

{time} 1115

So if we find in all of the studies and all of the science that this
is contrary to the best interest of these forests, they can continue to
go forward; they can continue to go forward with this plan even if the
new forest plans are put in place. Those are the kinds of terrible
inconsistencies that shall threaten this forest.
Now, let us understand something about the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The Sierra Nevada Mountains in California are under incredible stress.
There has been a huge infusion of population, of use, of very bad
logging practices in the past. We have now been told in major study
after major study that the entire forest system is at risk, that we
have got to take care of it, that we have got to do it in a
comprehensive fashion.
The President, I believe, is going out to Tahoe to look at the Tahoe
National Forest which is part of this plan, to see whether or not there
is a way in which we can secure the longevity of the Tahoe National
Forest and the Sierras and not destroy the watersheds of Tahoe, one of
the national jewels of this Nation, not destroy the watersheds of the
rivers of these forests.
So my colleagues have to take it in that context when they look at
this pilot project. But this pilot project, while well intentioned and
hard worked on and federally financed, and it is going to probably
spend about $80 million in Federal dollars to carry out the intent of
this, we have got to make sure that this is, in fact, consistent with
the environmental laws and with the other activities that are necessary
in these forests.
A lot of those activities are driven now, in fact, by population.
They are driven by people who want to use these forests for off-road
vehicles, who want to use them for camping, for hiking, for biking, all
of these other activities, and want to make sure that the watersheds
are protected so that we, in fact, can continue to restore the
fisheries and the recreational activities in the great rivers of
northern California.
That is what is at stake in this legislation, and that is what this
legislation does not address. I will be offering an amendment that will
take the administration's objections and address them in this
legislation and provide for the riparian protection. If that amendment
is, in fact, adopted, I will support this legislation.
I believe, then, that this legislation is headed in the right
direction and can achieve its goals. But absent that amendment, this
legislation is seriously flawed with respect to the integrity of the
environmental laws, to the forest plans, and to the multiple uses of
these forests in the most populous State in this Nation.
These mountains and these forests are important to millions of
Californians, and we will not delegate the right to destroy those
forests to a handful of people who have decided that cutting trees is
the only way that we can protect this forest. We can have clear-cuts
under this legislation, we can decide that that is the most efficient
way and, in fact, we can go ahead and just start clear-cutting some of
the last of the big trees in California. That should not be allowed.
I would hope that the House would support my amendment. Then we can
all go forward and support this legislation, because the process of the
Quincy Library Group is, in fact, moral and right and should be
encouraged. But this work product fails, fails to meet the needs of the
State of California and of the people of this Nation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] by saying that
this measure enjoys very strong bipartisan support in this House.
My friend from West Sacramento, CA [Mr. Fazio] is a strong supporter
of this. The gentleman from Marysville, CA [Mr. Herger] has done a
spectacular job in putting this together. And it has been, frankly, in
some ways over his protest said before the Committee on Rules last
night, the gentleman from Fort Yukon, AK [Mr. Young], the chairman of
the Committee on Resources, has moved dramatically to end up supporting
this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the very, very
compromising gentleman from Fort Yukon, AK [Mr. Young].
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak on the rule, but I do support
this rule. There is a need for this quasi-modified rule to make sure we
expedite this process. But I cannot stand by and listen to my good
friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] make the statements
he has made, because we have worked on this legislation for four years.

[[Page H4928]]

As I told the chairman of the Committee on Rules the other day, I
think they have gone too far as far as this negotiation process. But
this is an attempt to listen to the local people, and we have done
that. In fact, the Friends of the Plumas Wilderness Society, who have
filed 15 lawsuits, 15 lawsuits to stop every logging operation in this
area, now support my substitute.
I have a whole list of other people that support this legislation,
and not the industry itself but the community that lives there. And,
yes, this forest is endangered, not from logging but because of fire
and mismanagement by the U.S. Forest Service.
It has finally dawned on people, we cannot manage this from
Washington, D.C. This is a national asset, but we cannot manage it from
those people who live here in Washington, D.C. or even the Congress
that live outside. We ought to start listening to the people. This is
what we are doing in this legislation. For the first time, we are
bringing all parties together, not just this Congress but the parties
that live there, the environmental community.
And may I just clear one up thing. There are no clear-cuts under my
substitute at all, and no tree over 31 inches can be cut under my
substitute, 31 inches in diameter. By the way, the substitute of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], keep in mind now he says he is
doing what the Administration wants, and I am shocked. Because under my
substitute, we protect the roadless areas. We protect those areas. And
under the substitute of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], he
does not protect the wilderness areas.
Then we have the environmental impact statements. This is one thing I
cannot quite understand about this administration and the gentleman
from California [Mr. Miller]. My substitute gives one EIS and four
smaller EIS statements. Take a look at page 8 or 10 of my substitute.
Right there is a total of 5 environmental impact statements. Under the
Miller substitute, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] offers
one environmental impact statement. One, that is all he offers.

I never thought I would see the day the gentleman from Alaska [Mr.
Young] was out-environmentaling the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller]. That shocks me to death.
We keep talking about riparian restoration. The Miller substitute
removes my provision of more funding for riparian rights, riparian
recovery in this bill. May I suggest, we took the exact language from
the administration, the exact language Jack Ward Thomas proposed. That
is the language we used, the language the administration supports, so I
do not know what the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is talking
about.
We have communicated with the administration. We have communicated
with the environmental community. We communicated with the industry
itself. We communicated with the local people. We sat down with the
Quincy Library Group and put together a good piece of legislation.
And may I close by saying, yes, our national forests are in terrible,
deplorable shape, not because they were logged, but because this
administration and, yes, other administrations decided that every area
could live naturally. That may have been so many, many years ago. But
look at the fires. I ask my colleagues to read the papers on fires that
are occurring in California today and the fires that occur all the way
around the Northwest, in Idaho, Utah, yes, even Alaska. Look at the
volatility of those fires and the destruction that occurs. What happens
after the fire, the soil is basically dead for our trees.
Every science that talks to us about our forests tells us we must
start managing the forests, we must start looking at all alternatives,
and this is what this bill does. It is a good, sound environmental
bill. Remember, I remind you, the local environmentalists support this
legislation.
Yes, the national environmentalists oppose it. You know why? Because
they lose their control, and this is what this is all about, control.
The environmental so-called community around Washington, DC, it knows
nothing about the environment.
Let us start listening to the local people. Let us start listening to
those that live there. Let us start saving our forests and our wildlife
and the heritage we should leave to future generations.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Boise, ID [Mrs. Chenoweth], my very, very good friend.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier] for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, just wanted to clarify the record following the
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] about some of the statements that
were made by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. I just want to
make it perfectly clear and back up what the gentleman from Alaska [Mr.
Young] said, that this issue has far less to do with the forest health
and jobs.
What the debate from the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] was
about was about control by a select environmental group here in
Washington, DC, who do not understand silvicultural management, who do
not really understand the dynamics of good forest management.
H.R. 858 is not at all like the salvage rider. I worked on that
salvage rider, and I supported it. But this is not at all like the
salvage rider that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] claimed
that it was. This pilot project, and let me reemphasize, it is a pilot
project, is designed to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and to
prevent the need for salvage riders in the future because we will be
taking care of the salvage in this particular area.
The legislation does not provide for clear-cuts. It is just the
opposite. What it does call for is thinning of the forest and providing
for shaded fuel breaks, in which the small trees are cut and the large
trees are left to grow. That not only provides for healthy forests but
healthy habitat and browse for wildlife.
In fact, the strategic fuel break system is that very system
recommended in the SNEP report, the very scientific report that the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] wants the Forest Service to use
in the Sierra Nevadas.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I simply close by saying that this is a very fair and balanced
approach because of the uniqueness of this 41-member coalition that has
been assembled, the Quincy Library Group. And I would like to again
congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Resources who, under his
self-description, has out-environmentaled the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller].
I would also like to congratulate the gentleman from Marysville, CA
[Mr. Herger], who has done a superb job on this legislation over the
past several years. And I would like to congratulate those Members on
the other side of the aisle who have joined in this bipartisan
coalition to ensure that we look at this issue in a very fair way.
I look forward to passage of this rule and passage of the
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Pursuant to House
Resolution 180 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 858.

{time} 1129

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 858) to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pilot
project on designated lands within Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National
Forests in the State of California to demonstrate the effectiveness of
the resource management activities proposed by the Quincy Library Group
and to amend current land and resource management plans for these
national forests to consider the incorporation of these resource
management activities, with Mr. Pease in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the
gentleman

[[Page H4929]]

from California [Mr. Miller] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 858 is a good bill. It helps working people, it
helps the environment, it saves the forest, and it helps wildlife. It
certainly is not everything that I hoped for in terms of timber supply,
and I will be the first one to say that again. But it is what the
people in northern California want, and in northern California the
people are directly affected, and I say all the people, and they
deserve congressional help.

{time} 1130

This is a pilot project. The bill is just as simple, just like the
Quincy Library Group agreement. It directs the Forest Service to
implement a science-based fire protection and forest health plan for
three national forests in northern California. There are two
cornerstones of the bill. Thinning, taking the volatility out of the
forest, and fuelbreak work outside of roadless areas; and, second, a
requirement to build fuelbreaks on 40,000 to 60,000 acres per year in
roaded areas. This means thinning smaller trees, leaving larger trees,
and generally improving the habitat and the condition of forests.
I want to stress again, everyone wins with this bill: Local
environmental groups, timber workers, again the wildlife, school
children, and communities throughout the region. That is why this bill
has the support of heavy duty environmentalists like the Friends of
Plumas Wilderness and the Plumas Audubon Society. These groups have
sued to stop nearly every timber sale in northern California, but they
support this bill.
Six labor organizations, like the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and the United Paperworkers, also support the bill. The California Farm
Bureau, the Society of American Foresters, Governor Pete Wilson, State
assembly members, California county education offices, county boards of
supervisors all support the bill. I could go on and on with a list of
those who support the legislation.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I did not think I would see the day when the
staunchest people in the environmental movement, their timber company
foes, the union work force, and government officials would actually
agree on the timber issues in their own backyard.
That day came almost 1,500 days ago in the public library in Quincy,
CA, when neighbors from all walks of life actually agreed on a forest
health, land allocation, and economic stability plan. But the plan has
not been implemented now for 4 years. People have tried. The Quincy
Group is still trying. That is why we are here on the floor with this
bill that directs the implementation of their plan.
It is a sad day, Mr. Chairman, that this Forest Service under this
administration cannot do what we are directing them to do today in this
plan. The management of our forests under this administration is
deplorable. It is, in fact, a crime and a sin in what they have done to
our forests, because there is no management.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs.
Chenoweth], the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], and I have been
very, very reasonable in this bill, reasonable to the point that I am
wondering whether we have made too many accommodations as I said when I
spoke on the rule. It is really not what I would like. But again I want
to stress it is up to the Congress to start listening to the people of
America, especially those directly affected by actions of this
Congress.
We have gone through 27 drafts of this bill between the 104th
Congress and today. That bothers me to some extent because we are going
to hear later on, ``We weren't told, we weren't notified, we weren't
asked, we didn't participate.'' Twenty-seven different drafts were
worked on.
No less than 50 modifications that the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs.
Chenoweth] shepherded through her subcommittee and then through the
full committee. My substitute has 16 changes plus 11 new subsections or
paragraphs. Each address one or more of the concerns about the bill.
When national environmentalists complained that the bill might allow
some timber harvesting in spotted owl habitat, the gentlewoman from
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] removed two entire pages of the bill that gave
rise to the concern.
When some said the Quincy bill did not protect water and riparian
areas, the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] offered an amendment
that ensured that riparian areas would be protected with the same
standards in the President's Northwest Forest Plan.
Recently, riparian restoration was raised. On page 4 of my
substitute, the issue is addressed with an incentive-based, cost-
effective way to restore riparian areas.
Some complained that the Quincy Library Group plan has never been the
subject of an environmental impact statement. If Members would look on
page 9 of my substitute, we require an environmental impact statement.
The library group and I drafted it together. The same environmental
leaders in northern California who have sued to block hundreds of
timber sales sat with the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] and
myself to write language giving the Quincy plan an environmental impact
statement.
A member of my committee said the Quincy plan would not even get a
public hearing or other procedural safeguards. People are important. So
in my substitute I included an assurance that there would be a 45-day
public comment period.
Others said we were trying to exempt the bill from the National
Environmental Policy Act. That was never true, but we included the
environmental impact statement requirements and we included a
subsection (m) which states, ``Nothing herein exempts this pilot
project from any Federal environmental law.'' I do not think we could
be any more clear than we want to follow the environmental laws.
Some said they were unsure whether the bill was consistent with the
California Spotted Owl process. I am certain it is, but my substitute
says that the California Owl Guidelines and any final owl guidelines
will apply.
Frankly, this is an exercise in reasonableness on the part of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the other
members of the Committee on Resources and Members off the committee
that support the bill. The gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] has
been very helpful on the environmental impact statement portion.
With all these changes, it is no wonder so many groups support the
Herger bill. Only the groups on the very fringe oppose the bill and
they have no rational basis to do so. We tried to get them to the
table, but they refused. There are groups that will never be satisfied.
That is the way they make their living. Frankly I do not understand
their thinking because I thought they were environmentalists.
I know from his past statements that the Secretary of Agriculture
supports the Quincy plan. I asked him 6 weeks ago to assist us in
crafting any changes to accommodate his concerns, but I have not heard
back from him. We have been very bipartisan and bicameral in our
approach. I also asked the junior Senator from California for her
suggestions, and we have accommodated the concerns that she raised.
I urge Members to support my substitute and, by the way, reject the
Miller substitute because as I mentioned in debate on the rule, his
does not protect the riparian part of my bill. He in fact invades the
roadless areas. As I said, I never thought I would see the day when I
would be out-environmentaling the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller], but I am doing this in my substitute. Again, I say to those
who might have some questions, listen to the people of America. Listen
to those that are directly affected. Yes, this is a national forest,
but there are people that live in, around, and with the national forest
that every day they wake up, they are faced with a problem of
mismanagement under this administration. It is time that this Congress
listen to those people and let us try this pilot project. What is the
fear of trying a pilot project when we are failing today? Let us see if
this works. If it works, it will be an example and a molding of how we
can for the first time in many, many years address the

[[Page H4930]]

forest as a total entity, not as something far away, or from Roswell,
NM. That is how they are managing it today, a bunch of aliens who have
no concept about the potential of the fire damage, no concept of the
homes that are lost, and the destruction not only of the forest but of
the wildlife. If Members do not believe me, read the newspapers today,
tomorrow, and the day after. What do they say about every Western State
of the fires that are occurring? Because of the lack of management.
This bill takes care of that problem and recognizes the need and
necessity of cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that there is no question that
the gentlewoman from Idaho and the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman
of our committee, have worked very hard on this legislation, as have
the people of the Quincy Library Group worked very hard on this
legislation. But we are down to the point now where we have to vote and
we have to decide whether or not this legislation meets the test of
providing for the comprehensive protection of these forests or whether
it does not.
The suggestion that somehow that these forests are in trouble because
of this administration is just ludicrous. The fact of the matter is
what has happened is this administration has had to go around and clean
up after the previous administrations that decided they would not
administer the forests at all, and we saw almost the entire Northwest
and a good portion of California starting to be shut down economically
because of the spotted owl. We now see that in fact resources are again
being opened up under this administration, that cooperative agreements
are being entered into with some of the largest timber companies in the
country, and supplies are being returned to the market.
But where are we with respect to the Quincy Library Group? The Quincy
Library Group, in their name this legislation is being put forth, and
it is unfortunate to have to report to the Congress of the United
States that this legislation simply does not meet the test to provide
for the protection of the Sierra Nevada Forest, of the three forests
that are involved in this pilot project of 2.5 million acres, that it
does not comply with the environmental laws of this Nation.
I wish it did, because we have been strong supporters, many people on
both sides of the aisle, of this process to try to improve and increase
the voices of those people who live in the direct area. But we also
have to make the bottom line decision that these forests belong to all
of the people of the United States, just as Yellowstone National Park
does, as Grand Canyon does, as the Appalachian forests do, of the great
forests of the Midwest, of the public lands. These forests belong to
the people of this Nation, and we have the stewardship obligations to
make sure that these forests will be healthy, that these forests are
sustainable so that future generations will have the same enjoyment,
both economically, from a recreational point of view, for the use of
their families, and from an environmental point of view that our
generation has had.
That is the test, and that is why the Quincy Library Group exists, to
see whether or not we can manage these forests on a sustained basis
now, sustaining them economically and sustaining them for multiple
uses. That was not the policy for the past 50 years, of both
administrations, Democratic and Republican. It was that the forests
were simply a crop, just cut them down and go on about your merry
business. Now we find ourselves in terrible shape.
For the people of California, 33 million people, that use the Sierra
Nevadas as a major recreational resource, for the millions of people
who come from around the world to use the Sierra Nevada for a
recreational resource, this resource is in trouble. That is why we are
willing to try something like Quincy Library. But Quincy Library has
got to be prepared to do it within the environmental laws of this
country.
That is why the Clinton administration has sent a letter to this
Congress telling us that this legislation, while they support the
process, while they funded, they put $4 million into Quincy Library,
that this product as it is presented to this Congress at this time is a
flawed product. It is a flawed product basically because it fails and
it is inconsistent with the environmental law compliance on current
environmental procedures. This project is not designed so the project
will be carried out consistent with the environmental laws. They state
that time and again in this legislation.
My amendment is addressed to the points raised by the administration
to bring this project into compliance, so that in fact when we do amend
the forest plans in Plumas, the forest plans in Tahoe, this project
will be brought in compliance. It will not be run if the science tells
us that we are taking too many trees or we do not have the correct
firebreaks or we are not protecting the streams in the right fashion.
This legislation should not be able to operate outside those scientific
findings, but that is what this bill allows this project to do.
I appreciate that the process is subject to environmental impact
studies, but the project itself is exempted in many ways. The 2.5
million acres, the 300,000 acres of timber harvest, the riparian
protections are exempted. In fact, if we go back and read Public Law
104-19, we will find language in here that saddens this Nation, that
this Congress and this President at one moment said you could cut trees
without consideration of the environmental laws, without the multiple
use, without taking into consideration the impact of that activity on
the rest of the forest.
We learned our lesson. We learned our lesson when the public told us
that was unacceptable. Yet when we go to this legislation that is
before us here today, we find out that the same language is present in
this legislation. One of the horrible black marks on our environmental
record of this Congress and this Government is now being brought back
to us in this legislation.
What does that say? That language says that you can cut these trees
and you never have to take into consideration the cumulative impact:
Are you destroying the great rivers of northern California with
siltation and debris and the fisheries? Are you having an adverse
impact on Lake Tahoe? Are you having an adverse impact on the
surrounding forests? Are you destroying the ability of diverse species
to live in these forests? Are you causing erosion that is beyond your
control and will destroy the ability of these forests to come back?
Under this legislation you do not have to take that into consideration.
``The Secretary concerned shall not rely on salvage timber sales as a
basis for administrative action limiting other multiple use
activities.''

{time} 1145

That is where we are today. It is not that we disagree with what the
people of Quincy Library have tried to do and how hard they have
worked. It is not that we disagree with what the chairman of this
committee is trying to do and the gentlewoman from Idaho has spent so
much time on this legislation. It is that this legislation needs about
four or five small technical fixes which would bring it into compliance
with the environmental laws and modern practices so that we do not
repeat the horrendous mistakes that almost destroyed the Sierra Nevada
forests of California, that have in fact destroyed the fisheries, the
great fisheries, of many of the streams and rivers in northern
California where we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try
and recover those fisheries so that people can use them with their
families.
And now this legislation puts 2\1/2\ million acres into a pilot
project. Nothing wrong with that pilot project except that it does not
comply with the laws of this Nation; it does not comply, it will not
have to comply, with the amendments and the changes and the forest
plans for these three forests. And unfortunately because of many, many
years of neglect, we do not have a lot of trees to waste, we cannot be
wrong for the next generation, or our grandchildren. Where we once
enjoyed great, great forests of the West, our grandchildren will enjoy
scrub bush, Manzanilla, and eroded soils.
Have my colleagues ever tried pitching a tent in that kind of area?
Ever

[[Page H4931]]

try to enjoy that when it is 105 degrees in the foothills of
California? That is not why people live in California.
This is about the future of these resources, and Quincy Library has
all of the possibilities and the abilities to make a positive
contribution to the protection of the Sierra Nevada forests. But that
is not what this legislation does. It can be easily corrected with my
amendment, and then we can all support this legislation.
I am sure there will be those who are unhappy with my amendment, that
it does not go far enough, but I think it maintains the integrity of
our national environmental laws, and it maintains the integrity of the
Quincy Resource Group.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr.
Young] for yielding this time to me.
Let me just say I rise in strong support of this bill, and I want to
commend particularly the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] who has
spent so much time and has dedicated so much of himself to bringing us
here, to bringing us here today.
Let me say to my good friend from California, Mr. Miller, with whom I
have shared so many common positions on environmental issues, I am not
going to go down the litanies of things that the gentleman pointed out
in terms of where this bill may differ with other national policy that
we have passed here, but I would say to the gentleman that we in this
House have got to stop looking at environmental issues from a white and
black point of view. There has got to be some middle ground, and I
believe this bill finds that middle ground.
In fact, for the past 2\1/2\ years I have been advocating State and
local participation as a means to rationally implement laws like the
Endangered Species Act. Only those closest to home of endangered
species can understand the impact of protecting them and the impact on
local people and on local businesses, and that is why in my opinion the
future of environmental protection is on State and local partnerships
with the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, that is what this bill brings to us. H.R. 858 is a bill
that puts this theory of State and local in a Federal partnership into
place. H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic
Stability Act of 1997, implements a 5-year pilot project, a locally
conceived solution to a forest health crisis in California. This
program is aimed at maintaining community stability, improving forest
health and preventing wildfires and making fuelbreaks in our national
forests in the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger]
which are so important.
What is so unique about this bill is its origins. In direct response
to President Clinton's directive at the Forest Summit in April 1993,
the Quincy Library Group was formed. It was comprised of local
environmental organizations, the wood products industry, citizens and
local officials. They took seriously the President's charge at that
April meeting when he said, ``When you leave here today, I ask you to
keep working for a balanced policy that promotes economy, preserves
jobs and protects the environment.'' He said, ``I hope we can stay in
the conference room and out of the courtroom.''
The Quincy Library Group plan emerged, and it is based on the Sierra
Nevada ecosystem project and vastly improves the odds of saving
endangered species habitat from fire damage.
My colleagues may hear from some environmental groups that my friend
from California was advocating, whose position he was advocating, that
they are not thrilled with the bill. Some of their criticism stems from
the perception that the administration did not have enough negotiating
time to draft an alternative solution. I do not agree. The bill was not
even drafted until the plan remained unimplemented by the Forest
Service for 1,400 days. That is 4 years. And H.R. 858 was then
introduced on February 22, 1997, with bipartisan support.
In conclusion, H.R. 858 shows that locally conceived environmental
solutions are possible and should be encouraged by Congress, and I urge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Herger], the author of the bill, from the area
which is directly affected.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, for more than 15 years, environmentalists
and members of the forest products industry have waged war over
managing western forests, and like all wars this conflict has had its
share of victims. The victims of the forest management debate include
schools left with dramatically reduced funding.
Twenty-five percent of all timber sales receipts are promised by
mandate to fund local education and country road programs. When sales
decline, so does education. Other victims are communities faced with
extreme unemployment rates and an environment clogged with unhealthy
forests.
In 1993 Bill Coats, Plumas County supervisor from Quincy, CA, took up
the challenge of breaking the gridlock over forest management. He did
so by arranging a meeting with environmental attorney Michael Jackson
and Sierra Pacific Industries forester Tom Nelson. They met in the
library because they knew that there they would not be yelling at each
other.
The Quincy Library Group is now a coalition of 41 local
environmentalists, forest product industry representatives, public
officials, and concerned citizens who met each month at the Quincy
Library to discuss ways to improve local forest health.
This program has been endorsed by local environmental organizations
including the Plumas Audubon Society, the Friends of the Plumas
Wilderness, the Sierra Nevada Alliance, and the Shasta-Tehama Bi-
regional Council. At the heart of their discussions is the overriding
threat that fire will destroy the forest before any action can be
taken.
Nationwide last year more than 5.8 million acres burned with total
fire suppression costs of close to $1 billion of taxpayer dollars. The
group turned to the best science available, including the recently
released Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project [SNEP] report which defines,
among other things, the elements of a healthy forest.
H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Forest Group and Economic Stability Act
of 1997, takes the first vital step toward conflict resolution of
environmental issues across the United States. This legislation is all
about compromise and consensus building on the local level. H.R. 858 is
not about local control of national forests but about local input on
forest management through implementation of a 5-year pilot project on
portions of the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests in northern
California. In short, this is all about local wisdom gaining a voice in
our forests. The Federal Government still retains complete control over
implementation.
The Quincy Library Group implements most of these elements through
the following goals: First, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire;
second, protect environmentally sensitive areas; third, implement
critical watershed stream and water quality restoration; and fourth,
provide economic stability for communities dependent on the wood
products industry. These goals are accomplished through implementation
of a 5-year pilot project on three of California's threatened forests.
My legislation implements a strategic system of defensible fuel profile
zones including shaded fuelbreaks that contain fires in the more
manageable forest understory.
Again, the Quincy Library Group bill is clearly science based. It
improves forest health by implementing the SNEP fuelbreak program to
reduce fire risk. Its riparian protection guidelines were written by
scientists led by Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, former chief of the Forest
Service under the Clinton administration and architect of the science
work underlying the northern spotted owl debate.
Through these elements of the program, fire suppression personnel
will have the ability to contain fires before they get out of hand. The
proposal also implements uneven-aged forest management prescriptions
utilizing individual tree selection, and thinnings and group selection
to achieve optimal forest health by creating an all-age multistory,
fire-resilient forest.

[[Page H4932]]

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon, Mr. Bob Smith, the chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture, my good friend.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska
for yielding this time to me.
This is finally a compromise that I have been looking for for at
least 10 years. In my experience we have not hit balance in the
practice of forestry in this country, and certainly that is evident by
what has happened in the Pacific Northwest where we find in region 6,
the States of Oregon and Washington, 85 percent of the public forests
are shut down to any kind of management. For the first time in after 4
years, and of course it plays a very important part here, after 4 years
the Quincy Library Group has finally found balance, I believe, and here
again, if there are those of my colleagues who are concerned about the
environmental impact here, there are four environmental impact studies
in this legislation, four.
So do not let anybody fool us about how the environment is going to
be taken advantage of here.
The issue here very simply is what happens when we lose the resource,
and that is catastrophic fire. We rely upon science now. We rely upon
science as the evidence of what will happen in the future if we do not
manage forests. That is what Quincy Library Group did. Evidence here by
Dr. Chad Oliver, including nine scientists across the country who have
testified before our committee twice now, and one of the options they
present is no management. What do we get when you have no management? I
will tell my colleagues what is received. Received finally loss of
specie, receive loss of water quality and quantity, and finally receive
loss of the resource because finally it will burn, finally it will
burn.
Mr. Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service, testified before our
committee that there are 40 million acres of land under stress of
catastrophic fire or the possibility of catastrophic fire in this
country.

{time} 1200

Most of them are in the West. He testified that we are going to
service only 1 million acres. I ask, 40 years later, what do we have?
We have lost our forests. That is unacceptable. The Quincy Library
Group addresses the issue because they manage the forests in a balanced
fashion, which will manage the threat to ecosystem health crisis and
catastrophic fires.
The bill obviously, as we have heard, is the wisdom of local
stakeholders. We all know that that is better opportunity and better
judgment than we can find even here in these hallowed halls, because
the people in California understand the issue better than any of us do.
They came forward, environmentalists, labor leaders, forest people, and
they came with the idea that we ought to have this kind of management
process.
Also, this bill is a clear issue of measurement. We must measure what
happens. That is very important to the Congress and to those folks in
California as well. There is an old saying, when performance is
measured performance improves, and when performance is measured and
reported back, the rate of improvement accelerates. We must measure
what happens with Quincy Library.
Finally, the fundamental principle here is that we need to manage our
forests to save them. We need to manage them to save them. If we are
going to help 40 million acres in this country, this is just the
beginning. This may be a pilot project, but this may be the beginning
of an opening of pilot projects around the country to prove again that
we should manage our forests, manage them scientifically, and manage
them for every resource.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
858, the Quincy Library Group Health and Economic Stability Act of
1997. I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Herger], for his work on this legislation.
This bill would implement a community-based solution to improve the
ecological and economic health of three northern California
communities. Catastrophic wildfire is a chief threat to the ecological
integrity of the forest system. By treating the landscape through a
system of strategic fuelbreaks, this plan effectively implements the
principles of ecosystem management, thereby providing forest conditions
for wildlife, fish, and human beings. In addition, this bill provides
interim protection of all roadless areas in the three forests.
I would like to applaud the Quincy Library Group for their efforts in
developing this plan. Representatives of local environmental groups,
labor unions, wood product organizations, and local government
officials sat down and hammered out a plan to address the challenges
facing their community. I would like to encourage more local
communities to work together to find practical solutions to address
their problems.
I am greatly encouraged to know that folks with such different
interests can sit down and reasonably work out a solution based on
sound science, bipartisan cooperation, and local expertise even on a
sometimes controversial issue like forest management.
Finally, H.R. 858 is not exempt from environmental laws. It simply
provides for a 5-year pilot project in which the Forest Service retains
complete control of its implementation. Let us give this type of
community-based bipartisan scientific approach a chance to work.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 858, the
Quincy Library Group Forest Health and Economic Stability Act of 1997.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
manager's amendment to H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group Forest
Recovery and Economic Stability Act.
In April 1993 at the Northwest Forest Summit, President Clinton put
forth a challenge to a community in northern California in the midst of
timber wars and litigation brought about by the listing of the northern
spotted owl and a reduction of logging levels in the forests of
northern California.
President Clinton said to the people in the local area of Quincy, CA:
``When you leave here today, I ask you to keep working for a balanced
policy that promotes the economy, preserves jobs, and protects the
environment. I hope we can stay in the conference room and out of the
courtroom.''
So a group of local citizens around Quincy, CA, including the local
county supervisor, timber employees, and members of the local
environmental community, and they are strong environmentalists, I might
say, seized the President's challenge. The group had their first
meeting at the public library in Quincy because it was the only
location which assured quiet, civil discussion about many difficult and
contentious issues and concerns that divided the regional community.
The manager's amendment before us today is the result of 4 years of
consensus building on issues that do not easily lend themselves to a
consensus. We can see that here on the floor today, because we could
resolve this here. I hope we will.
The bill provides a framework for managing the forests of the Sierra
Nevada through fire suppression, watershed protection and riparian
restoration and seeks to direct these activities toward meeting the
local needs of communities dependent on these forests for economic
livelihood.
Since my colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr. Wally Herger,
introduced this bill early in this Congress, H.R. 858 has come a long
way. I testified before the committee in March as a cosponsor of this
bill in support of the process of local people getting together to work
out problems in their community. But I also acknowledged that the bill
still had a long way to go. In any attempt to put an agreement into
legislative language the devil remained in the details. What followed
in northern California after the committee hearing was perhaps one of
the most remarkable steps forward we have seen in this country since
the two sides embattled in a debate over our Nation's forests first
butted their heads together.

[[Page H4933]]

Members of the QLG, the Forest Service, Congress and the national
environmental community came together in an attempt to work out further
differences. Much progress was made in the several meetings which were
held during the past few months. But as is always true with consensus,
not all the glitches were ironed out.
Provisions have been added which ensure compliance with environmental
laws as well as interim and final California spotted owl guidelines,
and there is an authorization for additional appropriations for the
Forest Service to implement the Quincy Library Group proposal. But I
know the administration still had a some concerns.
I am sympathetic with the amendment being offered by my colleague,
the gentleman from California, Mr. George Miller which addresses some
of the issues raised and ensures a straightforward interpretation of
the bill's environmental protection provisions. But here we are arguing
about interpretation of language and not legislative intent, which I
believe is the same, if not very similar. We can reach closure, and I
hope we will, before the amendment is offered and hopefully broadly
supported.
Senator Feinstein has also been working with the QLG, the
administration, and members of the environmental community on Senate
legislation which I believe will move us closer to a bill which has
something in it for just about everyone.
As I have said all along, this bill is a work in progress. But I feel
certain if we continue to work together, not only on the floor today
but as the bill proceeds to the Senate, we will be able to send a bill
to the White House that the President will not only sign, but do so
gladly.
So I urge my colleagues to enable this work in progress to move
forward today by voting ``yes'' on this bill, hopefully on an amendment
that has been agreed to by both sides to further clarify intent, but
even without, if no agreement is reachable today. This bill deserves to
be sent forward so the process of refinement can continue.
Let me simply say, I think we have to put more faith in communities
that are at odds with each other but are willing to work together to
come to solutions. We cannot solve every problem in Washington. We
cannot solve every problem in the Forest Service without input from
local people. I think what the gentleman from California, Mr. Wally
Herger, has attempted to do and which I have joined him in the effort
to accomplish is to validate that process that these local community
activists have so long and thoroughly engaged in.
This is not a bill that is perfect, but it is getting close, and it
deserves to be supported by a broad bipartisan coalition on this floor.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman, the gentleman from
Alaska, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of comment here today about, what
about cumulative impacts as a result of the Quincy Library Group
proposal succeeding; what about cumulative impacts on rivers and
streams and on wildlife; what about sedimentation and soil erosion?
Mr. Chairman, it just does not take a rocket scientist to realize
that when you have uncontrollable fires in the forests, it destroys the
wildlife, the little critters and the big critters. That is a horrible
way to die, let us face it. It does not take a rocket scientist to
understand that when we have uncontrolled forest fires that it destroys
the sedimentation and we have massive erosion. That is what is causing
the pollutant load in our streams and our rivers.
I am so impressed with the work of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Herger] and the work of the Quincy Library Group. I have been impressed
by the way in which this unlikely coalition of individuals, each with
strongly held beliefs, have worked together to achieve a common goal.
That is to preserve the ecology of the forests where they work, where
they live, and where they play, and to protect the jobs, economy, and
the social fabric of their community. They have that right in America,
and we should back them up.
For the economy, the Quincy Library Group bill means jobs. The
fuelbreaks and selection harvests will generate 2,250 family-wage jobs
each year, and 12,250 jobs over the life of this pilot project. This
counts only the direct jobs that are produced, but the indirect jobs
that are generated will more than double those figures. Mr. Chairman,
that amounts to 25,000 jobs. These family-wage jobs are sorely needed
in a community where we have seen at least 32 mills that have closed in
just the recent years.
If now we can break the gridlock over environmental issues by
implementing a locally developed solution that also puts people back to
work, then we are doing the right thing. I believe if jobs are the only
issue, the Quincy Library Group would not have reached the agreement on
a legislative proposal, but they also agreed that something must be
done to ensure a clean, safe, and healthy environment for the short-
and the long-term future.
Their plan will improve the environment in the following important
ways: It improves the health of the forests by thinning smaller trees
and allowing better forest habitat to develop; it quickly begins to
reduce the extreme fire risk in the Sierras, using a strategy described
and recommended in the recent scientific report known as the SNEP
report, or the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report; it protects
streamside areas and fisheries with the provision I added to the bill
in my committee, which applies the same riparian measures that are
included in the President's forest plan; and it preserves roadless
areas, while focusing on thinning and forest health activities in areas
that are already roaded.
It ensures that spotted owl habitat will not be entered for timber
harvesting, since in committee we removed a provision that would have
allowed limited harvesting after catastrophic events, and it ensures,
through the manager's amendment, that the project will receive an EIS,
so environmental laws apply.
While I do not necessarily believe there should be more wilderness,
and I question the need for the riparian guidelines used in the
President's forest plan, I recognize that the QLG plan is part of a
balanced compromise based on commonsense solutions. The Quincy Library
Group has convinced me that their plan will address ecological
concerns, sustain a viable community, and allow people to make a
living. We must now support their goal and ``just say no'' to those in
the national conflict industry who oppose this bill.
As the Quincy Library Group told my subcommittee, they heeded the
President's call to leave the courtroom and meet at the conference
table. The result, H.R. 858, will break the timber gridlock, at least
in one part of northern California. Environmental leaders, timber
companies and the many others who make up the Quincy Library Group have
agreed that it is not a sin to cut a tree, and it is important to move
forward with a plan to protect the forests that they love.
Now it is important that we support their effort and provide the
means to implement that plan by passing H.R. 858.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished minority member
for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman
of the committee. I want to thank Chairman Young for working with me
and others who had concerns about this bill. I think we now have a bill
which allows an important experiment to move forward, while ensuring
that it proceeds within the framework of existing environmental law.
That is very important to me and many of my colleagues in this House.
I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy to clarify a few
points.
First, under the Young substitute, I would ask the gentleman from
Alaska, would an environmental impact statement have to be completed
before the pilot project got underway?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, it would.
Mr. BOEHLERT. In the event that an environmental review found that
the project was in some way at odds with environmental law or the
spotted owl

[[Page H4934]]

guidelines, then the project would have to be altered accordingly?

{time} 1215

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, that is correct. The bill does not exempt the project from any
environmental law and it explicitly references the spotted owl
guidelines.
Mr. BOEHLERT. One final question, Mr. Chairman. Is there anything in
this bill that would prevent the Forest Service from undertaking site-
specific analysis as part of an environmental impact statement?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. No, there is not.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those
assurances. I think that my colleagues can now see how this bill
provides adequate environmental protection. This valuable locally
developed experiment will be able to go forward to the extent that it
passes muster under existing environmental law. We have provided no
special dispensations but we have ensured that the initial stages of
environmental review cannot be dragged on indefinitely.
I think this Congress needs to do everything possible to advance
locally developed solutions to environmental issues, but those
solutions must be in compliance with environmental, Federal
environmental law. This bill satisfies both of those goals. This bill
would advance a locally negotiated, created, worthy 5-year experiment
while ensuring that the experiment moves forward only to the extent
that it complies with Federal environmental law. It is exactly the
right approach to the stewardship of Federal lands that belong to us
all. Creative management, full-fledged protection.
In forest management in particular, this strategy has been lacking.
On one side we have those who want to ban all logging in Federal
forests; on the other, those who want to limit the role of
environmental concerns in managing those forests. But those extremes
must be rejected. This bill rejects them.
I am pleased this bill has been revised to represent a true middle
ground. I want to thank all of those on both sides of the aisle who
have worked so cooperatively with the Quincy Library Group. This is how
the system should work. I want to commend both the gentleman from
Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] in
particular with whom I have had the privilege of working closely. I
want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle for working cooperatively
with us.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, as vice chairman of the Western Caucus,
I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 858 and my opposition to
the substitute offered by my colleague, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller]. In November of 1992, representatives from local
environmental organizations, local foresters, local elected officials,
and interested citizens began meeting at the library in Quincy, CA. The
result of this effort is the legislation we have before us today, H.R.
858, a proposal that is good for forests, good for people, and good for
the environment.
Using the best and most current science available, the Quincy Library
Group has brought before us a 5-year forest management pilot program
that strengthens the health of the forest in the Quincy region by
reducing the catastrophic wildfires, restoring streams and watersheds,
prohibiting timber harvesting in all designated roadless areas, and
saving endangered species.
H.R. 858 represents a bold new approach to solving today's
environmental problems, an approach that is long overdue. The
legislation put forward by the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger]
marks the new beginning of an era of environmentalism in America, one
that emphasizes local wisdom, local cooperation, and incentives not in
conflict and controversy.
For too long we have placed our trust into the hands of nameless,
faceless Washington bureaucrats to decide what is best for our
environment and our well-being in local communities like Quincy. In
order to better protect the environment, we must move beyond the
outdated approaches of the past. We must replace the old Federal
command and control approach to environmental protection with one that
rewards local stewardship and private property incentives. H.R. 858
achieves these important objectives.
Mr. Chairman, do not let the eco-thugs destroy the environment of
northern California. Vote no on the Miller amendment and yes on H.R.
858, the Quincy Library bill.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me as I rise in opposition to H.R. 858, the Quincy Library legislation
and in support of the Miller amendment to H.R. 858.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because this committee bill,
despite the valiant efforts of the distinguished chairman of the
committee, whom I hold in the highest esteem, this bill is not what it
appears to be. It does not provide forestry stream protection. It does
not promote adequate public input. It does not provide environmental
controls on logging. Indeed, in spite of the efforts of our
distinguished chairman, H.R. 858 is a facade. The legislation is not
even necessary.
The goals stated in this bill could easily be accomplished at less
cost and with less controversy by administrative action. What may have
started out as a laudable plan by a small group of concerned citizens
has not resulted in fulfilling the original concept of forest
protection. If Congress intends to go forward with this legislation, it
should at a minimum, at a minimum, Mr. Chairman, include the Miller
amendment to bring H.R. 858 into compliance with Federal environmental
laws governing forest protection and particularly the protection of the
spotted owl and its habitat in the region.
The Miller amendment stipulates that environmental impact statements
under the legislation must be prepared in accordance with existing
Federal law. The management of these vast tracts of California forest
should be based on sound science and environmental policy. We should
not proceed with anything less than the Miller amendment.
While the original goal of the Quincy Library Group, and indeed the
distinguished chairman, was to reduce catastrophic wildfires, that is
an important goal for the Quincy communities and surrounding forest, it
has been lost in this debate. H.R. 858 is a drastic departure from the
intended goal. Instead H.R. 858 sets a poor example for citizen
involvement by allowing Federal laws to be circumvented and sends the
message that the activities of local communities can be made immune
from Federal laws governing Federal forests.
The echo from this message will reverberate in future forest
management decisions, signalling that environmental laws can be
disregarded. Let us not set a bad precedent today. I urge my colleagues
to support the Miller amendment when it is offered later and to oppose
final passage of this bill, if the Miller amendment is not adopted.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think what is becoming clear in this debate is there
is clearly an agreement in terms of purpose and intent, I believe,
essentially among all parties to this legislation; that is, that we
ought to try and see as to whether or not local communities can be
involved to a greater extent, can help the Federal Government design
forest practices and forest management that is consistent with the
interest of those communities. When I say those communities, I mean it
in the broadest regard, as is reflected in the Quincy Library where we
have included the environmental community, the business communities,
the forest industries community, those interested in recreation, small
businesses and all of the rest, that those communities get a great deal
of consideration and participation in the design of the management and
the practices on our forests.
Where I think this debate departs is that in designing this pilot
project, we have run into some glitches that I think are minor in terms
of intent but important in terms of the law and important in terms of
trying to reduce

[[Page H4935]]

the potential for litigation on this pilot project. My amendment seeks
to address those concerns that have been raised by this administration.
It has been funded, it has been championed, it has been motivating, the
Quincy Library Group. I am sure that we are disappointed that we are at
this stage, but they have come forth and I admit they only came forth
this morning or late yesterday afternoon with the statement of
administrative position clearly outlining these important changes that
they sought. But we should not argue about whether or not the
administration came forward on a timely basis. What we ought to do is
to see whether or not, in fact, we can clear up those concerns so that
we can have, in fact, here a unified position on this legislation. We
will have the ability to expedite it through the Senate and have it in
fact become the law so that we can get on with this process.
A number of speakers have alluded to the fact that the Quincy Library
Group has been meeting for a very, very long time, that this work
product, their desire, has been around a considerable period of time.
It would be a shame that if after we get consideration of this in the
House, then, in fact, we find out that we cannot get consideration
because of these remaining controversies, we cannot get consideration
of it in the Senate where it languishes and I think it is fair to say
that that would be a very real problem.
I think with the acceptance of these amendments, we basically have
legislation where we have the kind of agreement that allows for the
expediting of this within the other body. I would hope that as I get
prepared to offer my amendment, that all parties who have worked so
very, very hard on this legislation would understand that I think in
some cases we are talking about a difference in language, maybe not a
difference of intent. It is clear that the gentlewoman from Idaho, the
chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] and others have
gone a long distance in trying to address those concerns. But now we
have a clearly stated list of concerns from the administration that in
fact are going to have to be addressed, whether they are addressed here
or addressed later. We ought to address them here and dramatically
improve the chances of this legislation becoming law so that people in
Quincy Library can get on with this pilot project.
Ordinarily you would not think that this would be terribly important,
when we are talking about a pilot project, but as I tried to say in my
opening remarks, we are talking about a forest system in our State of
California that is under a great deal of stress, a forest system that a
lot of changes have to be made in, and there is not a lot of room for
error, whether you are from the forest industries side of the equation
or whether you are from the environmental side of the equation or
whether you are a small business trying to sell gasoline and food and
recreational supplies to people who come there to use it. If we do not
from this date forward manage these forests correctly, we run the risk
of losing these forests for many, many generations. We cannot afford to
do that.
I think that is the purpose of the administration's amendments,
which, again, comes from an administration that created the Quincy
Library Group, has funded the Quincy Library Group, and now finds
itself in a position where it has, I believe, four or five
recommendations to make this bill consistent with the environmental
laws of their concern. I would hope that we would be able to address
those when I offer my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I have followed this process as a person who comes from a district
where the forest wars have raged during my entire tenure in Congress. I
have followed the Quincy Library project with great hope as a way to
move away from embittered and polarized interests to some solutions
that make sense. I am very concerned that we have ended up with a bill
on the floor that the administration has raised strong objections to a
few points of language and concerns within the bill. I am hoping that
we work that out, because I would like to see this project go forward
to implementation.

{time} 1230

Because it is finally moving away from the forestry we have been
practicing in this country since NFMA and before that, which is the
approach of save and sacrifice. That is, over here we will have huge
clearcuts, and over here we will put some land aside. The President's
plan was an improvement, but what it did was saved more and sacrificed
less. It did not look at alternative management.
This project would, over a wide and large land base, first, reserve
roadless areas, reserve wilderness areas, enhance riparian protections,
follow all the recommendations for the spotted owl recovery program in
terms of canopy closure, but it would engage in what is called light
touch, uneven aged stand management, light touch forestry, over about a
quarter of this land base. Now, that, to me, is a step forward in
recovering the health of this ecosystem and in beginning to turn down
the temperature on these conflicts.
There are some who have vested interests in continuing the conflict,
and they are going to object even if we come to a reasonable conclusion
here, those at the poles of this debate. But I believe the vast
majority of the people want to see us work out an agreement here that
can be signed into law by the President, that will allow us to look at
a different type of forest management to recover forest health and
leave those areas that are already healthy alone.
That is what the Quincy Library project is about. Those were the
conclusions that were reached by this local group, rather amazingly. I
was very skeptical when we put forward funding for the Quincy Library
project. I said we will never get strong environmentalist and strong
industry advocates to sit down in a room together and agree on much of
anything. Well, there has been substantial agreement, but now the
disagreement has gone beyond the walls of the Quincy Library to here on
the floor, where we still have a few fine points to work out so that we
can ensure that we have a bill that is acceptable to the administration
and that we can go forward.
Again, reserve the roadless areas, reserve the wilderness areas,
enhance the protections, follow the spotted owl guidelines, but go to
light touch uneven aged stand management on those lands outside of
those critical areas that are not in a very healthy condition. It would
definitely be a step forward in our understanding of how we might
recover some of the damage that has been caused by mismanagement of
Federal forestlands over the last half century here in this country.
So I am hopeful that it will be possible to come to that sort of an
agreement here on the floor today. I will support the gentleman's
amendment when it is offered later and am hopeful that we can work out
any other differences.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
manager's amendment to H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group Forest
Recovery and Economic Stability Act.
In April 1993, at the Northwest Forest Summit, President Clinton put
forth a challenge to a community in northern California in the midst of
timber wars and litigation brought about by the listing of the northern
spotted owl and a reduction in logging levels in the forests of
northern California.
President Clinton said to the people local to the area of Quincy, CA,
``When you leave here today, I ask you to keep working for a balanced
policy that promotes the economy, preserves jobs and protects the
environment, I hope we can stay in the conference room and out of the
courtroom.''
A group of local citizens around Quincy, CA--including public
officials, timber employees, and members of the environmental
community--seized the President's challenge.
The group had their first meeting at the public library in Quincy--
the only location which assured quiet, civil discussion about many
difficult and contentious issues and concerns.
The manager's amendment before us today is the result of 4 years of
consensus building on issues that do not easily lend themselves to a
consensus.
The bill provides a framework for managing the forests of the Sierra
Nevada through fire suppression, watershed protection and riparian
restoration, and seeks to direct these activities toward meeting the
local needs of communities dependent on these forests for economic
livelihood.

[[Page H4936]]

Since my colleague, Wally Herger, introduced this bill early in the
105th Congress, H.R. 858 has come a long way.
I testified before the committee in March as a cosponsor of this
bill, in support of the process of local people getting together to
work out problems in the community. But I also acknowledged that the
bill still had a long way to go.
In any attempt to put an agreement into legislative language, the
devil remained in the details.
What followed in northern California after the committee hearing was
perhaps one of the most remarkable steps forward we have seen in this
country since the two sides embattled in the debate over our Nation's
forests first butted their heads together--members of the QLG, the
Forest Service, Congress, and the national environmental community came
together in an attempt to work out further differences.
Much progress was made in the several meetings which were held during
the past few months, but as is always true with consensus, not all the
glitches were ironed out.
Provisions have been added which ensure compliance with environmental
laws as well as interim and final California spotted owl guidelines,
and there is an authorization for additional appropriations for the
Forest Service to implement the Qunicy Library Group proposal.
But I know that the administration still has some concerns, and I am
supportive of the amendment being offered by my colleague George
Miller, which addresses some of the issues raised and ensures a
straightforward interpretation of the bill's environmental protection
provisions.
Senator Feinstein has also been working with the QLG, the
administration, and members of the environmental community on Senate
legislation, which I believe will move us closer to a bill which has
something in it for just about everyone.
As I have said all along, this bill is a work in progress.
But I feel certain that if we continue to work together, the House
and the Senate will be able to send a bill to the White House that the
President will sign.
I urge my colleagues to enable this work in progress to move forward
today by voting yes on H.R. 858.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to H.R.
858 offered by Representative Miller which would ensure the
environmental integrity of an otherwise bad bill. Based on its own
merit, H.R. 858 is a bill that would have serious environmental and
fiscal impacts.
Proponents of H.R. 858 have sold the bill as a consensus between
environmentalists and the timber industry. In reality, no such
consensus exists. Environmental organizations from the affected forests
oppose this bill. To date, not a single environmental organization has
endorsed the bill. Further, when the Clinton administration hosted
meetings between the Quincy Library Group and environmental
organizations, the Quincy Library Group ended those negotiations. So
much for collaboration.
There are a number of serious concerns with the legislation. If
enacted, this bill would double the amount of logging that is currently
being practiced on the Lassen and Plumas National Forests and the
Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. Further,
there are no assurances that the logging will not violate environmental
law. The massive experiment consisting of up to 350,000 acres of
logging over a 5-year period, would be done prior to environmental
review. This is fundamentally contrary to the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act and National Forest Management Act.
The experiment could cause tremendous harm on the ground.
Finally, the bill is bad for the taxpayers. The Congressional Budget
Office has stated that the implementation of the increased logging
levels that would be allowed by H.R. 858 would cost taxpayers $83
million over the next 5 years. This money will come from other programs
on the Lassen and Plumas National Forests. It is fiscally irresponsible
to continue to spend taxpayer dollars to subsidize an increased logging
program that already costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
Representative Miller allows the pilot project to go forward, but
simply makes sure that no environmental laws are waived or superseded.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
Let's do the right thing for the environment. The environmental
analysis should determine the levels of logging, not a handful of local
residents who would ask the rest of the taxpayers to pay the $83
million price tag for a project that makes an end run around our
country's environmental laws.
I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment, and if
accepted, to support H.R. 858.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment numbered 1 in the Congressional
Record is considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
and is considered read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute numbered 1 is
as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Quincy Library Group Forest
Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. PILOT PROJECT FOR PLUMAS, LASSEN, AND TAHOE NATIONAL
FORESTS TO IMPLEMENT QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP
PROPOSAL.

(a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal'' means
the agreement by a coalition of representatives of fisheries,
timber, environmental, county government, citizen groups, and
local communities that formed in northern California to
develop a resource management program that promotes ecologic
and economic health for certain Federal lands and communities
in the Sierra Nevada area. Such proposal includes the map
entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability
Proposal'', dated June 1993, and prepared by VESTRA Resources
of Redding, California.
(b) Pilot Project Required.--
(1) Pilot project and purpose.--The Secretary of
Agriculture (in this section referred to as the
``Secretary''), acting through the Forest Service, shall
conduct a pilot project on the Federal lands described in
paragraph (2) to implement and demonstrate the effectiveness
of the resource management activities described in subsection
(d) and the other requirements of this section, as
recommended in the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability
Proposal.
(2) Pilot project area.--The Secretary shall conduct the
pilot project on the Federal lands within Plumas National
Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger
District of Tahoe National Forest in the State of California
designated as ``Available for Group Selection'' on the map
entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability
Proposal'', dated June 1993 (in this section referred to as
the ``pilot project area''). Such map shall be on file and
available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the
Forest Service.
(c) Exclusion of Certain Lands and Riparian Protection.--
(1) Exclusion.--All spotted owl habitat areas and protected
activity centers located within the pilot project area
designated under subsection (b)(2) will be deferred from
resource management activities required under subsection (d)
and timber harvesting during the term of the pilot project.
(2) Riparian protection.--
(A) In general.--The Scientific Analysis Team guidelines
for riparian system protection described in subparagraph (B)
shall apply to all resource management activities conducted
under subsection (d) and all timber harvesting activities
that occur in the pilot project area during the term of the
pilot project.
(B) Guidelines described.--The guidelines referred to in
subparagraph (A) are those in the document entitled
``Viability Assessments and Management Considerations for
Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old-Growth
Forests of the Pacific Northwest'', a Forest Service research
document dated March 1993 and co-authored by the Scientific
Analysis Team, including Dr. Jack Ward Thomas.
(3) Riparian restoration.--During any fiscal year in which
the resource management activities required by subsection (d)
result in net revenues, the Secretary shall recommend to the
authorization and appropriation committees that up to 25
percent of such net revenues be made available in the
subsequent fiscal year for riparian restoration projects that
are consistent with the Quincy Library Group-Community
Stability Proposal within the Plumas National Forest, the
Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District
of the Tahoe National Forest. For purposes of this paragraph,
net revenues are the revenues derived from activities
required by subsection (d), less expenses incurred to
undertake such activities (including 25 percent payment to
the State of California under the Act of May 23, 1908
(Chapter 192; 35 Stat. 259; 16 U.S.C. 500, 553, 556d).
(d) Resource Management Activities.--During the term of the
pilot project, the Secretary shall implement and carry out
the following resource management activities on an acreage
basis on the Federal lands included within the pilot project
area designated under subsection (b)(2):
(1) Fuelbreak construction.--Construction of a strategic
system of defensible fuel profile zones, including shaded
fuelbreaks, utilizing thinning, individual tree selection,
and other methods of vegetation management consistent with
the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal, on not
less than 40,000, but not more than 60,000, acres per year.
(2) Group selection and individual tree selection.--
Utilization of group selection and individual tree selection
uneven-aged forest management prescriptions described in the
Quincy Library Group-Community

[[Page H4937]]

Stability Proposal to achieve a desired future condition of
all-age, multistory, fire resilient forests as follows:
(A) Group selection.--Group selection on an average acreage
of .57 percent of the pilot project area land each year of
the pilot project.
(B) Individual tree selection.--Individual tree selection
may also be utilized within the pilot project area.
(3) Total acreage.--The total acreage on which resource
management activities are implemented under this subsection
shall not exceed 70,000 acres each year.
(e) Cost-Effectiveness.--In conducting the pilot project,
Secretary shall use the most cost-effective means available,
as determined by the Secretary, to implement resource
management activities described in subsection (d).
(f) Effect on Multiple Use Activities.--The Secretary shall
not rely on the resource management activities described in
subsection (d) as a basis for administrative action limiting
other multiple use activities in the Plumas National Forest,
the Lassen National Forest, and the Tahoe National Forest.
(g) Funding.--
(1) Source of funds.--In conducting the pilot project, the
Secretary shall use--
(A) those funds specifically provided to the Forest Service
by the Secretary to implement resource management activities
according to the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability
Proposal; and
(B) excess funds that are allocated for the administration
and management of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National
Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National
Forest.
(2) Prohibition on use of certain funds.--The Secretary may
not conduct the pilot project using funds appropriated for
any other unit of the National Forest System.
(3) Flexibility.--During the term of the pilot project, the
forest supervisors of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National
Forest, and Tahoe National Forest may allocate and use all
accounts that contain excess funds and all available excess
funds for the administration and management of Plumas
National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville
Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest to perform the
resource management activities described in subsection (d).
(4) Restriction.--The Secretary or the forest supervisors,
as the case may be, shall not utilize authority provided
under paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) if, in their judgment, doing
so will limit other nontimber related multiple use activities
for which such funds were available.
(5) Overhead.--Of amounts available to carry out this
section--
(A) not more than 12 percent may be used or allocated for
general administration or other overhead; and
(B) at least 88 percent shall be used to implement and
carry out activities required by this section.
(6) Authorized supplemental funds.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to implement and carry out the pilot project
such sums as are necessary.
(h) Term of Pilot Project.--The Secretary shall conduct the
pilot project during the period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act and ending on the later of the
following:
(1) The date on which the Secretary completes amendment or
revision of the land and resource management plans for Plumas
National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National
Forest pursuant to subsection (j).
(2) The date that is five years after the date of the
commencement of the pilot project.
(i) Expeditious Implementation and Environmental Law
Compliance.--
(1) Environmental law requirement.--All environmental
impact statements for which a final record of decision is
required to be prepared in accordance with this subsection,
and all records of decision adopted under this subsection,
shall comply with applicable environmental laws and the
standards and guidelines for the conservation of the
California spotted owl as set forth in the California Spotted
Owl Province Interim Guidelines issued by the Forest Service,
and subsequently issued final standards and guidelines that
modify such interim guidelines when such final standards and
guidelines become effective.
(2) Environmental impact statement for pilot project and
first increment.--Not later than the expiration of the 150-
day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Regional Forester for Region 5 shall, after a 45-day
period for public comment on the draft environmental impact
statement under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) for
all of the pilot project area specified in subsection (b)(2)
that covers the resource management activities required by
subsection (d) for the 5-year duration of the pilot project--
(A) adopt a final record of decision for that statement;
and
(B) include as part of that statement a project level
analysis of the specific resource management activities
required by subsection (d) that will be carried out in an
area within the pilot project area during the increment of
the pilot project that begins on the day that is 150 days
after enactment of this Act and ends December 31, 1998.
(3) Subsequent yearly environmental documents.--Not later
than January 1 of 1999 and of each year thereafter throughout
the term of the pilot project, the Regional Forester for
Region 5 shall, after a 45-day public comment period, adopt a
final record of decision for the environmental impact
statement under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 consisting of a project
level analysis of the specific resource management activities
required by subsection (d) that will be carried out during
that year. A statement prepared under this paragraph shall be
tiered where appropriate to the environmental impact
statement referred to in paragraph (2), in accordance with
regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality.
(4) Consultation.--Each statement and analysis required by
paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be prepared in consultation with
the Quincy Library Group.
(5) Forest service focus.--
(A) In general.--The Regional Forester for Region 5 shall
direct that, during the period described in subparagraph
(B)--
(i) any resource management activity required by subsection
(d), all road building, and all timber harvesting activities
shall not be conducted on the Federal lands within the Plumas
National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Sierraville
Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest in the State of
California that are designated as either ``Off Base'' or
``Deferred'' on the map referred to in subsection (a); and
(ii) excess financial and human resources available to
National Forests and Ranger Districts that are participating
in the pilot project shall be applied to achieve the resource
management activities required by subsection (d) and the
other requirements of this section within the pilot project
area specified in subsection (b)(2).
(B) Period described.--The period referred to in
subparagraph (A) is when the resource management activities
required by subsection (d) are being carried out, or are
eligible to be carried out, on the ground on a schedule that
will meet the yearly acreage requirements of subsection (d)
and under environmental documentation that is timely prepared
under the schedule established by paragraphs (2) and (3).
(6) Protection of existing wilderness.--This section shall
not be construed to authorize any resource management
activity in any area required to be managed as part of the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
(7) Contracting.--The Forest Service, subject to the
availability of appropriations, may carry out any (or all) of
the requirements of this section using private contracts.
(j) Corresponding Forest Plan Amendments.--Within 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Regional
Forester for Region 5 shall initiate the process to amend or
revise the land and resource management plans for Plumas
National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National
Forest. The process shall include preparation of at least one
alternative that--
(1) incorporates the pilot project and area designations
made by subsection (b), the resource management activities
described in subsection (d), and other aspects of the Quincy
Library Group Community Stability Proposal; and
(2) makes other changes warranted by the analyses conducted
in compliance with section 102(2) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)), section
6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning
Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604), and other applicable laws.
(k) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Not later than February 28 of each year
during the term of the pilot project, the Secretary after
consultation with the Quincy Library Group, shall submit to
Congress a report on the status of the pilot project. The
report shall include at least the following:
(A) A complete accounting of the use of funds made
available under subsection (g)(1)(A) until such funds are
fully expended.
(B) A complete accounting of the use of funds and accounts
made available under subsection (g)(1) for the previous
fiscal year, including a schedule of the amounts drawn from
each account used to perform resource management activities
described in subsection (d).
(C) A description of total acres treated for each of the
resource management activities required under subsection (d),
forest health improvements, fire risk reductions, water yield
increases, and other natural resources-related benefits
achieved by the implementation of the resource management
activities described in subsection (d).
(D) A description of the economic benefits to local
communities achieved by the implementation of the pilot
project.
(E) A comparison of the revenues generated by, and costs
incurred in, the implementation of the resource management
activities described in subsection (d) on the Federal lands
included in the pilot project area with the revenues and
costs during each of the fiscal years 1992 through 1997 for
timber management of such lands before their inclusion in the
pilot project.
(F) A schedule for the resource management activities to be
undertaken in the pilot project area during the calendar
year.
(2) Limitation on expenditures.--The amount of Federal
funds expended on each annual report under this subsection
shall not exceed $50,000.

[[Page H4938]]

(l) Final Report.--
(1) In general.--Beginning after completion of 6 months of
the second year of the pilot project, the Secretary shall
compile a science-based assessment of, and report on, the
effectiveness of the pilot project in meeting the stated
goals of this pilot project. Such assessment and report--
(A) shall include watershed monitoring of lands treated
under this section, that should address the following issues
on a priority basis: timing of water releases, water quality
changes, and water yield changes over the short and long term
in the pilot project area;
(B) shall be compiled in consultation with the Quincy
Library Group; and
(C) shall be submitted to the Congress by July 1, 2002.
(2) Limitations on expenditures.--The amount of Federal
funds expended for the assessment and report under this
subsection, other than for watershed monitoring under
paragraph (1)(A), shall not exceed $150,000. The amount of
Federal funds expended for watershed monitoring under
paragraph (1)(A) shall not exceed $75,000 for each of fiscal
years 2000, 2001, and 2002.
(m) Relationship to Other Laws.--Nothing in this section
exempts the pilot project from any Federal environmental law.

The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment is in order except the amendment
numbered 2 in the Congressional Record, which may be offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] or his designee, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject
to amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Boehner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 858), to
direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pilot project on
designated lands within Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests in
the State of California to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
resource management activities proposed by the Quincy Library Group and
to amend current land and resource management plans for these national
forests to consider the incorporation of these resource management
activities, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________