[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.

                          ____________________