[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 96 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4938-H4945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 858.
{time} 1241
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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier
today, all time for debate had expired.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr.
Young] is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to Members that there
is a little confusion going on right now, but there has been some
discussion in trying to reach an agreement with the administration. I
have letters from the administration saying that they basically support
the implication of this legislation, from Mr. Glickman, the Department
of Environmental Quality. What we have been trying to do for the last
hour is to work out some mutual agreement where I personally believe
that we can, in fact, send this bill to the Senate and have the Senate
take it up without any amendments and send it to the President.
Now, there may be some that may not agree with what has been done on
both sides, but it is my belief it is the best way to try to solve
these problems. Because I am a realist, and I recognize there are those
that oppose this bill, especially the national environmental community,
I understand that and I understand that there are those in the Senate
who have the power, because their rules put holds on bills and nothing
occurs, I think it is very important to get this pilot project on its
way to become a law.
I have worked with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for the
last hour, and we have been saying things to one another and discussing
this, what we can accomplish. I am resentful of the administration,
because I just got their letters about 10 minutes, 15 minutes ago. I
think this is inappropriate on the part of the administration when this
is their brainchild, when they thought this would be the way to go.
We have done everything possible to make this work. It is my belief,
the way that this has been made up, that we have an opportunity now to
really solve what was in my substitute but was a definition that
appeases not only the administration but the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller] and others that are involved.
Now, I will not say that we did not have the votes. I believe we had
the votes to pass it in the House big time, and I understand that, but
there is also a chance in the way this works, if we want to get this
program in place, on time, working for the people, the Quincy Library
Group and the people in that arena, we must try to solve the problems
here on the floor of the House to give them that opportunity.
If these amendments destroy the intent of the bill and if it does not
work, then we can always review it. We can come back and find out what
is happening. But it is an attempt to make sure that we have a
fledgling duckling turn into a beautiful swan. It is an opportunity to
make this work.
I know there is some question about what we are doing here, and I
apologize to those people, but this is the way this program works. This
is a democracy. This is a legislative process, putting a package
together that becomes a reality.
So with that, I would like to thank the gentleman from California and
those involved. I would like to suggest respectfully, for those that
are unaware of what we are doing, that this is really, I think, our
opportunity to fulfill not only an obligation, although we can win on
this floor, but we can go forward and have an opportunity on the Senate
side and get this to the President of the United States and make sure
that these local people are heard and done correctly.
If it does not work, we can come back and revisit it again. I do
believe it will work.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller] is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman
for offering this amendment. I think, in fact, as I said, there is very
little disagreement about the intent and the purpose of this
legislation and what all of us would like to see carried out. The
gentlewoman from Idaho, the subcommittee chair, has worked long and
[[Page H4939]]
hard on this legislation, has accepted many changes by the various
concerned parties to this legislation, as has the gentleman from
Alaska, the chairman of the committee.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] who represents this area
and has championed this legislation, this approach, I think also has
accepted many changes to this legislation that I believe is consistent
with the idea that we would try to empower local communities to have a
say in the planning of forest practices and forest managements that are
consistent with the best interests of those communities while, at the
same time, being consistent with the overall system of general forest
health.
I think the suggestions put forth now by the chairman, the gentleman
from Alaska, now ensure that we have legislation here that can be
considered on a very timely basis in the Senate and be sent to the
President's desk so, in fact, the Quincy Library Group pilot project on
this 2\1/2\ million acres can go forward and it can go forward with
every Member being assured that it is in compliance with the laws and
it is in compliance with the intent and the purposes of the Quincy
Library Group.
It is not easy to fashion these kinds of amendments when we are
dealing with resource issues. When I used to be chairman of the
committee, I used to tell people that wanted to get on the committee
that we do not deal with anything abstract in this committee. We are
either moving a boundary 10 feet north or 10 feet south, and trees
either end up vertical or they end up horizontal. This is not an
abstract committee.
So I want to commend the gentleman and the other Members on the other
side for their effort in offering this amendment, and it is my
intention to support the amendment, to support the legislation, and to
work hard to see that it becomes the law of the land.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, amendment numbered 1 in the
Congressional Record is considered as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment and is considered read.
No further amendment is in order, except the amendment enabled by the
recent order by unanimous consent which may be offered by the gentleman
from Alaska [Mr. Young] 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.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Young of Alaska:
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 and after
completion of an environmental impact statement (a record of
decision for which shall be adopted within 200 days); 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, Riparian Protection and
Compliance.--
(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) Compliance.--All resource management activities
required by subsection (d) shall be implemented to the extent
consistent with applicable Federal laws and the standards and
guidelines for the Conservation of the California Spotted Owl
as set forth in the California Spotted Owl Sierran Provence
Interim Guidelines or the subsequently issued final
guidelines whichever is in effect.
(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 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.
(4) Riparian management.--A program of riparian management,
including wide protection zones and riparian restoration
projects, consistent with riparian protection guidelines in
subsection (c)(2)(B).
(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).
(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.--Subject to normal reprogramming
guidelines, 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--
[[Page H4940]]
(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.
(7) Baseline funds.--Amounts available for resource
management activities authorized under subsection (d) shall
at a minimum include existing baseline functioning levels.
(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)(1) Consultation.--Each statement required by subsection
(b)(1) shall be prepared in consultation with the Quincy
Library Group.
(2) 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.
(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. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr.
Young] and a Member opposed 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. Again may I stress the importance of this legislation and the
amendment which I offer to the original amendment by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
This is an interpretation which was disputed between the gentleman
from California [Mr. Miller] and myself and from the administration and
what they requested. We still believe we did what we should have done
in the original bill, or the substitute which I offered, but there is a
disputing of definitions. We now believe that we have an opportunity
with my amendment to take and resolve that dispute between the
gentleman from California, myself, and the administration.
I have had the commitment of the gentleman from California that he is
going to support this legislation if my amendment is adopted. Now, the
total package will be voted on. And I have also had indications that
the Senate would work appropriately with this legislation and the
administration would sign this legislation if it gets out of this House
in this form.
If this does not occur, that means that we would have to go back to
conference; but I am confident that if we went to conference, I have
the support of the ranking member and other members involved whereby we
can in fact solve this problem and get the community input as
necessary.
May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, there has been much said about the
preservation of this forest. One of the biggest fears I have and have
always had is the burning of our forests today and the lack of
management.
{time} 1245
Fires are natural, yes. We have not been involved with Smokey the
Bear, but we have put out fires for many, many years. The volatility of
these acres now is about 100 barrels of gasoline per acre in some of
our forests. Some of the most magnificent trees today are threatened
because of the lack of fire control or fire suppression or, in fact,
the continued growth and undergrowth that makes it impossible to put a
fire out, and it kills the soil when it burns.
So we talk about the future generations walking through the forests.
There will be no forests to walk through if we do not have the proper
management. Yes, we can leave some trees aside. We can leave the old
growth where it is in some places. We can also take and have the
management thinning in the appropriate classification. But we must have
what I call the appropriate management, and who better can do that than
those in the area in which it lives? I think it is so crucially
important that we continue to try this pilot project.
I want to stress again and again, pilot project, five-year project,
all environmental laws, all registrations now. But it allows the taking
of timber. It allows the proper fire suppression. So I urge the
adoption of my amendment. I think it is crucially important that we
have the opportunity to continue this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Calvert], on the legislation itself and not necessarily directed to the
amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Quincy Library
Group and the manager's amendment. The Quincy Library Group was not
created in a vacuum. The national urban environmental organizations
have been involved and aware of the Quincy Library Group since its
inception in 1993.
National urban organizations have also been involved and endorsed at
one time or another each element of the Quincy Library proposal. For
example, the 5-year pilot program which is established by this
legislation calls for an annual range of between 40,000 and 60,000
acres to be treated with strategic fuel breaks. This acreage was
proposed directly by the national urban organizations.
The Quincy Library proposal is a positive bill that is good for the
forest, good for the people, good for the environment, and receives a
wide range of
[[Page H4941]]
support. Therefore, I ask Members for their support in passage of H.R.
858 and the manager's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller] may control the time otherwise reserved for an opponent of the
amendment.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], for yielding. I want to thank
both the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman, and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member, for coming
together here on the floor to reach common ground on a very significant
piece of legislation.
I think our bipartisan effort, and I am confident this bill will be
agreed to after this amendment is agreed to by an overwhelming margin,
has really set the tone for what I hope can be a new era in the way in
which we resolve our differences on forest practices.
We have been at war with each other. We have not been able to resolve
our differences. We have stopped progress. We have not created any new
initiatives or new incentives to move on. I think this Quincy Library
Group language, the original premise for it and the amended version
that will pass today, is evidence that we can lay down our swords and
actually work together to accomplish something.
We do not know that this is the solution. But the 5 years that we
have given ourselves to try to put this local agreement into effect
without violating national laws, I think is a window of opportunity.
Should we succeed in these three national forests, dealing with the
riparian restoration issues and the thinning issues and fire
suppression, all the other issues that I think are part of contemporary
management of our national forests, we will have perhaps set for the
future a standard by which other forests can be managed with all the
players coming together, environmentalists and local officials and
local business people, people who work in the forests and people who
employ them, coming together to find a common approach to getting off
dead center. For that I am very thankful, as I am sure many of my
colleagues and many of my constituents are.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], who has
been very busy here the last hour and a half on the floor trying to
help us hammer out this agreement, and for taking part in these
discussions and serving as a go-between. I want to thank him for that
effort.
Both the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Herger] are the closest representatives to this area
and clearly, as the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] tries to remind
us all the time, have the concern with the greatest impact. I think
that this is a balanced approach that the gentleman has worked on, and
I appreciate and thank him for your efforts.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller] for his comments, and I simply want to
congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] for his
initiative and his successful steering of this measure through, I hope,
to the Senate and to the President.
It is a breakthrough. I think this would not have been accomplished
without the willingness of the staff of the Committee on Resources and
its leadership to resolve their differences here today on the floor so
that we can offer an united front and, hopefully, see implementation of
this concept.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr.
Young] for yielding me the time. I also want to thank all those people
on both sides of the aisle that have been involved in working through
this legislation to reach a compromise that will benefit not only the
people in the community that are directly involved in this issue, but
it will have a positive impact on the rest of the country and on
logging in general.
Are we smart enough, Mr. Chairman, to sustain logging, mimic nature,
and protect biological diversity? I think we are, and I think this
legislation will begin the process for us to understand how to do that.
Does this Nation need wood? The answer is yes. Must we sustain
logging, or should we sustain logging? The answer is we must sustain
logging. Does this Nation need the kind of health that biological
diversity offers species, including human beings? Biological diversity
ensures that we are going to sustain the kind of things we need in
order to survive on this planet. Not only can we protect and sustain
biological diversity, we must sustain biological diversity.
So are we smart enough, in this society that we call the United
States of America, with a democracy, with a free market economy out
there, with people with varying interests, can we get together and
resolve these issues? The answer is yes.
And if we look at the legislation, does it protect the habitat for
species? This legislation protects habitat for species. Does it protect
and do further research on riparian areas? The answer is yes.
On page 8, line 18: ``All environmental laws apply to this pilot
project.'' On page 10: ``An annual review of the project is ordered by
the Secretary of Agriculture,'' an annual review.
If my colleagues look on page 15, line 6, this has something else to
do with ensuring that we are going to do the right thing: ``The
Secretary shall compile a science-based assessment of the effectiveness
of this pilot project.''
The legislation is sound. Are we smart enough, as people in this
democracy, to sustain logging, mimic nature, and protect biological
diversity? Can we do that? The answer is yes. I strongly encourage my
colleagues to vote for this legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Doolittle].
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, our forests are really in deplorable
condition. My colleagues can see and anyone who flies over the Sierra
Nevadas can see just what a terrible state they are in, how years of
drought and insect infestation have killed in some cases more than one-
third of all the standing trees, a number of brown trees they can see
flying over the Sierra Nevadas. We have had some devastating forest
fires. And the prognosis is, unless we manage these forests, we are
going to have fires on an even greater scale than we have seen so far,
that will absolutely wreak havoc for years upon the environment and
destroy the livelihood of all the people that live in timber-based
communities.
Mr. Chairman, the Quincy Library Group represents remarkable
consensus amongst local residents, local timber experts, local
businessmen, local environmentalists, all local people who have
produced this consensus to properly manage the forests. The only group
opposed to this legislation is the arrogant, left wing, taxpayer
subsidized environmental lobby, because if we have consensus to manage
our forests at the local level, they might not be necessary.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. We should approve this bill and
finally send a message to the world that local people can govern
themselves, so I urge the approval of this legislation.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this bill
with the amendment, accept that because it is essentially a bottom-up
process and we all got here from local government, and this is where
people who live on the land take care of it, both sides of the issue,
environmentalists and non-environmentalists, have come to consensus. I
think it is a good bill and we ought to support it.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
[[Page H4942]]
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I came over here to oppose this bill
initially, and I am now met with the fact that the chairman and ranking
member have come to an agreement that has been difficult to achieve
concerning this issue. I commend them, and I intend to support that
agreement because of the confidence I have in both of my colleagues and
the staff who are engaged in this issue with me.
I must say I am somewhat uneasy with it. I am uneasy, Mr. Chairman,
because it is implied that somehow the National Forest Service or some
of our other land management planning agencies, the Park Service, BLM
and the Fish and Wildlife Service, really did not have the information
they need or did not have the know-how; and the fact is that these land
management agencies are revered around the world for their knowledge
with regards to the cutting edge understanding land management and the
ability to manage the national forests, our temperate rain forests, our
arboreal forests, the NFS is at the cutting edge of this particular
study and application on the ground.
We ought to look at what has happened to the ability of the Forest
Service and other land management agencies to develop the type of
rapport that we need with local communities. I believe what has
happened, as we examine the record, is that there have been significant
reductions in professional staff throughout the 1980's and into the
1990's.
If we look at our budget for the next 5 years, I think we are going
to find more problems along those lines. As budget are curtailed fewer
personnel will be available for on the ground communication. And most
of the plans we have actually go through extensive work, far above the
Administrative Procedures Act, for example, such land management plans
go through extensive work to try and share with local communities what
the plans are for a forest, what the plans are for a park or for other
public domain lands.
This modified substitute is a good idea in the sense that if we can
develop consensus at the local level and it is consistent with
scientific principles and sound national land management practices,
that these national lands, which in this case happen to be in
California and Oregon, would in fact be effectively managed and we will
with a better rapport have less misunderstandings and less acrimony.
As new scientific information is developed and new knowledge is
acquired, we have to bring this to bear in terms of land management
plans in our forests, parks and other public lands. That is what
Congress has asked the Forest Service to do in the many laws and
policies that exist. That is what Congress is requiring the Park
Service or BLM or other land management agencies to do, and that is a
tough job, a very tough job, because that new information portends
changes regards the use of our forests, park and public domain lands.
{time} 1300
However, I think engaging people locally in this formal way may prove
to be quite expensive. I think we need to look at the total bill in
dollars. This is more than just a pilot plan. I think it is a
significant commitment by this Congress in terms of local engagement
which must be matched with a fiscal commitment. I would just suggest
that if my colleagues want this, if it is to work, then hopefully the
same will stand up and start putting the money into the Forest Service
to do the job in terms of forest health, to do the job in terms of
developing this type of local input, and the ability to fully carry out
the process of not just decisionmaking but implementation.
This is a very difficult task. It is an expensive task. I think it is
one that is worth the effort if in fact the process accomplishes the
promised objectives and goals. As I said earlier in my statement when
we were talking on the rule for this measure's consideration, I do not
disagree with the Quincy Library Group concept, but I do not think that
I wanted to see this idea hijacked for other purposes, to get around
the environmental and other laws that today present a challenge to
some, the cost of local input should not be dispensing with the body of
land use environmental laws.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I rose in opposition to H.R. 858, the
Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of
1997. As reported to the House the bill is unacceptable. Often in
Congress we are faced with legislation in its best wrappings that
attempts to appeal to our most common and good instincts, but unwrapped
it reveals just another effort to benefit a special interest group.
What could make more sense than a local group getting together to
settle its differences in the confines of a library? What could be
better than an agreement that satisfies everyone involved, preserves a
community's economic stability, and protects the environment? You would
think, upon reading the information provided by the supporters of this
bill, that this was a slice of American pie, the most perfect proposal
that Congress should rubber stamp.
Well I say to my colleagues that this bill from the Resources
Committee is far from perfect. This isn't the Quincy Proposal. This is
an attempt by these interests to force feed the American taxpayer and
the U.S. Forest Service a policy path which side steps most major
environmental laws and scientific principles. This bill could be yet
just another attempt to cut more trees by sidestepping environmental
law and existing rules and policy governing our national forests. This
initial bill, H.R. 858, is a consensus proposal without a consensus on
this floor. Is it a stalking horse for special exploitive interests?
This bill takes a positive development and tries to cash it in before
it becomes fully defined, much less developed. Cash it in for whom?
This measure which affects over 2.5 million acres of 3 national
forests and could become a 1997 version of the infamous 1995 salvage
rider, the risks in the initial measure are just too great.
I opposed this initial bill because it disregards important
environmental safeguards. It does not require real compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] or the National Forest
Management Act. Instead, it substitutes a questionable and sloppy
review process for true environmental stewardship without the
safeguards. We've had enough trouble with the timber industry already--
and this measure must not be just another special exception from some
of the most important protected industries in America.
I want to make it clear that I am not critical of the Quincy Library
Process. I am objecting to writing into law a half-baked concept and
excepting it from the professional management practices that have
helped guide the timber policy. This bill as law would superimpose a
policy which is in glowing generalities a 22-page document that will
lend itself to risk.
I question this bill further because it will cost $83 million over
the next 5 years. That's $83 million the U.S. Forest Service will not
be able to spend on creating more recreational opportunities for our
kids, restoring old roads, or protecting the environment. In a time
when we are finally tightening our belts, I ask my colleagues: can we
really afford $83 million to fund an uncertain and incomplete policy?
I oppose this original bill because it calls itself a pilot program,
while it in fact deals with 2.5 million acres and 3 national forests.
This is not characteristic of a pilot program. This could well result
in a semantic exercise that is being sold with a goal to jettison
important environmental protections.
I oppose this bill because it continues the majority's strategy of
attempting to quietly ram through anti-environmental time bombs.
Members of the Quincy Library Group themselves have expressed optimism
that they are nearing an administrative solution with the Department of
Agriculture. My friend from California, Mr. Fazio, who originally
supported this bill, contacted the Subcommittee on Forests asking us to
give the administrative route more time. He was ignored, of course,
because this bill is no longer about the Quincy Library Agreement--when
unwrapped in living color this bill is about more logging and fewer
environmental restrictions.
Finally, and most importantly, I oppose this bill because it sets a
dangerous precedent. Clearly, communities have a vital role in
determining our national forest policies. This bill, however, goes too
far down that road. Simply because citizens live next to Federal land
does not entitle them to manage that land. Those who live close to such
land are important partners, often stewards, who offer real strength
and accountability. Our national forests and public lands, however, are
the property of all Americans. Every single American--not just the
residents and interests of Quincy, CA--has a stake in ensuring that
they are adequately protected from irresponsible management practices
now and for future generations.
Finally, the majority and minority Members are offering the long-
sought changes that have been agreed to. I urge my colleagues to
support this Young/Miller substitute. It's an improvement over the very
imperfect measure reported; it limits some of the risks, but is a bill
really necessary? Couldn't this be done without a new law? It is a
major concern. This
[[Page H4943]]
measure should be carefully watched in the legislative process and
close oversight if it is enacted into law the next 5 years to ensure
that the commitments to sound science and environmental sensitive land
use planning are effective and achieved.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raised a very serious concern earlier
about one particular section of the bill which resembled language from
the infamous timber salvage rider which I opposed. The language in
concern was that the Secretary concerned shall not rely on salvage
timber sales as a basis for administrative action limiting other
multiple use activities, et cetera.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. As part of the amendment, that language has
been stricken from the legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman now feels that this bill fully complies with all
existing environmental laws, and reserves rights of appeal, litigation,
and other things to the public and other concerned individuals?
Mr. MILLER of California. That is my understanding.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I appreciate the
willingness of the proponents on the other side of the aisle to work
with the minority to address the significant concerns raised by the
administration. It is my hope now that we will be able to move this
process forward with some dispatch and, as I said earlier, to begin to
look at a different way of managing our forests; reserving the roadless
areas, the few that are left, reserving and preserving the wilderness
areas that are statutorily defined by Congress, meeting the needs of
the spotted owl and other endangered species in the area, clean water
concerns, but also engaging in some forestry activities in what would
be called a lighter touch, uneven age stand management regime, one that
came after hours and hours and hours of discussion between traditional
antagonists in this part of the country. I only hope that a similar
process can be modeled on the Quincy Library project for my own
district and other areas where for so long we have been engaged in
pitched battles.
Early on in the forest debates I got the carpenters union to go with
some environmental activists up to look at management similar to what
is being proposed here today, uneven age stand management, principally
thinning, along with a forester who works on alternative management.
There was substantial agreement that that would be something that had
promise. I got the carpenters to then go to an ancient forest
conference and say they would look at an alternative that preserved all
the remaining old growth if we could look at alternative management on
the remaining lands. Yet the administration out of hand rejected that
as did Lord Thomas reject that in going through the plan, to develop
the President's forest plan. I think this is a crack in the armor of
the old save and sacrifice forestry. This threatens people that are
polarized at either ends of the debate. I applaud this process to move
away from save and sacrifice to uneven age stand management, selective
management and forestry that is sensitive to all environmental laws and
truly perhaps for the first time to multiple uses.
Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his remarks in
support.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], the author of
this legislation, to speak not only on the amendment but to the bill
itself.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very appropriate that this
bill just moments before it comes before a vote here on the House floor
in the U.S. House of Representatives ends, or concludes the way that it
started. The way that it started was some 4 years ago in a small
community of a couple of hundred citizens in Quincy, CA, within the
Plumas National Forest in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, a community
which for 15 years had been racked with wars of the environmental
community, warring with those that were trying to support the wood
products industry. The fact that their economy had come to a
standstill, the environmental health of the community and of these
forests had come not just to a standstill but was actually to a state
that we were seeing these forests burning up through fires. Just last
year alone some 870,000 acres of forest burned in the State of
California alone. Other environmental issues were not being addressed.
And so at that time we saw the environmental community, the wood
products community, the schools, the locally elected officials come
together at a place that they felt they would not yell at each other,
and that was the library. They started a long process of meeting
together night after night, more than some 46 representatives, leaders
in all the different areas of the community, working together to
finally come up with a plan that was using the most recent
environmental science, science that had been developed in this very
area itself of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, to come up with a plan
which was a win-win for everyone: A win for the environment, a win for
the California spotted owl, a win for riparian problems that we have
there, a win also for the economy of this community as well, a
community which throughout that area some 32 mills had closed in just
the last couple of years.
And to see at this time all the working together there, working with
the administration, working with our two U.S. Senators, literally
thousands of meetings, and then to see it culminate here before our
very eyes in which we see very much the same type of scenario taking
place, I really did not think, I have been here six terms, I was not
sure if I would see the time when my very good friend and distinguished
leader, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and myself and the
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and others, the gentleman from Oregon
[Mr. DeFazio], the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and others could come together in
agreement. I think it is certainly, I feel is either the highlight, or
certainly one of the highlights of my political career.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, yesterday was luncheon, today
it is legislation, tomorrow it is frightening to think of what it could
mean. I appreciate the gentleman's cooperation, and I want to thank him
for how hard he has worked on this legislation. As he has pointed out,
more times than I care to count, this is not a new idea with respect to
Quincy Library. These people have worked very, very hard on this, and
this is not an idea that somehow does not have a lot of support. It has
a lot of support, and I think with changes of the gentleman from Alaska
[Mr. Young], we now have what I would assume is almost going to be
unanimous support in the House. I thank the gentleman for all of his
perseverance and his hard work on this.
Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentleman.
Then just to conclude, to see it come together is encouraging, is
something that I feel can be a beginning, hopefully, of a number of
other very controversial issues that we have, that we have shown, are
showing, are in the process of showing here this afternoon that both
sides can come together, Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats,
Republicans, and make the system work.
Again, I want to thank everyone involved. I certainly want to thank
all those from our communities in northern California who never gave
up, who hung in there. I want to again say that I am very supportive of
this amendment, our legislation, and I want to emphasize this for those
people who are watching, that this legislation remains basically, the
intent is basically exactly the same as it was before. We think that
this helps improve the bill and it helps for, I believe, the support we
are going to need in the Senate and I believe the support that we will
have from the President.
Again I want to thank everyone. I support this, I urge Members'
support
[[Page H4944]]
on this amendment, and I urge their overwhelming support on the bill
itself.
Modification to Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr.
Young of Alaska
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be modified by the form I have at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
On page 6, line 11, after ``use'', insert ``, subject to
the relevant reprogramming guidelines of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations''.
On page 11, line 15, insert before ``excess'', the
following: ``subject to the advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations reprogramming process,''.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a
substitute is modified.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I can only urge a ``yes'' on my
amendment and a ``yes'' on final passage of the legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], as
modified.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Rogan) 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,
pursuant to House Resolution 180, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not,
the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 429,
nays 1, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 251]
YEAS--429
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAY--1
Paul
NOT VOTING--4
Boucher
Cox
Edwards
Schiff
{time} 1334
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page H4945]]
____________________