[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1427-E1428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 9, 1997

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, with a vote of 429 to 1, the House 
has overwhelmingly approved Representative Wally Herger's bill, H.R. 
858, the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability 
Act of 1997. While Representative Herger introduced the bill and the 
bill had bipartisan support, it really belongs to the Quincy Library 
Group, which is a coalition of local environmental group leaders, local 
timber firms, local business people, local government officials, and 
local labor union leaders. So that everyone knows what the Quincy 
Library Group agreement is, I ask unanimous consent to insert a copy of 
the agreement immediately following my remarks.
  The bill was overwhelmingly approved because of Mr. Herger's 
bipartisan approach and because it is solution-oriented. It resolves 
forest conflict instead of promoting it. The bill embodies a new way of 
thinking about the Nation's forestry problems, the solutions for which 
come from the people who live in communities within our public forests. 
Thus, it draws on the community wisdom that our Government is supposed 
to be about. Our Nation is a government of the people because the 
people give us their wisdom.
  Never in my years of serving as Alaska's only Congressman in this 
House have I seen such overwhelming support for a forestry bill and I 
truly believe that this level of enthusiasm results from the fact that 
everyone wins with the collaborative approach that the bipartisan 
sponsors and supporters have taken on this measure.
  We did not come to the floor today with 429 votes. We would have 
probably received around 270 votes by my count on the Young substitute 
to H.R. 858, but that did not deter the sponsors of the bill and me 
from making further accommodations in the spirit that the Quincy 
Library Group agreement. We wanted to make people comfortable. We made 
accommodations to Representative Miller, the ranking member of the 
Committee on Resources and a person who I have grown to respect as a 
friend. We made many accommodations that Representative Miller brought 
to us from the administration, which over the years has often supported 
the Quincy Library Group. Before that Mrs. Chenoweth made some 50 
changes to the bill in the subcommittee and in the full committee, many 
in response to administration and interest group concerns, before the 
bill was reported. I asked Senator Feinstein, the lead on this issue in 
the other body for her recommendations and I incorporated those 
recommendations into my manager's amendment.
  Because some modifications were made here on the floor, I want to 
explain them. I want to explain how the final Young substitute that we 
just agreed to differs from the Young substitute that appeared in the 
Record as amendment No. 1. I also want to explain some of the major 
amendments that were adopted in the committee and subcommittee.
  The substance of the bill is Section 2. Section 2(a) is simply the 
definition of the Quincy Library Group agreement, which forms the basis 
of the bill. My amendment No. 1 and the final product agreed to by the 
House included clarifications that the library group agreement is for 
ecologic and economic health of lands and communities. This is a 
community stability proposal, which by its nature concerns ecologic 
health of the land and economic health of the communities. These are 
mutually exclusive and the Quincy plan integrates them. Ecologic health 
and economic health is what sustainable development is all about.

  In subsection (b), the Young substitute basically requires 
implementation of the Quincy Library Group plan and, in particular, a 
cornerstone of the plan that is referenced in subsection (d) involving 
strategic fuelbreaks and group selection harvests. In subsection (b) 
where we direct the Quincy program, we added a proviso that required 
one environmental impact statement. We also added a requirement that 
the environmental impact statement be completed within 200 days of 
enactment.
  The Young amendment No. 1 contained a subsection (i) that was mostly 
removed because we added the single EIS in subsection (b) at Mr. 
Miller's urging. However, I want to be clear that my substitute would 
have provided for a total of five EIS's over the course of the pilot 
project, one for the entire 5-year program including the first year's 
site-specific segment of the program and one site-specific EIS for each 
subsequent year's program. Mr. Miller requested that I remove that 
provision and do only one EIS. We agreed to a 200-day timeframe for the 
EIS. The Quincy group has waited long enough for their consensus to 
reach the ground. This means that within 200 days after enactment, the 
program will be implemented.
  We made no changes from my substitute, amendment No. 1, in subsection 
(b)(2) where the pilot project area is explained. The total acreage of 
the national forests that the pilot project covers is about 2.5 million 
acres. However, one key to the Quincy proposal is that fuelbreaks and 
other subsection (d) activities are only eligible for part of that 2.5 
million acre area. Specifically those activities will be carried out on 
lands that are ``Available for Group Selection'' as identified on the 
QLG map. This is a cornerstone of the agreement because the land base 
was essentially that which would leave the roadless areas out of areas 
that would receive fuelbreak, thinning, group selection, and other 
silviculture treatments under the QLG plan. ``Available for Group 
Selection'' area is about 1.6 million acres. Areas outside of the 
``Available for Group Selection'' were essentially those recommended 
over the years for protection by local environmental groups that are 
participants in the Quincy Library Group and by national environmental 
groups.
  My original substitute, amendment No. 1, would have gone the extra 
mile to ensure that the areas outside of those that are ``Available for 
Group Selection''--the roadless areas for which environmental groups 
have long sought protection--would not be eligible for subsection (d) 
fuelbreaks, would not be eligible for any road building, and would not 
be eligible for any timber harvesting activities. The provision that 
would have done this was subsection (i)(5)(A)(i). This would have 
ensured that while the pilot project was being implemented or eligible 
to be implemented on the ground, the ``Off Base'' and ``Deferred'' land 
areas (essentially the roadless areas) would be ineligible for timber 
harvests, road building, and subsection (d) activities. That was my 
proposal in amendment No. 1, but Mr. Miller required that it be 
removed, which in my view may lessen the protection of the roadless 
areas.

  Subsection (c)(1), which removes spotted owl habitat from eligibility 
for harvest stayed in the compromise version. So did the riparian 
protection that was added in full committee. I might add that the 
riparian protection is straight from the Clinton Northwest Forest Plan, 
which was composed by scientists including the ex-chief of the Forest 
Service, Dr. Jack Ward Thomas. Personally, I think that this riparian 
protection may be too stringent, but it is part of the Quincy Library 
Group agreement and part of existing law that the Quincy group wants to 
follow. That is why it is in my substitute. It is part of the deal.
  Mr. Miller asked that I remove the provision that would have allowed 
more funding to be recommended and provided for riparian restoration 
projects, which I believe are an important part of the Quincy Library 
Group Agreement. The provision, subsection (c)(3), was removed.
  The Quincy group's plan envisioned compliance with laws that ensured 
proper harvesting techniques and ensured forest standards would be met 
for management activities like fuelbreak construction. Nevertheless, we 
added a proviso that ensured that the resource management activities 
would be implemented to the extent consistent with the Federal laws 
that apply to such activities. This would included the interim 
guidelines for the spotted owl. Should final guidelines for the owl 
become effective, they would apply instead. This change makes the 
requirement of subsection (d) no less of a requirement than it was 
before. It simply means that in meeting the requirement of subsection 
(d)(1) and (2), for example, that the laws that guide good forest 
management and other applicable laws that would guide forest management 
activities apply to the carrying out the activities. The change does 
not make subsection (d) hollow.
  Now for subsection (d). It requires fuelbreaks on not less than 
40,000 acres and not more than 60,000 acres within the pilot

[[Page E1428]]

project area, meaning the ``Available for Group Selection'' area. This 
is a key to the Quincy plan because it will improve the ecology of the 
forest and the stability of the communities economically. Economic 
stability will improve because a more stable supply of timber will be 
available through the fuelbreak, thinning, and group selection 
requirements of subsection (d). People will work. The bill is not cast 
in terms of a particular volume of timber that is required to be 
harvested. Rather the bill requires acreage harvest for things like 
fuelbreaks and group selections, which might be part of a fuelbreak. 
The range of 40,000 to 60,000 acres was selected based on scientific 
information. The committee report explains that point. Even if 60,000 
acres are treated with fuelbreaks and thinning each year it would take 
nearly 30 years to treat the entire land base that is ``Available for 
Group Selection'' under the Quincy plan.
  Because there were allegations that the bill would allow too much 
harvesting, the committee added a maximum acreage of harvests 70,000 
per year. While I do not think that too much of the group selection 
would be done outside of the fuelbreak system, 70,000 acres was 
selected because it would allow 60,000 acres of fuelbreaks plus some 
group selection.
  Mr. Miller, Mr. Herger, and I agreed on new language concerning 
riparian management that was added to subsection (d). Mr. Miller 
pointed out that riparian management is an important part of the Quincy 
Library Group agreement. While I believe my amendment No. 1 addressed 
riparian management by including the SAT guidelines for subsection (d) 
activities, we added some of the language suggested by Mr. Miller and 
modified by me.

  My modification to that language ties the riparian management into 
the SAT guidelines required for timber activities in riparian areas. 
Thus, under the SAT guidelines, there may be watershed assessments and 
watershed work that then opens the possibility of management of 
riparian areas. Flexibility that is needed if there is funding 
available for such activities. That is why we tied that new subsection 
(d) proviso on riparian management to the new subsection (f)(7) which 
ensures that amounts that are available for subsection (d)(1) and 
(d)(2) activities will remain available for those activities and not be 
transferred into subsection (d)(4) activities. In short, we wanted to 
ensure that riparian management, which may be very expensive, does not 
cut short the ability to achieve the critical fuelbreak and group 
selection work that will ultimately provide more revenue that could be 
directed by the appropriations committee to important riparian 
management or restoration efforts under (d)(4).
  Subsection (e) simply requires cost effectiveness, something that is 
often missing in government. Cost effectiveness, means efficiency, not 
shoddy work or shortcuts on environmental protection.
  We removed subsection (f) in the Young Amendment No. 1 at the request 
of the administration and Mr. Miller. This will not affect 
implementation of the Quincy pilot project because other multiple use 
activities will be positively affected by implementation of the Quincy 
pilot project. For example, wildlife habitat will improve because it 
will not burn as readily or as badly.
  In our funding subsection we specified that normal reprogramming 
guidelines must be followed to shift funds if they ordinarily could not 
be used for the purpose described. We wanted to provide maximum 
flexibility for the Forest Service to use existing accounts to cover 
QLG activities. So that the funds now spent for timber sales will be 
shifted into timber activities associated with fuelbreaks, group 
selection, individual tree selection to meet the requirements of 
subsection (d). My substitute also included a proviso that ensures that 
the amount of overhead and general administration will not be too high. 
We wanted the money to reach the ground and implement QLG projects. We 
also did not want other multiple use activities, for example grazing, 
to suffer a loss of funds in order to implement the requirements in the 
bill. At the request of the junior Senator from California, Mr. Herger 
and I agreed to add a provision that directly authorized funds to be 
appropriated to carry out the pilot project.
  Regarding subsection (g) of my new substitute agreed to by the House, 
the term of the pilot project will be at least 5 years. This is 
necessary because it is a critical component of the Quincy Library 
Group's agreement of stability for a 5-year period. While we want the 
normal forest planning process to deal with evaluating the 
incorporation of the subsection (d) and possibly other components of 
the Quincy agreement into the plan, there is a great need for community 
and economic stability for the near term of 5 years. This is so that 
investment decisions can be made, the timber supply that results from 
fuel removal will be stabilized, and the pilot project can be carried 
out over enough of a time period to evaluate the results from 
a scientific standpoint. This balance is consistent with the goals of 
the National Forest Management Act and principles of sustainable 
development which seeks to ensure economic and ecologic balance.

  Concerning subsection (i), we left the proviso that requires the 
environmental impact statement is to be prepared in consultation with 
the QLG, thus ensuring that there are open lines of communication 
between the Forest Service and the QLG in designing the subsection (d) 
activities and so there are no FACA problems. We also left the proviso 
that ensures contracting flexibility.
  Regarding the new subsection (i) in our compromise, it is the same as 
subsection (j) of the Young amendment No. 1. It requires the planning 
process to evaluate the Quincy subsection (d) requirements, the land 
allocations, and the other features of the Quincy plan. It then allows 
the plan to be amended or revised.
  Reporting requirements of new subsection (j) and (k) are critical. 
They will allow us to evaluate performance from a fiscal standpoint and 
from an ecologic standpoint with reference to the goals of the Quincy 
agreement and the pilot project. My substitute and the House-passed 
bill switched the subsection (k) report to begin at the midpoint of the 
pilot project. That is because we wanted to make sure that the 
information provided in the report would begin to be available as the 
land management plan revision or amendment was being developed under 
new subsection (i). My amendment No. 1 and the House-passed bill also 
specifically included watershed monitoring as an aspect of the science-
based assessment.
  Finally, the new subsection (l) was a proviso included by Mr. Herger 
and myself at the request of Members of the House and the junior 
Senator from California and to address a concern identified by the 
chairwoman of the Council on Environmental Quality. This proviso 
ensures that pilot project is not exempt from any Federal environmental 
law, which is consistent with the QLG agreement and H.R. 858 as 
introduced. We specifically chose the word ``exempt'' to ensure that 
the provisions in the bill have a meaning and, as a subsequently passed 
law, overlay the current law. Thus, the fuelbreak and group selection 
requirements of subsection (d) are indeed requirements, not meaningless 
abstractions that do not produce the desired results of enhanced 
ecologic conditions and community stability due to a consistent and 
larger, but quite sustainable, supply of timber from the ``Available 
for Group Selection'' acreage. Adding the explicit statement simply 
solidified the fact that the pilot project will not be exempt from 
Federal environmental laws. Thus, standard and guidelines for 
harvesting trees will apply, as will procedural laws like the National 
Environmental Policy Act, which will govern the subsection (b)(1) 
environmental impact statement for the project.
  I add some closing thoughts. First, this bill was designed for the 
Quincy plan. It is the right mix for the Quincy situation. It is needed 
to get the agency focused on implementing the plan on the ground. Other 
community-based forest plans may need their own mix of provisions in 
law to get their particular plan off of the ground or they may need no 
provisions in law. It is my hope that the Forest Service can 
accommodate future plans like the Quincy plan, but I will not be shy 
about supporting similar calls for legislation where it is necessary.
  Second, I think that because we have a consensus here on the Quincy 
plan itself and now on the bill, that it gives us something to watch--a 
test case--to see how well our environmental laws really work and 
whether and how they may need to be changed. If the Quincy plan ends up 
working out in terms of implementation, we may need to evaluate ways to 
make similar plans easier to implement. If the implementation of the 
new Quincy Library law and the plan still end up in gridlock, then 
perhaps it sets the stage to look even deeper for more fundamental 
changes in the underlying forestry law and restructure it to foster 
constructive compromise instead of continual conflict.
  Last, I thank the 429 Members of the House who overwhelmingly 
supported this bill. I want to especially thank Representative Wally 
Herger for introducing the bill and working on it with his usual 
enthusiasm. I also thank Vic Fazio, who was the cosponsor of the bill 
from the beginning and helped to put together the compromise today. He 
worked closely with Representative Herger, Representative Chenoweth, 
and Mr. Miller on our compromise that went down to the wire. I think 
that we ended up with a very good bill. It is a model for the future 
and a model for solving problems. Most of all I want to thank the 
members of the Quincy Library Group for staying together and doing what 
they knew was right for the environment and their community.




                          ____________________