[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11758-S11759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              REACTION TO LEACH/MCKINNEY LOGGING PROPOSAL

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, legislation was recently introduced in the 
House of Representatives that would ban all commercial logging on 
Federal lands. This legislation would be devastating not only for the 
Pacific Northwest, which is highly dependent on its forest products 
industries, but disastrous for the entire Nation as well.
  I'm appalled. Let me state that the bill introduced by 
Representatives McKinney, Leach, McDermott, and others has absolutely 
no chance of passage. None. Yet, it's another confirmation of the 
radical nature of our opponents in this debate about managing our 
national resources. After years of talking about compromise and 
balance, it's clear by the introduction of this bill that their view is 
that one of our greatest renewable natural resources shouldn't be used 
for any constructive economic purpose. The sponsors of this bill are 
clearly indifferent to human costs and economic disruption this radical 
policy would impose on our Nation's economy, and particularly on our 
timber dependent communities.
  Support for this bill--which I repeat, has no chance of passage--
comes from the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations that 
earlier this year endorsed a policy of zero cut of timber on public 
lands. More recently, during debate on the Interior appropriations 
bill, many of these same groups supported an amendment substantially 
reducing the budget for Forest Service roads. Had these groups 
succeeded, the Federal Timber Sale Program, which already has been 
reduced by two-thirds over the past decade, would have been reduced by 
another 50 percent. This was clearly a tactic employed by radical 
environmental groups with the ultimate goal of eliminating all Federal 
timber harvests.
  Proponents of a zero cut policy on Federal lands lead an effort to 
further erode the economic backbone of rural Americans. It is an effort 
by mostly urban environmentalists--armchair environmentalists--who have 
forgotten, or who never knew, what it takes to produce fiber and 
shelter, and are indifferent to the communities and jobs that produce 
these commodities.
  Published reports about this legislation fail to mention that Federal 
timber sales are already in severe decline, primarily from the 
limitations placed on the Forest Service by the Clinton 
administration's environmental considerations and species protection 
efforts. In 1987, the Federal Timber Sale Program provided nearly 12 
billion board feet of timber. Now, 10 years later, less than 4 billion 
board feet were sold. This translates to double-digit unemployment in 
Washington State's timber dependent communities. I cannot imagine how 
terrible it would be for these already depressed communities if timber 
harvests were banned on public lands.
  For the record, I would like to note that 23 of Washington's 39 
counties have been designated as ``distressed'' counties under State 
guidelines, meaning that their unemployment rates have been 20 percent 
above the State average for 3 years and median household incomes less 
than 75 percent of the State median. This is, to a great extent, the 
direct result of economic devastation in our timber dependent 
communities.
  These are counties with towns like Port Angeles. A pulp mill closure 
in February resulted in about $17 million in direct payroll losses and 
hundreds of jobs. As I speak today, representatives from the Port 
Angeles community are hosting a summit for similarly distressed 
communities that are finding it hard to survive in an era of declining 
timber sales.
  These areas of the State do not share the wealth of the booming 
Seattle economy. In 1996, 75 percent of the timber sold by the U.S. 
Forest Service was to small businesses. These small operations are 
predominately headquartered in rural areas; in places such as Forks, 
WA, where jobs and the community's stability are dependent upon the 
timber industry. These are communities struggling under existing 
environmental restrictions and species protection efforts. The recent 
House proposal would serve as a death blow to these struggling 
communities.
  Proponents of the zero-cut scheme also erroneously claim it will 
benefit the Federal Treasury. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
Despite the fact that annual timber sale revenues dropped by over $462 
million due to logging restrictions, the Forest Service Federal Timber 
Sale Program generates annual net revenues of $59 million to the U.S. 
Treasury.
  In addition, due to declining timber harvests, imports of softwood 
lumber between 1992 and 1995 increased by 4 billion board feet. As a 
result, the average price of an 1,800 square foot new home has gone up 
$2,000. The environmentalists don't like to talk about the

[[Page S11759]]

inflationary results of their anti-timber campaigns--where is their 
righteous indignation when working Americans and families find it 
increasingly difficult to put a roof over their heads?
  What is most disappointing in this debate is that news articles and 
extreme environmental organizations fail to mention the greatest loser 
if such a proposal was ever enacted: our public education system. Some 
25 percent of the revenue from Federal timber sales goes directly to 
counties to be used for roads and schools. These counties rely on these 
Federal revenues. In addition to providing essential local services as 
schools and roads, these counties also provide direct and indirect 
services to national forests, national parks, wilderness areas, fish 
and wildlife refuges, and reclamation areas. Without some timber 
harvests in these financially-strapped counties, the public education 
of our children will suffer.

  The argument that the only good harvest is no harvest at all 
overlooks the fact that up to 10,000 acres of Federal timber lands fall 
victim to forest fires every year. This does not even take into account 
the insect and disease outbreaks which ravage thousands of acres of 
public lands.
  In 1994, devastating wildfires ravaged forests in Washington State. 
The fires were fueled by the excessive buildup on the forest floor. The 
forest floor was composed of dead, dying, insect infested, and diseased 
timber which had built up due to a lack of active management on Federal 
forest lands, including thinning and removal of insect-infested trees.
  The health of our forests will deteriorate under the status quo, as 
dead and dying trees are left untouched.
  Thinning, on the other hand will create a desired condition in which 
more trees will survive because of less competition for a limited 
amount of available moisture. By reducing natural fuel loads through 
thinning, removal of underbrush, and dead and dying trees, we will be 
creating a win-win situation in which our forests will be healthier and 
our mills will be stronger.
  I think it is also important to note that as I heap scorn on the 
proposed legislation in the House and its supporters, we are beginning 
to see a rejection of this extreme approach by dedicated 
environmentalists who live in timber-dependent communities. Unlike 
their counterparts in Washington DC, and other urban areas who are busy 
turning out fundraising letters, these true conservationists send their 
children to the local schools, see the devastating impact of these 
radical policies on the local economy, and fear for their lives, 
livelihood, and homes due to the severe wildfire threat.
  As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it 
was encouraging to see the progress that is being made at the local 
level in northeastern California. There, local environmentalists, 
timber workers, and public officials have crafted a reasonable land 
management plan that resores balance to our forests known as the Quincy 
Library Group approach.
  Unlike this approach--a balanced, responsible approach to forest 
health and forest management--the zero-cut proposal introduced last 
week in the House does nothing more than carry out the agenda of 
extreme national environmental organizations. I urge moderate, 
responsible environmental organizations to join me in soundly defeating 
the proposal in the House and here, if and when the bill is ever 
brought before either chamber.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nickles pertaining to the submission of S. 1381 
are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and 
Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________