[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9483-S9484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           I-90 LAND EXCHANGE

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on July 23, the Subcommittee on 
Forests and Public Land Management held a hearing on legislation I have 
introduced to complete an important land exchange in my state. The 
bill, S. 2136, would authorize and direct the Forest Service to 
conclude an exchange with Plum Creek Timber Company which has been 
under formal discussion for several years.
  The exchange is in an area of Washington surrounding the Interstate 
90 corridor through the central Cascades. This area is characterized by 
a ``checkerboard'' ownership pattern of intermingled ownership between 
Plum Creek and the Forest Service. These lands are among the most 
studied not only in my state but the Nation.
  The problems of checkerboard ownership are well recognized and 
understood in the west and northwest. This exchange, trading 60,000 of 
Plum Creek land for 40,000 acres of Forest Service land, would help 
resolve many management issues for both owners. It would make 
management more efficient, especially on an ecosystem basis.
  I introduced my bill to provide impetus to complete this exchange by 
year's end because of the need for a speedy resolution. If the exchange 
is not completed by the end of this year, Plum Creek will have no 
choice but to resume logging their land in 1999. The company has 
deferred harvests on 90 percent of the exchange lands for the past 2 
years and they have firmly stated they cannot continue to do so.
  There is broad public support for the exchange and for completing it 
in a timely fashion. Our governor, Gary Locke, and the Lands 
Commissioner, Jennifer Belcher, have endorsed the exchange--urging it's 
completion by the end of 1998. The State Legislature unanimously 
approved a resolution in support of the I-90 exchange. Major newspapers 
in Seattle and other cities have recognized the need to finish this 
exchange. Many environmental groups support a land exchange.
  Mr. President, our subcommittee hearing pointed out the difficult 
problems we face in Washington when we try to resolve issues. There 
always seems to be a controversy, no matter how worthy the purpose. My 
legislation and the I-90 exchange are no different.
  Representatives from the environmental community, Plum Creek and the 
Forest Service testified on July 23. While mainstream environmental 
groups heartily support an exchange, they would prefer to see changes 
in the lands package identified in a draft Environmental Impact 
Statement released earlier this spring. Environmental groups are 
concerned about legislation circumventing appeals and litigation.
  The Forest Service wants to complete the exchange, but opposes 
legislation. I am disappointed that the Administration, having worked 
on this proposal for so long, would oppose a bill designed to enact a 
land exchange it has negotiated. Each party has spent over $1 million 
getting to this point. Must we spend more, only to run the risk of 
seeing the entire exchange fall apart as a result of the heavy weight 
of appeals and litigation?
  The I-90 exchange has been proposed in various shapes and sizes for 
more than a decade. Since it was first considered, the Northern Spotted 
Owl has been listed under the Endangered Species Act and the President 
has put his Northwest Forest Plan in effect. Plum Creek has even 
completed a massive Habitat Conservation Plan on 170,000 acres of its 
lands--including those in this exchange. This Plan, now two years old, 
was negotiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With this 
background and the resulting studies, I am confident we can complete an 
exchange on these lands that represents a consensus.
  Mr. President, I recognize and support the idea of getting it right. 
We have been at this exchange too long not to do just that. When I 
introduced S. 2136, I indicated it was simply a place holder. The final 
Environmental Impact Statement will be completed later this summer. It 
has been my intention to amend the legislation to incorporate necessary 
changes based on the final EIS.
  After hearing the testimony of all parties, I have urged them to work 
together to identify a lands package that

[[Page S9484]]

can be incorporated in the final EIS. Further I am asking the Forest 
Service to move up the deadline for completing a final EIS to September 
10 and forwarding it to the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands 
Management. Such a document--presented to Congress in a timely manner--
will leave all options open this year. I continue to believe 
legislating this exchange is the right thing to do.
  Mr. President, there are many who question why Congress should 
legislate this or any land exchange. This is common practice. Congress 
has not shied away from passing land trades in the past and we should 
not in this instance when a consensus may be eminent.
  In an editorial on the exchange The Seattle Times stated, ``The 
perfect as enemy of the good is a common phrase these days, but it 
remains appropriate to this situation. A transfer of 100,000 acres with 
a net gain of 20,000 to the public has a long-term ring to it that 
future generations may see as prescient. Those are powerful reasons to 
walk toward this agreement with eyes open, but keep walking.''

                          ____________________