[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 118 (Monday, September 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10754-S10769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2000
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of H.R. 2466, which the clerk will report by
title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Gorton amendment No. 1359, of a technical nature.
Hutchison amendment No. 1603, to prohibit the use of funds
for the purpose of issuing a notice of rulemaking with
respect to the valuation of crude oil for royalty purposes
until September 30, 2000.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator's request is granted.
Amendment No. 1588
(Purpose: To make certain modifications to the Forest System budget)
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1588, which I
believe is currently at the desk, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself, Mr.
Fitzgerald, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reid and Mr. Wyden, proposes an
amendment numbered 1588.
Mr. BRYAN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 63, beginning on line 1, strike ``$1,239,051,000''
and all that follows through line 6 and insert
``$1,216,351,000 (which shall include 50 percent of all
moneys received during prior fiscal years as fees collected
under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 in
accordance with section 4(i) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-
6a(i))), to remain available until expended, of which
$33,697,000 shall be available for wildlife habitat
management, $22,132,000 shall be available for inland fish
habitat management, $24,314,000 shall be available for
anadromous fish habitat management, $29,548,000 shall be
available for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species
habitat management, and $196,885,000 shall be available for
timber sales management.''.
On page 64, line 17, strike ``$362,095,000'' and insert
``$371,795,000''.
On page 64, line 22, strike ``205:'' and insert ``205, of
which $86,909,000 shall be available for road construction
(of which not more than $37,400,000 shall be available for
engineering support for the timber program) and $122,484,000
shall be available for road maintenance:''.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment with my
colleague from Illinois and my colleague from Oregon that is a win-win
for the American taxpayer and the environment.
Our amendment reduces the subsidy for the below-cost timber program
administered by the Forest Service and for the construction of logging
roads in our national forests.
In addition, our amendment reallocates needed monies to those Forest
Service programs underfunded by the committee, such as road
maintenance, wildlife and fish habitat management, and threatened and
endangered species habitat management.
Each year, the American taxpayers spend millions of dollars to
subsidize the construction of roads needed for logging on national
forest lands.
The appropriations bill before us today contains over $37 million for
the Forest Service to assist in the construction and reconstruction of
timber roads in our national forests. This assistance is in the form of
contract administration, construction oversight, and engineering,
planning, and design work performed by the Forest Service for the
logging companies which are merely left with the task of building the
roads to extract the timber.
Our amendment would reduce this subsidy by a modest amount, $1.6
million, which is the amount the program was increased above the
administration's budget request.
Similarly, this bill contains $228.9 million for the administration
of the timber sale program, which is more than $32 million above the
administration's budget request.
These expenditures for a money losing timber program are an enormous
drain on the Treasury.
In their most recent Forest Management Program Annual Report, dated
July 1998, the Forest Service acknowledges losing $88.6 million from
their timber program in fiscal year 1997.
This was the second consecutive year that the Forest Service reported
a loss.
In addition to the reported loss, the $88.6 million figure excludes a
full accounting of all costs associated with logging.
In past fiscal years, independent analyses estimate the loss from
below-cost timber sales are far greater than those reported by the
Forest Service.
The General Accounting Office estimated that the timber program cost
[[Page S10755]]
taxpayers at least $1.5 billion from 1992 to 1997.
Our amendment would reduce funding for timber sale management by
$32.015 million to the level requested by the administration.
In spite of the fact that our National Forests supply a mere 4
percent of our nation's annual timber harvest, this bill continues to
reflect the dominance of the timber program at the expense of other
programs designed to improve forest health and enhance the public's
enjoyment of our national forests.
More than 380,000 miles of roads criss-cross the national forests.
This is a more extensive road network than the National Interstate
Highway System.
The Forest Service estimates that over 80% of these roads are not
maintained to public safety and environmental standards.
As a matter of public policy, I would argue that it makes more sense
to maintain the roads we already have than to spend money building new
roads we don't need.
Many scientists have found that road building threatens wildlife
because it causes erosion of soils, fragments intact forest ecosystems,
encourages the spread of noxious weeds and invasive species, and
reduces habitat for many animals needing refuge from man.
It has been found that when roads wash out they dump rocks and soil
on lower slopes and into streambeds, and even when they remain intact,
roads act as channels for water and contribute further to the erosion
of lands and streams.
Scientists say that the overall effect is that the streams and rivers
fill with silt and the shallower waters mean degraded fish habitat and
more flooding.
In my home state of Nevada, the road network throughout the Lake
Tahoe basin has been identified as a major contributor to the
degradation of water quality and decline in clarity of Lake Tahoe.
An important component of the Forest Service's road maintenance
program involves the decommissioning of old logging roads.
This program has been essential to efforts in the Lake Tahoe basin to
improve erosion control and the overall water quality of the lake.
The bill before us today cuts the administration's request for road
maintenance by $11.3 million.
The Forest Service has indicated that their annual road maintenance
needs total $431 million per year, and that their backlog for deferred
maintenance totals $3.85 billion.
The bill before us today provides less than a quarter of the funding
the Forest Service requires to address their annual road maintenance
needs.
Addressing this need would have considerable environmental benefits,
such as reducing erosion from roads and storm proofing existing
culverts.
It is important to remember that the timber industry's responsibility
for maintaining logging roads ends with the end of the timber sale,
leaving all future maintenance costs to the taxpayer.
Our amendment adds $5.3 million for important road maintenance
projects throughout our national forests.
The National Forests include nearly 200,000 miles of fishable streams
and more than 2 million acres of lakes, ponds and reservoirs that
support hundreds of inland fish species with important recreational,
commercial, and ecological values.
The inland fisheries habitat management program allows the Forest
Service to protect and restore inland streams and lakes, along with the
fish and aquatic life they support.
The bill before us today cuts the administration's request for this
program by $7 million.
Our amendment proposes to restore $3.115 million in funding for this
program.
This additional funding would allow the Forest Service to enhance or
restore several hundred miles of stream and over 400 additional acres
of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs.
The National Forests also provide critical spawning and rearing
habitat for Pacific, Great Lakes, and Atlantic stocks of anadromous
fish, such as salmon, sturgeons, and lampreys.
These stocks contribute significantly to the quality of life,
recreational and commercial fishing, and the economy of local
communities.
The Interior bill cuts the administration's funding request for
anadromous fisheries habitat management by $6.4 million.
Our amendment proposes to restore $1.6 million for this program.
This funding will enable the Forest Service to complete critical work
on over 100 additional miles of anadromous streams and 1,000 acres of
additional acres of anadromous lakes and reservoirs, complementing the
efforts of our state, federal, and tribal partners.
The wildlife habitat management program of the Forest Service for
fiscal year 2000 will focus on prescribed burns to improve wildlife
habitat.
It will help to develop and protect wetlands and water sources in
arid habitats for waterfowl, quail, and wild turkey, in addition to
restoring riparian habitat that benefits big game.
The subcommittee cut $5 million from the wildlife program.
Our amendment would restore $1.6 million in funding for this program.
This funding would provide for an additional 8,000 acres of important
habitat improvement, which would benefit both game and nongame species,
and result in enhanced opportunities for wildlife-related recreation.
The activities of the threatened, endangered, and sensitive species
program serve to achieve recovery goals for threatened and endangered
animals and plants.
The Forest Service has indicated that this program continues to be
essential to the mission of their agency.
The committee cut the endangered species program by $5 million.
Our amendment would restore $2 million for this program, which would
allow the Forest Service to pursue conservation strategies to prevent
the need for listing, thereby avoiding the loss of management
flexibility and increased operating costs once listing occurs.
Mr. President, the $20 million our amendment adds to wildlife,
fisheries, and rare plant habitat management programs would enable the
Forest Service to increase Challenge Cost-Share partnerships with
organizations throughout the country, enabling the agency to leverage
funding, better serve the public, and improve vital habitats for fish
and wildlife.
This funding is an investment for the nation's 63 million wildlife
watchers, 14 million hunters, and 35 million anglers who spend
approximately 127.6 million activity days hunting, fishing, and
observing fish and wildlife annually on national forests.
This result in local community expenditures of billions of dollars
and over 230,000 full-time equivalent jobs.
One out of every three anglers fish national forest waters
nationally, and two out of three anglers in the West fish national
forest waters.
That is why our amendment is supported by groups like Trout
Unlimited, the American Sportfishing Association, and Wildlife Forever.
Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to join a strong coalition
of environmental, hunting, fishing, and taxpayer organizations in
support of the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1623 To Amendment No. 1588
(Purpose: To make available funds for the survey and manage
requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision)
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself, Mr.
Wyden, and Mr. Fitzgerald, proposes an amendment numbered
1623 to amendment No. 1588.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 1, line 3, strike ``$1,216,351,000'' and
all that follows through ``management'' on page 2, line 4,
and insert
[[Page S10756]]
``$1,225,351,000 (which shall include 50 percent of all
moneys received during prior fiscal years as fees collected
under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 in
accordance with section 4(i) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-
6a(i))), to remain available until expended, of which
$33,697,000 shall be available for wildlife habitat
management, $22,132,000 shall be available for inland fish
habitat management, $24,314,000 shall be available for
anadromous fish habitat management, $28,548,000 shall be
available for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species
habitat management, $196,885,000 shall be available for
timber sales management, and $10,000,000 shall be available
for survey and manage requirements of the Northwest Forest
Plan Record of Decision, for which the draft supplemental
environmental impact statement is to be completed by November
15, 1999, and the final environmental impact statement is to
be published by February 14, 2000''.
On page 2, line 6, strike ``$371,795,000'' and insert
``$365,795,000''.
On page 2, line 11, strike ``$122,484,000'' and insert
``$116,484,000''.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I note that my colleague, one of the prime
sponsors of the amendment, has joined us on the floor. I yield the
floor at this point.
Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the Senator
from Nevada for all his effort in working with me and other colleagues
from the Pacific Northwest on this issue. Folks in your part of the
United States want to be sensitive to environmental values and economic
needs in our communities. As a result of recent court decisions and
other problems, instead of that win-win, we have essentially had a
lose-lose, where we are not doing what is needed to protect
environmental values; nor are we doing what is needed to protect
communities--particularly rural communities--that have very legitimate
economic concerns as a result of having resource-dependent economies.
The Senator from Nevada has been working with us. I will begin my
remarks by saying what we are trying to do in the Bryan-Fitzgerald-
Wyden amendment is incorporate some of the thinking that has been
behind what the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gorton, has
talked about on the floor and some of what Senator Robb tried to do
last week with respect to environmental values. I think if you look at
the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment, you will see, to some degree,
efforts to try to reconcile some of the important points that Senator
Gorton has made and the important points Senator Robb has made that are
brought together in our amendment so we can take advantage of an
opportunity to both improve the environment and move timber more
quickly from the forests to the mills.
When President Clinton took office in 1993, he came to the Pacific
Northwest with a promise to help resolve the battle over owls and old
growth. The administration put in place the Northwest Forest Plan which
promised protection for my State's ancient forests, and also
sustainable forestry for a State that has long been dependent in rural
communities on forestry for family wage jobs.
Over the past few months, the plan, which has already been failing to
deliver what it promised, threatened to come completely undone when a
Federal judge ruled that the Forest Service had failed to conduct
biological surveys--an obligation known as survey and management--as
required under the court-approved Northwest Forest Plan.
Later this week, in the Forestry Subcommittee, chaired by my friend
and colleague, Senator Craig, we are going to talk about who exactly is
to blame for that fiasco. But today, we in the Pacific Northwest are
left with dozens of suspended timber sales as a result of the Forest
Service's failure to follow through on environmental protection
obligations.
The Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment would earmark resources for this
costly environmental work and place a stringent timetable on the
completion of the surveys' environmental impact statement. Thus, by
making sure these environmental surveys get done, and done quickly, we
will help both the environment and timber workers do well.
Building on the philosophy that we heard from Senator Gorton, that
the program has not worked very well, and what we heard from Senator
Robb about the importance of environmental values, what Senator Bryan,
Senator Fitzgerald, and I are trying to do is incorporate some of the
thinking behind both of those approaches so we can try to put this
survey and management program on track but also bring to it some of the
accountability that Senators Gorton and Craig are absolutely right in
saying has been lacking in the past.
I have shared, as I say, many of the concerns of the manager of the
bill. But I don't think we can simply waive survey and management
requirements altogether because what will happen is that will lead to a
full employment program for lawyers if it were adopted and, even if in
the short term, very serious problems because the bill would be vetoed
by the President if section 329 survived conference in its present
form.
In August of this year, right after the first Northwest Forest Plan
timber sales were enjoined, Senator Murray and I sent a letter to Under
Secretary Lyons asking that the Forest Service and BLM meet with our
offices to discuss how and why the survey and management requirements
were stopping the Northwest Forest Timber Program and what could be
done about it.
Initially, in the August meeting between agency staff and the
congressional staff, held both in D.C. and in my hometown of Portland,
the Forest Service stated that $10 million more funding for personnel
and addressing the scientific issues was necessary in order to get the
survey and management program back on track. So let's be clear; the
survey and management program is an unparalleled undertaking. It is
going to provide new scientific protocols and data that can be useful
in forests across the country. But it has to be done in a way that
addresses the legitimate issues with respect to accountability that our
colleague from Washington State, Senator Gorton, and Senator Craig of
Idaho have addressed on this floor.
So the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment directs $10 million for
survey and management requirements to help the Forest Service conduct
surveys on judicially stalled timber sales for species with known
survey protocols. It will help the Service create protocols for the
species currently lacking such data. This money starts us toward
completion of the environmental scientific work that is necessary to
move timber sales toward harvest.
During the August meetings, the Forest Service was initially
optimistic about the time it would take them to complete the
environmental impact statements which they believe will answer the
questions with respect to the success of the Northwest Forest Plan. At
first, the Forest Service told me in a draft response to the letter
Senator Murray and I sent them that the environmental impact statement,
draft statement, would be completed this fall, and that the final would
be ready early next year. Now the Forest Service is telling us that the
draft will be available for public comment by December and perhaps the
final environmental impact statement will be ready in May or June of
next year. They have not given us any indication, other than overlap of
this work with the holidays, why the timing of the work had to change.
The Forest Service has been working on this project since 1997 and
knew since 1994 that the survey and management requirement was coming
down the pike. I certainly wasn't one who succeeded in getting his
homework always done on time, but the Forest Service's timetable
reflects extraordinarily poor planning, by any calculus.
It is time for some accountability. We are going to have a chance to
discuss those accountability issues later this week. I note the
chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee has arrived. He knows I share
many of his concerns about the lack of accountability with respect to
the Forest Service on survey and management, and in other key areas.
The Forest Service needs administrative deadlines to move this
process along. They need to make this environmental impact statement a
priority and get it done. The Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment states
the survey and management draft environmental impact statement should
be completed
[[Page S10757]]
by November 15 of this year, and the final version of that impact
statement should be published by February 14, 2000.
Those deadlines also allow for the public a comment period required
by law, plus some additional time for open and public discussion.
This administration for years has been promising Congress they will
get to work on the Northwest Forest Plan. The time for those empty
promises is over. This administration needs some direction, and they
need the extra money to achieve it.
Finally, let me reiterate what I think the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden
amendment does. I say this to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It
incorporates much of the important analysis done by Senator Gorton and
Senator Craig with respect to why the survey and management program has
not worked and why the administration has dragged its feet on it while
at the same time trying to incorporate the environmental concerns
Senator Robb has legitimately addressed to ensure this program gets
carried out.
Under the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment, we would add the money
necessary to carry it out. But we would finally have some real
accountability and some real deadlines to make sure these important
obligations, both in terms of environmental protection and in terms of
meeting economic needs of rural communities, are addressed.
I hope my colleagues on both sides will support it. If we adopt this
amendment, I believe the end result will be healthier forests and a
healthier timber economy.
I, again, thank my colleague from Nevada for all of his assistance. I
know my colleagues from Idaho and Washington as members of our Senate
delegation from the Northwest have strong views on this as well. The
Senator from Idaho knows how much I enjoy working with him. We are
getting ready to go forward with our accounting payment legislation
which gives us a chance to break some gridlock in that area. I am
hopeful as we go forward on this important Interior bill we can also
break the gridlock with respect to survey management and have
additional funds that are needed but also additional accountability.
That is why I am hopeful my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
support the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, as we debate the Interior appropriations
bill--and now the amendment and the substitute amendment offered by
Senators Bryan and Wyden--I guess I can say at the outset that the only
thing I arrive at in trying to consider a $34 million cut in a very
essential program to the U.S. Forest Service, especially when the
advocacy of the cut comes from the two Senators from large public land
Western States such as Nevada and Oregon, is ``frustration'' over the
lack of understanding by a Senator from Nevada who is responsible for
representing his State which is predominately a public lands State
where grazing on public lands and mining the natural resources from
those public lands are two of the primary economies of that State, that
he would not be supportive of programs within the U.S. Forest Service
that deal with public land resources in an appropriate and responsible
way.
I say that before I get to the specific issues of the amendment
because I find it fascinating that in a publication called ``Public
Lands Forests, What We Get, What We Pay For''--an interesting
publication from the Political Economy Research Center which deals with
the subject that the Senator from Nevada knows a great deal about, and
in fact knows a great deal more about than I do as the chairman of the
Forestry Subcommittee. That the Tahoe Basin, a beautiful and unique
area in his State that is being dramatically impacted at this moment by
a lack of forest management in a responsible way as we begin to see a
relatively affluent urban interface grow around Lake Tahoe and into a
forest that is dramatically different than what it was 40, 50, or 100
years ago.
Let me quote from this article. I am trying to set a tone for my
frustration over why the Senator from Nevada is doing what he is doing
and the Senator from Oregon would join with him. Let me quote from this
publication, and the title to the article is called ``One Spark From
Disaster.''
I quote:
As the road dropped out of the Sierras into the Lake Tahoe
basin below, the scenery made an abrupt change from healthy,
green forests to dead and dying stands of timber. The
congressmen on their way to the June 1997 Presidential Summit
on the problems facing the lake and surrounding basin were
taken aback by what they saw. Later, during a session on
forest health, U.S. Senator Richard Bryan of Nevada
exclaimed, ``This fores looks like hell!'' It appeared as if
someone had drawn an imaginary line across the landscape and
then nurtured the trees on one side, while destroying those
on the other.
What the Senator was experiencing was what many are now experiencing
on a Forest Service landscape across our Nation where we have
constantly put out fires over the last 75 to 100 years and have not
gone in and done selective logging or fuel reduction on our forest
floors. We have literally created jungles--jungles that some would like
to portray as beautiful, sweeping landscaped timbered vistas when it is
quite obvious they are jungles that in the right environment--and the
Tahoe Basin gets that environment every so often--could explode into
total disaster of the landscape by the kinds of fires California has
experienced this year and as have other parts of the country. Those of
us more to the North in the Pacific Northwest have been fortunate
enough this year in that our relatively unmanaged forests--and
mismanaged in some instances--have been wet enough that we haven't had
the fire threat.
The article goes on to say:
Ironically, forest management practices on surrounding
federal lands have put at risk the very qualities they were
supposed to preserve: the integrity of the forest and the
clarity of the lake below--
Talking about the beautiful Lake Tahoe--
Environmental regulations have delayed some management
actions and restricted timber harvests for forest treatments.
It has resulted, of course, in the situation that I described around
the Tahoe Basin.
Of course, the reason the Senators from Nevada are appropriately
concerned about the Tahoe Basin is not timber production per se because
I don't think you would view the Tahoe Basin as being an area where you
would expect timber production, but it is the recent interfacing of
resort homes--summer homes, many of them going in the millions of
dollars--that use Lake Tahoe and find Lake Tahoe to be a marvelous
place to live and, of course, coupled with the thousands of tourists
who come there on an annual basis to see this tremendously beautiful
high mountain alpine lake.
Why, then, would a Senator from Nevada want to cut a program where
the money is utilized to do the necessary surveys and the preparations
for the kind of fuel unloading or fuel decreases that Tahoe Basin would
need because most of our timber sales are no longer green sales, they
are sales of dead and dying timber. They are sales that are a product
of forest health and not an ongoing aggressive timber program of the
kind that brought the environmental outcry of a decade or two ago.
I must say the Senator from Oregon has a bit of a different
circumstance. He and I joined ranks on the floor last week on a very
critical issue. As you know, when this administration came to town a
few years ago, they were faced with the situation of a timber industry
imploding in the State of Oregon, imploding as a result of a spotted
owl decision that took a tremendous amount of the timbered landscape of
that State--both Forest Service and BLM timber--off the table, or at
least had locked it all up in the courts.
This President, with the right intention--with the right intention--
went out to try to solve the problem and basically said: Let me reduce
your cut by 80 percent and for the other 20 percent remaining, or
something near that, we will focus all of our intent there, all of our
energy, and do the finest environmental assessment possible, and that
you will be able to log.
We know the court decisions have gone well beyond the intent of the
Endangered Species Act--reasonable and right surveys--and basically
even stopped all of that logging.
I can understand why the Senator would want to try to divert money to
solve his problem. But he also probably
[[Page S10758]]
fails to recognize that, in that diversion, he is affecting timber
sales or timber management programs everywhere else in the country
because while he is supporting taking 34 million dollars out of that
sales and preparation base and putting some of it over into surveys, he
is denying the States of Arkansas, Idaho, and others the very resources
they need to keep their people working and to keep an industry that is
now staggering to stay alive on its feet.
That is what brings Members to this point. Yes, we come to the floor
now after having dramatically reduced these programs in the name of the
environment--and in many instances appropriate reductions--and say we
have to notch them down even more.
For the next few moments I will talk about the adverse effects on
rural communities and jobs that the Bryan-Wyden substitute will have.
That substitute takes money away from the program that supports good
family jobs. I am talking about good-paying jobs. The two Senators plan
to redirect funds out of the timber program into wildlife surveys and
road maintenance, which I think will be counterproductive because we
are already putting millions of dollars into that program.
For me to oppose their amendment does not mean we oppose the surveys.
We know we have ramped up the amount of money that goes into those
surveys and, of course, in ramping up the surveys, added costs to every
timber sale. Then the Senator from Nevada can come to the floor and
talk about these timber sales being too expensive and we ought to
eliminate them. The reason they are expensive is that the court and
some in the environmental community are demanding the money be
transferred over to do the surveys.
It is a Catch-22. We shove these costs off on to the price of a
timber sale. We escalate it to the point it is not a cost-effective
timber sale. Therefore, we give some Senators a basis to come to the
floor and argue we ought to eliminate them because we can't make money
at them when, in fact, the politics have pushed the cost of the surveys
well beyond what would be reasonable, appropriate, and responsible, for
the purpose of cutting those trees. That is the ultimate Catch-22 in
forest management today that has nearly laid the State of Oregon low
and has dramatically impacted the State of Idaho.
Regarding the timber funding and the Forest Service that prepares the
administrative forest activities, the committee already has an
appropriate amount for wildlife and for road funding. Redirecting
funds, as I have said, will harm the timber program. It will not be
consequence free. It will cost jobs in Arkansas, in Idaho. It could
cost jobs in other forested States across the Nation where there
remains a struggling timber program.
The President traveled this summer to several sections of the country
suffering from poverty. I applaud him for dramatizing where poverty
still exists in a country today that is nearly at full employment. It
is almost ironic that in nearly the same breath it could be said that
we are at full employment yet we have in certain areas high degrees of
poverty. Most of that poverty exists in rural areas today. Most of that
poverty exists in rural areas where those communities of working men
and women are tied directly to the public lands and tied to the
resources of those public lands.
Nearly one-third of the counties adjacent to national forests suffer
poverty levels that are at least one and a half times higher than the
national average. Let me refer to a fascinating chart that comes from
the U.S. Forest Service's TSPIRS employment figures.
I refer to the solid bars on this chart showing employment from the
harvesting and processing of national forest timber between 1989 and
1997--just over a few years--has dropped from 140,000 working men and
women to 55,500. Let me repeat that. That is more dramatic than any
other employment sector in our country, except in the making of buggies
and buggy whips, and no young person on this floor even knows what I am
talking about because that industry died a long time ago. In a decade
we have lost from a 140,000 high down to 55,000 jobs for working men
and women. The Senator from Nevada wants to take that down even further
by the action he proposes today.
I am not quite sure I understand why, but let me show the very real
impact. I am tremendously familiar with this because not only in my
lifetime but in my tenure in the Congress, from when I started serving
in 1981 until today, what I speak of has happened. I have watched it
happen. I have been to the locations. I went to Grangeville, ID. I
watched grown men sit on stacks of lumber and cry, literally, tears
rolling down their cheeks because there were no more trees to cut under
the Federal forest plan and they had lost their job. The mill was going
to be unbolted, placed in shipping containers, and sent to Brazil to
cut the rain forests because the environmentalists decided that the Nez
Perce Forest in Idaho was no longer producing trees--although it was
growing 10 times more trees than it was cutting.
What happened? Here are the very dramatic figures from a tremendously
narrow period of time. The State of Washington, 1989 to today, 55 mills
closed and the loss of 3,285 jobs; Oregon, 111 mills closed and the
loss of 11,600 jobs; Montana, 13 mills closed and 1,083 jobs lost;
Idaho, 17 mills and 707 jobs lost.
Let me talk about Midvale, ID, my hometown. If I am a little
sensitive today, I should be. I used to go to that mill and buy lumber.
It employed 45 men. The attitude on the floor is: What is the big deal?
It is only 45 jobs. But it was 45 jobs and 45 homes in a community of
300 people--not 30,000, not 50,000, not 100,000, but a community of 300
people. To lose 45 jobs is to lose a lot. That mill has closed. Why?
Because on the Payette National Forest, argumentatively, at least by
national forest standards, there were no more trees to cut.
That is why I can responsibly and legitimately turn to the Senator
from Nevada today and say: Senator, your bill destroys jobs. Your bill
destroys high-paying jobs, $35,000, $45,000, $55,000-a-year jobs for
men and women, important jobs in rural communities, in Idaho, Oregon,
Washington, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alaska.
In talking of mill closures--and I referred to the dramatic numbers--
let me also quote the Western Council of Industry Workers, the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. It is their people,
in many instances, who are losing these jobs. They say:
Legislative efforts to reduce funding for forest management
programs seriously jeopardize the livelihoods of our members
and tens of thousands of forest products workers nationwide.
Job loss within our industry has been severe, as the timber
sales program has been reduced by 70 percent since the early
90s.
A 70-percent reduction in the timber program, a reduction in jobs
from 140,000 to 55,000, and the Senator from Nevada wants to cut it
even deeper. It is pretty hard to understand why, especially when you
look at the new environmental standards of today and what the Forest
Service is demanding of a timber sale as it relates to the survey and
the kind of mitigation plan that comes because of the Clean Water Act
and the Clean Air Act and, of course, the National Environmental Policy
Act and the Endangered Species Act and all of those kinds of rules and
regulations and processes and procedures that by law are required. I am
not sure I understand why.
I do know several years ago the National Sierra Club developed as one
of their policies, zero cut on public lands. I know that is what they
believe. I know that is what they advocate. I know they are champions
of this kind of amendment because if you cannot stop logging
altogether, you stop it a little bit at a time until it is all gone,
even if the health of the forests are at the point of explosion from
wildfires like those being experienced in California today, and even if
the Tahoe Basin runs at a high risk, with the risk not just to the
trees but the loss of hundreds of multimillion-dollar homes where the
wealthy come to play and reside in the urban/rural interface. That is
the issue at hand.
I will go on to quote from those men and women who work in the
industry. They say:
More than 80,000 men and women have lost their jobs as that
timber program has reduced by more than 70 percent since
1990.
We know that is real. The Senator from Oregon knows it is real. The
Senator from Idaho knows it is real. I have
[[Page S10759]]
attended the mill closures. My guess is, so has the Senator from
Oregon.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters
from the Western Council of Industrial Workers and the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, opposing reductions
in the timber program.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Western Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Portland, OR, July 19, 1999.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the 20,000 men and women of the
Western Council of Industrial Workers (WCIW), I urge you to
oppose any effort to reduce funding for the U.S. Forest
Service timber sale and related programs when the FY 2000
Interior Appropriations bill comes to the Senate floor for
consideration.
Legislative efforts to reduce funding for forest management
programs seriously jeopardize the livelihoods of our members
and tens of thousands of forest products workers nationwide.
Job loss within our industry has been severe as the timber
sale program has been reduced by almost 70 percent since the
early 1990s. More than 80,000 men and women have lost their
jobs due to this decline and further cutbacks in these
important programs will only add to the unemployment.
Additionally, adequate funding for forest management
programs is critical to protect the health of our forests.
According to the Forest Service, approximately 40 million
acres of our national forests are at high risk of
catastrophic forest fire. Active management is the single
most effective tool for reducing the risk of wild fires and
protecting nearby communities, as well as maintaining forest
health and limiting the spread of insects and disease.
The WCIW urges you to support land management policy that
provides an adequate balance for all concerns--environmental
and economic. Please support the current funding levels in
the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations bill and oppose any
effort to cut funding for these important active management
programs.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mike Pieti,
Executive Secretary-Treasurer.
____
United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Washington, DC, July 21, 1999.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, I urge your support for
the federal timber sale program as the Senate debates the
Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations bill. Additionally,
I urge you to oppose any harmful amendment that seeks to
reduce timber sale funding.
The livelihoods of U.S. forest products workers--including
tens of thousands of our lumber, sawmill, pulp and paper
workers--rely on Forest Service programs that promote active
management. Timber harvests on federal lands have fallen by
almost 70 percent over the last decade, resulting in mill
closures and job loss. Further reductions in funding for the
federal timber sale program will only exacerbate the economic
devastation to working families and rural communities. Also
reductions in timber supply continue to contribute to the
rising U.S. trade deficit in the forest products sector, as
wood and paper imports reach record levels.
In addition, the health and vitality of our nation's
forests are being crippled by crisis. Twenty-six million
acres are in jeopardy from insect and disease, while forty
million acres are at risk to catastrophic wildfire. Our union
supports responsible efforts to protect our forests,
including thinning and harvesting to maintain forest health,
limit the spread of insect infestation and reduce the risk of
forest fires.
We must continue our nation's global leadership in
environmental stewardship without sacrificing the livelihoods
of thousands of working families. The UBCJA urges you to help
protect forests, jobs and communities by supporting the
current funding levels for the federal timber sale program in
the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations bill and by opposing any
effort to reduce funding for this essential program.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Douglas J. McCarron,
General President.
Mr. CRAIG. Unemployment in rural timber-dependent communities is in
double-digit figures despite rosy employment figures in the rest of
America. The Senator from Oregon and I visited similar communities--he
in his State, I in my State--over the August recess. I can go from my
community of Boise where there is near zero unemployment--it is a
growth community, it is a high-tech community, it is doing very well--
and I can drive 100 miles to a community that has 14 to 16-percent
unemployment. Why? That community is right here. That community is
right here. That is because they were dependent upon the public lands
and our Government and the politics of the public lands said: Stay off
the land. Don't cut a tree. The mills closed or the mill is closing or
the mill is at risk. Those people are unemployed.
They cannot identify with a job in the high-tech industry. Why? Each
of them would have to move 100 miles and uproot their family and they
would have to be retrained and educated. A 45-year-old man does not
want to do that. He cannot understand, if we are growing five times
more trees than we are cutting, why we cannot at least create a balance
in a program that will afford him or his son, who is graduating from
high school and does not want to go on to college, a job in the forest
products industry.
While the national average unemployment rate hovers at around 4
percent, more than 30 forest-dependent counties have three times that
rate. Over a dozen forest-dependent counties have an unemployment rate
of 16 percent. I believe the Bryan amendment will bring even further
economic harm to the people of those rural areas.
When I first got here in 1981, there was a mantra about the debate on
the forest products industry and about forest management: Take away a
few jobs and we will replace them. We will replace them with tourism
and recreation. It was America wanting to go to the public lands to
enjoy the environment of the public lands.
To some extent that has happened but only to a minor degree compared
to what was projected during the decade of the early 1980s. But
remember, while some of it happened, the kind of jobs that were created
were fundamentally different jobs from those $30,000, $40,000, $50,000-
a-year jobs that I am talking about in the forest products industry. A
maid or waitress or a gas station attendant or a tour guide does not
make that kind of money. They work at slightly above minimum wage. They
have no health benefits. They have no retirement program. Their work is
seasonal. They are oftentimes out of work 4 or 5 months out of the
year. And, yes, they are on welfare. And, yes, they qualify for food
stamps.
I must say these once were the proud men and women of the forest
products industry that we politically destroyed. We politically
destroyed it. We are here today for politics. We are politically trying
to destroy what remains of a responsible way of managing our forests
today, not because it is the right thing to do from a management point
of view but because it is the right thing to do politically. I know of
no other reason. I cannot understand why the Senator from Nevada, who
comes from the great public land State that he does, would want to turn
his back on one segment of the economy of a public land State such as
Idaho or Nevada.
He and I stand arm in arm together on mining issues. I was in Elko,
NV, last week in a community that 15 years ago was 5,000 people; today,
25,000 people, not because of the high-tech industry but because of
gold, gold in the Carlin Trend; mining, high-priced jobs being paid to
thousands of men and women in the mining industry. So when we battle on
that issue, the Senator from Nevada and I stand arm in arm. But when we
try to work on a reasonable and responsible forest management plan that
allows some tree cutting, I am tremendously frustrated the Senator from
Nevada and I cannot stand arm in arm on that issue also.
It is an issue of jobs. It is an issue of right and responsible ways
of managing our forests. It is political. I am saddened that it is.
The substitute amendment transfers $10 million of the reduction that
I have talked about, $34 million in timber funds to pay for surveys on
rare species. I do not think that is responsive to the problem of the
unreasonable wildlife survey requirements in the President's Northwest
Forest Plan, which we discussed in this body last week.
First of all, the Forest Service timber sale budget is what pays for
the surveys. Thus, rather than a $10 million increase for this purpose,
the net effect of this proposal is a $24 million decrease. So we give
them not even a half a loaf. We give them a quarter of a loaf.
Second, the Clinton administration has agreed that many of these
surveys should not be done; indeed, many cannot be done. That is
precisely why the administration is writing an EIS in an
[[Page S10760]]
attempt to change these requirements. Unfortunately, timber sales are
enjoined until the EIS is completed.
I happen to agree with the editorial statement this past Sunday in
the Portland Oregonian, the largest and most respected newspaper in
Oregon. The Oregonian correctly notes that:
The surveys of rare species of animals and plants required in the
Northwest Forest Plan are ``technically impossible'' and [they use the
right word] ``preposterous. . . .''
The Senate didn't use the word ``preposterous,'' but last week the
Senate said no to the judges; they are not going to let the judges in
the Eleventh Circuit and the Ninth Circuit write policy. That is our
job. That is what we are elected to do. They are appointed to interpret
the Constitution and not to write timber policy. The Oregonian calls it
``preposterous.'' The Oregonian further describes the requirements as:
. . . a poison pill--a way to block all logging and prevent
the plan from working as it was designed.
Yet we want to put more money into that. It makes no sense to spend
$10 million for a prescription for a poison pill or for preposterous
survey procedures. This Congress should not spend 10 cents in what I
believe is a most inappropriate fashion.
That is the foundation of the debate as I see it. I believe that is a
reasonable interpretation of why we are on the floor today. I know of
no other. At a time when we have reduced the overall timber program in
this country by 7 percent, we have reduced employment by almost 50
percent, and we have dramatically transformed the rural landscape to
communities of unemployed people and empty homes. That is the policy of
this Government at this time. And somehow we want to perpetuate that or
increase it? I think not.
The only explanation possible that I believe is reasonable and right
is the politics of it. We are on the floor today because the National
Sierra Club and others said we ought not be cutting trees on public
lands at all, zero, end of statement, not to improve health, not for
fire prevention, not to create vibrant and youthful stands just do not
cut them at all; let Mother Nature be our manager.
That is not good business. We know that is not good business,
especially when man, for the last 40 or 50 years, has put out all the
fires and not allowed Mother Nature to manage. Now when she has an
opportunity to manage where there are 50 trees instead of 5--that would
have been true 100 years ago--we create monstrous wildfires that not
only destroy the stands but scald the land and make it sterile and
nonproductive for decades to come. That is where man has to step back
in as a good steward, a right and responsible steward, for all of the
environmental reasons, the water quality reasons, and the wildlife
habitat reasons for which we manage a forest.
I yield such time as is required to the Senator from Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for
clearly laying out the issues in this debate, and I associate my
remarks with his.
I rise to strongly speak against the Bryan-Wyden amendment for a
variety of reasons but, most importantly, because it simply does not
support healthy and sustainable national forests. Many Senators, I
suspect, will speak today claiming this reduction to the Timber
Management Program makes sound fiscal and environmental sense.
From my perspective as an Arkansan, as a Senator from Arkansas, I can
tell you that is far from the truth and that there are 35,440 workers
in my home State who make up the forest products industry who strongly
oppose this amendment. If our forests are not healthy and if we
continue to ignore the problems facing these public lands, we run the
risk of jeopardizing these jobs and the future health and
sustainability of our Nation's forests.
During the August recess, I met with the Forest Service on the
Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas. Sometimes our distinguished
Senators from the West forget that there are national forests all
across the South, and in the State of Arkansas, I say to my good
friend, the Senator from Oregon, we have two large national forests,
the Ouachita National Forest and the Ozark National Forest.
In a meeting with the National Forest Service on the Ouachita
National Forest last month, I discovered, because of decreasing budgets
in the timber sales account, they are doing only one-third of the
vegetation management required by the forest plan. So forgive me if I
find it ironic that this second-degree amendment, the substitute
amendment, would shift $10 million from the Timber Management Program
to the surveys in the Northwest when, in the State of Arkansas, in our
national forests, they are only doing one-third of the vegetation
management required by the forest plan.
Because of the severe erosion of funding that the Senator from Idaho
has alluded to, the forest is unable to achieve the desired future
conditions required for a healthy and sustainable ecosystem.
Extremists, litigation, appeals, or lack of public support did not
bring about this crisis. It is the result of a misguided effort by the
administration to reduce timber harvests without taking into
consideration the real impacts on the conditions of the forests and the
communities associated with these national forests.
The Timber Management Program is funded at a level equal to the
fiscal year 1999 funding level. There was level funding before this
amendment. Before these additional cuts, there was level funding, no
increase, and yet the demands on the program have increased
dramatically.
The program objective for the timber sales program is ``a sustainable
yield of forest products that contributes to meeting the Nation's
demands and restoring, improving, or maintaining the forest ecosystem
health.'' Yet the amendment before us reduces the funding level when
more than 40 million acres of our national forests are at high risk of
catastrophic fire due to an accumulation of dead and dying trees and an
additional 26 million acres are at risk of insect and disease
infestation.
We have a crisis now; we risk a catastrophe. We have level funding in
the appropriations bill before us, and the amendment suggests we should
cut even further in a program that has not the resources to do the job
it has been charged with doing as it stands.
The addition of Senator Wyden as a cosponsor of the amendment, the
second-degree amendment, only exacerbates the problem that the
underlying amendment creates in shifting an additional $10 million out
of timber management and moving it to the Northwest. This impacts every
national forest, every timber management program in the Nation. It
dilutes what can be done in those areas where they are already
suffering, where they are already short to move additional resources
because of the situation faced in the Northwest. I think that is wrong.
It is not economically or environmentally advisable.
The debate today will speak about doing right by the environment. How
can you justify reducing a level-funded program that is dealing with
millions of acres of land that are too crowded for new and healthy
trees to grow?
We will also hear talk today about how the Timber Management Program
is antienvironmental or environmentally destructive. That is not what I
have seen in the management that is being done in the Ouachita, the
Ozark, St. Francis National Forests in Arkansas. Our national forests
are adding 23 billion board feet each year. While 3 billion board feet
are being harvested each year, 6 billion board feet die each year from
insects, disease, fire, and other causes, and the amendment before us
will only make that situation worse.
The majority of the timber sales in the program are done for other
ecosystem objectives--improving habitat for wildlife, reducing fuels
that may increase fire risk, especially in the urban interface areas,
combating insect and disease infestations, and improving true growth
for future timber.
We cannot ignore the contributions that the Timber Management Program
makes each year, even if it might sound politically advantageous. The
byproduct of a healthy, sustainable timber program is equally as
important as healthy rural communities. The timber sales program
generates regional income of $2 billion--over $2 billion; in fact, $2.3
billion--in Federal income tax receipts. Seventy percent of
[[Page S10761]]
the timber from national forests is sold to small businesses that could
be forced to close their doors if we support further reductions to the
program.
A $1 million reduction in the timber sales program on the Ouachita,
Ozark, or St. Francis National Forests simply means 10,000 acres of
forest designated for treatment by the forest plan will go untreated.
That is what it will mean: a $1 million reduction, 10,000 acres that
will go unmanaged, untreated. Perhaps that is the goal. Perhaps that is
the backdoor objective of such an amendment. The byproducts--round wood
and saw logs --will be unavailable. Communities will lose 500 years of
work and over $15 million from the local economy.
By any reasonable standard, the U.S. forest practices are the best in
the world, ensuring forests are regenerated and that water quality and
wildlife habitat are protected or enhanced. Decreasing this program is
wrongheaded. It will only set us back environmentally. It will surely
negatively impact us economically.
I suggest we do the right thing and support no less than level
funding for this important program and oppose the Bryan-Wyden
amendment.
I thank the chairman. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I yield the chairman of the full
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Murkowski, such time
as he may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, let's start with some facts because what is
appropriate is to recognize just what the current policy of the
administration is towards the U.S. forests managed by the Forest
Service.
Clearly, as we look at where we are today, as this chart shows in the
dark purple, the U.S. Forest Service volume sold, vis-a-vis the annual
mortality--the annual mortality are those trees that are dead or
dying--that in the years 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, the
annual mortality, compared with the volume sold--and that is evident by
the green spheres that come up through the chart--the mortality has
exceeded the commercial volume sold.
The suggestion is, what has happened to forest health?
You have to manage for forest health based on professionals,
professionals who are trained and have committed their lives to best
forest management practices.
What we have in the debate that is occurring on this floor is a
debate over emotions, the emotions over whether timber, trees, a
renewable resource, should be harvested or not.
We have heard the Senator from Idaho expound a little bit on the
attitude prevailing in the U.S. environmental groups, and particularly
the Sierra Club, which, much to their credit, has come out
wholeheartedly and said: We want to terminate harvesting in the
national forests, all of the national forests.
They make no bones about it. That is just a fact.
The justification for Senator Bryan's amendment, which would timber
program in the committee bill by $34 million, leads to the
environmental agenda, the agenda of the Sierra Club that wants to
terminate harvesting in national forests.
The amendment isn't what it appears to be. While I am sympathetic to
my friend from Oregon and his efforts to redirect $10 million to
wildlife surveys in the Northwest, I again think we ought to go back
and recognize where the objection is. The objection comes from national
environmental groups who are opposed to logging in the national
forests. The policies of the Clinton administration relative to logging
in the national forests are evident, but the justification to support
that is very lacking if we look at the facts.
The facts are that there is currently almost 250 billion cubic feet--
more than 1 trillion board feet--of volume of standing timber in the
national forests. That is a significant amount--250 billion cubic feet
of volume. The annual growth--that is the growth that occurs every
year--is about 23 billion board feet.
Do you know what we are cutting, Madam President? We are cutting
somewhere between 2.5 and 3 billion board feet. What is the
justification in the sense of forest management practices and the
forest health when clearly the forests are not in danger of being
overcut? The regrowth at 23 billion board feet each year, compared with
the cut of 2.5 to 3 billion board feet, clearly shows we are growing
timber faster, much faster than we are cutting it--in fact, about 7 to
8 times faster than we are cutting it. As evidenced by this chart, the
mortality now is exceeding what we are cutting in commercial timber.
Good forest management practices would indicate something be done
about the dead and dying trees that are infested with the spruce bark
beetle and so forth, and that a program be initiated so healthy trees
grow back in again. But, again, these decisions are not being made by
those responsible for forest health, professional forest managers. They
are being made by environmental groups, and they are being made on the
basis of emotional arguments.
You should recognize the reality that timber is a renewable resource
that can be properly managed, as evidenced by the existing volume that
we have in this country, 250 billion cubic feet in the national
forests--and I will repeat it again--with 23 billion board feet annual
growth, and the realization we are only cutting 3 billion board feet a
year.
We certainly need some changes. The changes need to move off the
emotional arguments and get into what is good for the forests, what is
good for the health of the forests. You clear out the diseased trees.
You encourage programs that eliminate fire hazards.
I have worked with Senator Bryan and his colleague from Nevada on
mining legislation which is important to his State and important to
Western States, important to my State of Alaska. I am disappointed that
he has seen fit to again take this issue on to reduce by $34 million
the Committee's recommended timber program. I recognize that is not a
big issue in his State. But I think it basically addresses a policy
within this administration that has prevailed for some time, and that
is to oppose resource development on public lands, whether it be
grazing, whether it be oil and gas leasing, whether it be mining, and
certainly in the case of timber.
I would like to communicate a little experience that we had in Alaska
relative to studies and the resource management associated with the
wildlife of the forest and to suggest to the Senator from Oregon that
these challenges on the adequacy of wildlife studies seem endless. You
no sooner get a professional opinion on the adequacy or inadequacy of a
certain species within the forest, and if it is unfavorable to those
who want to terminate logging in the forest, they simply go to a judge,
get an injunction, and suggest that the study was inadequate and lacked
the thoroughness that it needed.
Let me tell you a little story about what happened in Alaska.
We had the U.S. Forest Service involved in what they called the TLMP,
the Tongass Land Management Plan. They spent 10 years to develop a
plan. They spent $13 million. Previously, we had been cutting about 420
million board feet a year. The TLMP came down, after this 10-year study
and $13 million, and cut it, the allowable cut, to 267 million board
feet.
What happened as a consequence of that? We lost our only two year-
round manufacturing plants in our State. The Sitka and Ketchikan
pulpmills, the combined workforce, plus those in the woods, amounted to
some 3,400 jobs, most of which were lost.
What was the forest health issue regarding this reduction? All the
timber in the Tongass, as most Members who have been up there know, is
old growth timber. But what they do not realize is that 30 percent of
that timber is dead or dying. It has no other use than wood fiber. So
it is put in the pulp mills.
Without the pulp mills, we have no utilization of that timber. Much
of those logs are now ground up in chips or exported to Japan or out to
pulp mills in the Pacific Northwest.
Let me go back to the Tongass Land Management Plan where they cut the
sales level from 420 million board feet to 267 million board feet.
Within 9 months, the administration, after spending 10 years and $13
million, decided that volume of 267 million board
[[Page S10762]]
feet was too high. So they cut it arbitrarily, without any public
hearing, as a consequence of pressure from national environmental
groups who used an emotional argument, and also the reality that maybe
the easiest place to terminate harvesting in national forests is in
Alaska. We have two Senators and one Congressman. Alaska is a long way
away. Nobody can go up and look at it and recognize that we have cut
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the Tongass forest in Alaska over
the last 40 years and that our regrowth is 10 times what we have
cut. They want to terminate harvesting, and the Tongass national forest
in Alaska is a good place to start. So they came back and cut the
proposed allowable sales level from 267 to 178 million--no public
hearings, no input, no further studies. They spent, again, 10 years and
$13 million for the first study, and they weren't satisfied with it.
So I say to my friend from Oregon, don't be misled by the question of
the adequacy of wildlife studies in the Pacific Northwest. On the
goshawk, we in Alaska are now under a challenge, on an issue we thought
we had behind us because several years ago we had a challenge on a
threatened and endangered species, the goshawk. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service spent several years working with the Forest Service to
do an evaluation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service came to the
conclusion that the goshawk was not threatened by the timber harvest
program in the Tongass. We thought we had that issue behind us. We
didn't.
Environmental groups--from the Southwest, I might add--petitioned the
judge on the adequacy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluation
of the goshawk study and the judge said, go back and do it again. If
you can't depend on the best experts to come to a conclusion, then this
is simply an open-ended effort by either bureaucrats, or environmental
groups, or both to terminate harvesting in the national forests. That
is what has happened as a consequence of the attitude of this
administration towards timber harvesting.
Again, we have 250 billion cubic feet of volume standing in the
national forests of the United States. The annual growth is 23 billion
board feet. We are harvesting between 2.5 and 3 billion board feet. We
are regrowing seven to eight times our annual harvest. Yet we have
those who would say the forest program is being subsidized. There is no
realization of what timber sales and related roads offer in providing
access for timber, availability to the public, jobs, payrolls and
communities. The proposal by Senator Bryan would reduce the program
about 13 percent below the current 1999 program level.
I am pleased the Society of American Foresters opposes the amendment.
I believe that letter has been introduced in the Record. If not, I ask
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Society of American Foresters,
Bethesda, MD, July 26, 1999.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: It has come to our attention that
Senator Bryan may offer an amendment or amendments to the
Interior Appropriations bill designed to significantly reduce
the amount of funding available for the Forest Service Timber
Sale program or its Roads program. We believe this would be a
mistake.
While we are sure that Senator Bryan is well intentioned in
his efforts, he may not understand the significant
contributions the timber sale program makes to improving our
national forests. The Fiscal Year 1998 Report of the Forest
Service states ``today, national forest timber sales are
designed to incorporate multiple objectives, including insect
and disease prevention and control, wildlife habitat
management, fuels treatment, and reconstruction or
construction of roads needed for long-term access.''
Foresters in the private and public sector design timber
sales for purposes in addition to producing timber.
There are many examples of timber harvests that benefit
other resources. For example, the July 1999, edition of the
Journal of Forestry has an article called ``Designing Spotted
Owl Habitat in a Managed Forest.'' The article describes how
to harvest trees and manipulate the forest for the benefit of
spotted owls. Natural resource management professionals can
produce forest products and healthy forests; they just need
tools like the Forest Service's Timber Sale program to
accomplish their goals. We can harvest trees from the forest
and still leave behind quality conditions for wildlife.
We are also very concerned about a possible reduction in
funding for the Roads program. The Forest Service estimates
that they have a $10 billion backlog in road maintenance. Now
is not the time to reduce funding for these important forest
assets that can turn into environmental nightmares without
proper design and maintenance.
Thank you for your consideration and your support of
professional forestry.
Sincerely,
William H. Banzhaf,
Executive Vice President.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I urge the Congress to support the
significant contribution that the timber program, even though it is in
decline, has been making to improve the national forests.
Again, recognize that the program is smaller than a few years ago.
The Bryan amendment would continue this harmful slide, because the
ultimate objective is to terminate harvesting in the national forests.
The redirecting of timber funds to wildlife activities in support of
timber still has the same negative effect. That negative effect has
been highlighted by my friend from Idaho, as he discussed the effects
of a reduction in the timber program.
What we are talking about on this chart is that there is more timber
dying than is being cut. That is the harsh reality of where we are.
What kind of forest management practice is that? It is a
preservationist practice.
What is the role of the Forest Service? Habitat management? Stewards
of the forest? They are not aggressive in thinning programs, which are
needed for the growth of new trees. What the Forest Service has become
is a custodial management agency. They don't know where they are going.
They are torn between past leaders that used to make decisions on the
basis of what is best for forest health, and the new generation that is
directed to a large degree by national environmental groups that want
to terminate harvesting in the national forests.
It is OK if you are from a State that has large private holdings.
Washington State has a number of large private land companies. It is OK
if you have large State-owned forests. But if you are in my State of
Alaska, where the Federal Government, the U.S. Forest Service--the
entire Tongass National Forest is owned and managed by the Federal
Government--you have a different set of circumstances. Our communities
are in the forest. Our State capital, Juneau, towns like Ketchikan,
Wrangell, Petersburg, Haines, Skagway, Sitka, all are in the forest.
People live in the forest. They were under the assumption they would be
able to work with the Federal Government, when we became a State in
1959, to maintain, on a renewable basis, an industry base. They
recognize that in our case our forest, as an old-growth forest, is in
the process of dying. Thirty percent of that timber is dying.
I had an opportunity to fly over some of the Northeastern States over
the recess, Maine and other areas. I noted that they have a healthy
timber industry, managed, if you will, to a large degree through the
private holdings of landowners and corporations and the State. They
have jobs. They have pulp mills. They have a renewability. Yet we are
strangled by policies that are dictated by environmental groups, that
are dictated by Members from States who have no interest in the
national forest from the standpoint of those of us who are dependent on
it in the West and particularly in my State in Alaska.
Finally, I ask that my colleagues reflect that this amendment would
really reduce the tools the Forest Service has available for
stewardship activities, tools that improve forest health and improve
wildlife habitat and improve other forest ecosystems as well. Don't be
misled by the objective of those who have a different agenda with
regard to the national forests. Let us recognize that forests live and
die. With proper management, they can yield a bounty of prosperity, a
bounty of renewability. But we have to have the recognition that those
decisions with regard to the forest are not going to be made by the
politicians in this body. They are going to be made by those
professionals who are prepared to put their reputation behind their
recommendations or, for that matter, the other way around, and do what
is best for the forest. The Bryan amendment certainly does not do this,
by cutting funding for timber sales and roads, and hence, decreasing
the timber program.
[[Page S10763]]
I yield the floor.
Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, during the course of the debate, the
Senator from Idaho propounded to the Senator from Nevada a query as to
how I could be supportive of this amendment and then made reference to
the fact of Lake Tahoe, with all the problems we have in Tahoe. My own
previous statements on Tahoe indicated the extent of the devastation
that has been caused with dying trees and timber.
To suggest that somehow increasing the commercial harvesting of
timber would in any way ameliorate the problems we face at Tahoe would
be a totally spurious argument. The problems at Tahoe are compounded
because we had a 7-year drought, the most protracted in recorded
memory, and as a result, the forest became very vulnerable to
infestation from beetles that ultimately killed vast amounts of trees
in the Tahoe Basin. So adding to the commercial harvest would in no way
help.
Secondly, with respect to Tahoe, we are reaping a whirlwind of
practices that involve the extensive cutting of road network to the
Tahoe Basin. The clarity of the lake is declining rapidly. This is a
lake that Mark Twain rhapsodized about. John C. Fremont, on Valentine's
Day in 1844, was the first European to see Lake Tahoe, and perhaps that
date has some significance because those of us who live in Nevada have
had a love affair with Lake Tahoe ever since.
The problem in Tahoe is exacerbated because of this road network that
was built throughout the basin during a period of intense harvesting in
the last century. The timber at Tahoe was used for the great mining
activities of Virginia City. But it is instructive and helpful because
the primary contributing factor to the erosion that is causing the
deterioration of waters and clarity is the runoff from these old roads,
and road maintenance is what we need so desperately.
So I say that my friend from Idaho confuses the issue when he talks
about the problems at Tahoe and the thrust of the Bryan-Wyden
amendment, which is simply to take about $32 million from the
commercial timber operations and reprogram those into some accounts
that include road maintenance and fish and wildlife management.
Let me make the point about road maintenance, if I may, again. The
Bryan-Wyden amendment does not eliminate commercial timber sales in the
national forests. My friend from Alaska referenced that we should allow
professionals to make the determination as to how much harvesting
should occur. That recommendation is included by the managers of the
Forest Service, and they recommended a number of $196 million. That was
in the President's recommendation.
Now, what the appropriators did was, they stripped out $34 million
from road maintenance and fish and wildlife accounts and added that
back into the timber sales to bring that number up to about $228
million. My friend from Arkansas was talking about the need for forest
health and to do a lot of things. Those are totally different accounts.
We are talking, on the one hand, of reducing to the level of the
President's recommended appropriation the commercial timber sale
account of $196 million and to add $32 million to that account. What
the appropriators did was to reduce by $11 million the road maintenance
account.
It is the road maintenance account that helps to alleviate the
erosion and the other adverse environmental consequences that attach to
the neglect of that maintenance. The testimony is that the Forest
Service would need $431 million a year for road maintenance alone, that
there is a total backlog of $3.85 billion in road maintenance. By
rejecting the Bryan-Wyden amendment, you make that backlog even longer
because the appropriators have stripped $11 million from that account.
Now, every mile of new construction adds to that backlog because
under the law, once the harvesting operation has been completed, the
timber harvester has no responsibility for the maintenance of that
road. That, then, is left to the Forest Service and the American
taxpayer. We already have 380,000 miles in the National forests. As I
commented in my opening statement, that is more mileage than we have on
the interstate system in America.
The things my friend from Idaho was talking about, in terms of fire
burns and removing dead timber, have nothing to do--absolutely
nothing--with the commercial timber sale account. Those activities are
included in other accounts, such as the Wild Land Fire Management Act.
So I think we have a confusion here as we debate these issues.
The Bryan-Wyden amendment would simply reduce to the level of the
professional managers' recommendation in the Forest Service the
commercial timber sale account of $196 million and would restore,
essentially, to the environmental accounts and road maintenance
accounts much of that money that was taken out. That is where the
management practices need to be addressed. That is the focus. That is
where the environmental problems are --road maintenance and fish and
wildlife habitat.
In effect, what the appropriators did is to strip those accounts and
reduce them substantially to add to the timber sale account. There is
no benefit to the environment at Lake Tahoe by increasing the
commercial timber sale accounts. That simply does absolutely nothing
for us at all. So I wanted to clarify the Record where my friend from
Idaho has confused it. The Senator from Nevada is being absolutely
consistent.
I might just say, in terms of the broad public policy, the General
Accounting Office concluded that, from 1992 to 1997, the commercial
sales in the national forests have cost the American taxpayer $1.5
billion. So there is another issue out here to be debated in terms of
the public policy. The Bryan-Wyden amendment does not eliminate but
simply reduces to the level of the Presidential recommendation in terms
of the appropriation.
If the Senator from Idaho were interested in seeing the problems more
adequately addressed, he would favor reducing the amount of the
commercial sales and restoring the $11 million that was stripped from
that account. We need far more dollars in the road maintenance account,
in which the backlog is over $3 billion.
So every attempt to reduce the amount of the road maintenance account
and add money to the new construction account makes the situation much
worse. I argue that the more prudent and rational public policy is to
deal with neglected road maintenance and provide additional money in
that account rather than to add to the commercial sale account. I
wanted to make that point for the record.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, this has been an important debate--
important for the Northwest and important as it relates to the
direction of the Forest Service.
I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be
surprised to know that I agree with a number of the things they have
said about the Forest Service not knowing where they are headed.
Frankly, I have made much stronger statements than that in the last few
days. It is very clear in the Pacific Northwest that the Forest Service
is just flailing around.
The chairman of our subcommittee and I both read these Oregonian
editorials talking about blame with respect to gridlock in the forests.
In the Northwest, the Oregonian, our newspaper, editorialized that:
Forest biologists searching for signs of the rare mosses
listed above ought to look under the backsides of the federal
officials managing the forest plan. That seems a relatively
undisturbed habitat.
I think it is fair to say that those Forest Service officials knew
for years they had to go forward with survey and management in a
responsible fashion and haven't done so. So I think the comments that
have been made by the chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, Senator
Craig, and the chairman of the full committee, with respect to the
Forest Service not knowing where it is going, are ones that I largely
share.
But where we have a difference of opinion and where I think the
Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden and the substitute help to bring together
colleagues on both sides of the aisle is that the history of the last
few years demonstrates very clearly that just spending more money on
the timber sale program
[[Page S10764]]
doesn't help these rural communities either from an economic standpoint
or from an environmental standpoint.
The fact of the matter is, Madam President and colleagues, for the
last several years this Congress has authorized a greater expenditure
for the timber sale program than the President of the United States has
called for.
This Congress has appropriated more funds for the timber sale
program, and the fact is the problems in many of these rural
communities in the West, from an economic and environmental standpoint,
are getting worse.
So I think the notion that throwing more money at the timber sales
program is going to address the needs of these rural communities is not
borne out by the events of the last few years.
What needs to be done--and what Senator Bryan and Senator Fitzgerald
and I are trying to do--is to put in place a program with real
accountability.
My colleague from Idaho talked about the need for accountability of
the Forest Service. The chairman of the full Senate Energy Committee
has correctly said more emphasis needs to be placed on oversight. The
fact of the matter is that under the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment,
for the first time the Congress will put in place a program in the
survey and management area which has essentially shut down the forests
and that will have real accountability. Under our amendment, the survey
and management draft environmental impact statement will have to be
completed by November 15 of this year, and the final version of that
impact statement would have to be published by February 14 of 2000.
That is allowing for public comment. That is accountability. That is
giving some direction to the Forest Service on the key issue that has
in effect shut down the forests in our part of the country.
So the choice is, do we do business as we have done in the past,
which is to throw money, for example, at a particular program, the
timber sale program, or do we try, as the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden
amendment does, to tie that amendment to dealing with the key concerns
that have shut down our forests and put in place real accountability in
the process?
Beyond that, I think the only other major difference I have, as some
of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is that they have
correctly said they don't want the courts to make forest policy.
Section 329, as it stands in this bill, is a lawyer employment program.
This is going to be a huge bonanza for lawyers as it stands in its
present form.
That is why I am hopeful that colleagues, regardless of how they feel
about section 329 in its original farm, regardless of how they voted on
the Robb legislation earlier, will see that the approach that Senator
Bryan and Senator Fitzgerald and I are talking about tries to borrow
from the philosophy of both of the approaches that have been debated on
the floor of the U.S. Senate. I happen to agree with Senator Gorton and
Senator Craig that the survey and management program has not worked.
The Forest Service has dawdled. They have known what they were supposed
to do for some time.
We can read editorials to each other for many hours to compete for
who is the toughest on the Forest Service. But the fact is they haven't
known where they are going, and we are going to try to get them on
track. But this amendment is the very first effort in the Senate to put
them on track in a way that locks in the additional money they need
with a specific timetable and a blueprint for ensuring accountability.
I think for that reason it is absolutely essential that we pass it. I
think it will give us an opportunity to go forward in the days ahead,
which is what we are going to try to do in the oversight hearing that
Chairman Craig is holding on Thursday.
I am very hopeful that those Members of this body who understand how
wrong it is for the courts to make forestry policy and how important it
is to have a balanced approach that will tie additional funding with
accountability--and a recognition that there is more to this than
appropriating additional funds for the timber sale program--will
support our bipartisan amendment.
I gather we will not have a final vote on this amendment until
tomorrow, and perhaps we will hear from some additional colleagues. But
I am very hopeful, regardless of how a Member of this body voted on
those Robb amendments or felt about the original section 329, the
Gorton language, that they will see what Senator Bryan and Senator
Fitzgerald and I are trying to do, which is pull together an approach
that will give the Forest Service some direction, give them some
accountability, and do it in a responsible fashion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Oregon. We have
worked closely together for the last number of months to try to resolve
a variety of timber issues and conflicts that have brought some of our
rural communities to their knees.
Those are communities that not only in many instances have lost jobs
in the sawmills that I have talked about in my opening comments, but
these are communities that also lost their moneys to run their schools.
My colleague from Oregon has communities that only go to school 4
days out of 5 days of a week because they have no more money to run
their buses and to keep their schools open. I have communities in my
State that are now debating over whether to put their money in the hot
lunch program or athletics and ask all of their high school and grade
school students to brown bag all the time.
You say: What does this have to do with this debate? What does this
have to do with cutting trees in the national forests? It has a great
deal to do with these communities that are timber dependent because 25
percent of the stumpage fee that comes from a Federal timber sale goes
to the local communities for their schools, their county roads, and
their bridges.
That is historically what we believe is a fair treatment of those
communities that oftentimes house the loggers and the mill employees
and the executives of the timber companies and the Forest Service but
have no private land base because all of the land around them is public
land, and they should share in the revenue flowing from that public
land. Those are what we call timber-dependent communities.
The Senator and I worked to try to resolve that issue. We are very
close to what I think is some tremendously positive and creative
thinking that results from, hopefully, minds coming together out of
conflict to bring resolution. I am fearful this amendment does not do
that. I say that because while the Senator suggests that he prescribes
deadlines by which EISs ought to be done, this administration and this
Forest Service isn't talking anywhere near that. They are suggesting
the deadline for a draft EIS ought to be in February and that the final
ought to be in June for the EISs we are talking about for these sales.
Whether you could expedite that, I am not sure.
The one thing we want to be very careful about in light of the
environment in which we are doing these kinds of EIS's and studies is
that the work be done right. As the Senator from Oregon and I know, the
judges and the environmental communities will be like vultures hovering
over each one of those efforts to fine pick every bone to make sure the
work is done well.
Accelerating some of those studies could put at risk--I am not saying
``will,'' but I think we need to be very cautious at this moment as we
try to wrestle through this very difficult policy issue between whether
the Eleventh Circuit is right or whether this Congress will finally get
aggressive enough to lead in changing the law in a way that we will not
have our judges administering forest policy through their own whim, be
it law, or, in many instances, be it their politics as applied to the
law that causes Eleventh Circuit or Ninth Circuit judges to do what
they have done recently that the Senator from Oregon is so worried
about, and that I, not only as the Senator from Idaho but as chairman
of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, literally go
into the tank because the Congress of the United States has been
unwilling to lead in this area and establish well-based policy that we
can effectively defend and are willing to defend. That is part of
[[Page S10765]]
the problem we are dealing with, and I hope the work of the Senator
from Oregon and me results in that.
Let me make a final comment to the Senator from Nevada. It was not my
intent to make an inaccurate statement. As chairman of the Forests and
Public Land Management Subcommittee, I have spent the last several
years and 45 hearings looking at every aspect of the forest management
of our country to try to understand it. I have examined, not in person
and not on the ground, but all the studies of the Tahoe Basin problem.
I recognize the basin problem is a combination of things, particular to
forest density, that has resulted in dead and dying timber and drought
environments of the kind discussed. This has created the negative
habitat today that changes the character of the lake's water quality
because of the runoff. I also understand that this creates phenomenal
bug problems with dead and dying trees because the ground cannot
support the base.
As the Senator from Nevada and I know in looking at computer models,
before European man came to this continent, many of the acreages we are
talking about were sparsely timbered and were much more pastoral. That
was partly because of fire moving through the habitat, creating a
mosaic of young and old alike. The Tahoe Basin changed when we became
the stewards of the land and put out the fires.
The Senator from Nevada and I both agree on the condition of the
Tahoe Basin. The point I am trying to make: What the Senator is doing
is, in fact, taking money away from the ability of the Tahoe Basin to
manage itself because the Tahoe Basin money is not a single-line item
issue.
Let me explain. The Senator is amending an account that is divided
into three categories. I am looking now at Forest Service management
program reports. In the timber revenues and expenses, there are three
categories. There is the timber commodity program component, there is
the forest stewardship program component, and the personal-use program
component. Those are the three that make up the account the Senator has
amended.
The last report we have is 1997. In that year, in the first account,
the timber commodity program account, the Senator is absolutely right,
the Tahoe Basin had not one dollar of revenue or expenses because it is
not a timber-producing area. In the stewardship area in revenues
produced by actions, about $377,000 and $1,383,000 spent on stewardship
programs--the very kind the Senator wants to see that begins to change
the culture, the environment, of the basin area. There was
approximately $39 million in revenues from the personal-use program and
about $181 million in expenses.
I believe I am right. It was not my intent to mislead or to distort
the Record. The Senator and I should clarify this. This is the document
from the Forest Service. The account the Senator amends and takes $34
million from is the account from which the stewardship programs from
the Tahoe Basin are funded. There is not a line item specific to the
Tahoe Basin that I know or that we can find in any research. If the
Senator would clarify that--I think by accident he may well be cutting
out the very moneys he has fought so hard to get to begin to ensure the
forest health or the improved health of that basin area.
In our stewardship analysis of the basins that are in trouble around
the Intermountain West, and primarily the Great Basin environment of
the West--because that is where fire is a critical tool--let me read
again from the article ``One spark from a disaster.''
On adjacent lands just above the national forests the trees
remain vigorous and healthy with a similar history of early
forest clearing followed by fire suppression. These stands
have escaped the bug infestation and the high mortality of
the lower basin area [which is Federal land]. These privately
owned timber lands were intensively managed to ensure vigor
and high productivity. Unlike the Federal forest lands,
private timberland managers responded to the bottom line and
protected their forest assets over time.
My point is, what the Senator has appropriately advocated in getting
into the basin, to change the way it is managed, to bring stewardship
programs to do the thinning and to do the selective burn, absolutely
has to be done to restore the vigor, to create an ecosystem that is
less dependent on moisture, so it can handle itself through the kinds
of droughts that we in the West experience--especially those in Great
Basin States.
If the Senator could clarify that for me, I would appreciate that. It
is my knowledge at this moment that the account his amendment pulls
money from is the very account from which the stewardship program for
the Tahoe Basin finds its funding.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I thank the floor manager for an
opportunity to respond.
When one looks at the totality of problems, they are tall: Runoff,
the erosion control, and the declining clarity. These are the primary,
but not the exclusive, problems in the basin.
The roads that were cut through many decades ago are in the road
maintenance account. As the Senator understands, there is a new
construction account; there is a road maintenance account. The
appropriators removed $11.3 million from the road maintenance account.
From our perspective, that is the most serious account reduction that
would impact what we are talking about. The road maintenance money
account has a backlog: $3.85 billion has been discussed by the Forest
Service, or $431 million. I think it is a matter of priorities. Our
priority is to get back the road maintenance account money.
Indeed, with respect to some of the prescribed burn and other forest
practices the Senator talks about, I think we are in agreement that
clearly there are things that need to be done to thin out some of the
underbrush. Those are taken care of in other accounts such as wildlife
fire management and a forest land vegetation program.
There are a host of programs that are line item. The two I just
mentioned, the wildlife fire management account and the forest land
vegetation management program, are where some of the controlled burns
and thinning occur. Those are the programs, from our point of view,
that have a priority over the Senator's priority which would lead to an
increased commercial operation.
That is where the Senator from Nevada comes from.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for responding.
It is important to understand that one third of that fund still goes
to stewardship. That is not just commercial activity. That is thinning
and cleaning.
Also, it is important for the Senate and the Record to show we
increase road maintenance by $10 million this year over last year.
There was a recommendation of $20 million; we increased it by $10
million. There has been an actual net increase of $11 million, and a
fair amount goes to the Tahoe Basin.
So the Forest Service is responding. We believe the committee and the
appropriators were responsible, going in the right direction. What I
think is important to say is that there were no cuts. We did not cut
the program. We raised the program by $10 million. While some suggested
it ought to go $20 million, it is a net increase over last year's
funding level of $10 million.
Mr. BRYAN. If I can respond briefly--I don't want to get into a
semantic game--it is a reduction over what the President recommended, I
think the Senator will agree. It is a reduction of $11.3 million over
what the President proposed. It may very well be, as the Senator
indicates, an increase over what was approved for the last program.
Mr. CRAIG. The Senator knows recommendations are recommendations. I
believe his first words were the program has been cut. The program has
been increased by $10 million over last year while some, including the
President, suggested it ought to be increased by more.
Mr. BRYAN. I think I did use the term ``cut.'' What I meant to say,
and what I stand by, is the appropriators, in effect, cut this money
from the original appropriation of the President. That represents a
difference in priorities, the $431 million annual backlog, with a total
backlog of $3.85 billion. It would be the priority of the Senator from
Nevada that the President's recommendation not be reduced as the
appropriators did, and I appreciate the chance to clarify that point.
[[Page S10766]]
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I believe, if I
understand Forest Service accounts accurately, the likelihood of
increased stewardship activities in the Tahoe Basin by this amendment
could be reduced because of the very character of spreading the money,
as I think the Senator from Arkansas so clearly spoke to.
Let me yield such time to the Senator from Montana as he should
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, this morning as I returned from Montana
and I was listening to the local news, I heard a 30-second spot
advising folks to call the White House to stand up, to stop this
disappearance of the national forest lands. It was paid for by the
Heritage Forest--some group. We have not been able to run it down yet.
The message went on to say we have to stop this because our forests
will be gone forever.
We can talk about semantics. We can talk about budgets. We can talk
about where we apply the money. Let's face it; the $11 million for road
maintenance that we increased is mostly being used for road
obliteration.
It seems we fight these little fights every year because there are
those who completely do not, and I say this in all disrespect, know one
whit about what is a renewable resource and how we are to manage it. It
seems to me this is the reason a person on his ranch or farm does not
run that ranch or farm by a committee. If we did, we would not get a
crop in; we would not grow anything, and we sure would not get a crop
harvested. I would say the good Lord above does have a sense of humor.
If you want to look at what a committee does, I always thought a horse
was a camel put together by a committee. Everything is an afterthought.
Let's dispel some of this myth that seems to be going across our
land. In the Flathead National Forest alone, we are growing 120 million
board feet of lumber a year. The Forest Service, in their plans, only
planned to harvest 19 million. Let me tell you, due to laws and
roadblocks and lawsuits, we will be lucky to cut 6 million board feet.
This does not include our wilderness areas or recreational areas. These
are in managed forest areas. This is about a third of what historically
has been responsibly forested and harvested. However, due to litigation
and other roadblocks, only 6 million will be harvested.
We cannot survive with that scenario and neither can the forest.
Understand that. Neither can the forest. It will burn. Trees are
similar to any other renewable crop: they sprout, they grow, they get
old, and like every one of us in this building, they will die. What
happens to them? They hit the forest floor, there is a fuel buildup,
there is infestation by the pine beetle, there is dry weather, there is
lightning, and there is fire. I realize that doesn't mean much to those
of us who sit in this 17-square miles of logic-free environment because
we get our paycheck every 2 weeks. We are very comfortable. But out
there, their paychecks stop right then. Their equipment is burned up.
The cycle starts all over again. Is that an environmental benefit to
this country? I don't think so.
We have seen what happened in 1988 in Yellowstone National Park, the
crown jewel of all parks, we are told. Fire swept across that park; and
you should have seen the water that ran from that park for the next 3
years because there was nothing to hold the soil that had been turned
sterile by the heat of the fires.
So according to the misinformation thrown around by the self-
proclaimed environmentalists, leaving the land to rot, they believe, is
best for the environment; the forests are gone forever whenever they
are harvested. I wonder if they think it was all a barren land up here
until one Friday we got up and, lo and behold, there was a forest. Just
like a bolt of lightning, it was there. When you get a haircut, is that
head of hair gone forever? To some it might be. Who knows. But I don't
think so. Currently, most of our national forests in Montana, and
throughout the West, we face a 25-percent tree mortality in the next 15
years. We will lose 25 percent of our forests just to mortality,
getting old and dying.
So I am saying land management, proper land management saves our
forests. I can take you to one of the worst areas there is in the
Forest Service--it happens to be up in northwest Montana--and even the
foresters themselves will tell you that we are ashamed of the condition
of this forest. But because of litigation, they are powerless to do
anything about it. Fuel loads, beetle infestations, it is not a pretty
sight.
It is not a pretty sight.
Healthy forests are usually the benefit of good management.
Harvesting of timber is healthy, and it is all part of management. That
is aside from the faces of the people who live in these forest
communities. Two weeks ago, we shut down a mill in Darby, MT. We sold
it at auction. Jobs are gone. A tax base is gone. The ability to build
roads on private lands, to maintain services, and to build schools--all
that revenue is gone.
The opponents of timber production would have you believe we still
clearcut entire forests when we do not do that anymore. They would have
you believe we have industrial lawn mowers big enough to mow down the
great redwoods as we clear swaths from seed to seed, and we do not do
that anymore. In fact, there are more trees in this country than during
the time of Lewis and Clark. It is hard to believe, isn't it? But it is
true.
When we put together this appropriation and this budget, there was
balance. It brought balance of wildlife, balance of timber and new
timber growth, balance of timber that we could harvest for the benefit
of Americans, for those folks who build homes, and for those folks who
work with timber.
If one looks across the Nation right now, not many commodities are
making money--gas, oil, no farm commodities. If you look at all the
litigation, timber is not making any money either. Anything that comes
from mining is not making any money. Why should we do it? Where would
those industries move? What other land on this globe will be devastated
because we are not allowed to manage our renewable resources?
I can remember dirt under the fingernails and the ability to produce
a crop every year was pretty honorable. Madam President, 1.5 million
Americans provide all the food and fiber for the other 260 million.
That is not bad. We do a pretty good job, and we do it under conditions
that are getting more and more difficult all the time.
Modern forestry, of course, with some rules and regulations passed by
Congress, is being regulated more and more every day. Environmental
laws require foresters to take a look at the impact of what they are
doing. It employs independent timber firms that know the land. They are
harvesting. All of this costs money, and yet they will say below-cost-
timber sales. If we lump all the rules and regulations, all the hoops
we have to jump through for one timber sale on a forest, it probably
could be called a below-cost-timber sale. Those are hoops we have to
jump through. So we increased the budget. It costs more money to
complete a timber sale.
We do not clearcut areas with disregard. We spend more time making
sure everything we do is done in a responsible manner. Dispel the
misinformation, get away from the inflammatory words of growing a
commodity and harvesting a commodity. In Montana, the people who
harvest timber are the same ones who come back to hunt and fish. They
do it every weekend. They recreate all that same forest.
Contrary to the doomsayers, we want our land to be usable. We want
healthy wildlife populations, we want clean water, and we want to make
sure our native fish are healthy.
Let's talk about this wildlife habitat. Most of the wildlife habitat
is found on public land in the summertime. When they have to make it
through the winter, do you know where the deer, the elk, the moose
winter? On private lands, in my neighbor's hay meadow. Did you know we
have to board up our haystacks in the West or the elk and the deer will
eat all the hay and leave us none for our own livestock? They do not
winter on public lands because there is no water and there is no feed.
It is covered up. They have to winter on private lands. So are we so
bad? I do not think so. We would not have it any other way because we
are all hunters and fishermen and we enjoy the sights
[[Page S10767]]
of big game. We want to maintain the habitat. We enjoy seeing those
elk. We enjoy this season of the year when they start bugling. Go out
and listen. That is what makes my State worth living in.
It costs more money and the timber sale budget offers us an
opportunity to feed our Nation's need for raw materials while employing
Montanans and making and protecting habitat. We are talking about
balance. Someone is buying that lumber or we would not have the demand
to harvest it.
Harvesting a crop is not a sin. To the contrary, it keeps this
country moving forward. It provides the timber to build our homes, and
it provides the paper that often gets shuffled back and forth in this
town. Quite simply, a timber sale budget is essential to America for
food and fiber by proud producers. That is what it is all about. They
do not like to be lied to. They do not even require much support. They
ask very little. They ask to grow, to plant, nurture, and harvest. That
is what it is all about.
How did those people who work in natural resources and agriculture--
and this is agriculture in its highest form--who are responsible for 22
or 23 percent of the Nation's GDP become bad folks? How did we get that
way? Because we used the resources around us, and our definition of
conservation is the wise use of a natural renewable resource. Think
about that. Twenty-three percent of the GDP in this Nation is in the
production and the feeding of this country. It is unbelievable how that
can be overlooked.
I ask my colleagues to contemplate the alternative. Let's say we quit
harvesting trees in America, and that is what some extremist groups
want us to do, or they want to make it so expensive we cannot compete
on the open market. Do you realize that I have mills in Montana that
are hauling logs 500 miles, out of where? Canada. So is your demand for
lumber so high that you want to so-called devastate the Canadian land?
I do not think so.
Why do people like to visit States such as Montana? No. 1, we are
kind of authentic. Because we have done a pretty good job of taking
care of it. And it is true of our good neighbors to the west in Idaho.
It makes us the friendliest and the nicest people you will ever meet.
But our people are starting to get cranky because their livelihood is
being taken away from them, their ability to take care of themselves,
by the rest of the country in its desire for the food and fiber that it
takes for us to subsist.
So if you want to see our forests die in front of us, if you want to
see our wildlife choked out of its habitat, and if you want to see our
rural communities die, and to see foreign corporate timber production
unfettered, fueled by our need for fiber, then vote for the Bryan
amendment. That is what it is all about.
But there is balance here. I urge my colleagues to vote to maintain
that balance. We believe in the balance of our forest lands and good
stewardship.
If you want to talk about stewardship, we have a stewardship plan
that is getting started on a trial basis in Montana that is being
participated in by a lot of people, including very small harvesters. So
if you say you want a stewardship program, you have one. It is a good
one. It is a dandy. It will work. But we cannot make it work unless we
have funds to balance the needs of our forests.
I thank the Chair and my chairman and yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur
on or in relation to the pending amendment No. 1623 at 10 a.m., and the
time between 9:30 and 10 a.m. on Tuesday be equally divided in the
usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair.
I am happy to yield to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. I will take a very short while.
I think the details, the information of this issue have been well
discussed. But I rise in strong opposition to what is being proposed
based simply on the health of forests.
In Wyoming, of course, we have national forests, as they do in
Pennsylvania and other places. These forests need to be managed. I just
spent several days in August in Yelowstone National Park. We road for 2
days, and all of it was in burnt forests. I have to tell you, that burn
was not even effective because the ground fuel is still there. The
trees are dead, but the ground fuel is there.
So all I am saying is, you have to manage this resource. Something
will happen to the trees. They will either die or they will be
harvested or they will be diseased. So if we are to have healthy
forests, certainly they need to be managed.
The proponents of the amendment have said the timber program is
wasteful. It was never intended to operate as a commercial tree farm.
We have some numbers as to the resources that are provided for
communities and the Federal Government. They are substantial.
I am not inclined to take a great deal of time. The chief of the
Forest Service has stated there are 40 million acres of national
forests which are at risk, either through fire or infestation. This
amendment would cripple the Forest Service's ability to use the timber
harvest to promote health. The amendment will crush a program that
provides significant economic contributions to both the Federal
Government and the communities. This amendment is wrong. It is
shortsighted. I question why the Congress would continue to ask the
agency to manage this land and then take away their ability to do that.
So I will end by urging Members not to vote for this amendment.
I yield back the time.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. If there is no objection, I would like to amend my
immediate past unanimous consent request. It was from 9:30 to 10 a.m.
tomorrow morning equally divided. I ask unanimous consent to amend that
to be from 9:30 until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, equally divided in the
usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania on
this most important amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, it isn't often I rise to talk about
these kinds of issues because, by and large, these issues generally
affect the West, and we in Pennsylvania do not have much direct
involvement. But in this case we are directly affected in Pennsylvania.
We have a national forest in Pennsylvania, the Allegheny National
Forest. What has been going on in the Allegheny National Forest over
the past several years has been a very troubling thing to thousands of
residents in my State; it has had a dramatic negative impact on the
quality of life for the residents in northwestern and north central
Pennsylvania, as the amount of timber harvests have continued to
decline.
What we have seen, as a result of that, is a real damaging of the
economy. It is a very rural area. Most people think of Pennsylvania and
think of big cities and factories, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. But
Pennsylvania has the largest rural population of any State in the
country. I repeat that. Pennsylvania has the largest rural population
of any State in the country.
That rural population, by and large, survives on agriculture and off
the natural resources, whether it is coal mining or whether it is
quarrying or whether it is timber or whether it is what we consider
traditional agriculture.
The Allegheny National Forest is vitally important for several of our
smallest counties. We have 67 counties in Pennsylvania. Our smallest
county in population, oddly enough, is called Forest County. Forest
County has about 4,000 or 5,000 people who live there. The biggest part
of it is the national forest, the Allegheny National Forest. But there
are other counties surrounding it that have bits and pieces of the
national forest in their county: Warren County, McKean County, and Elk
County.
In Elk County, PA--aptly named--we have about 600 elk, big ones, that
have
[[Page S10768]]
come back over the past years and are thriving in our forests, almost
to the point of being domesticated in some respects and causing
problems. But that is another issue for another day.
But those four counties get a lot of revenue because big chunks of
them are national forest areas. They get a lot of revenues from the
timber sales that principally support their school districts.
I spoke to students at the Forest County schools a couple of weeks
ago. The No. 1 issue that the kids asked me about was, what are we
going to do about timber sales? Because they potentially will have to
close down one of their schools because of cuts in the Forest Service
budget, as well as lawsuits because of the Indiana bat, which, I guess,
stays up in the Allegheny National Forest for a couple days a year, so
there are all sorts of lawsuits tying up the Allegheny National Forest
in harvesting.
The Allegheny National Forest is the single largest area for the
harvesting of black cherry timber. You look at your black cherry veneer
and you will see a lot of it comes from the largest black cherry stand
in the country, which is the Allegheny National Forest.
The Allegheny National Forest, by the way, is a profitable forest.
They make a lot of money in their timber sales because of high value
trades. So they are not losing any money to anybody. They are making a
lot of money. In fact, the less we harvest, the worse off we are
financially.
It has been very deleterious to those counties. I will look at the
timber receipts for the past several years. Even last year, which was
not particularly a great year, we had $1.6 million for Warren County;
$1.5 million for McKean County; $1.3 million--$1.3 million for a county
of 4,000 people is a lot of money.
All these other counties range in the area of 20-, 30,000 people; Elk
County, 1.26. All of them, every one of those counties, will have their
revenues cut by more than half this year, by more than half because of
legal roadblocks and cutbacks in the amount of timber sales as a result
of Federal legislation.
The problems we confront are not just financial in terms of tax
revenue. They are financial, but they are also financial with respect
to our economy. Logging is a very important aspect of the way of life.
Wood products: Because of our high-value black cherry and other
species, we have a lot of high-value processing of that wood, which is
resulting in very high unemployment. Many of these areas, in this very
strong economy, are experiencing double-digit unemployment, and have
consistently for the past couple of years.
We also have another concern which, again, when you go up and talk to
the folks who live around the forests, is almost frightening, the kind
of misinformation that is out there about our forests and the
management of the forests.
I remember going to Gray Towers, which is outside of Milford, PA.
Gray Towers was the home of Gifford Pinchot, who was the Governor of
Pennsylvania and was a conservationist. Gifford Pinchot went on to be
the first head of the U.S. Forest Service around the turn of the
century. The Yale School of Forestry was actually colocated in Milford,
PA, at Gray Towers, which was the mansion the Pinchot family lived in.
Now it is a museum dedicated to forestry. I was up there looking at old
pictures of Pennsylvania. It is remarkable. In picture after picture
after picture, Pennsylvania was completely clearcut--clearcut.
I stood on the front porch of Gray Towers and looked out and saw the
expanse. You can see literally for miles. I looked at the picture on
the portico of roughly 100 years ago. It literally was stumps of trees
for as far as the eye could see. Of course, now it is green as far as
the eye can see, full of trees.
Pennsylvania is just remarkable. I fly over it all the time in small
planes. It is just literally covered with trees, almost all of which,
if not all of which--because I have been told it was completely
clearcut--were not there 100 years ago. So the regeneration happens. In
fact, the Allegheny National Forest is a valuable forest today because
it was clearcut and because a shade-resistant strain of black cherry
couldn't grow in those old forests. In fact, there are areas that are
now dedicated to old growth in the Allegheny National Forest that have
a lot less diversity.
People are worried about the health of the forest, environmental
diversity. You get to some of these old-growth forests. You take the
combination of the old growth and the fact that you have less
vegetation, which puts pressure on your deer and everything else--we
have a lot of deer. They completely decimate old-growth forests, where
it is a desert there because of these high trees. You don't have a lot
of younger growth. Whatever does crop up, because there isn't much else
around, the deer take it right out.
So we went, in this area called the heart of the forest, when they
dedicated it to old growth, from 37 varieties of plants down to 4. I
don't know about you, but I am not too sure that is protecting the
environment or the health of the environment.
I am an easterner. I am not one of these guys who understands public
lands and forests and all that stuff. I grew up around the city of
Pittsburgh and didn't know too much about forests. But I remember
hearing people say: We have to manage the forest. You say: Forests
manage themselves pretty well. What do you mean? Well, yes, forests
manage themselves pretty well, but they manage themselves not in a way
that you and I would consider them. They manage it through, in a sense,
a boom-and-bust cycle, growth and then destruction and then growth and
then destruction. That is pretty much how forests grow if you leave
them alone. That is OK, I guess. But it doesn't provide what is, I
think, in the best interest of the animal life and the plant life and
certainly the community for recreation. The economic resources that are
derived from the forest are not maximized when you allow this kind of
wild and unmanaged forest generation and regeneration to occur.
I trust the Forest Service. I don't always agree with them, but I
trust the Forest Service will work to maintain forests and wisely
manage them, using sound science to provide the best environment for
stable growth of the forest as well as for the indigenous animal
species that are there to feed. It is very serious--it is the No. 1
issue in about 5 or 6 counties in my State--that we allow the timber
harvesting program to continue. It is the economic lifeblood of those
counties.
I felt compelled to give a little different perspective, as someone
who doesn't talk to these issues very much--and maybe it is best I
don't--but who has a real sensitivity as to what sounds good. As I have
told people about what sounds good in suburban Philadelphia, saying
leave these trees alone, we love the trees, don't hurt the trees, a
little knowledge is dangerous sometimes and no knowledge is downright
lethal. And in the case of dealing with forest management, a lot of
folks don't have a darn bit of knowledge. And it is killing people. It
is killing their economy. It is killing their school districts. It is
killing the forests.
That is not something we should allow to go unchallenged in Congress.
Just because it makes a good TV commercial, just because it sounds as
if you care more, you don't care more if you understand the facts
involved in forest management.
I am an enthusiastic opponent of this amendment. I must tell you,
when I first got to Congress, I was not. But the more I have learned
about forest management and the impact of timber sales on not only the
health of the forest but the health of the economy related to the
forest, it is an absolute must for me to stand here and oppose this
amendment. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, in the few minutes remaining, I wish to
add my voice to those in opposition to this amendment. We thank the
Senator from Pennsylvania for his sensitivity to these issues.
As he correctly said, this amendment could be devastating to the
people and to the families who depend on their jobs in many counties
across America. I think it is important that we understand this
amendment in the context in which it is being proposed. Federal timber
sales are in a steep and devastating decline. Since the early 1990s,
the timber program has been reduced in America by over 70 percent.
Already, more than 75 percent of the National
[[Page S10769]]
Forest System is off limits to timber harvests. The Federal timber
supply has dropped from 12 billion board feet to the 3 billion board
feet being harvested today.
Both the economic and the ecological context created by this
reduction are not desirable. More than 80,000 jobs have been lost
already, and of the 55,000 jobs that remain, they will be jeopardized
by this amendment. That represents over $2 billion in employment
income, mostly in rural parts of America. The families who depend on
those jobs are counting on us to understand this issue and to vote
correctly.
It is confounding also that these additional cuts are being
considered at a time when the industry and those working men and women
who depend on it have already been deeply hurt by the critical cuts in
the timber program.
In my home State of Idaho, our rural communities continue to suffer
devastating reductions in the 25 percent funds from timber sales.
Schools are going without needed renovation, and county governments are
going without needed support and jeopardizing their basic services
because of these steep reductions.
This amendment is also counterintuitive from an environmental
perspective. Active forest management, including thinning and other
timber harvest, has widely acknowledged benefits. In fact, most timber
sales are currently designed to attain other stewardship objectives, in
addition to the sales themselves. Timber sales are the most economic
and efficient and effective methods available for our managers to treat
and control many insect epidemics.
Madam President, each year the National Forest System grows by 23
billion board feet; 6 billion board feet die naturally. Only 3 billion
board feet are being harvested. Tree growth in our National Forest
System exceeds harvest by 600 percent.
I stand firmly with those who have cast their opposition today
against this amendment and encourage my colleagues to reject it.
____________________