[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 121 (Monday, September 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9004-S9005]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THINNING THE FORESTS

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in the time I have this afternoon, I want to 
address three subjects. The first relates to an issue we are going to 
be taking up tonight, which is the cloture motion on an amendment 
relating to the Interior appropriations bill. The Domenici-Craig 
amendment dealing with forest health will go down if cloture is 
invoked. Therefore, I urge my colleagues not to vote to invoke cloture.
  I also acknowledge that the efforts to try to reach a compromise on 
how to protect our forests from disease, infestation, poor health, and 
fire have not borne fruit, and it is unlikely there will be an 
agreement reached in a bipartisan way sufficient to allow us to pass 
something that will provide relief to those, particularly in the West, 
who have forests that need this kind of treatment. That being the case, 
we are going to have to find another way to deal with the issue.
  The administration is committed to forest health. The President has 
laid out a plan, and I think administratively the Departments of the 
Interior and Agriculture will do the very best they can to work within 
the existing law to manage our forests to bring them back to health and 
to prevent fires.
  The reality is that this failure to reach an agreement will have 
disastrous consequences, not just in terms of fire but the health of 
our forests, particularly in the West, and that is not a situation we 
should be very proud of in this body.
  We tried very hard, particularly those of us who represent the 
Western States, to educate some of our colleagues about what we mean by 
forest management. There is not much debate in the scientific community 
about what ought to be done to our forests, maybe 75 million acres of 
trees. They need to be treated, and by that we mean there needs to be a 
process whereby the dead, dying, and diseased timber, as well as the 
very small diameter timber, is removed so the forest can sustain the 
larger trees we want to preserve and return forests to the healthy 
conditions they were in maybe about 100 years ago. This means opening 
up the canopies and providing more opportunity for grass. The trees 
that would be thinned would not only remove a source of competition to 
the larger trees in terms of soaking up the moisture and nutrients from 
the soil, but also providing fuel for forest fires which, instead of 
just creeping along the ground as they did 100 years or so ago, are now 
using these small trees to basically climb a ladder up to the crowns of 
the big trees.

[[Page S9005]]

  What we see on television, when we see the pictures of these enormous 
forest fires, is the canopies of the big trees literally superheating 
and then exploding into flame, and this is what spreads the fire for 
miles and miles.
  If the dead and dying fuel on the forest floor is removed, the down 
fuel as well as those small-diameter trees that are literally choking 
the forests to death right now, it is not only opened up for the trees 
and other flora and fauna that we want to grow properly but it also 
removes a significant fire danger. That is what the scientific 
community understands needs to be done.
  The problem is that there are radical environmentalists who do not 
want to see this done. Ironically, our goal is the same: To protect 
those beautiful big trees and to create a healthy environment for all 
of the other flora and fauna. But they are so afraid that a timber 
industry will be either preserved or regenerated, and that that timber 
industry will soon set its sights on cutting the big trees as well, 
that they are really willing to cut off their nose to spite their face; 
that is to say, to risk the health of the entire forest in order that a 
timber industry is not encouraged to take hold.
  In my State of Arizona, there is not any more timber industry, so we 
are not interested in bringing an industry back. It is gone. There are 
a couple of small mills that can take small-diameter timber and make 2 
by 4's and fiberboard. The White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe has two 
small mills that can handle larger diameter timber which they cut on 
their reservation.
  But this is not about creating a timber industry in Arizona. It is 
not about logging. We are not going to have logging as we used to know 
it. It is about companies being permitted to do the Government's work 
of cleaning out the forests and making a little bit of profit. They are 
not going to do it for free. We do not have enough money in the budget 
to pay the cost of doing that. They have to be willing to do it for the 
small amount of money they can make on the products they are now 
permitted to sell.
  That is what this debate has been all about, and I am very 
discouraged that the radical environmental movement has such a 
stranglehold on some politicians that even though they will privately 
tell us they understand the scientists are right, that we do need to go 
in and manage our forests, they are not willing to confront these 
people in an open forum. It has been an interesting one-sided debate we 
have had in the Senate. No one has defended the other position. The 
reason is because it is indefensible. It boils down to a political 
issue. That is too bad for the forests.

  I understand what happens when we are not able to reach agreement. We 
are not going to be able to get 60 votes to carry the day. As a result, 
we have to find another way to do this. Therefore, depending upon what 
the assistant majority leader and others decide to do at the end of the 
day, that issue may well be behind us as of tonight as something we 
will deal with in the Senate. That is too bad. We should have been able 
to deal with that.
  I add a postscript before I turn to the next subject. Some on my side 
of the aisle have criticized the majority leader because he was able to 
secure in an appropriations bill special relief for his home State of 
South Dakota and the Black Hills by doing exactly what we are talking 
about, thinning those forests. He did that by, in effect, waiving all 
environmental considerations. In other words, the legislation provided 
the sufficiency for environmental achievement and nothing further was 
required to clean up these forests.
  There was criticism. I suppose one could criticize the use of the 
process in the way that he did but frankly, I cannot criticize what he 
was attempting to achieve and what will be achieved as a result of his 
actions. The Black Hills are some of my favorite forests in this 
country. I used to vacation there as a young boy. I love the Black 
Hills. I am glad the majority leader saw fit to save the Black Hills. I 
wish we could apply something close to that same management technique 
for the rest of the country's forests. I find it ironic people would 
permit it to be done in this one area, which I support, but nowhere 
else.
  I hope we can find a way to address this in the future, put the 
politics behind us, and get back to a scientific resolution of the 
issue.

                          ____________________