[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2380-S2388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
NOMINATION OF MIGUEL A. ESTRADA, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Edwards pertaining to the introduction of the
legislation are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. EDWARDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will discuss the topic on the floor, the
nomination process.
It is interesting the Senator from North Carolina has a bill he
thinks is important and probably is important, yet questions are not
able to move forward on any of those bills because we are tied up in
doing something that is not at all useful, not at all productive, but
it continues. Those important things we have to do are not being done,
and as a matter of fact will not be done, apparently, for some time.
I rise more to talk a little bit about the disappointment I have in
the process in which we find ourselves. There is not much point in
talking about the nominee, Mr. Estrada. He has been talked about
forever. I can't think of another thing that could be said that has not
already been said. What we can do is talk a little about the process
being created. Talk about the obstruction that is taking place and the
Congress that is faced with a great many important issues we need to
get considered.
We all recognize in any issue, particularly of a nominee, it is
perfectly legitimate that people have different points of view. That is
not unusual. Indeed, that is the way it ought to be. It also is
appropriate for people to come to the floor after the committee has
acted and to share those points of view and to do whatever they feel
appropriate to try and convince others to share that point of view.
That is the way it is supposed to be. Finally, after that is done in a
reasonable limit of time, we have a vote, an up-or-down vote, so those
who feel one way can vote one way, those who feel the other can vote
the other. Not a very unusual process. On the contrary, it is the very
well-accepted process.
That is not what has happened here. That is not what has happened.
As has been said before, it is time to move forward. It is time to
move on. It is time to deal with the dozens of other important issues
out there for this country and for the people of this country, issues
that to people in the country are much more meaningful and have more to
do with their business and welfare than we have here. I cannot imagine
there is more to say from the other side of the aisle in opposition.
They are opposed; fine. That is fine. They are able to convince anyone
else? I don't think so. We have been working on this for about a week.
It looks as if we will be here some more.
It is very disappointing for those who would like to do things that
are most important to do. Among other things, of course, the White
House has responded. The letter was sent to the President renewing the
request to him for confidential judicial memoranda that have never
before been released. The response of Mr. Gonzales, the counselor to
the President, basically indicates they respect the Senate's
constitutional role in the confirmation process, and they agree the
Senate must make an informed judgment consistent with the traditional
role and practices. However, requests for these kinds of papers have no
persuasive support in history and the precedent of judicial
appointments. It is not there. It has not been done.
Relevant history and procedures convincingly demonstrate that would
be shifting standards. There is no basis for doing that.
In conclusion, the President's counselor said: Miguel Estrada is a
well-qualified, well-respected judicial nominee with very strong
bipartisan support. Based on our reading of history, we believe you
have ample information about this nominee and have had more than enough
time to consider questions about his qualifications and his ability. We
urge you to stop the unfair treatment and the filibuster and allow an
up-or-down vote to confirm Mr. Estrada.
I agree with that. Certainly, that is the case. I am not here to talk
about the legal aspects of it, just the operational aspects of it, and
make it clear, this man was before the committee from 10 in the morning
until 5 in the evening, answering all the questions, answered written
questions subsequent to that, and we continue to carry on with it.
[[Page S2381]]
It is interesting that a number of newspapers throughout the country
who generally do not get very involved in these things have in this
case. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial, entitled ``A Filibuster is
No Fix,'' said:
Democrats are trying to decide whether to filibuster the
nomination of Miguel Estrada to the powerful federal appeals
court for the District of Columbia. They consider Mr. Estrada
a stealth conservative who is being groomed for the U.S.
Supreme Court as a Hispanic Clarence Thomas. The Democrats'
fear may turn out to be valid. But the filibuster is the
parliamentary equivalent of declaring war. Instead of
declaring war, the Democrats should sue for peace and try to
fix the process.
That is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Miguel Estrada, a Harvard-educated lawyer who has argued 15
cases before the Supreme Court, is well qualified for the
federal appellate bench. Democrats, who are threatening to
stall a vote on this confirmation, are choosing the wrong
target.
The Florida Times-Union:
If the system were functioning as the founders intended,
Miguel Estrada would be confirmed quickly to the federal D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals.
He is extremely qualified in both education and
experience--and the American Bar Association unanimously
ordered its highest possible rating.
We heard all that. We know that.
People out in the country are saying this is not the right process.
We have been through this. We have had enough. We need something
different.
The Tampa Tribune:
Leading the charge are committee members picked by the
Democratic leadership precisely because of their ideological
bent. Until the new Congress was seated, they thought nothing
of thwarting the constitutional mandate that gives the
Senate--the full Senate--the advise and consent power over
the judicial nominations.
So it goes on, and most remarks are very similar all over the
country. The Washington Post, not known for its conservatism,
particularly, has indicated this is not the way. This nomination in no
way deserves a filibuster.
It is not just being talked about here, it is pretty much all over
the country.
I go back to the point I made in the beginning, that we have a lot of
things to do. We are supposed to be dealing now, and hopefully, today
or tomorrow, we will deal with the 11 appropriations that were not
passed last year. We have been operating almost half of this year on
CRs, instead of doing what we are supposed to do with appropriations.
Certainly, as the Senator discussed, we have homeland security at a
new threat level. I can't imagine people in the country are thinking
more about this nomination than they are about terrorism and homeland
security and the economy and health care and pharmaceuticals. Where do
you suppose this would rate among those things? Or national energy
policy, which again we didn't do last year because it was pulled out of
the committee.
We had a pretty dysfunctional Congress last time. Now we have a
chance to move forward and do some things, and we are blocking
ourselves by carrying on this kind of conversation.
Mr. Estrada has had a full hearing, under both Republican and
Democrat control. There is nothing left to say. It is time to come to
the snubbing post and decide for or against. It is time to have an up-
or-down vote. We have been considering this nominee since last week.
Obviously, it is becoming nothing more than a delaying tactic. We owe
the nominee, we owe ourselves, we owe the American people a decision,
and then to move on to all those other issues that confront us.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I concur with everything just stated by
Senator Thomas. We have been debating this nomination, now, for over a
week. As a new Member of this body, and as a new member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, I have a difficult time understanding, as a
lawyer, why the delay when you have an individual who has the
qualifications this man has, who has the legal background this man has,
who has the legal training this man has--both from an educational
standpoint as well as a practical standpoint, having practiced law.
He clerked for a judge. He was involved with the Government side of
practicing law, being in the Solicitor General's Office. He argued
cases at the appellate level, at every appellate level all the way to
the U.S. Supreme Court. He has been very successful at every level in
his judicial career. Why, just from a purely legal standpoint, we have
not already moved to a vote on this man is just beyond me.
But it goes a little further than that. Miguel Estrada is a true
success story. He is a man who, if anybody ever lived the American
dream, is living it. He is a man who, at 17 years of age, came to the
United States from Honduras speaking very little English. He is a man
who was not self-taught but who entered the educational system in this
country and took advantage of that educational system, just the way all
Americans subscribe to do.
This man not only had a great academic record but he went on to law
school at Harvard University and was editor in chief of the Law Review.
As a law school student at the University of Tennessee--where the
Presiding Officer formerly served as president--I did not make the Law
Review. I worked hard, but I didn't quite get there. But here is a man
who achieved great success. Anybody who is editor in chief of the Law
Review at any school of law is the most outstanding student in his
class at that law school--in almost every situation. Miguel Estrada
achieved that pinnacle in his education career.
He then went on to clerk for a judge, and not just any judge, he
clerked for a judge at a very high level. Then, as I said, he went to
work for the Federal Government, as an assistant to the Solicitor
General, not just in a Republican administration but also in the
Clinton administration.
So he is not a judge who should be perceived in any way as an
activist, particularly a conservative activist. I don't look at other
graduates of this great institution, graduates from Harvard, who are
particular activists. They are good solid citizens, but they are not
conservative activists, certainly. To perceive Miguel Estrada as an
activist--I have heard him so characterized--certainly doesn't fit the
man when you look at his background.
I want to highlight a few things about Miguel Estrada. He is truly an
American success story who represents the mainstream of American law
and American values. He came to this country, at age 17, an immigrant
from Honduras, speaking very little English. He has risen to the top of
his profession, a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, law
clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Federal prosecutor in
New York, Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States for 1
year in the Bush administration and for 4 years in the Clinton
administration, and leading appellate lawyer at a national law firm.
Miguel Estrada has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court of the
United States, including 1 case in which he represented a death row
inmate pro bono.
He has strong bipartisan support from prominent Democrats, including
many high-ranking officials in the Clinton administration such as Ron
Klain, Seth Waxman, Bob Litt, and Randy Moss.
The American Bar Association unanimously rated Miguel Estrada well-
qualified. That is its highest possible ranking.
Miguel Estrada has strong support in the Hispanic community,
including from LULAC, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the U.S.
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and numerous other Hispanic
organizations. This is truly a very historic appointment.
If confirmed, Estrada would be the first Hispanic ever to serve on
the DC Circuit Court. Many consider the DC Circuit Court to be the
second most important Federal court in America. Miguel Estrada's
nomination has been pending now since May 9, 2001. We should bring this
nomination to the floor of this body and let it go for an up-or-down
vote.
Those who have been very vocal and emotional and very passionate,
pleading against the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, will have their
day. They can vote no. But this man, and America, deserves to have a
vote on this very well qualified lawyer, and a very well qualified man.
Those of us who believe strongly that Miguel Estrada should be
confirmed will also have our day. We will have our opportunity to stand
up and say: You have earned this, Mr. Estrada. You
[[Page S2382]]
have earned the right, not just to have your nomination brought to the
floor of the Senate, but we think you have earned the right to be
confirmed to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.
You have been here in America for now over 25 years. We think you
have worked hard to achieve the educational benefits that have been
afforded to you. We think you have worked hard to come from a very
lowly--not necessarily menial background, because I don't know all the
details of his background, but I know Honduras is a very poor country.
I know he started out with a very rough, hard life before he came to
America--and probably for awhile after he got here.
But he has taken advantage of the opportunities that were presented
to him, the same opportunities that everybody in this body has had over
the years, to achieve an education and a profession in America--
America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. This man chose
to come to our country and abide by all of the laws, take advantage of
the opportunities that were afforded to him, and he has done that. He
has achieved great success.
Everybody who has written in support of him and from the standpoint
of folks who have worked with him, both Republicans and Democrats, have
said two things consistently about this man.
First, from an intellectual standpoint, he is second to none. He has
all of the intellect necessary that would be required of any member of
the bench.
The second thing that has been said about him by every individual
Republican or Democrat that has written and who he worked for is that
this man is one of the hardest working men and one of the most
dedicated men they have ever had in their employment. That is true,
irrespective of whether it is the law firm in which he has worked,
whether it is the judges he has clerked for, or whether it is the
individuals in the Office of the Solicitor General for whom he worked.
They have been very consistent in stating that this man deserves to be
confirmed by this body.
We have just had another hearing this morning on another set of
judges before the Judiciary Committee. I went to the meeting this
morning with the idea that we were going to vote out a minimum of three
judges who have been appointed by President Bush for circuit courts in
different parts of the country. When I got to that meeting today, it
became very obvious that the same folks who are opposing Miguel
Estrada's confirmation on the floor of the Senate did not want those
nominees to be voted out of the Judiciary Committee today. We did, in
fact, wind up voting out 1 nominee, but we left on the table probably
8, 9, or 10 other judges who should have been voted out. There was no
reason not to vote those judges out.
But once again, it was a dilatory tactic being imposed on the
judicial system in this country by the same folks who are now opposing
Miguel Estrada within the Judiciary Committee who decided we should not
vote those nominees out.
I just do not think that is right. I don't think that is the real
system that our forefathers intended us to operate under when it comes
to the appointment of judges to the Federal bench in this country.
I say in closing that I am overwhelmed by the opportunity to serve
the people of my State in this great institution. I am in awe of the
individuals with whom I serve here on both sides of the aisle who I
know are very passionate. They are here for the same reason I am here;
and that is, to make America a better place for us and for our children
to live.
But I don't understand sometimes why we take issues such as the
confirmation of Miguel Estrada and delay and delay and delay and
obstruct and obstruct and obstruct at a time in the history of our
country when we are fighting to win the war on terrorism--when we are
literally under siege.
If you go outside today on the streets of Washington, DC, you see
police cars on virtually every corner with their lights flashing
indicating they are on high alert. At a time in the history of our
country when we are on the brink of possibly going to war and putting
young men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of
America in harm's way, I just don't understand. And the people who are
calling my office don't understand why we are not dealing with issues
of that nature instead of seeing the obstructionist attitude that is
taking place on the floor of the Senate.
I certainly hope we are able to conclude this debate which has been
long lasting now for over a week. There has been much said on both
sides of the aisle about this man. I think it is time to bring the
nomination of Miguel Estrada to a vote. Let those folks who have been
vocal and have been emotional cast their vote in the way they think is
proper and let those of us who believe--I think a majority of us do
believe--he is qualified and he ought to be confirmed have a vote to
confirm Miguel Estrada to the Circuit Court for the District of
Columbia.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nomination
which, sadly, strikes me as, frankly, an arrogant nomination and an
anticonstitutional nomination of Miguel Estrada to be the very first
``secret'' judge ever nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia, or for any other court in the Federal system.
Over the past few days we have had a considerable amount of debate on
this nomination. While I believe the debate has been good, I have been
troubled by several of the accusations put forward about the nature of
the opposition to the nomination of Mr. Estrada. I wanted to come to
the floor today to discuss this nomination.
Let me set the record straight about what this debate is about and
what it is not about.
First, this debate is not about obstructing President Bush's judicial
nominee. Under Senator Leahy's leadership, Democrats have had a
remarkable record of approving President Bush's nominees to the Federal
court. While Democrats controlled the Senate, we confirmed more than
six nominees per month. The rate of confirmations by the Republican-led
Senate was much lower in comparison--3.2 nominees confirmed per month
during the 104th Congress; 4.25 nominees confirmed per month during the
105th Congress; and 3.04 nominees confirmed per month during the 106th
Congress. In fact, the Democrat-led Senate confirmed more nominees in 1
day than the Republican majority confirmed during the entire 1996
session.
On November 14, 2002, the Senate confirmed 18 judicial nominees. In
1996, the Republican majority allowed only 17 district court judges to
be confirmed and did not confirm a single circuit court nominee.
Some of the outrage and some of the expressions of self-
righteousness, if you will, strike me as badly put.
Personally, I have voted for more than 98 percent of President Bush's
judicial nominees--98 percent--including three judges who were
unanimously confirmed earlier this week--all conservative Republican
judges, no doubt, with my support and my vote.
The record demonstrates our commitment to move qualified nominees
quickly through the hearing process and to have a vote on the floor in
order to fill the backlog of vacancies on the Federal bench that was
created, frankly, by a failure to confirm President Clinton's judicial
nominees.
Let me also state--I am saddened this has to be even raised in this
Chamber--that this debate is not about race. I have heard some
colleagues say the only reason the Democrats are opposed to Mr.
Estrada's nomination is that he is Hispanic. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Closer examination of the facts reveals what I think
everybody knows; that is, the Democrats have a solid record when it
comes to approving Latino candidates to the bench. In fact, 80 percent
of the Hispanic appellate judges currently serving were appointed by
President Clinton.
During the 107th Congress, Democrats held hearings and swiftly
confirmed six of President Bush's Hispanic judicial nominees--six of
President Bush's Hispanic judicial nominees approved by a Democratic
Senate.
Using race as an issue in this debate is a red herring. And that is a
kind way to put it. To understand this, you have to only look at the
ever-growing list of Hispanic organizations that have expressed their
strong opposition to Mr.
[[Page S2383]]
Estrada's nomination--the Hispanic organizations that have expressed
their opposition to Mr. Estrada as a ``secret'' nomination. These
groups include the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Mexican American
Legal Defense Fund, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, to name but a few.
To claim that Democrats oppose Mr. Estrada's nomination based on his
race is offensive, and it is not worthy of the great traditions of this
Senate.
So if the opposition to Mr. Estrada's nomination is not about
obstructing President Bush's judicial nominees or about race, then what
is this debate about? Simply put, it is about the constitutional duties
of the Senate.
When I was sworn in to this Senate, with great pride, great
conviction, I swore an oath to God to uphold the Constitution of the
United States. Article II, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution gives
the President the power to appoint judges with the ``Advice and Consent
of the Senate.'' I take this responsibility very seriously.
The Senate is not a rubberstamp for the nominations of a President--
Republican or Democrat. The Senate has a coequal role to play in the
approval of nominees from a President. The Constitution requires this
body to play that role.
I must follow my constitutional duty to carefully scrutinize each
nomination as it comes before the Senate. I render my best judgment as
to whether or not the individual is fit and qualified to serve on the
court to which he or she has been nominated.
In order to make that judgment, I rely on material provided to the
Senate Judiciary Committee by the nominee, his or her legal record, and
independent analysis of outside organizations, such as the American Bar
Association. In addition, I use the statements and responses to
questions put to the nominee during his or her confirmation hearing.
All of these sources allow me to make an informed decision on each
nominee's qualifications to serve.
I have attempted to follow this process as I have examined Mr.
Estrada's nomination, as I have the dozens and dozens and dozens of
previous President Bush nominees for whom I have voted, conservative
Republican judges, and I voted for them with pride.
But throughout my time in the Senate, I have never seen a nominee
with more of a stealth record than Mr. Estrada. Despite a full hearing
by the Senate Judiciary Committee, there is simply not enough
information about Mr. Estrada's judicial views for me to be able to
fulfill my responsibility of advice and consent.
Let me take a few moments to outline Mr. Estrada's failure--utter
failure--to provide the information necessary to confirm his nomination
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
We are talking here not about a Cabinet position, a political
position that will come and go. We are talking about the approval of an
individual for a lifetime appointment, someone who will serve in the
second highest court of the land for the rest of the lifetimes of many
of us here in this body.
First, during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Estrada refused to
comment on a single Supreme Court case. Now, this is an individual who
has never served on the bench and so has no record on the bench. He has
not been an academic scholar, so he has no writings that are publicly
available for anybody to review.
Most other nominees have long experience either on the bench or in
academia, and we can examine their record with great scrutiny. I may
approve or disapprove of their views on one thing or another, but at
least I know what their views are. And overwhelmingly I have voted for
them because I knew what their views were. I may have disagreed with
some of their views but, nonetheless, found them to be competent,
capable individuals for whom I could vote.
But in this instance, Mr. Estrada refused, and has no other record,
and refused to comment on a single Supreme Court case. While I
understand that nominees often do not like to comment on cases and
issues that one day may be appear before them--and I understand that,
certainly--Mr. Estrada refused to give the committee a single example
of a Supreme Court decision that he disagreed with throughout the
entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mr. Estrada may not want to create a record for himself by stating
his views on a controversial case such as Roe v. Wade--I understand
that--but did his coaching to avoid answering questions include
commenting on, say, the Dred Scott case? Rather than addressing the
issue, he simply refused to give the committee an answer.
Several attempts were made by members of the Judiciary Committee to
get Mr. Estrada to elaborate on his approach to legal issues. Despite
being asked specific questions about his judicial philosophy, he
refused to give the committee an answer--refused. Even when asked to
name a single judge--living or dead--whom he admires or would like to
emulate, he refused to give the committee an answer.
Finally, members of the Judiciary Committee have asked Mr. Estrada to
provide the Senate with legal memos or other analysis which he has
prepared in the past and which could possibly shed some light on his
judicial thinking. So far, Mr. Estrada has refused to provide this
additional information as well.
One of our colleagues has argued that this request for information is
merely a delaying tactic or beyond what is truly needed to confirm Mr.
Estrada. Yet our Republican friends had no problems asking Democratic
judicial nominees for extensive documentation. This included asking
Marsha Berzon, nominated to the Ninth Circuit, for the minutes to every
single meeting of the California ACLU during her entire membership
period with that organization. It was argued, then, that such
information was required by the Senate to be diligent in examining the
qualifications of judicial nominees.
If this type of information was necessary to confirm judges in the
past, I believe it is fair to ask Mr. Estrada to supply enough
information to the Senate to help us understand his judicial
philosophy. No stealth judges. No secret judges.
Conservative Republican judges? Yes, of course. President Bush is
President of the United States. He is our President. He has the
opportunity and the authority to nominate these individuals to the
bench. And they have been overwhelmingly approved by this Senate,
Democrats and Republicans alike. That is not the question.
The question is, What kind of precedent are we going to set to begin
to approve individuals to lifetime appointments to the bench while
having utterly no concept of where the individual is in terms of his
judicial philosophy?
Mr. Estrada may well be qualified to serve on the U.S. Court of
Appeals. He may well be qualified. Unfortunately, it appears he has
been coached, he has been advised to say nothing, to elude all
questions, and to avoid providing the Senate with any information that
would help us to construct an opinion about his thoughts on judicial
issues.
I ask each of my colleagues to consider the precedent we will set for
future Presidents, future nominees, and, indeed, for this Senate if we
confirm a nominee who has refused to provide the Senate with sufficient
information. I fear it is a step toward making the Senate merely a
rubberstamp for this or any other President's nominations and would, in
fact, be an abrogation of our constitutional duties.
We swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not
to surrender the role of the Senate's responsibilities for advice and
consent. The precedent that would be set here would lead to a
circumstance where Presidents, perhaps of both political parties, in
the future would routinely nominate people to the bench who had some
ideological ax to grind, some out-of-the-mainstream judicial views, but
who had never sat on the bench before. It would be considered to be a
disadvantage to have served on the bench before. It would be considered
to be a disadvantage to have been a scholar and written about your
views. And we would wind up getting a succession of these stealth
candidates who had no record and who also, on top of that, refused to
respond to the Senate relative to their judicial philosophy. This would
be catastrophic to the integrity of the Federal bench.
Unless we are able to get more complete information, I will vote
against Mr. Estrada. My vote is not based on
[[Page S2384]]
race. I am proud to have voted for Hispanic nominee after Hispanic
nominee. That is not the question. Nor is it an attempt to block
President Bush's nominees because I am proud of the dozens and dozens
and dozens of President Bush nominees for whom I also have voted.
Even though I may have disagreed to some extent with their political
and judicial philosophy, at least I understood where they were coming
from, and I knew what they were. They seemed to be, in my best
judgment, largely in the mainstream of contemporary American
jurisprudence.
I will vote against Mr. Estrada because I believe it would make a
mockery of my constitutional obligation for advice and consent to
confirm a nominee to a lifetime appointment to the appellate bench, the
second highest court in the land, who has refused to answer basic
questions and who has no record. What a precedent, what an ugly
precedent it would be for this Nation to accept that. This Senate
deserves better. The American people deserve better.
I lay before my colleagues my rationale for taking this position on
this particular individual. It is my hope that never again will we see
this kind of stealth, secret process, this assumption that the Senate
will abrogate its advice and consent obligations brought before this
body.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Alaska.
Tongass Land Use Management
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the appropriations bill, the omnibus
bill, as we call it, will be here soon. I wanted to comment about
stories pertaining to a provision I have in the bill and the change I
sought to make in it.
The Tongass language in this omnibus bill that will come back to the
Senate is the same language in the bill when it passed the Senate. It
was not challenged in the Senate. The language provides that the record
of decision for the 2003 supplemental environmental impact statement
for the 1997 Tongass Land Use Management Plan shall not be subject to
administrative appeal or judicial review.
During the consideration of the omnibus bill, I did suggest some
modification of that language. It led to considerable discussion in the
press. I might add there are a whole series of provisions in this bill
as it comes back that were modified in conference by many Senators,
many Members of the House of Representatives. The process by which we
do that in many ways has been discussed by other Senators. At a later
time I want to discuss the process by which Senators comment upon the
work of other Members of the Senate.
In any event, for instance, in the Los Angeles Times, Senator Boxer
said:
The stewardship proposal could allow logging of 10 million
acres in California if the riders remain in the bill. I
intend to discuss them at great length on the Senate floor.
My amendment did not apply to California at all.
The Senator from California also is reported as saying in another
release I have that:
This is a dangerous backdoor attempt to silence the public,
states, and localities, and to stop our citizens from going
to court to protest these destructive riders.
The provision to stop going to court was in the Senate bill.
In another article in the Grand Forks Herald, there is this
statement:
The riders would remove Alaska's Tongass and Chugach
forests from protection under the national roadless policy
and require the Forest Service to offer timber sales to meet
market demand regardless of the effects on habitat and the
forests' other resources.
I could go on and on with these articles that are in the papers and
in the news releases throughout the country.
What I want to do is set the record straight on what the situation is
in the Tongass and how we got where we are today. It is a long saga. It
takes a little while to relate to the Senate.
In 1997, after 10 years of planning and $13 million of the taxpayers'
money, the Tongass Land Use Management Plan was completed. I opposed
that plan because it contained drastic reductions in the timber
harvest. I thought the levels were much lower than they needed to be.
There were numerous scientists who found the Tongass could sustain far
greater development support than what was included in the report.
Today, just 6 years later, that plan seems like the golden age of the
Tongass timber industry. I now find myself defending that plan, which
Democrats and environmentalists then supported because those same
extreme environmentalists and their friends from the previous
administration have done so much damage to Alaska's timber industry
since that time.
The Tongass Land Use Management Plan reduced the allowable sale
quantity (ASQ), for the Tongass to 267 million board feet. That is the
plan I am talking about that we are now defending. Of the allowable 267
million board feet of timber, less than 220 million board feet would be
economically harvestible under the plan. It provided access to only
676,000 acres of the 17 million acre Tongass National Forest.
Furthermore, it established that timber harvesting on Federal land
would be managed over 100-year and 120-year rotations. These rotations
provided more than enough time for forest revitalization.
The Tongass is the only forest in Alaska in which timber may be
harvested. I call the Senate's attention to this. Our other forest,
which is 5.5 million acres, the Chugach, is under a forest management
plan which has reduced timber harvesting to zero. This renders the
Chugach forest almost completely closed to logging. There are some
small inholding tracks that could be logged, but none of them are being
logged, to my knowledge. Last year less than 1 million board feet of
salvageable timber ravaged by disease was sold from the Chugach. There
is no real commercial harvest there.
Many groups and individuals frame the current debate about the
Tongass as an argument about whether or not the forest should be saved.
The terms of the 1997 plan made by the Clinton administration make it
clear that framing the issue this way is very misleading. The 1997 plan
set aside 93 percent of all forested areas in the Tongass National
Forest in my home State.
Under the Tongass amendment I asked Congress to approve, that land
will remain completely untouched. It will not touch any of the land, 93
percent, that is reserved, set aside. It would remain completely
untouched. Clearly the vast majority of the Tongass has already been
saved for future generations. Yet they want more. There is 7 percent of
the forest that is still open to logging under the agreement made in
1980.
My State's timber industry has experienced a swift decline,
threatening thousands of Alaskan families who depend upon that industry
for their livelihood. Today timber communities in southeast Alaska have
been devastated by unemployment due in large part to jobs lost in the
timber industry. I point out to the Senate this bill we will vote on
tonight will contain $3.1 billion for the farm community that has been
devastated by about a 15 percent reduction in income. My timber
industry will receive nothing even though it has been totally
devastated by the actions taken by the Clinton administration.
The Tongass once supported 4,000 timber jobs. Today two-thirds of
those jobs have disappeared, and all of them will disappear if the
roadless policy is applied to the area set aside for logging in the
Tongass format and the Tongass Land Use plan.
In the last 10 years, diseased supply and frivolous lawsuits waged by
extreme environmental groups have led to the closure of all of our pulp
mills. There is not a single pulp mill left in Alaska. When those mills
closed, they took southeast Alaska's best jobs with them. I hasten to
point out, as I said, when farming fell 15 percent, Congress declared a
disaster. That is $3.1 billion we put up for the farmers. They are no
different than loggers. The only difference is, loggers have been
affected by actions of the Department of Agriculture. It is the
Department of Agriculture that asks us to protect the farmers.
The situation in the Tongass has not only cost us thousands of jobs,
it has also cost the Government valuable tax dollars. The Government
may soon have to pay the Alaska Pulp Company $750 million for the
Clinton administration's illegal cancellation of timber contracts in
the Tongass. That money should be paid to Alaska's workers.
The rapid decline in Alaska's timber industry is due to two main
causes: the
[[Page S2385]]
Clinton administration's policy barring logging and roadbuilding on
58.5 million acres of national forest, including the Tongass, and
frivolous lawsuits brought by the multibillion-dollar environmental
lobby in an effort to lock up public resources on public land.
First, let me talk about the plan implemented by the Clinton
administration's final days in office. When Congress passed the Tongass
Act in 1947, we set what we called the ASQ level for the Tongass at
1.38 billion board feet per year. That level was slowly eroded. In
1980, the level was reduced to 450 million board feet per year under
the Alaska National Interest Lands Act. In 1997, the Tongass land
management plan further reduced the level to 267 million board feet. By
2001, the harvest level in the Tongass was only 48 million board feet--
from 1.3-plus billion board feet to less than 48 million board feet.
When you talk about a disaster, clearly this drastic reduction is one
of the most serious disasters for the timber industry.
To give my fellow Senators some perspective, Southeast Alaska has
more than 18 million acres of forest land, 95 percent of which is in a
national forest and only 850 timber jobs left today. Arkansas has 19
million acres of forest land, 8 percent of which is national forest and
43,000 timber jobs.
Pennsylvania has 17 million acres of forest land, 2 percent of which
is in a national forest, and 82,000 timber jobs.
New York has 19 million acres of forest land, 4 percent of which is
national forest, and 51,000 timber jobs.
Last year, while Alaska harvested 34 million board feet, New York
harvested nearly 900 million board feet of timber.
This history and disparity between how national forest lands are
administered in other States and how they are administered in Alaska
shows that reductions in the ASQ levels are unfair, unreasonable, and
unlawful.
The 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act provided the
proper balance between protecting and preserving Alaska's heritage and
providing economic and social opportunities to the people of the State
of Alaska. That 1980 Act specifically prohibited the changes the
Clinton administration made to the Tongass management plan in 1999.
Section 708(b) of the 1980 Act specifically states that there will be
no ``further statewide roadless area review and evaluation of national
forest systems lands in the State of Alaska'' without the express
authorization of Congress--none. We call that one of the ``no more
clauses.'' That was the one concession Congress gave to us when it
withdrew over a hundred million acres of our State for national
interest lands and disallowed any type of development by the people of
the State of Alaska.
Section 1326 of that same act--again, deemed the ``no more clause''--
prohibits review of any future conservation area greater than 5,000
acres without congressional approval. Clearly, the study of the 18
million acre Tongass was not authorized; it was not previously reviewed
by Congress.
The roadless plan was first announced by the Clinton administration
in 1999. I hope Senators will listen to this. In the fall of 2000, I
received a call from the Clinton administration assuring me as chairman
of the Appropriations Committee and the Senator from Alaska that the
Tongass would be excluded from the roadless plan. The proposed rule
upon which hearings were held specifically excluded Alaska.
Let me consider that now, and I hope the Senate will consider it. As
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Clinton administration
sought my help on many issues in the year 2000 as we considered the
2001 appropriations bills. I was in a position then to hold them to
their commitment on the roadless areas.
After the election was over and the appropriations bills had passed,
President Clinton personally applied the roadless plan to the Tongass
by Executive order. It was not included in the proposed rule upon which
hearings were held, but at the last minute the President personally
added Alaska to the plan.
In their rush to lock up Alaska on their way out the door, the
administration ignored the concerns of my State, the Alaskan Natives,
and our timber communities, and they specifically violated the law.
Lawsuits brought by extreme environmentalists have created an equally
troubling situation. The lawsuits have forced the Forest Service to
keep revising its plans. The groups filing these suits are abusing the
National Environmental Policy Act, an act which I cosponsored along
with Senator Jackson in the 1970s.
As a cosponsor, I believe I knew the original intent. When we passed
that act, we intended it to be used to assess the environmental impact
of major Federal decisions. Radical environmentalists have used it to
create an absolute barrier to resource development or commercial use on
any public lands.
Each time we complete an environmental impact study, it costs the
taxpayers up to $10 million and locks up public resources for years. In
effect, this practice has created a class of professional environmental
lawyers whose only practice is to prevent the utilization of resources
on public lands.
I have been a lawyer for 50 years and I have never seen such
development. I have never seen such single-minded people who use a law
designed to protect our environment to produce income for themselves,
at a cost to the taxpayers and the people of this Nation.
No one seeks to limit due process or debate on these issues, but the
extremists have exhausted the time period for a reasonable review
process. I ask colleagues to remember new roadless areas are illegal in
Alaska under these clauses I have read, unless specifically approved by
Congress. This would not even be an issue if the Clinton Justice
Department had raised the ``no more clause'' when they defended the
Tongass land management plan in Federal court. Neither did the Federal
district court judge.
Mr. President, I have a letter from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough,
one of our major political subdivisions in Alaska. I ask unanimous
consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Ketchikan Gateway Borough,
Office of the Borough Manager,
Ketchikan, AK.
Re: Amendments relating to Tongass timber issues
Senator Ted Stevens,
Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stevens: On behalf of the Ketchikan Gateway
Borough, I would like to thank you for your efforts at
bringing closure to what has become a decade long dispute
crippling the economy of many Southeast Alaska communities,
Ketchikan included.
Specifically, with TTRA in 1990, the intent was to bring
peace and stability to the timber industry, providing enough
timber to meet the demand, and not overproducing and
unbalancing normal market forces. The result, however, was an
ineffective provision. The phrasing ``seek to meet'' demand
was interpreted in a way which resulted in the demand not
being met, and led to a downward spiral of ever reduced
capacity and employment. Removing the words ``seek to'' from
this provision would go a long way toward helping the
economies in Wrangell, Ketchikan, Prince of Wales Island, and
throughout Southeast Alaska recover from the adverse impacts
of the prior error.
Second: In addition to the restrictive effect which the
``seek to meet'' language has had on timber supply, the
uncertainty caused by protracted litigation over both the
1997 ROD and the Roadless Rule issues has brought the timber
industry almost to a standstill. It has constricted the
timber supply to the point where unemployment is threatening
the viability of communities. New investment for more
environmentally friendly secondary processing is difficult to
secure because of the uncertainty as to timber supply and the
effect of litigation on the ability of the Forest Service to
put out sales.
It has been nearly 6 years since the issuance of the 1997
ROD, a planning document which took nearly a decade to
complete. It is time for the decision to be accepted and for
people to move on. It will only be a few more years before it
is time to begin the next TLMP ROD process. Continuing
uncertainty caused by protracted litigation over land use
plans is killing the economy in Southeast Alaska. The
Ketchikan Gateway Borough has lost nearly 10 percent of its
population since 1996, and 2 percent just in the last year.
Review of individual sales offers adequate opportunities for
appeals if there are issues requiring review.
Third: In regard to the Roadless Rule, the whole process
was a rushed pre-determined decision. Application of the rule
to Alaska, however, stands out as the most significant
injustice of the entire process. Throughout the public
comment period the proposal was described as clearly not
impacting Alaska. It was only after the comments were closed
that the final rule was issued to apply to Alaska as well.
This is fundamentally unfair and improper. Further, the ``no
more'' clause of ANILCA precludes such an action.
[[Page S2386]]
Even if the process were not flawed, the impacts are
drastic and unconscionable. If the Roadless Rule were applied
here it would virtually guarantee that there would not be any
meaningful timber industry employment in secondary
manufacture in Southeast Alaska. The amount of timber
available from the largest National Forest would end up as
exports in the round and small production of likely less than
100 MMBF of sawlogs and chips.
Further, the ability to build new infrastructure or even
support existing infrastructure, would be jeopardized. If the
economy in the area continues with such constriction and
uncertainty there will be additional loss of population and
continued increases in social problems associated with
poverty.
The Ketchikan Gateway Borough urges you to use your best
efforts to ensure the passage of the riders which address
these three issues.
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Sincerely,
Roy Eckert,
Borough Manager.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this letter is from Roy Eckert, borough
manager, concerning amendments relating to Tongass timber.
I want to put into the Record another letter that has been written to
the Secretary of Agriculture and signed by Petersburg city council
member, of the Recreation/Wilderness Program manager of the Tongass
National Forest, Bill Tremblay. It is a factual letter setting forth
parts of the comments that I have made. I hope Members of the Senate
will read it.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Dear Secretary, thank you for receiving other members of
the Petersburg City Council. I would like to take this
opportunity to join my voice with the other council members
in noting our strongest opposition to the recently signed
Roadless Area Conservation Policy. I take exception to this
as a member of the City Council and as a Forest Service
employee. Some action is needed to address the devastating
impacts of this decision to the captive communities within
the boundaries of the National Forests in Alaska,
particularly on the Tongass National Forest in southeast
Alaska.
the tongass national forest, finding the facts
The Tongass is almost 17 million acres and is one of the
oldest forests in the entire National Forest System. The
forest is about the size of West Virginia and has more
coastline that the entire west coast in the lower 48. More
than 95% is federally owned. The forest has almost 5.8
million acres Congressionally designated as wilderness (19
wilderness areas in all) with another 500,000 acres also
designated by Congress for recreation purposes (Land Use
Designations II (LUD II) through the Tongass Timber Reform
Act of 1990).
Attached is some of the literature used by environmental
groups to support the Roadless Rule, I'm providing this to
highlight some of the misinformation used to solicit
comments. National environmental groups continually portrayed
all 17 million acres at risk. Of course the result of this
effort was the generation of thousands of postcards endorsing
the Roadless Rule. Federal courts have ruled that comments to
environmental documents must be timely and substantive.
Comments cards parroting misstatements of fact are not
substantive. Many of these cards were the basis of Chief
Dombecks' assertion that ``overwhelming public comments in
favor of the Roadless Rule'' supported the decision.
Decisions affecting the management of our resources are
suppose to be based on science, federal policy, and the
ability of the lands to sustain the proposed action. If we're
going to use vote counting as a method of management then I
doubt we need the current organizational structure for the
Forest Service.
Just a side note, it was well minded people like these that
had the Forest Service respond to the need to protect the
``Mendenhall Penguins'' during the Forest Planning process
for the Tongass. Somehow, someone put a message out noting
that such creatures existed at the Mendenhall Icefield near
Juneau. As a result, there were several hundred letters
mailed to the Tongass Land Management Planning Team. I think
a lot of the comments received for the protection of the
remaining roadless areas on the Tongass were done with just
as much understanding of the issues to be addressed.
Please review the evaluation of the comments carefully.
Before the President's decision, I overheard members of a
regional environmental organization talking about how they
had the phone number for making comments on his speed dial so
they could call every morning. The process set forth in the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) is not a voting
process. Again, allowing for the accumulation of one
opinion from one person doesn't meet the test for a
substantive comment.
Are Forest Plans Dead?
In 1999 the Tongass National Forest completed a 13 year,
$10 million dollar Forest Plan. To resolve the appeals to the
Regional Foresters decision, the final decision was taken
away from the Chief of the Forest Service and made by then
Undersecretary Jim Lyons. In April 2000, a GAO report on the
Process Used to Modify the Forest Plan for the Tongass
decision showed that this move, while legal, was
unprecedented. I'll also note for the record that Mr. Lyons
specifically addressed Roadless in his decision.
After his decision, Mr. Lyons came to Sitka, Alaska to talk
with the mayors of the affected communities, and other
community representatives. Mr. Lyons, addressing the mayors
on behalf of the administration, assured affected communities
that the forest plan would provide guidance for the
management of the forest for the next 10 to 15 years. Only a
few months later we learned that Mr. Lyons was clearly out of
touch with his own administration as the Tongass was to be
included in the Roadless Rule. The potential inclusion of the
Tongass and Chugach National Forests in the Roadless Rule
prompted the Governor of Alaska to publicly announce that the
State had been ``stabbed in the back''. The Governor of
Alaska is a Democrat and the Republican led State legislature
has just voiced their own opposition to the Roadless Rule in
passing a bill supporting the Governor's position.
Both actions related to the final forest plan decision and
the Roadless Rule fly in the face of other rules filed by the
administration encouraging more cooperation at a local level
in decision making and the delegation of the decision of
Forest Plans down to the Forest Supervisor level. I have been
looking over priorities of this new administration and have
found their focus on local collaboration and participation is
also in concert with these ideas.
The process used to implement the Roadless Rule places the
integrity of the Forest Planning process at risk on a
National Scale. The Tongass Plan completed and signed in 1997
by the Regional Forester was environmentally sound,
scientifically based and legally defensible. The only flaw in
the decision was that it didn't meet the values of members of
the past administration. If we are going to have local
decisions continually made at the Washington level then we
need to resend the new planning regulations and reissue the
new procedures to follow to be fair to the public.
The Roadless Rule Document
The Roadless Rule FEIS failed miserable in its contents.
Many of the points made in the analysis were flawed,
inaccurate, incomplete, and not site specific as is required
by the CFR's for an environmental analysis. The problems in
the analysis should have been identified in the review of the
document by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
However, since Mr. Frampton was the head of the CEQ at the
time, there wasn't concern about the content and more on the
outcome. When a delegation of mayors met with Mr.
Frampton, Secretary Glickman, and other in early December,
it was evident to them that Mr. Frampton clearly was in
charge of the process.
Economic Impacts Analysis
One example of the poor analysis was in the discussion of
the economic impacts of this decision. The document notes
that nationally the impacts are not significant. In specific
reference to the Tongass, it identifies the loss of almost
900 jobs direct and indirect) and an estimated $17 million
loss of annual income to the region. The document notes that
the passage of the Secure Schools Act, which makes up the
loss of forest receipts, will help deflect the impacts. If
you examine the trends of the impacts to communities of
southeast Alaska over the past 5 years you'll see that the
money generated from this Secure School Act only mitigates
the impacts from the falling receipts from previous years. It
does nothing to address the Roadless Rule. Attached is a
better depiction of the impacts of the rule as provided to
the CEQ by the State Director of the USDA Rural Development
Program. After looking at her comments we can see that the
impacts go far beyond just the payments to the State. I did
attached the USDA State Director's comments to my response to
the final FEIS but I cannot see were these were ever
addressed in the document.
What is not discussed in the document is how southeast
Alaska is unlike other regions in the lower '48 States.
Displaced workers in southeast Alaska cannot commute to other
nearby communities to look for jobs. Because of the isolation
of our communities, people without jobs are more likely to be
forced to leave the State.
Arguments in favor of the Roadless Rule note that other
areas of economic growth available to southeast Alaska, such
as tourism and fisheries. Tourism is growing in southeast
Alaska but only through the commercialization of communities
as though we were a third world entity. More than 80% of the
tourism in southeast Alaska comes from large cruise ships.
These ships do drop passengers off in communities to
participate in shore excursions, but most of these trips are
negotiated by contract prior to the season. The free time
given to passengers is generally short and allows enough time
to these tourists to shop ``locally'' in shops. Many shops,
that use to be local, are now largely owned by the tour ship
companies. (See the attached Southeast Empire where the
Skagway economy is discussed.) The season for this activity
occurs is normally from the first of May to the beginning to
September (about 120 days). This leaves the other 240
[[Page S2387]]
days of the year with little to no recreation or tourism
economy. May of the service industry workers now follow these
companies to other parts of the world to maintain their year
round employment. Although there are sales taxes generated
and wages generated in the summer season, most of the earned
wages leave wit the seasonal workforce so there is a minimal
economic multiplier effect. Many communities are now voting
in a head tax for these cruise ship passengers to help
support the infrastructure of the communities.
The Chugach National Forest in southcentral Alaska enjoys
almost year round use because of its proximity to the largest
population center of the State, available roads, and better
winter conditions. Poor weather conditions and little
infrastructure for access virtually eliminates tourism travel
from October to early May in southeast Alaska. These facts
were not presented in the Roadless Rule analysis and should
have been.
The potential growth in fishing is even bleaker. Glacier
Bay National Park in the northern area of southeast Alaska
has just recently closed itself to fishing in many places
traditionally used. Actions taken by the National Marine
Fisheries Service to protect the stellar sea lions put more
of our local citizens out of work. Farmed fish from around
the world has depressed world salmon prices. Other federal
actions are also threatening the fishing and recreation
industry. Did you know that one of the mitigations proposed
in lieu of breaching the three Snake River dams in Idaho was
to stop all troll fishing in southeast Alaska? The troll
fisheries are generally small businesses, many of them are
guides who came to this business when they lost their lumber
jobs because of the decisions by our agency to reduce timber
harvesting. While many of these actions are outside the scope
of the Roadless Rule decision and our agency, they are
federal actions that contribute to the negative cumulative
effects to our economy but were never addressed in the
analysis.
I raised these economic issues in my comments to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. I cannot say I am satisfied
with the results in the FEIS.
Effects to the Timber Industry
When I first got to the Tongass in the early 1980's,
Congress had mandated that 450 million board feet (MMBF)
annually be made available for sale through the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA).
Most of this timber was required to meet our obligations for
the two remaining 50-year timber sale contracts. Volume not
tied up in the contacts was also made available to
independent timber sale operators. ANILCA also resolved the
Alaska native lands settlement and the issue of lands the
State of Alaska was entitled to through statehood. The
settlement of other land ownership combined with poor timber
market conditions never allowed the Forest Service to sell
more that about 350 MMBF annually for most of the 1980's.
During the initial work in the revision of the Tongass Land
Management Plan, Congress modified ANILCA and the timber sale
contracts when they passed the Tongass Timber Reform Act in
1990 (TTRA). In this action they also removed the 450 MMBF
annual timber target required by ANILCA. The final decision
for the Forest Plan made by the Regional Forester in 1997 set
a timber harvest level of approximately 286 MMBF for the
annual allowable sale quantity. This was reduced to
approximately 150 MMBF in Mr. Lyons 1999 decision. Mr. Lyons
decision protected some roadless areas but has forced the
agency to plan for some harvesting other roadless areas to
meet the allowable sale quantity. The Roadless Rule decision
makes some assumptions that some losses in areas to cut
timber might be made up in areas where roads already exist.
This statement ignores the 200-year timber rotation put in
place by Mr. Lyon's decision for the Tongass. The 200-year
rotation will make many of the roaded areas unavailable
for timber harvesting for another 160 years.
The Roadless Rule decision suggests that some agency
funding might be diverted in a way that would benefit
communities impacted by the decision. In the 1990's actions
were taken by the agency to cancel the two 50-year timber
sale contracts on the Tongass. The cancellation of the first
contract resulted in a court settlement that made the agency
pay $100,000,000 to the contractor and allowed them three
years of the contracted timber volume for a transition. The
second cancellation has just resulted in a $1.5 billion
judgment against our agency. With these financial burdens,
what funds are available to help our local communities? The
misrepresentation of the facts by this agency alone should be
cause enough to find a way to reverse this decision as it
impacts the forests in Alaska.
To its credit, the agency has taken some steps to address
the downward trend of the timber industry. We have encouraged
smaller sawmills or advocated for more secondary processing
to take place through grants and bringing in consultants. A
new veneer plant has just opened in Ketchikan through much
encouragement by this agency and several grants. The
Ketchikan mill alone can process 135 MMBF annually. There are
several other mills in southeast Alaska that also require a
minimal amount of volume to stay viable. The Roadless Rule
only allows for an estimated 30 MMBF in annual timber sales
off of National Forest System Lands. The agency has
purposefully deceived communities and businesses with their
intent which has resulted in meaningless investments if the
Roadless Rule is allowed to stand. Is there any wonder why
the timber industry and the State sued the agency over the
Roadless Rule decision?
Predetermined Decision
More than a week prior to issuing the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for public review, Chief Mike Dombeck
addressed Federal Employees noting the accomplishments of the
Forest Service. His first statement was; ``You are moving
ahead with plans to protect a special resource on our
national forests and grasslands--54 million areas of roadless
areas.''
This statement does several things. First it acknowledges
the intent of the administration to protect ALL roadless
areas before the public had any chance to comment. Second,
the acreage immediately included the Tongass which had just
had the roadless issue resolved by Mr. Lyon's decision.
It's also interesting to note that the recent Forest
Service Strategic Plan for 2000 states the first objective is
that, ``we will protect roadless areas through the roadless
area conservation policy''. This strategy was mailed to the
printer in October, which was a month before the final EIS
was available for review by the public. I will also note that
the Forest Service Strategic Plan for 2000 was being
distributed to field offices prior to the final decision
signed by President Clinton. (I got a copy four days to the
final decision.) The predetermined way this document was
completed makes a mockery of the entire process and opens
the question of our agency standards to public ridicule.
It specifically calls to question whether or not the
comments to the Roadless Rule were being reviewed for
content as required by NEPA or just being processed for a
response.
The line officers within the Forest Service were not
briefed about the decision prior to the invitations being
sent to environmental groups for the White House signing
party. In fact, many our line officers heard of the final
decisions through the environmental community before they
knew about it from their supervisors.
We have spent years getting our communities and
constituents to work with us on a local level in forging
decisions that affect the resources and their quality of
life. To see our objective environmental analysis process
used for a political gain is an embarrassment. While there
may be some in favor of the rule, many people within and
outside of the agency object to the Roadless Rule primarily
because the way the decision was made. If asked, Forest
Service employees would pass a vote of ``no confidence'' for
this Chief.
lack of science in the roadless decision
We are being told that science played a role in the
Roadless Rule decision. When reading this analysis I fail to
see where the science was used. In specific reference to the
Tongass, what were the measured benefits to the resources
provided by the Roadless Rule that were not provided by the
1999 decision made by Mr. Lyons? If you were to look at the
planning record for the Tongass Land Management Plan, you'd
find that there were only minor concerns for resources
expressed by the agency in the 1997 decision made by the
Regional Forester. Mr. Lyons 1999 decision more than made up
for any shortcomings for resource concerns in the 1997 by
issuing a decision based more on values than science (Which
is still in court). The Roadless Rule provides additional
protections but fails to make a case for who or for what?
More roadless is more roadless but it has not been
demonstrated that it is needed. This again is a flaw in the
environmental analysis which should cause it to be
overturned.
local resource management
As previously noted, this decision was made far away from
the field, in an apparent partisan way, without science, and
in a way that didn't account for local knowledge. By
including the Tongass in the Roadless Rule, the
administration acknowledged that they don't trust their
employees to manage the 3.5% left to manage for resource
development in the 1999 decision from Mr. Lyons. They have
also put an end to a very cooperative process that has been
ongoing for the management of National Forest Systems lands
in Alaska.
solutions
From what I can see, this administration has four
options: (1) Live with the Roadless Rule; (2) Start the
process to revise the Roadless Rule; (3) Have Congress
overturn the Roadless Rule; (4) Work on something through
the courts.
The Roadless Rule can't be ignored because of the
tremendous impacts to communities. I'm not sure the Forest
Service has the millions of dollars it would take to do
another analysis. I also think that the decision might be too
controversial to be addressed by Congress that is so closely
divided.
This leaves the court system to resolve the conflicts over
the Roadless Rule. My suggestion to the agency is to accept
the lawsuit filed by the State of Alaska and agree to remove
the Tongass and Chugach from the Roadless Rule decision.
The Roadless Rule decision is harmful to the State of
Alaska and doing a single purpose study dealing the agency
had gone against provisions specifically prohibiting this
action as stated in ANILCA. I know the State of Alaska is
willing to pursue this in
[[Page S2388]]
court because of the impacts this will have on our economy,
does our agency want to spend this kind of money defending
such an unpopular decision? The agency could cite the cost of
the trial, clause of ANILCA it violated, the inadequate
evaluation of the impacts in the analysis and find that
adequate protection is already provided to the remaining
roadless areas of the Tongass through the implementation of
the 1999 Tongass decision. With all of the reasons I've
presented, I believe the agency has sufficient cause to
withdraw the Alaska forests from the Roadless Decision and
not defend the decision in the courts.
closing
The day the Roadless Rule was signed, I sent a note
directly to the Chief. I told him that in my 20 years as an
employee that it was the first day I was ever embarrassed to
be a Forest Service employee. I have spent most of my career
in the Alaska Region and I have never had a cause to feel
this way previously. I am proud of what this agency and its
employees have accomplished for the benefit of all people in
the management of the resources within the State of Alaska.
More than just our management of the resources, we bring some
tremendous skills to our communities where we participate
fully as community members. The partisan way the Roadless
Rule was completed goes counter to everything our agency has
been trying to build in community trust and involvement over
the past 30 years.
Some people within the community and at work have
questioned my persistence in trying to overturn the Roadless
Rule. Speaking as a council member for the community, I feel
I have an obligation to make every effort to protect our
community from harm. As a Forest Service employee, I just
want to be proud of who I work for again.
Sincerely,
Bill Tremblay.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I go back to my original statement. I
have been here going on 35 years now and I have never seen people make
statements that are so unfounded and unfactual about things that I am
doing.
I am warning the Senate that if Members of the Senate accuse me of
doing things that are not proper and they are absolutely unfactual, I
intend to come here and, on a basis of personal privilege, bring those
Senators to the floor and demand an apology. This has gone too far.
Senators are saying my amendment covers 9 million acres. It does not.
It protects 1.7 million acres. The reason we are discussing this here
today is that at the last minute, the Clinton administration added my
State to the roadless rule. Notwithstanding the fact that the Clinton
administration called me personally and said Alaska would not be
included in their roadless rule plan because they knew of the
provisions of ANILCA. No hearing was ever held on the implications such
a rule would have on Alaska, no hearing was held on the proposal, and
no request to Congress to include Alaska in the roadless area was ever
made. I have never seen anything more deceitful than the conduct of the
Clinton administration in their pursuit of the roadless rule.
I intend to pursue this now. I would hope that before my colleagues
make statements on the floor or to the media, they review both the
Tongass amendment and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act. I am literally warning Senators that we are going to have it out
here on the floor of the Senate if they keep accusing me of doing
something which I have not done. That, to me, is a violation of the
Senate rules.
When Judge Singleton ordered the Forest Service to review 9.7 million
roadless acres, the Forest Service complied. They reviewed the
Potential wilderness and roadless areas even though it was in direct
violation of ANILCA. There wouldn't even be a review if the Clinton
Administration had not ignored ANILCA, which specifically prohibited
such review.
Alaskans seek two remedies to the current problems with Forest Policy
in the Tongass. First, we want the Forest Service to uphold the law and
declare the roadless rule in the Tongass an unlawful violation of
ANILCA.
Second, we ask that when the Forest Service issues its decision later
this year on the Tongass plan, we declare that it is the final decision
on this issue. Judge Singleton's mandate entitled The Environmental
Groups to a Review, it did not entitle them to a Forest Service
recommendation that is favorable to their position. It did not entitle
them to hold up the use of public resources indefinitely. We have been
through the process and we all must recognize and abide by the Forest
Service's final ruling.
And, if this issue goes before a Federal court again, I expect the
Judges to uphold the law--especially the specific provision which we
call the ``No More Clause.''
Alaskans understand the need to conserve our public lands and
resources better than anyone else. We have protected more land than any
other country on Earth and more than the other 49 States combined.
We were the pioneers of the Nation's last great frontier and our
lives have always depended on the sustainability of our natural
resources.
Our time in the great wilderness of our State has taught us that man
forges a fragile pact with his surroundings. He needs the land and its
resources, but he must also preserve them. That is why my State has
fought so hard to make sure that our land and waterways and the species
that inhabit them will be there for generations to come.
Consistent with our commitment to the environment, we have designated
over 58 million acres as pristine wilderness, which represents 55
percent of all wilderness areas in the United States.
Because only 1 percent of Alaska's lands are privately owned, it is
imperative that the Federal Government allow us to use some of our
resources on the 235 million acres managed by the Federal Government.
We will always manage our lands in a way that ensures their vitality.
Timber is a renewable resource, it can be and will be managed this way
under the measures provided in this bill.
Much of my State will always be pristine wilderness. But, we need
some degree of certainty that we will be able to harvest small portions
of the forest that is not wilderness. We need to know that we will be
able to sustain the timber industry we have today. We need assurances
that our efforts will not be met with more lawsuits and more
resistance. In the days ahead I will pursue this subject again and
again.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from my
constituents and communities who have been severely impacted by the
lawless actions of the previous administration.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senator Stevens: This is just a short note to let you know
you have huge support for what you are doing with the Tongass
riders. You have my support and the support of thousands of
Alaskans. Don't consider for a moment that the environmental
``wackos'' represent the majority view of Alaskans. Keep up
the great work on this crucial issue. Thanks for a job well
done!!
Please pass this on to Congressman Young if you get a
chance. Thanks. Also, Congressman Young did a great job on
the call-in show on APR yesterday.
Dave Carlson,
Petersburg, AK.
____
Senator Stevens: Thanks for your efforts to get the timber
industry back on its feet. The current effort will remove an
obstacle that has held back investment and added to the cost
to operate. The continuous delay resulting from challenges to
the Forest Plan has been one of the industries biggest
problems.
George Woodbury,
Wrangell, AK.
____
Senator Stevens: We in SE Alaska support Senator Stevens
and staff in your efforts to pass the Tongass riders. We
support the 1997 Tongass plan's determination that no more
wilderness is required in the Tongass. We also support the
exemption of Alaska from the roadless determination, as
originally promised by Clinton. Adequate timber supply is
absolutely essential to our Prince of Wales communities and
critical to our mill, Viking Lumber, the only viable mil in
SE Alaska. Our mill employs 35 year-around and only needs 30
million board feet per year to continue operating. These
riders will provide adequate timber for this family-owned
mill in the Craig/Klawock area.
Please know that we support your efforts and are prepared
to speak out if and when needed.
Hang in there.
Tom Briggs,
Craig, AK.
____________________