[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20744-20746]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, one of the appropriations bills we have yet 
to act upon is the Interior appropriations bill, as Senator Thomas 
pointed out. He comes from the State of Wyoming. I come from the State 
of Arizona. Practically every State west of the Mississippi is 
significantly impacted by this bill because, as I am sure you are well 
aware, Mr. President, coming from the State of Montana, more than a 
third of this Nation's lands are owned by the Federal Government. Most 
of those are in the western United States. Many of those lands are 
under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
  This is an extraordinarily important bill for the people of our 
States. I just want to discuss one aspect of it that is very important 
for my State of Arizona and other States in the western United States.
  We have a very difficult condition in our national forests now. They 
have been probably--I think it is not too strong a term--``mismanaged'' 
over the years. It has been a combination of things. It has been the 
combination of the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, the 
Department of the Interior, the grazing on public lands, the way that 
fire suppression has taken off, and some other things which have 
resulted in the condition where, instead of healthy forests of large 
trees that have great environmental value and value to the other flora 
and fauna in the forest and which present a relatively safe situation 
in terms of forest fires, we now have a situation in the West where our 
forests are literally becoming overgrown.
  They are becoming so thick and dense with small-growth trees that:
  (A) They are very fire prone.
  (B) They are not resistant at all to disease and to insects.
  (C) They are not environmentally pleasing at all.
  (D) None of the trees grow up to be very large because they are all 
competing for the moisture and the nutrients in the soil.
  The net result is a situation that is very different from that which 
pertained at the turn of the century when we had very healthy forests 
of very large trees that were spaced quite a distance apart, with 
meadows in between, with a lot of good grass that livestock and wild 
animals could graze on, and which were not prone to forest fire because 
the fire would work along the ground when it occurred. It would reduce 
the fuel load on the ground, but it would never get to be the kind of 
crown fire we have just seen on television that has been experienced in 
several States in the West, not the least of which is in California.
  You get the crown fires when you have a lot of brush on the ground. 
You have these small, dense trees and many come under the boughs of the 
great big trees. The fire starts on the ground and goes right up to the 
crown of the other trees. We have all seen from those television 
pictures the explosive power of the fires. It is a horrendous 
situation. It threatens life and limb as well as the destruction of the 
forest and all that is within it.
  We have to find a way to better manage our forests. We have been for 
some time urging the Department of Agriculture and the Department of 
the Interior to work on a management program which essentially involves 
the thinning of these small-diameter trees, leaving the large-diameter 
trees--leaving the old growth but thinning out the small-diameter 
trees, and then doing controlled burns to get rid of the fuel load, and 
after that letting nature take its course.

[[Page 20745]]

  We have found from experimentation--primarily through Northern 
Arizona University, Dr. Walley Covington, and others who have done the 
research and demonstration projects we have funded--that the trees 
become more healthy. The pitch content of the trees increases 
significantly. So they are less susceptible to bark beetles and other 
kinds of insect damage. The grasses grow up underneath the trees as 
they didn't do before. The protein content of the grasses is 
significantly higher. So it is much better grazing for the forest 
animals. In every respect, from an environmental point of view, it is a 
better situation than that which pertains today.
  This takes money because you have to pay to go in and do the 
thinning. Each one of these projects requires a substantial amount of 
money.
  So far, the research has been done on small plots of land. But 
according to the General Accounting Office, we have about 25 to 30 
years maximum to treat all of our forests or we are going to be into a 
contagion situation with very little hope of saving these forests. In 
fact, we have about 39 million acres of national forest lands in the 
interior West that are at high risk of catastrophic fire, and only this 
brief period of maybe 25 years to effectively manage these forests.
  There are two major impediments to solving the problem. One is agency 
inertia. It has taken a long time to get the agencies up and running. 
Secretary Babbitt has been supportive of this concept. There are 
extremists in the environmental community who want to prevent any 
management of the forest. Many fine environmental groups are supportive 
of participation in this program, but there are extremists who file 
lawsuits to try to prevent any management.
  I have asked Forest Service Chief Dombeck to support a dramatic 
increase in forest restoration. In fact, the Forest Service plans to 
implement three to four large-scale projects of 100,000 to 300,000-acre 
size during fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year 2000 budget for the 
Forest Service called for reducing fuels on only 1.3 million acres, 
down from 1.5 million planned for 1999.
  The GAO estimates a very substantial increase in funding will be 
necessary, probably up to $725 million annually, in order to adequately 
address this problem. I strongly support increased restoration funding 
for this fuels reduction program, including the Forest Service new 
line-item request for the forest ecosystem restoration improvement 
fund. This will be used to support forest restoration projects where 
current funding is not available or feasible, particularly in a 
situation where the materials are available to be cut have no 
commercial value.
  I plan to continue my efforts to support this. I know the Senator 
from Wyoming is strongly supportive of managing our national forests--
both the forests under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
Agriculture and the Department of Interior--in a very sensible fashion. 
We are just now starting this. It has taken a few years to get consent 
on the right way to do this. We have a lot more funding to provide. We 
need much more agency support for this forest restoration if we are 
going to save the national forests of this great country.
  I think this is very important not only for the people in the West 
but throughout the country. I think it deserves our attention and our 
priority.
  I appreciate the opportunity for discussion this morning, and I thank 
the Senator from Wyoming for reserving time to talk about these 
important issues.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the 
uniqueness of the public lands of the West. It is very clear there are 
great differences among the States in terms of land management, the 
kinds of land ownership that exist, and the delivery of health care.
  Wyoming is a large State. I think we are the eighth largest State in 
the United States yet the smallest in population. We have small towns. 
There are twice as many people in Fairfax County as there are in the 
State of Wyoming. The point I make is ``one size fits all'' in many 
areas of operation does not work effectively in delivering services. I 
think that is especially true when we start talking about the 
management of resources and the management of lands.
  This chart shows the Federal land holdings by State. The color brown 
represents almost all New England States with less than 1 percent of 
their total land surface held by the Federal Government. Blue 
represents States with 1 percent to 5 percent, including much of the 
South and the Midwest. Five to 10 percent are the purple-colored 
States. In the West, the yellow-colored States have up to 65 percent of 
the State's surface belonging to the Federal Government. It is a unique 
proposition. Furthermore, there are States in green that go beyond 
that. This map shows almost 83 percent of Nevada--actually I think it 
is probably 87 percent of Nevada's surface--belonging to the Federal 
Government. The same is true in Alaska.
  There is a great deal of difference in how we do this. The lands 
belong to everyone. The economy of the States depends on Federal 
decisions that are made, including the jobs for everyone who lives 
there. Local county governments take care of all services transpiring 
on Federal lands.
  Let me show you an enlarged map of Wyoming. This map gives you an 
idea of the amount of land in Wyoming belonging to the Federal 
Government or public lands. This is an Indian reservation. Purple 
represents national parks. We are very proud of them. The green 
represents U.S. forest reserves. The interspersed yellow represents 
land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Where the railroads went 
through in the early years are checkerboard lands, with every other 
section being owned by the Federal Government. There are control and 
access problems for all of these areas.
  We depend highly upon the dollars made available through the Interior 
appropriations. We have had much involvement with the decisions made by 
the land management agencies in these areas, whether it be BLM or 
others. I want to emphasize how important it is to talk about some of 
these important issues.
  For example, these lands are basic lands. BLM lands were largely 
residual that remained after the Homestead Act expired. They generally 
are lands in the plains of our State. The homesteaders came in along 
the rivers and creeks, taking the most productive lands. The other 
lands remain managed by the BLM. To remain an agricultural unit it is 
always necessary to have the productive lands and the other lands for 
grazing. We use them for multiple use.
  Everyone in Wyoming wants to use the lands for wildlife, for the 
preservation of wildlife, hunting, hiking. Indeed, they can be used 
together. It is sometimes difficult to find agreement. Multiple use, 
whether for mineral production or not--all the lands yield minerals; 
mostly oil, trona, soda ash or coal; Wyoming is the largest producer of 
coal in the country which most people don't realize--is income for the 
State and the Federal Government with their royalties.
  We have currently and in this bill we will talk about funding for the 
Fish and Wildlife Service which manages the Endangered Species Act. 
This is a very difficult area. Everyone wants to preserve critters, 
animals, and plants that are endangered. At the same time, there are 
some questions when we have an animal in some danger. First, the 
grizzly bears or wolves; now we have the Preble's Meadow jumping mouse 
listed as endangered. It becomes almost a threat to the private land 
owners who are restricted from using their lands as they desire because 
of the potential threat of endangerment.
  These are the issues we deal with. We deal with PILT payments, 
payments in lieu of taxes. Fifty percent of the State belongs to the 
Federal Government. There are no taxes as in private lands. In this 
bill, there is funding for PILT payments. We will have an amendment to 
raise it.
  The counties provide hospital service, the counties provide policing, 
the counties provide all the services to these lands but have received 
no revenue as the case would be if they had

[[Page 20746]]

been private lands. These are the things with which we deal.
  Much of this supports grazing. Ranchers in Wyoming have permits. They 
pay so much per animal unit for grazing. We have a problem now because 
the Forest Service or the BLM has not done a NEPA study for permit 
renewal. Unfortunately, they have not been able to complete the NEPA 
studies. Now we are faced with the question: Does the grazing lease 
expire because there has not been a study?
  There will be an amendment that says you can go ahead and extend the 
grazing lease and let the BLM go ahead and make the study; it doesn't 
preclude the study. The study will still be made, but it allows the 
grazing to continue because it is no fault of the grazer the study has 
not been made.
  The Senator from Arizona talked about forests and forest management. 
Obviously, in many cases there is some kind of harvesting of mature 
timber. If it is not harvested and managed in the way you take it out, 
then it burns.
  I just came back from spending several days in Yellowstone Park where 
we had a gigantic fire in the late eighties. It is discouraging to see 
how long it takes to reforest an area of that kind.
  We are dealing again in this bill with financing what is called the 
clean water action plan which has to do with nonpoint source water 
controls. One hundred eleven ideas, put forth by EPA to do some things 
like that, frankly, are going to be extremely difficult and will have 
much to do with the utilization and multiple use of these lands because 
you have to have the water to do that.
  We talk about droughts in the East. Frankly, this kind of area does 
not get as much rainfall in a normal year as we did in a drought. This 
is 14 inches per year. The water, the runoff, and the irrigation are a 
very real part of it.
  We are going to move into this area this afternoon. I am very pleased 
with what has been done. The Senator from Washington has put together a 
bill which I think has great merit. We are trying to do some things 
that will make it more workable in terms of oil royalties, grazing 
fees, and some of the other things that do become controversial.
  I urge people to take a look at the situation, even though they do 
not live here, and try to understand why some of these things need to 
be handled a little bit differently because of the situation we have in 
the West.
  I thank the Chair for the opportunity to talk about this bill. I 
believe we have used our time, or very close to it. I yield back the 
time if we have not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Feingold and Mr. Reed pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1568 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________