THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

Second, simply, is that by passing this amendment, we enact good environmental policy. The continual construction of new roads required to access our nation's forests removes ground cover and creates a channel for water to run down, accelerates soil erosion, weakens hillsides and fouls steams, destroying the foundation of our recreational and commercial fisheries. Logging roads are a major source of non-point source water pollution. According to the National Forest Service, 922 communities receive their drinking water from streams within the national forests-streams that are polluted from contaminated run-off associated with construction.

[Page: S7040]  GPO's PDF

   The protection of our roadless ar eas is important because they represent an important legacy for future generations. Areas wi thout roads are becoming scarce in this country and in our national forests. Roadless ar eas pr ovide significant benefits including: opportunities for dispersed recreation, clean, clear sources of public drinking water; large undisturbed landscapes that provide privacy and seclusion; bulwarks against the spread of invasive species; habitat for fish and game and other rare plant and animal species.

   While I would prefer to see this program eliminated completely, at the minimum timber companies should not be subsidized by the taxpayers. The timber industry, like any other business, should bear its own costs. At a time when we are asking all Americans to do more with less, we should have the courage to ask the special interests to at least pay their own way. I support the Bryan amendment, and ask my colleagues to join me by voting for this important initiative.

   While I have the floor, I will take a moment to comment on legislation that the Senate will soon consider. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act would guarantee full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and afford permanent protection to our nation's threatened natural, cultural, and historical treasures.

   In 1964, Congress made the decision to reinvest revenue from the development of non-renewable resources into acquisition and permanent protection of key land, water, and open space. In the 30 years since its creation, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has been responsible for the acquisition of nearly seven million acres of parkland-contributing to the creation of the Appalachian Trail, Everglades and Rocky Mountain National Parks. In New Jersey, it helped fund the acquisition of Sterling Forest, and the Cape May and Walkill National Wildlife Refuges.

   However, the LWCF is not a true trust fund in the way ``trust fund'' is generally understood by the public. Despite the fact that by law, the revenues are supposed to go to the LWCF, Congress must appropriate the money before it can be spent; if appropriations are not made, the revenues instead go to the General Treasury, to be spent on defense, or roads, or whatever Congress decides. The practical effect is that historically, only a small portion of the funds in the LWCF has actually been used for land preservation.

   At no time has full funding of the LWCF been more needed than today, as the demands of development and suburbanization jeopardize land preservation efforts. The United States loses 50 acres an hour to development. In New Jersey, we know all too well the effects of suburban sprawl. Since 1961, New Jersey has lost half a million acres to sprawl. This is not surprising when you consider that New Jersey ranks 9th in terms of population. The reality is that sprawl is settling in over our open space.

   In a very exciting development, the House of Representatives recently passed LWCF legislation, and this bill now stands in the Senate. I am hopeful that the Senate will mark up its legislation this week, and I urge the Leadership to schedule floor time for this landmark initiative as soon as possible.

   Inscribed in one of the hallways of our nation's Capitol are the words of Theodore Roosevelt. He said: ``The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired in value.'' Let us act on this vision and pass this extraordinary initiative during the 106th Congress.

   Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, every year at this time it seems we're here on the Senate floor debating another attack on the Forest Service's Timber Management Program. Every year those who wish to eliminate logging in our National Forests come up with another angle which they claim helps protect the environment by eliminating ``wasteful'' spending on logging practices. Every year people throughout northern Minnesota and forested regions across the country see their jobs and their livelihoods threatened in the name of preservation or conservation. And every year, those of us who represent the good people of the timber and paper industry in our states have to fight, scratch, and claw our way to a narrow victory that saves those jobs and those families from economic ruin.

   I come from a state in which the forest and paper industry is vital to our economy. The reduction in the timber program on National Forests has had a dramatic impact over the past ten years on the number of jobs and the economic vitality of northern Minnesota. According to Minnesota Forest Industries (MFI), jobs provided by the timber program in Minnesota dropped from over 1,900 in 1987 to less than 1,100 last year, and they continue to decline.

   The reduction in timber harvests on federal lands has had an equally dramatic effect on unrealized economic impacts. MFI estimates that unrealized economic benefits include over $10 million from timber sales, $25 million in federal taxes, $2.5 million in payments to states, and $116 million in community economic impact in Minnesota alone.

   It's important to point out that the timber program in National Forests have a very positive impact on the amount of federal money that goes to rural counties and schools. Nationally, the program contribute $225 million to counties and schools each year through receipts from timber sales in national forests. In Minnesota, the timber program provided roughly $1.7 million to counties and schools in 1998 alone. If the timber program would have met its allowable sale quantity in 1998, that number would have risen to nearly $2.5 million.

   I'm fascinated by the claims of some of my colleagues that the timber program is a subsidy to wealthy timber and paper companies and the claims that the timber program loses money because we're giving timber away to these companies. If you truly believe that, I challenge you to visit forested regions and speak with the families who have lost their mills and the loggers who have lost their jobs. Talk to the counties and the private landowners who cannot access to their own property because the Forest Service doesn't have enough money to do the environmental reviews. Or talk directly to the Forest Service personnel and let them tell you how lengthy and costly environmental reviews and the overwhelming number of court challenges to those reviews are making the timber program so costly.

   Then go speak with state or county land managers and ask them why their timber programs are so successful. Ask them why their lands are so much more healthy than the federal lands and why they're able to make money with their timber programs. In Minnesota, St. Louis County only has to spend 26 cents in order to generate one dollars of revenue in their timber program and the State of Minnesota spend 75 cents to generate one dollar of revenue. The Superior National Forest, on the other hand, spend one dollar and three cents to get the same results.

   I cannot see how my colleagues can stand here on the Senate floor and tell me that the forest and paper industry in our country, and its employees, are the bad guys. The forest and paper industry in America employs over 1.5 million people and ranks among the top ten manufacturing employers in 46 states. These are good, traditional jobs that help a family make a living, allow children to pursue higher education, help keep rural families in rural areas, a nd provide a legitimate a base from which rural counties can fund basic services. These are jobs that we in Congress should be working diligently not only to protect, but to grow.

   Unfortunately, many Members of Congress who advocate these ideas have never taken the time to understand the positive economic and environmental benefits of science-based timber harvests. They've never sat down with a county commissioner who doesn't know where he is going to get the money for some of the most basic services the county provides to its citizens. They've never considered that for every 1 million board feet in timber harvest reductions in Minnesota, 10 people lose their jobs and over $570,000 in economic activity is lost. And they've never taken the time to go into a health forest where prudent logging practices have been essential to ensuring the vitality and diversity of species.

   If Members of this body want to make the timber program profitable across the country, then we should have an honest debate about what

[Page: S7041]  GPO's PDF

   Virtually everyone in this body, including this Senator, is committed to the protection of our environment and to the conservation of our wildlife species and wildlife habitat. I believe we can expand upon our commitment to wildlife and provide additional resources for habitat protection. But I do not believe we must do so on the backs of timber and paper workers throughout the nation. I am willing to work with anybody in this chamber towards those conservation efforts, but let's not do it by pitting timber and paper workers against conservationists.

   We cannot simply stand here and claim that the Bryan amendment is an easy way to throw some money towards planning for the threat of forest fires. Rather, this amendment is going to take jobs from my constituents and hurt the economy of the northern part of my state. The Bryan amendment is just one more step down the road toward eliminating logging on federal land. This amendment is going to reduce the ability of a number of rural counties in my state to make ends meet and to provide necessary services to residents. These are just a few of the realities of the Bryan amendment and just a few of the reasons why I cannot and will not support its passage.

   ARCHIE CARR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUNDING

   Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to first thank my colleagues, Senators GORTON and BYRD for their support in obtaining $2 million in the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill for the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.

   Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1991. It is 900 acres in Brevard County Florida which makes up the twenty mile section of coastline from Melbourne Beach to Wabasso Beach in Florida. It is the most important nesting area for loggerhead sea turtles in the western hemisphere and the second most important nesting beach in the world.

   Mr. MACK. I would like to join my colleague in thanking Senators GORTON and BYRD and the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for their support for the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Twenty percent of all loggerhead sea turtle and 35% of all green sea turtle nests in the United States occur in this twenty mile zone. Nesting densities of 1,000 nests per mile have been recorded. Approximately half of this area is available for acquisition. The funds in this legislation will be critical in our ability to move forward on these acquisitions.

   Mr. GRAHAM. Despite the importance of this refuge to the loggerhead sea turtle, there is no refuge station at Archie Carr. The result is both a lack of educational opportunities for visitors and a lack of security at the refuge. I join my colleague, Senator MACK, in proposing that $200,000 of the funds provided by the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill for the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge be available for use by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the purpose of site evaluation for a visitor center/research and education center.

   Mr. GORTON. Thank you, Senators MACK and GRAHAM. I share your desire to support the need of our National Wildlife Refuges, in particular the needs of Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, and will work with Senators MACK and GRAHAM to see if funds can be identified to support site evaluation for a visitor center/research and education center.

   Mr. BYRD. Thank you, Senator GORTON. I, too, share the goal of ensuring that our National Wildlife Refuge System receives the funds it requires to preserve the critical habitat it was designed to protect. I concur with your position on the proposal made by Senators GRAHAM and MACK.

   NORTH CAROLINA'S STREAM GAUGES AND MONITORING EQUIPMENT

   Mr. EDWARDS. I thank you for including my amendment to provide $1,800,000 in emergency funds for the United States Geological Survey to repair and replace stream monitoring equipment damaged by natural disasters. As you know, your Committee recommended a significant increase in the USGS's Real Time Hazards Initiative, including $3,100,000 for new or upgraded stream gauging stations.

   1999 was a devastating year for North Carolina. Hurricanes Floyd, Dennis and Irene did extensive damage across eastern North Carolina. And early indications are that this hurricane season will be just as active for North Carolina as last year. North Carolina's stream gauges and monitoring equipment are in desperate need of upgrade and enhancement. I respectfully request that the Committee recommend that the United States Geological Survey give special consideration to North Carolina's needs and address the need for upgrades and enhancements through this appropriation.

   Mr. GORTON. I understand that the USGS is willing to address North Carolina's specific needs for stream gauges and monitoring equipment through the Real Time Hazards Initiative. The Committee recognizes the unique danger in North Carolina and, therefore, strongly encourages the USGS to ensure that North Carolina's stream gauges and monitoring devices are enhanced or upgraded to the degree possible within appropriations provided for these types of activities.

   ELECTRO-CATALYTIC OXIDATION (ECO)

   Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleagues, Senator GORTON, Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee; and Senator BYRD, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, about a new and innovative technology. Mr. Chairman, are you aware of an emerging technology known as electro-catalytic oxidation (ECO), which has the potential to reduce emissions, as well as unusable byproducts at coal-fired power plants?

   Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would inform the Senator from Ohio that I have been made aware of ECO.

   Mr. DeWINE. I ask if he concurs that the Secretary of Energy should participate in a full-scale demonstration of this technology that is planned for the near future.

   Mr. GORTON. I would certainly encourage the Department to take a close look at this technology within the context of its coal research programs, and consider carefully any related research or demonstration proposal that may be submitted.

   Mr. DeWINE. As the senior Senator from West Virginia is aware, the early tests of this technology show a significant reduction of nitrogen oxide (Nox), sulfur dioxide (SO2), mercury, and fine particulate matter. Would the Senator agree that a cost-effective reduction of these emissions is in the best interest of coal-fired power consumers as well as the coal industry?

   Mr. BYRD. I would agree with the Senator from Ohio.

   Mr. DeWINE. I thank the very distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia and would note that the Senator from New Hampshire, the state were ECO was developed, is optimistic about the potential of the technology. Would the Senator agree?

   Mr. SMITH (of New Hampshire). I would agree with my colleague from Ohio and add that I applaud the innovative efforts that have led to the development of this emerging emissions control technology. As many of you know, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is currently working to develop a bill that will address the significant problem of the hodge-podge of overlapping Clean Air Act regulation on utilities. Our goal is to draft a comprehensive, multi-pollutant bill to provide a more sensible

[Page: S7042]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for his support of this important technology, and I would welcome the opportunity to more closely examine his proposals related to Clean Air reauthorization, and comment on them at a future time. I also thank the Chairman of the Interior Subcommittee and the senior Senator from West Virginia and would encourage them to consider the benefits of ECO to consumers of coal-fired power as well as coal producing states when this bill moves to conference with the other body.

   FY 2001 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR MAINE PROJECTS

   Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Maine and the nation have an opportunity to accomplish an enormously meaningful level of forest protection in Maine's 10 million acre Northern Forest if significant funding for Forest Service accounts is allocated for Maine projects in fiscal year 2001. In the last two years, an astounding 20 percent of Maine's total forestland acreage has changed ownership, an occurrence that represents a significant shift in the pattern of stable long-term ownership and use that has characterized the Maine woods for at least the last hundred years.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents