Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his statement and his support. I thank my colleague from Alaska for her statement. I come to the floor in opposition to the Sununu amendment, also. I hope Members will read it because it…
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his statement and his support. I thank my colleague from Alaska for her statement.
I come to the floor in opposition to the Sununu amendment, also. I hope Members will read it because it says:
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to
plan, design, study, or construct new forest development
roads in the Tongass National Forest for the purpose of
harvesting timber by private entities or individuals.
This amendment is premised on inaccurate information and faulty assumptions about our Nation's timber industry, the Tongass, and the state of our national forests. Unfortunately, this type of information has become commonplace. It is the inevitable result of special interest campaigns which are designed to distort the facts and mislead the American public. For many years, I have worked to set the record straight, especially when it comes to the false claims about Alaska's stewardship of our natural resources. Unfortunately, this amendment requires that I attempt, once more, to set the record straight.
Misinformation about management of our national resources now runs rampant. I believe it lies at the heart of this amendment. It is the result of propaganda campaigns raised by extreme environmentalists and special interest groups who often get the facts wrong because they ignore our history. Our State once had a thriving timber industry. It supplied almost 2 billion board feet a year, employed over 3,000 timber workers, and generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue for the U.S. Treasury. But in the spirit of compromise and cooperation, our timber industry agreed to reduce the amount of timber it could harvest per year. In fact, one timber employee recently stated ``we cooperated ourselves right out of business.''
The Tongass National Forest was established in 1917. At 17 million acres, it is the largest national forest in the United States. It is twice the size of Maryland and more than 25 times the size of Rhode Island. As a matter of fact, if we look at the map showing the New England area, it shows how big this forest really is. The part that is covered in black is that portion of the forest that is open to timber on a proportionate basis. The other map that I have shows the forest as a whole and shows the result of the plans that have been developed. The area in blue is area that is still available for harvesting. All of the white part of that map of the Tongass is permanently closed to timber harvest.
The Tongass compromises 90 percent of the lands of southeastern Alaska. The remaining lands are State, more Federal, and private lands. The Tongass is the only forest in Alaska in which timber may be harvested now. Alaska's other forest, the Chugach National Forest, which contains 5.5 million acres, is now under a management plan which has reduced the allowable sale quantity to zero. The Chugach is completely closed to logging. No timber can be logged from that very massive forest, 5.5 million acres.
Federal timber policy regarding the Tongass has had devastating effects on the 32 communities in Southeast Alaska that depend on timber harvests for their livelihood. When Congress passed the Tongass Timber Act in 1947, an allowable sale quantity, which we call the ASQ, for the Tongass was set at 1.38 billion board feet per year. This level was slowly eroded. Under the 1959 Statehood Act, the State of Alaska was allowed to select only 400,000 acres of its 103-million-acre entitlement in Southeast Alaska.
Because there is little private land to support our local economies, Congress committed to provide support for economic development through timber sales. Congress codified that support in a series of laws beginning in 1971. In 1971, the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act set the ASQ, the allowable quantity, at 950 million board feet per year. During subsequent years, the timber industry in the Tongass supported almost 3,000 jobs and harvested an average of 520 million board feet per year. However, the amount of permissible harvest was again decreased in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, which set an ASQ of 450 million board feet per year. At that time, the Senate believed that 450 million board feet per year would maintain a robust timber industry which was a major section of southeast Alaska's regional economy.
In addition, the Senate envisioned providing Federal funds for road building and advanced harvesting technology.
As former Senator Roth stated at that time in 1980, the bill:
. . . permit[s] the established timber industries to
maintain a rate of production necessary for their economic
success. It was understood by Members of the Senate during
this debate that a vital timber industry was necessary for
the economic survival of the residents of southeast Alaska.
As Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts said:
Our commitment was to treat Alaska fairly.
The commitment was again put to the test during the debate on the Tongass Timber Reform Act, which was called TTRA, in 1990. That plan set the ASQ at 450 million board feet on 1.9 million acres. The Act also directed the Forest Service to provide a supply of timber which meets the market demand in southeast Alaska. At that time, several Members from both sides of the aisle in the Senate adamantly agreed that this bill would be the final word on the Tongass.
As Senator Johnson of Louisiana stated:
I believe that the designation and disposition of the
public lands in the Tongass National Forest pursuant to this
act represent a responsible balance between the preservation
of wildlife areas and the availability of lands for more
intensive use as determined appropriate by administrative
planning and management. I further believe that this
agreement will allow Alaskans the certainty they need and
deserve by resolving the issue once and for all.
Now, that was in 1990. Senator Bingaman--now an original cosponsor of the Sununu amendment, as a matter of fact--said at the time:
This is a balanced bill that will adequately protect this
majestic national forest, while assuring a sustainable supply
of timber for current and future needs. . . . This
legislation recognizes that some areas should be protected,
while others should be managed for a sustained supply of
timber.
That was at the time of the 1990 act.
I remember speaking on the floor prior to passage of the bill. After years of broken promises and severe declines in the timber industry, I trusted our colleagues to do the right thing and resolve the issue of the Tongass once and for all. That is what everybody at the time said-- that Act was the final legislation pertaining to the Tongass timber harvest. I called on all Members of the House and Senate to listen to the voice of Alaskans. I received a promise, commitment, and assurance of those involved, who had the power to change these laws, that they recognized this was the end, that there would be no further divisions of the Tongass.
In 1997, however, the Forest Service completed the Tongass land management plan, which currently guides management of the Tongass. The development of that involved an unprecedented level of scientific review and public involvement. It took over 10 years and cost the taxpayers of the United States $13 million.
I opposed the plan because it contained again a drastic reduction in the amount of timber allowed to be harvested. It reduced the allowable sale quantity level to 267 million board feet per year. I thought the levels were
much lower than they needed to be, and they violated the commitment previously made to me. Numerous scientists who found that the Tongass could sustain far greater development supported my conclusion.
Yet, today, that plan seems like the golden age of the Tongass timber industry. I now find myself defending a plan I initially opposed, because of continued efforts to erode the promises made to our State.
This plan addresses how to manage the Tongass--a largely undeveloped forest landscape--over time. The centerpiece is a biological conservation strategy that protects the ``biological heart,'' as they called it, of the Tongass, designed to assure the sustainability of all resources and values, while allowing development on a relatively small portion of the Tongass to support communities in southeast Alaska through timber harvesting.
Mr. President, 93 percent of all forested areas in the Tongass are set aside under the 1997 plan; 93 percent are not available for timber harvesting. Timber harvesting can actually now occur on only 676,000 acres, or 4 percent of the 17 million acre forest. The allowable sale quantity under this plan is 267 million board feet--down, as I said, from over 1 billion board feet. An ASQ of 267 million board feet per year is the bottom quantity, as far as I am concerned.
Since 1990, the volume of timber harvested from the Tongass has dropped from hundreds of board feet per year. Last year, only 46 million board feet of timber was harvested--46 million board feet of timber from a forest of 17 million acres.
To comply with the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the current plan seeks to plan, prepare, and sell about 150 million board feet per year. Delays caused by litigation have prohibited the Forest Service from accomplishing this goal on the Tongass. Fourteen projects are currently under litigation. They represent over 238 million board feet of timber that should have been harvested in years gone by.
Direct timber jobs in the Tongass have declined from over 3000 in 1990 to less than 700 today. Unemployment in parts of southeast Alaska is well over 10 percent, all because of extravagant acts of those who oppose the very Act they championed at the time it passed in 1990.
Mr. President, 150 million board feet per year could support 959 direct timber jobs, totaling over $35 million in direct wages, Each direct timber job is estimated to support another 1.7 jobs in the local economy. These jobs are an important high-wage sector of the economy and provide much needed year-round employment for southeast Alaska. The benefits of a sufficient and sustained timber supply are obvious.
The timber industry in southeast Alaska has changed dramatically over the period we have described. The large pulp mills are closed. Three medium sawmills, one small sawmill, and a handful of micromills remain, but they are primarily idle because of the level of timber that can be cut right now. These businesses are family owned and community based and depend upon a supply of timber from the Tongass for their survival.
The remaining mills are involved in efforts to increase the demand for, and the stumpage values of, the timber in southeastern Alaska.
These people are trying to build a more integrated industry to provide finished products, such as window and door trim, to local, national, and international markets.
The Tongass timber program is working to complete investments in drying and planing lumber, having it graded, to sell in the local region.
Wood resources in southeast Alaska are now known to have unique qualities. Wood density and lumber strength is high. New lumber grades for Alaska yellow cedar and hemlock have recently been issued, which surpass the strength of other species currently used in construction in the lower 48, such as Douglas fir. This is also expected to increase the value of Alaska's timber.
In other words, we are trying to do what we can through technology to increase value of our timber, even though the amount of the timber is steadily declining.
The efforts of those remaining in the Tongass industry to adapt to current conditions will be worthless if Congress adopts the Sununu amendment. As I said, the amendment prohibits the Forest Service from using funds appropriated for the ``planning, designing, studying, or construction'' of timber roads.
Planning, designing, and studying are necessary to assure that we meet the multiple use consideration of the national forests. This forest area is full of small streams that contain migratory salmon. Wildlife is there. There are recreation values. A whole series of values require the Forest Service to study the areas that can be harvested. Careful planning, designing, studying, and construction is necessary to protect those values, as well as provide a transportation route so timber can be taken to market.
This amendment will effectively enact a roadless rule in the Tongass. It would prevent access to more than 300,000 acres of unroaded timber base in the areas that are open for timber harvest. Access to the small amount that is available should not be denied because of this amendment.
Data provided by the Forest Service shows at a minimum southeast Alaska will lose two mills and about 680 more jobs. These numbers will not support the industry described if this amendment passes.
Law requires that a sufficient timber supply be provided to meet market demand. That was one of the basic considerations that came from the 1990 Act. Current market demand is about 150 million board feet per year in our own area. Under this amendment, we would harvest less than 40 million board feet per year, bringing the industry to a standstill. I ask the Senate to reject this approach that would further renege on the obligation to southeast Alaska to fulfill the commitments that were made to Alaska and to southeastern Alaska under the Tongass plan.
Some of the Senators claim the Sununu amendment is about our fiscal responsibility to ensure taxpayers are not subsidizing the Tongass timber industry. But this is not about fiscal responsibility.
National environmental groups have spent millions appealing and litigating timber sales in the Tongass National Forest, causing program costs to soar and the number of sales to collapse. Almost 75 percent of all the costs associated with timber sales in the Tongass National Forest are spent on NEPA, appeals based on that Act, and litigation. The remaining 25 percent is the actual preparation and administration of a sale, including the building of roads.
Compliance with NEPA and other Federal laws and responses to appeals and litigation currently total about $110 per thousand board feet, or $110,000 per million board feet.
Without these costs, timber sale preparation and administration for the Tongass Forest would cost about $36 per thousand board feet. The average timber sale generates about $42.5 per thousand board feet. Without frivolous appeals and lawsuits, the Tongass timber program would yield a reasonable profit margin and make money for U.S. taxpayers.
Administrative appeals and litigation increase the cost of Tongass timber sales exponentially compared with the rest of the United States. The Forest Service estimates the timber sales in the Tongass are appealed and litigated more than four times that of timber sales in the national forests in the lower 48. It is the cost of this litigation and the cost of the environmental programs that are instilled by these extreme environmentalists that drive up the cost in the Tongass. Now they say we should stop harvesting timber because of the cost. Despite extensive environmental review and public participation, the majority of the timber projects in the Tongass are appealed and/or litigated.
Taxpayers are not subsidizing the timber industry. Under the National Forest Management Act, timber sale purchasers are required to competitively bid and pay market value for the sales they purchase. Purchasers also pay for all logging, transportation, and manufacturing costs.
In addition, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act mandates that national forests be managed for multiple use benefits such as fish, wildlife, recreation, and clean water.
Ecological benefits include various land management objectives such as
improving forest health and reducing the risk of catastrophic fire.
All of those costs are what the environmental groups say are part of the cost of the timber sale program. They are not. Seventy-five percent of all the costs have nothing to do with harvesting timber. They have to do with the attacks of extreme environmental groups that now bring this amendment to say you cannot use Federal money to build these roads, or even plan them, because it costs too much.
In the Tongass, timber sales also provide basic infrastructure, such as roads and docks. This infrastructure provides residents and visitors with access to hunting, fishing, recreation, and wildlife viewing. The whole spectrum of tourist activity in southeast Alaska is supported by the roads constructed. Some roads constructed by timber sales serve as the basic road system between communities and ferry terminals, which are the water highways of the island communities of southeast Alaska.
That area has no roads. Even our capital cannot be reached by road. This is an island area. It must have roads basically from the edge of the water to the area available for harvesting which, by definition, is back away from the view shed that we keep along the water's edge to assure that tourists will have the proper view of the area.
I do believe these water highways between our southeastern islands are connected, in a way, by virtue of the forest roads that are developed under these timber sale programs.
These timber sales provide benefits beyond revenues earned. Economic benefits include new jobs, additional income for individuals and businesses. Basic tax receipts of this area depend on the harvesting of timber in the Tongass.
The problem that I see now is that these communities have come to rely on timber sales not only for jobs but for their local economies. Timber sales revenues are important to local communities which receive 25 percent of the proceeds of these sales for public schools and roads, as do all areas that have national forests. By prohibiting these roads which will kill the sales, in effect, the contribution that is brought about by the laws that pertain to national forests will not be realized in Southeast Alaska because there won't be any harvest or 25 percent to support the schools that come out of the national program.
That program applies to the entire United States. The timber roads program applies to all States where there are national forests. In the year 2004, the timber harvest for all 10 forest regions was about 2 billion board feet. The gross receipts totaled $217 million and expenditures amounted to over $268 million, and that number does not take all costs into account.
The 1998 timber sale performance information reporting system found net losses in 8 of the 10 forest regions. Some States may be able to show a profit or even break even, but clearly the national timber sale program does not.
As a matter of law and policy, national forest managers are required to behave differently from private forest managers, so it does not make sense to judge their performance by private sector standards--profits.
If the Forest Service's goal was to maximize profits, contrary to the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, the Forest Service would allow export of timber and sell it to the highest bidder worldwide in the global economy. But that would essentially outsource all of the value-added forest products industry of the United States, putting local mills out of business, eliminating jobs, and leaving local communities with few alternatives for revenue. Given our current economic climate, the United States cannot afford that policy.
I want to share a quote from President Roosevelt. Senator Murkowski mentioned he established the Tongass National Forest. I think it is relevant today. He said:
. . . First and foremost, you can never afford to forget
for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That is
not to preserve forests because they are beautiful, though
that is good in itself, not because they are refuges for the
wild creatures of the wilderness, though that too is good in
itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as the
land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous
homes.
This national forest concept was supposed to provide an alternative to the development of privately owned timber and be a yardstick for the management of timber resources in our country.
The construction of timber roads is important for both the economic and environmental health of our forests. They provide access to timber used for wood, paper products, and home construction. They enable citizens to access our forests for public recreation, and they enable Forest Service employees to manage those forests for the public good.
The timber road program in Alaska is managed in the same manner as the timber road program of every national forest in the United States. The only difference in our case is we provide special protections, such as culverts, to ensure safe fish passage, and we protect the terrain. We have learned from the mistakes of the past. We do not build roads the same as they do in other areas. We strive to strike a balance between conservation and economic development.
And now with this amendment, some Members of the Senate would penalize Alaska for doing the right thing. We have developed a basic approach to use our timber areas to protect other values besides timber harvests. We could seek to significantly reduce the amount of these protections required for our timber road system, and we could drastically reduce the funds required, but that would be inconsistent with proper stewardship of our national forest lands.
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 Federal lands. The Federal Government manages, by the way, 235 million acres of Alaska's land.
We have a long, proud history as responsible stewards of our natural resources. Alaskans will always manage our lands in a way that ensures its vitality. Timber is a renewable resource. It can be--and will be-- managed as such under the Tongass land management plan.
Much of Alaska will remain pristine wilderness. We have set aside a tremendous amount of it. But we need some certainty that we will be able to harvest small portions of the forest which are not already set aside. We need to know we will be able to sustain the timber industry today with the assurances of the past. We need assurances that our efforts will not be met by more resistance, such as the frivolous lawsuits and amendments such as this.
In order to give our communities a chance to be prosperous, Congress should allow the Tongass to be managed under the forest management plan without further unwarranted interference.
I remind the Senate, the same environmental groups that caused the Tongass to lose money through frivolous litigation and stalling tactics, as I said, are now calling for an end to the timber program under the guise of fiscal conservatism. It is disingenuous and duplicitous, and their approach is given sanction and credibility by this amendment. This amendment should be defeated.
I do hope that our colleagues will consider this: Taxpayers for Common Sense has repeatedly opposed Federal funds for the entire National Forest System. They argue that 105 of the 111 national forests spend more money in the operation of forests than they collected through timber sales. They want us to meet the cost of all multiple use values the cost of recreation, the cost of conservation, the cost of protecting wildlife--by the revenues coming in from the small amount of areas of the forest allowed to be harvested.
This group singled out several national forests as wasteful. I want to point out to the Senate that the Taxpayers for Common Sense attacked forests in California, Alaska, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Washington, and Utah. I urge the Senators involved in this amendment to consider this. Why single out Alaska? Why is it that Alaskan roads cannot be built with Federal money? They are being built in all these other national forests deemed wasteful.
I am surprised my colleagues from New Hampshire and New Mexico would offer this amendment in view of the conditions of the forests in their own States. According to the Wilderness Society, the Forest Service's timber program in New Hampshire lost between $813,000 and $1.2 million. We are
being attacked for something that does not exist in Alaska alone.
In New Mexico, the timber program lost between $365,000 and $414,000.
The same economics are applied to the Tongass Timber Programs as in all National Forests. The difference in Alaska is that four times as many lawsuits are brought against Tongass timber sales than in the rest of the United States.
If this amendment is designed to protect the taxpayer, then restrictions on Federal funds for timber roads should apply to all forests in every State. And I think special interests will come after those other areas, if this amendment is passed.
I call this an ill-conceived amendment. I urge it not be adopted. It would add weight to the logic embraced by Taxpayers for Common Sense who have attacked, as I said, almost every forest in the United States. It will send us down a slippery slope by setting a precedent for halting road programs in national forests.
The roads designed and built by the Forest Service are in the best interests of the Nation because they protect all the values of the multiple-use concept of our national forests. This is not only important to the timber industry, but it is important to millions of Americans who rely on roads for access to national forests.
I do not want to encourage environmental groups to continue waging frivolous lawsuits in the hopes of making timber programs throughout the United States too expensive to continue. What they are doing is increasing the costs. Again, I point out, 75 percent of the costs in Alaska are involved in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the appeals and litigation that ensue whenever the Forest Service offers a timber sale in the Tongass.
Adopting this amendment would unfairly and unjustly distinguish one State--our State--sending a sobering message to Alaskans: Despite Congress's statements and actions in the past, a Senator voting for this amendment will be telling Alaskans that their economic well-being is secondary to special interests, and when push comes to shove, Congress will forget about the commitments of the past, forget about the promises of the past, and move to satisfy this extreme environmental movement that is the basic cause of the problem as far as the forests are concerned.
If Congress chooses to adopt this amendment, none of our forests are safe. No forest can afford to sit idly by. These special interest groups are designing ways to destroy an important Federal program based on spurious allegations with regard the economics involved. Those economics are affected more by the environmental movement, which is challenging most timber sales in the Tongass, than by the forest actions themselves.
Above all, I ask the Senate to remember that this amendment goes back on congressional promises made to Alaska. In exchange for withdrawing over 100 million acres of land for parks, refuges, and forests, including 17 million acres in Tongass National Forest, Congress promised that it would leave intact sufficient land to maintain a robust timber industry in Alaska.
Unlike the timber industry in other States, Alaska's timber industry is reliant on the Tongass, which comprises 90 percent of Southeast Alaska. Only 676,000 acres are currently open for timber harvesting.
Since 1980, jobs in the Alaskan timber industry have shrunk from over 3,000 to less than 500 today. We have only four small family-owned timber mills left.
This amendment is not about fiscal responsibility, it is a back-door attack on the timber industry to benefit this extreme environmental movement.
As I said, 75 percent of the timber sale cost is from NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Act, compliance, appeals, and litigation. Without those, the Tongass would make a 13-percent profit.
Many of the national forests in the United States have monetary returns per dollar invested, which is less than the rate of return of the Tongass, and they are not considered at all in connection with this amendment. This amendment would set a precedent that litigation can make the cost of timber programs in all national forests too expensive to continue.
If this amendment was really about fiscal responsibility, then all national forests would be included. Most of the timber programs throughout the United States--as I said, 8 out of 10 of them--are not profitable. In fact, according to the Forest Service--and I close with this point--the Tongass is one the best managed forests in the Nation. It has one of the lowest costs per acre, including the timber program.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.