Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to my colleagues today, many of which feel that the Kennedy-Porter amendment goes too far, that it makes too deep a cut in the timber purchaser credit program. It also makes a very severe cut in appropriated funds, most of which are being used for reconstruction of timber roads. Only 8 miles of new roads are being constructed under appropriated funds. What I am offering here is a compromise. This will allow us to go forward and do the reconstruction, and it will also provide half of the money for timber purchaser credit. By the way, most of the timber sales, over 75 percent of the timber sales, go to small businesses. These are not going to the elite. Most of them have gotten out of the business, at least in the Northwest, because they export off their private lands and they get very little if any Federal timber. My colleagues have to understand what has happened in the timber area. We used to do about 10 to 12 billion board feet nationally each year. This year we have come down, and this is the history here, and in recent years we have come down to about 3.7 billion board feet. We have cut in third the timber program in this country. What happens when we do that? What happens when we create this shortage? First of all we import. Over 30 percent of the softwood that comes in today comes in from Canada. They are up there cutting like mad to meet the U.S. market requirement. The other thing that happens is it forces up the price of lumber. We have got a letter here from the homebuilders saying that the average house has gone up about $2,800 per house because of increased lumber prices. So consumers have paid something like $2.8 billion more than they would have had to pay for their new houses over the last several years. I ask tonight for some common sense, for some compromise. This is an amendment that will not devastate these programs. By the way, in case somebody did not understand, one cannot go in and do timber harvesting without roads. Ninety percent of the roads we have are used for recreational purposes. They are used for fire suppression. They are used to get people out into those great recreational areas. The Forest Service lands provide more recreational opportunity than our National Park System. That is something that is not well understood by some easterners, and if the gentleman from Massachusetts ever wants to come out, I will be glad to take him around and show him a few of the roads. But, seriously, these roads are very important in terms of the transportation system. I want to also point out the density of roads on the Forest Service lands are much lower than either BLM lands or in Forest Service lands. The problem with what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] have come up with is that they want to cut $41.5 million out of appropriated funds for timber roads. Most of that money, almost all of that money, I think $40 million of that money, would be used for reconstruction. Reconstruction means going out and fixing up roads that have problems and doing it so that you can put in culverts, you can fix the roads so if you have a big storm, they do not break apart and wind up blowing out and winding up in the salmon streams. That is why I have changed that part of their amendment to go to $5.6 million which is the administration's budget request. I think we then fix that part of the amendment. Then we preserve some of the money for purchaser credit so that the smaller companies out there can still use this program, which is important for them because they have a hard time. If they do not have this, they are going to have to finance the roadwork themselves, and some of these smaller companies have a difficult time doing that. We have a way of fixing that with the purchaser elect program which will then allow the Forest Service to do some of this for them. There are two groups that are going to get really hurt by this amendment and doing away with timber purchaser credit. One is the counties. They are going to lose 25 percent of what they got before. Those Members who have been worried about PILT, counties get hurt here.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Does the gentleman intend to vote on the Kennedy-Porter amendment tonight?

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, perhaps the chairman can enlighten us about what the plan is for the rest of the evening.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, could the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules or any of the Republican leadership tell us what we are going to be doing for the rest of the evening at this point?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I would point out to the gentleman from Illinois that according to the Forest Service data, this is true for BLM, 95 percent of all timber sales in 1996 were purchased by small timber companies. In contrast, large timber companies purchased only 5 percent of these timber sales. There is a perception out there that this is going to the big boys, but they are not involved. It is the small companies that are involved.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by my friend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez]. I do believe the chairman has made a compelling case here about why this cut to the public domain program would be devastating to the BLM and to those communities that rely on it. I just regret that the gentleman did not have a better source, but have I to be in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman is in a position on the authorization committee to help us solve that problem. That would be, I think, a good change, and we could have a balance between new acquisitions and taking care of the backlog. I think that would be a very good outcome here. I know it is one the chairman, I think, thinks is the right direction to go. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to speak for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the problem here, under the Land and Water Conservation Fund legislation, we do not have an authorization to do backlog projects with that money.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate first of all the chairman's leniency here, and I want to compliment my friend from California for bringing this issue up. Our committee struggled with this issue. A decision was made not to put the money in at this point. I happen to believe, and I hope that by the time this bill is done that we will have the $700 million then. I had a chance to visit northern California, the redwoods myself, just a few days ago during the recess. I wanted to see this Headwaters area. And I think it is absolutely essential that we move forward. Others are more expert on the Yellowstone issue. I know our chairman had concerns about the backlog of maintenance and other things and, hopefully, we can work out something in the conference committee on this issue if the gentleman's amendment is stricken. I regret that it will be, I think it will be, but I think bringing up this issue is very, very important. I hope at the end of the day we are able to acquire these properties and make the progress which I know the gentleman and many of us would like to see accomplished in this Congress.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the distinguished ranking minority member.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Capps].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the committee.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], a member of the committee.

Mr. DICKS. That is why the home builders have made this one of their most important issues. They are very concerned about what the gentleman, the chairman has pointed out. We have created this shortage. When we create a shortage, we drive up the price. And so we are trying to do this fairly. We are trying to do it on a sustainable basis. We are trying to make sure that the money is used for demolition and for fixing up troubled roads. But with this amendment, we are going to take away a huge part of the money that is there to fix up troubled, environmentally dangerous roads, and this is just because I am afraid the people who are offering this amendment do not serve on this committee and do not talk to the Forest Service and do not understand the complete implications of what they are doing. Their intent may be pure but what happens is not. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman, out in region 6, used to be the No. 1 timber producing area in the Nation, we have gone from about 4\1/2\ billion board feet down to about less than 1 billion board feet, an 80 percent reduction, an 80 percent reduction. Hundreds of mills have gone out of business. All we are saying is, can we not have a little balance here? Let us remember that this program provides recreation and opportunities that are different, and it is not just timber harvesting. I am asking my friends, many from across the country, look at the facts here, look at what Secretary Glickman said. Do not just be swept up because you are being pressured by certain groups. I just ask for a fair evaluation of the facts. Give us that. Look at it and hopefully we will have the right vote.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. Ninety percent of the utilization of these roads is for recreational purposes. I am sure the gentleman knows in the forests of Minnesota the same thing that I know in the Olympic Peninsula. This is where the people go to recreate, they go to the lake, they go to the wilderness, they go camping, hiking, they go hunting, fishing. They use this road system. This is not an evil, terrible thing. What is evil, what is terrible, what is environmentally dangerous is not to sustain those roads. What is misunderstood here today is that most of the money that is being taken out, most of that money would be used for road reconstruction to fix up problem roads and make them safer so that they do not wind up blowing out and going into the stream, and replacing culverts so that salmon can get back up and reproduce. That is a big part of the cut that is in this budget today.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.