Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], an excellent member of our subcommittee.

Mr. DICKS. But the Pacific Lumber Co. has 33,000 acres.

Mr. DICKS. But the gentleman would admit that the predominant landowner here is the Pacific Lumber Co.; is that not right?

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Mr. DICKS. Only if you want to take a species.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] will continue to yield, the administration has made it very clear that for the small people, they are going to be able to come in and file something and be able to be exempted. What they are trying to do is get an HCP on the big companies.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DICKS. I said environmental vote.

Mr. DICKS. The DDT did not save it. The Endangered Species Act saved it.

Mr. DICKS. Has the gentleman heard of the bald eagle?

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] does not support this idea, so I do not know. I think we cannot do it, I guess. I would be perfectly willing to consider it.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the committee and I am a senior member of the committee. I have the right to close.

Mr. DICKS. And the scientists have said that there is a greater risk of extinction if we do not protect it in this area, and that is why they said we have got to designate it as critical habitat.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, I would think the gentleman would be up here applauding the Fish and Wildlife Service for keeping the designation of critical habitat down to 1 percent of the land, 48,000 acres, Washington, Oregon, and northern California, and only in those areas where the recovery plan states that there is no Federal lands or there is no State lands to designate, and it happens to be that this area, this 40,000 acre area in northern California, has the best old growth habitat and a large number of murrelets, and so they felt that there was no other way to protect the murrelet in that area and keep distribution of the species without protecting this area. And I would just point out even with the designation of critical habitat there really is no restriction. The company can go in and still get a habitat conservation plan, as the people of Georgia Pacific did very successfully on the red cockaded woodpecker.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. The gentleman before said they cannot use the property. They can go in, they can get an incidental take permit; small companies are regularly exempted by this administration. The story here today is whether we are going to allow a special interest amendment to exempt one company from having to go through the lawful pattern that every other company is going through. The question is about the survival of the marbled murrelet in northern California. It is about protecting old growth redwood forests. The recovery plan of the forests of the Fish and Wildlife Service says that this habitat is critical. Now, think of it: In three States we only designated 48,000 acres, most of which are Pacific Lumber. I think it is wrong to give them an exemption. I urge my colleagues to support the Endangered Species Act, to support the environment. Now, this will probably be one of the most important environmental votes of the year. The administration has said that they will veto this bill if this rider is not taken out. Let us not mess up the Interior appropriations bill.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman that the reason that the habitat has been, that this area was designated is because it is where the murrelets are living. It is their habitat. There are the old-growth trees. This is where they reproduce. It is not any vendetta or trying to get somebody. It is because that is where the species exist, that is where their habitat exists. What I would say to the gentleman from California, when we cut the habitat down, the species populations go down. They have been going down at 6 to 8 percent per year. If we do not stop it, then we are going to lose that species in that particular area. So I just wanted to point this out to my friend. This is no vendetta. This is trying to do what the law that Congress passed said we should do. That is to protect these species throughout their range. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts thinks this is a defense bill. Fifty million in the interior bill is a big deal. It is about one-third of the timber program, timber road program. So this is a big amendment, worse than any of the ones we have seen today.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me say one other thing here. At he request of our former chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the General Accounting Office recently completed a report detailing the allocation of Forest Service timber sale receipts to various funds and accounts and comparing total receipts to outlays for timber sale preparation and administration. The report covers fiscal years 1992 through 1994. That is 3 years during which timber sales ere at a postwar low. Nevertheless, the report shows nearly $3 billion in timber sale receipts against $1.3 billion in preparation and administration outlays. Therefore, we are covering the cost by approximately $1.7 billion.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the people from the Forest Service do not agree with the GAO calculations. And, again, one of the reasons that we are not getting as much return out of our timber harvest is because we have put on all kinds of additional environmental restraints and restrictions in order to protect and do ESA's and do EIS's and all the other things that we have to do to protect the environment. The gentleman agrees that those are important priorities that we ought to do. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to say it one more time. If we cut the roads program, we are going to then reduce timber harvesting from what the committee approved, 4.9, down about 1.7 less. It would be down to about 3.2. And we have carpenters and all kinds of people out there who depend on the timber coming off the Federal forest lands. As I told the gentleman and my good friend, we have already cut the timber harvesting program in this country by approximately 50 percent. I think going any further than that is a very serious mistake, and I would urge the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so- called Riggs amendment. In the full committee, on the Appropriations Committee, we took up the Interior appropriations bill. After last year, I think all of us learned that we should be very careful about extraneous riders to that bill. But the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] decided to offer an amendment that would knock out a crucial, critical habitat designation under the Endangered Species Act for some important marbled murrelet habitat in northern California. I urge the House today to support my amendment, which will be offered as an amendment to strike this provision, section 116, when the bill is considered later today. There is a way to deal with this problem for the company in California that I know Congressman Riggs is concerned about, and that is to get that company to do a multispecies habitat conservation plan under the Endangered Species Act. That is the proper way to proceed, not with this rider.