Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the gentleman again I appreciate what the gentleman has said here. The bottom line here is the Kennedy amendment will cut timber harvesting on a Federal forest from 4.9 to 3.2 or 1.7 million reduction, and that means a loss of revenue, a loss of jobs, and a very significant impact. And the gentleman simply does not have it understood that there is no subsidy here. I mean we tried to explain it to him over and over again, but there is no subsidy. People bid on these contracts, they bid on these contracts, and in purchaser credits they bid lower because they have to build the roads. In the other case they bid more, bid more for the timber, because the Government pays for the roads, and the GAO report says that overall, when we net it all out, we still made $300 million even though we spent $900 million in payments back to the counties when we spent it in two or three other categories that should not be considered cost of producing the timber. This was done because we decided that they deserved part of the receipts. We could have put them all in the Treasury. If they all went in the Treasury it would be over 23 to 1 in a positive cash flow. So I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I would urge us to get on and let us vote on the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I think what we have here is about 1.3 in outlays and 1.7 in total dollars that come in above that, so it will be a total of 3 billion. We have a major return on investment here that was documented by the GAO. The problem is people want to twist these figures and not look at where this money goes. The money went to good government purposes, not the cost of the program.

Mr. DICKS. 1.3 billion.

Mr. DICKS. Now, one of the things that is confusing here: the study that was done by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] shows that in the National Forest Fund over that 3-year period we get 1.3 billion. That is, I think that is, the gentleman's figure there on the far right. But then the law requires us to do some things that I would consider kind of good government things with that money if we sent back 25 percent of it to the States. That is 886.7 million. We then provide roads and trail funds, 134.2 million, and the Forest Service for road building purposes, 22.9. The remaining funds went to the Treasury, 297.7. So those cannot be considered; I mean I do not think those should be considered cost to the programs. Those were Congress' decision to take care of the communities, the counties, where this timber harvesting was done. That is where the vast amount of that money went. And if we look at it from that perspective, we even have a bigger return than the 297.7 in the Treasury. We have a return that looks to me roughly about 1.3 billion.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to commend the gentlewoman for her statement. Yes, 3,000 acres are protected but there is at least 33,000 additional acres that are not protected. The Fish and Wildlife Service says that in order to protect the murrelet in this area where you have got a lot of old growth, you have got to have some private property designated. Again, I point out that in the three States, they only designated 1 percent but that 1 percent is critical to the survival of the marbled murrelet in northern California. That is why they did it. They did it with great apprehension, frankly. Again, the answer here to my colleagues and the other private companies that have done this, get a habitat conservation plan. Negotiate it. The people in southern California did it. The people in northern Washington State are doing it. It is not that hard to do. What this is is an exemption that is going to then have every company in the country coming to all the Members saying, ``Why don't you get one for us.'' That is just not the way to do business. The irony of all ironies is the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] stating that Mr. Hurwitz is not satisfied with his amendment. If he is not satisfied with it, why is the gentleman offering it? Why does he not just withdraw it and accept my amendment?

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield further, the Fish and Wildlife Service has told me, and I have talked to the people in that region, they will sit down with those people, the small landonwers, and work this out. They are willing to sit down with Mr. Hurwitz and work this out.

Mr. DICKS. I have been told by people whom I have known and worked with for many years and we have worked successfully on getting the Murray Pacific HCP, so why do we not do it the old-fashioned way, do it right, instead of having this legislative rider that is going to cause all the problems for the Members of Congress in our areas?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. DICKS. I think a split of 10 minutes, 5 on each side; I will agree to that. They will agree to that.

Mr. DICKS. Two-and-a-half hours.

Mr. DICKS. But, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, Mr. Yates has been a strong supporter of this.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, our recollection is that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] put money into the bill but it was rescinded by the new Congress. I think that is the history here.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, one point I will make is you have to judge the sales on a sales-by-sales basis. In most of the sales we are making money, and without the roads, you cannot do the sales. So I do not see where there is a subsidy at all.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise and reluctantly oppose this amendment. The reason I am opposing it is that this cut of forest road money will result, by an estimate from the Forest Service, in a billion board feet reduction in the timber harvest program, our timber sale program. We only have 4.9. It is dramatically lower than it was historically. So if we take this money out of the roads, there is a corresponding reduction in timber sales. When you have that corresponding reduction in timber sales, it reduces the revenues to the Government and to local communities.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we have 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. The Chairman, first of all I am a little disappointed in the hysteria that I have been hearing about what this all means. I want to read again, so that all my colleagues have an understanding objectively, with passions lowered, what this means. The Fish and Wildlife Service only designated non-Federal lands as critical habitat where Federal lands are limited or nonexistent where non-Federal lands are essential for maintaining marbled murrelet populations and nesting habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery plan stated that suitable nesting habitat on Pacific Lumber Co. lands in Humboldt County, CA, is the only available nesting habitat for the southern portion of zone four. This area has known nest sites and is situated in a key area close to the coast, with no Federal lands in the immediate area that are able to provide similar recovery distributions. It is imperative to protect murrelet habitat on corporate forest lands in northern California because these lands provide a biological link to the murrelet populations between the Redwood National Park to the north and the State redwood parks to the south. Contrary to the assertion of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] that critical habitat designation amounts to a condemnation or taking of private land, the Fish and Wildlife Service action does not specifically prohibit logging or any other type of land use on those properties.

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

Mr. DICKS. The same remedies exist for them.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I said to the gentleman, the other people that are affected besides your major company can go to the Fish and Wildlife Service and can get a habitat conservation plan. The Fish and Wildlife Service has said it is going to work with smaller landowners. The most important areas, as the gentleman has mentioned, are the headwaters areas. The problem we have got here is that there is a legal and proper way to proceed. That is getting a multispecies HCP. What the gentleman is doing today with his amendment that was adopted in the full committee is trying to short-circuit the process. I would again say to the gentleman, why is it that Plum Creek, Weyerhaeuser, Simpson and the Murray Pacific Co. are all able to negotiate with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and yet Mr. Hurwitz and Pacific Lumber are not? It is because this gentleman is not interested seriously in reaching an agreement which would give him 100 years of certainty and the ability to log on his land. Now, we can work out the problems of the other small landowners.

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