Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to address the pending Boxer amendment. Is that still the pending business?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this provision which Senator Boxer seeks to strike--which I call the expedited judicial review provision--has been misconstrued by the Senator from California. Let me give you first a little history of the Tongass Forest. In 1917 this forest was established, 17 million acres. It is the largest national forest in the United States. It encompasses over 80 percent of all of southeastern Alaska, which is roughly the size of New England. In 1947, the Tongass Act set aside an allowable sale quantity level of 1.38 billion board feet per year. Let me repeat that--1.38 billion board feet per year. In 1959, as part of the Statehood Act, there was an allowable sale quantity level established at 1.3 billion board feet per year. Congress continued to review the Tongass. In 1971, the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act set what we called the ASQ--the allowable sale quantity--level at 950 million board feet. In 1980, that was reduced to 250 million board feet. Under the law, we call it ANICA--the Alaska National Interest Conservation Act--from 1980 to 1987, the average volume of timber sold and harvested per year in the Tongass was 280 million board feet per year. In 1990, the Tongass Timber Reform Act set the ASQ at 440 million board feet. That act also directed the Forest Service to provide a supply of timber to meet the market demand. But in 1997, Congress further reduced the level to 260 million board feet. That was through the Tongass land management plan. We call it the TLMP process. So today only 676,000 acres of the 17 million acres in the Tongass National Forest is currently available for timber or timber harvesting for the timber industry. That is from the largest national forest in the United States. Due to litigation, only 34 million board feet in total was cut in 2002. This forest once supported 4,000 timber jobs. Now the lumber jobs have been reduced by 50 percent. Some of them work for independent operators or outside of the national forest on Native land. But 99 percent of the jobs associated with the processing of timber, particularly the pulp industry, have been eliminated. In 2001, the timber industry had about 2,000 workers--again, a lot of them not on Federal land--with an annual payroll of $108 million. The Senator from California represents a State that also has national forests. In California, there is a healthy and robust timber industry. Over 259 million board feet of timber was harvested in 2002 on 10 million acres of California land. In 2001, the timber industry supported 110,000 jobs with $3.4 billion in annual payroll. Despite the rhetoric of the Senator from California, my amendment does not cripple the public's due process at all. It seeks to deal with the lawsuits pertaining to timber sales in the Alaska region and the way they have been handled by those who oppose cutting timber in Alaska but support cutting timber in a national forest half the size of one of Alaska's forests, the Tongass Forest. Lawsuits pertaining to timber sales are filed in a way that delays the process through the administrative courts, then through the Federal courts. By the time they are through, they are not harvesting. My amendment provides that suits be filed in Alaska District Court within 30 days after the administrative appeals have been exhausted, or 30 days after enactment of this act. It directs the District Court of Alaska to render a decision within 180 days of the date the lawsuit was filed. We are dealing with judicial process, not environmental process, not the rights of individuals, but abuse, primarily from lawyers from California who file these lawsuits in Alaska. If the court has not rendered its decision, the provision in this bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to petition the court to proceed with the action. The timber sales at issue are subject to an intense public review process. For each timber sale, a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement is published. The environmental impact statement is prepared, which generally takes 2 to 3 years. Each one of them costs $1 to $3 million. The draft EIS is issued, at which time there is a public comment period. The final EIS is then issued which addresses the public comments and makes any necessary changes. Again, the public is invited to comment on the final EIS. Once that extensive review process is completed, a record of decision is released which stipulates the conditions under which the timber sale may proceed. My amendment does not cover that part of this process at all. There is no limitation put upon the administrative side at all. If the public has additional concerns, they have an opportunity to appeal the record of decision administratively to the Forest Service. Invariably that happens. An appeal is made to the Forest Service. After that appeal, there is what we call the record of decision. Of the last 36 records of decision, 32 were administratively appealed. Despite the extensive environmental review, public participation, and administrative use, lawsuits are still filed. Of the 32 claims administratively appealed, 9 have been litigated. It takes an average of 2 years from the time the complaint is filed in district court until a final judgment is reached, and then it is usually by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California. These lawsuits add enormously to the expense of the taxpayers. They have a devastating effect on the men and women involved in the timber industry in my State. This process can take between 4 and 7 years before a single tree is harvested under a contract that authorizes harvesting of the timber. My provision does not limit access to the judicial system, nor does it impair the rights of those seeking judicial review of records of decisions. It does not affect the environmental process. It does not affect the public's right to comment. There is no time line for filing appeals to the district court's decision. That would be the Ninth Circuit. This provision merely ensures there will be timely consideration of this equal process that is fair to environmental groups, the Forest Service, and men and women of my State who rely upon the timber industry for their livelihood. We merely set a time line for the judicial review of records of decision that have been made after the administrative process has been completed. That normally takes 1 to 2 years. Each of these is then appealed to the courts, the district courts, but there is no requirement now that those appeals be filed on a timely basis. This requires that within 30 days after the decision, there has to be a decision whether they will appeal. If they appeal, the district court must render the decision within 180 days. After that, they have the right to consider the process and appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals if they wish. As a practical matter, we have eliminated the basic area where delay has taken place. Again, let me point out, what we are seeking to do is to require that this judicial review process be expedited. That is a fair way to handle this process which has been so abused by these lawyers. I am a California lawyer, incidentally. California lawyers in my day did not act the way these guys are acting; I can state that right now. This says if you take an appeal from the Forest Service--mind you, they are after public hearings on the EIS, they are after public hearings and comments, and after administrative appeals to the Forest Service; and then the time for the basic delay. After they fail to file appeals, delay, delay, and delay, and they get to the court and the court delays. This is relieving the delay in the courts and relieving the delay in filing the appeal from the administrative court. I urge that the motion to strike of the Senator from California be eliminated. Today these lawyers have 6 years within which to file that complaint after it has gone through the process of two public hearings, administrative appeal. For the record of decision, they can wait up to 6 years to file for review of the record of decision. This is, as far as I am concerned, a defect in the administrative process for judicial review. That is all we are dealing with. We do not affect environmental rights. We do not affect the right to appeal. All we say is, you have to do it within a timely period. The district court must act within a timely period so we can tell whether the contracts that have been issued and approved by the Forest Service can be carried out by those who seek to make a living off harvesting the small amount of timber still available from forests in my State. I point out the inconsistency of the Senator from California in complaining about relieving this process, the delay in this judicial process, when in the State of California they harvest an enormous amount of timber from an area that is less than half the size of our national forests. Surely the people of the State of California would understand that if a decision is made, the small amount of Alaska's timber area, 676,000 acres in the Tongass Forest, is available for harvesting, there has to be certainty in the review process so the economics of the timber industry will be sound. I urge defeat of the motion to strike of the Senator from California and I move to table that amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I did inquire whether the Senator from Washington was seeking to speak on the Boxer amendment. I made a motion to table the Boxer amendment and ask unanimous consent that the time for the vote on my motion be determined by the leadership.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this amendment has nothing to do with environmental concerns. This is a judicial process amendment. These contracts for timber go through a review process involving an EIS, then public hearings, then an opportunity to appeal to the Forest Service, and then an opportunity to file, administratively, appeals within the Forest Service. After a final record of decision, they have 6 years to take it to the district court. All we are asking is that be shortened to the normal process of 30 days and the process for appeal from the administrative court be 30 days and the court take no longer than 180 days to review that appeal. It does not limit the time for the appeal to the circuit court but is strictly a judicial process shortening the time. It now takes 3 to 4 years for every contract before we can possibly try to use those contracts to harvest the trees, within 676,000 acres out of 17 million acres. We need this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank Senators McCain and Campbell for their work on this important issue. My work on the Olympic Sports Act began in the 1970s. I believe the reforms in our bill today are necessary adjustments that will return the focus of the United States Olympic Committee to our original intent--our American athletes! The USOC Internal Taskforce and the Senate appointed Independent Commission did excellent jobs in reviewing the problems and offering solutions to the recent problems that have plagued the USOC. I thank the USOC Taskforce and the Independent Commission on the United States Olympic Committee for their hard work. S. 1404 includes many of the suggested changes from both groups. This is a good bill and I support all but one aspect of it. I cannot support and will work to remove the section that gives special consideration to the Senior Olympics. The only fundraising tool that Congress gave the USOC was the exclusive rights to the name, seals, emblems and badges of the USOC. The language that allows the Senior Olympics to use the Olympic symbols without the USOC permission will lead to the destruction of the fundraising ability of the USOC. Above all, the use of these symbols should not be subject to being ``licensed out'' by any entity but the USOC. I would have opposed this language in committee but unfortunately I was chairing a Defense Appropriations hearing when the language was offered. I will not hold up the passage of this important legislation but will work to remove the language creating a death knell to the USOC's ability to raise the funds necessary to meet the objectives of our Nation ion international competitions. This is an important agreement on the location of the USOC headquarters. Now this bill can go to conference, after which, with the President's approval, it will become law and our American athletes can focus all of their efforts on the 2004 Olympic Games. I thank Senator McCain's Commerce staff for their hard work on this issue. Especially Ken Nahigian and also Brian Feintech of Senator Campbell's staff. Their hard work along with that of George Lowe on my staff have insured that this important legislation is ready to move forward.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I oppose this resolution which would disapprove all of the FCC's recent rulings on media ownership. I oppose it for several reasons. In the first place, the court of appeals has stayed this resolution, and it is reviewing its contents. I do not think it is appropriate for the Senate to pass such a resolution when there already exists legislation that addresses the most contentious media ownership issues. As one of the original sponsors of the legislation that is on the calendar already, I urge the Senate to take up that bill and not approve this resolution. My legislation, S. 1046, has the support of a majority of the Members of the Senate Commerce Committee. I do not support this attempt to unravel everything that the FCC did regarding the media ownership rules. For the most part, I think the Commission did a good job on the media ownership issues, absent one issue regarding 35 percent. My main concern all along was to keep the national ownership cap at the 35 percent level, and that was the primary focus of the bill that I introduced. In fact, that bill already passed out of the Commerce Committee. My bill prohibits ownership of TV broadcast stations if the ownership exceeds 35 percent of the national TV audience. It maintains the status quo for the cap and closely tracks what Congress originally intended in the Telecom Act. There were several amendments that were added to my bill in the Commerce Committee which addressed other parts of the rules. One was offered by my colleague from North Dakota. That amendment undid the Commission's decision to lift the cross-ownership ban. I didn't agree with his original amendment because I thought that the FCC's decision to lift the cross-ownership ban was prudent. I was concerned that the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota didn't contemplate situations in small markets where cross-ownership between newspapers and TV stations is necessary. Therefore, in committee I added language to his amendment which allows for a waiver procedure in small markets. This pending resolution, however, does not contemplate the small markets at all in the context of cross-ownership. This concerns me and should certainly concern others as well, especially those who represent small markets. Last week the Third Circuit issued an order staying the FCC media ownership rules, pending resolution of the consolidated proceeding before that court. Therefore, this Third Circuit stay has creates status quo allowing the stake holders to fully brief and argue their sides. Finally, the issue that has received the most support and attention from my colleagues and from diverse interest groups is the 35 percent cap issue. That issue has been addressed by both the House in the CJS appropriations bill and by the Senate Appropriations Committee in the CJS bill. Therefore, with all of these various tracks already in play, I don't think it is wise to open another can of worms on the same issues. It is not productive.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in the morning hours of September 11, 2001, our Nation endured a terrible tragedy. In the wake of that tragedy, the response from our ``Last Frontier'' was overwhelming. Two years ago, Alaskans volunteered their time and their resources to assist the victims of the attacks. One year ago, the people of our State found unique ways to commemorate our Nation's loss. This year we join the Nation once again in mourning and remembrance. Since the September 11 attacks, the United States has led the campaign to wipe out terrorism and those who support it. John F. Kennedy once warned the world ``. . . that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'' The bravery and courage our troops demonstrated on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq confirmed that Americans will make the ultimate sacrifice to preserve freedom. Here at home we are a safer Nation. We have established the Homeland Security Department, changed our laws so that agencies can share information, ensured better communication between State and Federal law enforcement, and provided better protection for ports and other points of entry. But the war on terror requires more and we must stay the course. In his speech on Sunday night, President Bush reaffirmed our commitment to this cause and called upon the Congress and the Nation to once again prove our resolve. I urge all Americans to support the President. History has taught us that freedom always comes at a cost; we mut pay the price. New coalitions have formed among terrorists. Those who wish us ill present us with an almost world-wide burden. Nevertheless, we cannot neglect our responsibilities. I hope all Alaskans will remember the victims of September 11 today by attending a memorial service or prominently displaying an American flag. The victims of September 11 and the volunteer soldiers who gave their lives in the campaign against terror gave what Lincoln called the ``last full measure of devotion.'' Today, we honor their memory and their sacrifice.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 1544, 1560, 1578, 1558, And 1552, As Modified, En Bloc

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have at the desk a series of amendments that have been modified. I ask that these amendments be modified and adopted. They are amendment No. 1544 by Senator Akaka; amendment No. 1560 by Senator DeWine; amendment No. 1578 by Senator DeWine; amendment No. 1558 by Senator Kohl; and amendment No. 1552 by Senator Mikulski. I ask unanimous consent they be modified.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1618 To Amendment No. 1542

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Wyden regarding an NIH report and ask unanimous consent for its consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I state for the record, all of those amendments were cleared by both Senator Specter and Senator Harkin as managers of the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each of the next three votes.

Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator yields, I, as chairman of the committee, understand fully the necessity to have these votes and this momentum continue. But in my time here in some 35 years, I have never seen the unveiling of a statue for Statuary Hall be interrupted by a vote. I suggest if we are going to have votes, we could stack a vote. It only means stacking one vote to do that. But from the hour of 4:30 to 5:30, I believe the honor we are bestowing on the former Vice President, by putting his bust in the Hall, should be respected. I hope the managers of the bill will comply with tradition and allow that to continue. It just merely means stacking a vote. If one, by chance, is to be scheduled between 4:30 and 5:30, I urge that it be stacked beyond the hour of 5:30.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1616 To Amendment No. 1542

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senators Collins and Feingold regarding funding for dental health and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Leader, I state categorically I did not make an agreement on any particular bill. We made an agreement that the bottom line would not exceed the amount that the Senator from Oklahoma stated. We have a series of bills going to conference and we will keep that commitment. But with due respect, I made no commitment on any particular bill, to the President or to anyone else.