Charles Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. You mentioned this bill would allow us to log the salvage harvest in wilderness or areas designated as wilderness.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, those areas would be designated areas.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's statement, and I do not doubt his sincerity, is wrong. I authored this bill, and it does not affect areas of wilderness or areas designated as wilderness, and the Secretary, if he has any idea that this House has acted on any wilderness, we cannot do salvage timber in it. Salvage can only be performed in that small 20 to 25 percent of the national forest where harvest is now allowed, and that is not allowed in areas either set aside as wildernesses or designated as wilderness. Let me go on, because I want to move on with two other particular points.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. First of all, the cry for the environment is really hollow. If you go downstairs and look at Brandeis's quote on stone, it says, ``The greatest threat to liberty, lives, and the efforts of men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding,'' and I have never seen a situation as misunderstood as this salvage bill. We all know that we make products from wood. All these desks and chairs and so forth can be made from wood, plastic, or steel. If we do away with our forest harvest program in this country, that is the ultimate goal, then we must rely on finite products, and plastic must be oil we bring into the country, imported, we spill it two or three times along the way. How can that be a plus for the environment? We are now harvesting 16 billion board feet, a third of our forest products from sensitive environmental areas all over the world. What about the great hue and cry about rainforest? That is where a lot of our 16 billion board feet are coming from. We have no control over that. We do have substantial control in our own forest, and a great many environmental controls. The forest health is a third important goal that we are going after. North Carolina State University, a respected university, with the largest school of forestry, over 100 years of silvicultural study and the largest extension program, recently pointed out in a statement that this salvage amendment is absolutely for forest health.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I say to the gentleman, ``Mr. Dicks has been involved from your side of the aisle, been involved in these negotiations. What we have tried to do is what I just said. We all recognize the need. We have tried to come up with a realistic plan, not unlike what was passed in the original----

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. By 277 members of this House. Mr. Speaker, the modifications agreed to by the administration and the committees embody clarifications of several parts of the package. First, subsection (l) concerning the effect of the provision on other laws was revised by creation of a limited exception to language that prohibited modifying land plans and other [[Page H 6638]] administrative actions a consequence of implementing this section. The new exception allows modifications under limited circumstances when needed to meet salvage levels agreed to by the conferees or to reflect the particular effect of the salvage sale program. However, the salvage timer sales cannot form the basis for an administrative action that limits other multiple use activities. Project decisions, such as salvage sales, cannot be stopped or delayed by modifications either. The term `'delayed'' was substituted to ensure that salvage sales and other project decisions go forward. A clarification was added to make sure that a particular salvage timber sale cannot be required to be offered. Second, subsection (b)(1) was clarified in its linkage to subsection (c), which is part of the salvage sale portion of the section. The authority and process for emergency salvage timber sales is contained in these and other subsections and the clarification embodies the concept that the two subsections are to work in concert, but that once a sale is prepared and advertised the sale is deemed sufficient to meet all applicable laws and then go forward. A 45-day stay can delay the sale while the U.S. District Court considers an appeal. Otherwise the sale will proceed. This expedited procedure will ensure that dead and dying timber on federal land can be harvested before it rots. Third, the managers and Administration agreed to two important changes in subsection (i). We made it explicit that any salvage sale subject to subsection (b) and any timber sale subject to subsection (d) should be deemed to satisfy the requirements of any compact, executive agreement, convention, treaty, and international agreement, and implementing legislation related thereto. This change was made in response to allegations that passage and implementation of Section 2001 would result in violations of the North American Free Trade Agreement. No such violations would occur. Fourth, subsection (i) and paragraph (i)(8) were modified slightly to clarify that salvage timber sales subject to subsection (b) and any timber sale subject to subsection (d) shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of all applicable federal environmental and natural resource laws. This clarification is to ensure that purchasers of timber under this section must still comply with applicable contract law. I stress that this provision was developed in concert with the authorizing Committee and included only after close consultation with the authorizing committees. The legislative committees have ensured us that long-term timber salvage legislation is forthcoming.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. We have tried to work out because there has been little movement--although for nearly 3 years we have had promises, there has been little movement in getting that harvest. We have worked out with the administration a program that will define and move us forward both in forest health and in job creation. It will give a specific track that we can follow in a managed way using the best silviculture methods we have, taking into consideration the environment, and taking into consideration our economic needs. If we follow the outline that has been agreed to by the President, then we can make substantial progress. Mr. Speaker, the Congress will be monitoring this action periodically to see that we are making progress. We can provide the tools to the Forest Service, we can provide any other tools that are necessary for the----

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. We can be successful in all our areas in providing jobs and protecting forest health and protecting the environment, and I think this agreement that we reach tonight will give us that end product, and that is why I am willing to support that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I will not yield at this time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. We can be successful in all our areas, in providing jobs, and protecting forest health, and protecting the environment, and I think this agreement that we reach tonight will give us that end product, and that is why I am willing to support that.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard to get a commitment and a track laid down that would bring about a realistic harvest, a harvest that would impact forest health, that would get timber available to save the infrastructure and create jobs. And there are some 88,000 jobs that can be created out of the original package. It will be slightly less than this, but it will be a substantial job creation. The commitment we received from the Secretary was to bring us approximately $4.5 billion in the period between now and December 31, 1996. That commitment was made to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] and myself, and we will monitor in the coming months to see that that commitment is followed. We have given the administration the tools. They have given us the assurance, and they have given the people across this country, the assurance that they want to see the harvest coming with the tools and with their word we will move ahead. The White House, Washington, June 29, 1995. Hon. Newt Gingrich Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to be able to address myself to the question of the Emergency Salvage Timber Sale Program in H.R. 1944. I want to make it clear that my Administration will carry out this program with its full resources and a strong commitment to achieving the goals of the program. I do appreciate the changes that the Congress has made to provide the Administration with the flexibility and authority to carry this program out in a manner that conforms to our existing environmental laws and standards. These changes are also important to preserve our ability to implement the current forest plans and their standards and to protect other natural resources. The agencies responsible for this program will, under my direction, carry the program out to achieve the timber sales volume goals in the legislation to the fullest possible extent. The financial resources to do that are already available through the timber salvage sale fund. I would hope that by working together we could achieve a full array of forest health, timber salvage and environmental objectives appropriate for such a program. Sincerely, Bill Clinton.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a very special person from western North Carolina, John ``Jack'' B. Veach, Sr. Jack passed away on Thursday, June 19, at the age of 95. With great sadness, I offer my condolences to his wife Jane, and his son, John B. Veach, Jr. Jack was a pioneer in North Carolina's timber industry and one of the great leaders of the community. Jack was respected by those in commerce and public service for his outstanding leadership and great inspiration to all the people of North Carolina. His energy and love for helping those in the community kept him involved in public service up to the final days of his life. Much of his success in business and politics can be attributed to the fact that he was a true gentleman. Jack was nationally known for his work as a forester in the timber industry. He was past president of Appalachian Hardwood Manufactures Inc., American Forest Products Industries, National Manufacturers Association, North Carolina Forestry Association, and Asheville Area Chamber of Commerce. He was voted Man of the Year by the Southern Hardwood Lumber Association, and twice voted Man of the Year by the North Carolina Forestry Association. In 1985, the Southern Appalachian Multiple Use Council honored Jack for having the most influence over western North Carolina forestry during the past 50 years. In 1993, he was inducted into the Western North Carolina Agricultural Hall of Fame as a forester and civic leader. His strongest efforts were always centered toward the regeneration of the forests in western North Carolina. These efforts led to the creation of the Cradle of Forestry Discovery Center, where others could be taught forestry and environmental stewardship. In 1987, Jack was named to the Forestry Advisory Council, that reviews forestry division programs. Jack's other interests included his businesses and helping the community. He was a cofounder and chairman of Western Carolina Bank and a past director of Carolina Power & Light Co. At one time, he operated Benis Hardware Lumber Co., Williams-Bronwell planing mill, Educational Lumber, and Veach-May-Wilson, Inc. Jack was chairman of the United Way of Asheville and Buncombe County. He was a member of the All Saints Church in Mills River and an integral part of the Republican Party. Jack Veach was an innovator in the timber industry and a leader in the community. His energy and excitement motivated our community. The loss of this remarkable man will be felt by all.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a very special person from western North Carolina, James Arthur Callahan. Jim Callahan passed away on June 2 at the age of 72. With great sadness, I offer my condolences to his wife, Janie Callahan and his children, Chris Callahan, and Susan McGowan. He was a native of Rutherfordton, NC and a life long member of the First United Methodist Church. He was active for many years in the Republican Party, serving as county chairman and was also district chairman of the Republican Party for the 10th Congressional District. Jim served the State of North Carolina in many different capacities, he was appointed by Gov. Jim Holshouser to the North Carolina Banking Commission and later, served on the North Carolina Board of Transportation. Mr. Callahan was a devoted father and leader in the business community. He was president and owner of Callahan Building Supply Co., and a former board member of Lumberman's Merchandising Corp. He contributed much of his time to public service as a former president of the Kiwanis Club, a member of the Rutherford-Spindale Jaycees and as a member of the Rutherfordton County Chamber of Commerce. His direction helped lead the Rutherfordton County Republican Party to new heights. We should all admire a person like Jim Callahan who believed in the principals of honesty and hard work. When thinking of Jim Callahan, words such as friend, business leader, and patriot come to mind. His efforts in the community will be sorely missed as will he.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of today's bill, H.R. 1854. As a member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, we have worked long and hard to bring real cuts to the legislative branch appropriations. Three years ago, as a new member of the subcommittee in a much different Congress, I proposed a plan which would have achieved a 25-percent cut in the money Congress spends on itself. Today's bill, with almost 10 percent is a significant move toward that goal. We eliminate the Office of Technology Assessment, we cut the General Accounting Office by 15 percent this year and 10 percent next year, and we have reduced committee staff by some 800 positions, and the entire legislative branch by some 2,400 positions. Imagine, this bill actually spends less money on fewer people than did last year's-- $154,000,000--a feat impossible before the 104th Congress. My proposal for a real and achievable 25-percent cut in the legislative branch budget can result in a total savings of over $2 billion of taxpayers' money over the next 4 years. Major American corporations--from IBM to General Motors to Sears & Roebuck--have responded to changes in the marketplace by cutting expenses and becoming more efficient. So must the Federal Government, especially the Congress. Until this bill, Congress has acted as though the solution to any management difficulty is to merely increase taxes or spending. I advocate we make the same kind of tough decisions that private sector companies must make when they cannot increase revenue--to cut their spending. Under my plan and this bill, we begin that process in earnest. Because each individual Member can best determine for himself how to spend their office [[Page H 6180]] funds, we combined all three office accounts into a single, unified account; making the Member responsible for how he or she spends the taxpayer's money in representing those same taxpayers. My plan of 3 years ago proposed that we consolidate the activities of the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Joint Economic Committee, and House and Senate Budget Committee with a shared staff. Today's bill cuts the Joint Economic Committee by a third and makes it clear the joint committee will be zeroed out next year. And, we will make further progress in moving toward a consolidated staff structure. We still have a long way to go in the consolidation of Congress' legal staff. Congress and its support agencies currently employ literally hundreds of highly paid lawyers, many with duties and functions that are either duplicative or which are unrelated to the legislative duties of the Congress. We have, to name just a few, the Office of Legal Counsel, the Office of General Counsel, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, the Office of Legislative Counsel, the Library of Congress' American Law Division, and the hundreds of lawyers employed by dozens of congressional committees and subcommittees. To eliminate the waste and duplication of effort and staff caused by these offices, I propose consolidating all of these offices into one legal pool. We could get a lot of high-paid lawyers off the public payroll and save the taxpayers millions of dollars. At least $5 million would be saved from the legislative counsels, most of the $11 million cut in the Congressional Research Service could be achieved from this consolidation, and millions more would be saved from within the committee and subcommittee budgets. In addition to these consolidations, my plan eliminates a number of activities that we simply can no longer afford in this era of $300 billion budget deficits. Under my plan, we would eliminate: All expenses related to former speakers--$201,000 in official expenses and $410,000 in salaries for a total 1-year savings and $611,000 and a savings of $2,444,000 over 4 years. The compilation of precedents of the House, saving $587,000. The office and research assistant provided to the former Librarian of Congress. I would also make the Office of the Attending Physician operate on a self-sustaining basis, based on the contributions of Members, for a 1- year savings of $1,305,000 and $5.2 million over 4 years. Unbelievably, congressional travel is included in the legislative branch budget. I support developing a procedure to reduce foreign travel, and make this bill reflect the actual costs of congressional travel instead of hiding it elsewhere in the Federal budget. Today's bill is a very good start indeed at reforming this institution and gaining creditability with the American people. I look forward to working with Chairman Packard and the other members of the subcommittee to move further next year into the next phase of our streamlining of the legislative branch.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a very special man from western North Carolina, Thomas L. Saltz, who passed away on June 5, at the age of 64. It is with great sadness that I offer my condolences to his wife Doris and the rest of the Saltz family. Thomas Saltz was a friend to all and a tireless worker. His passing is a great loss to all who knew him. Mr. Saltz grew up in Henderson County, NC. He was schooled at Dana High School, where he also played basketball. Later, he joined the Army, and is a Korean war veteran. After leaving the service, he went to work for General Electric, where he served for 35 years until his retirement in 1990. Mr. Saltz loved his community and participated actively in it. He was a member of the American Legion Post 77, Woodmen of the World, Southern Lights Square Dance Club, and the East Flat Rock First Baptist Church. He was a steadfast Republican who put people first in everything he did. He was a former party chairman and had served as chairman of the Henderson County Board of Elections. Mr. Saltz was devoted to the party until his death. He has been considered by many who knew as the backbone of the Henderson County Republican Party for the last 40 years. At the time of his death he was a Henderson County precinct chairman. Thomas Saltz will be remembered as a father, a friend, and a leader. He touched the lives of many people and will be missed dearly.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, today the President of the United States vetoed the rescission bill that had been worked on for many weeks in this Congress by the House and the Senate and then in conference, and in that rescission package were many things that I think are important to the Nation, but one thing that was very important for forest health was the timber salvage amendment. The salvage amendment called for increasing forest health by allowing and actually requiring the Forest Service to get rid of the large portion of the dead and dying and deceased timber in our national forests. We have several problems in the national forests. First of all there have been billions of board feet, there are somewhere between 20 and 30 billion board feet that are dead and dying in the forest that need to be taken out. The dead trees in the West are accumulating so fast that forest fires are not only burning along the ground as they once did, they are now burning to high degrees because of the buildup of dead and dying timber that has already accumulated in the forests. They reach temperatures of over 2000 degrees. They bake the land, charcoal runs over in the streams, it makes it almost impossible to come back and reforest in those areas. Many thousands of acres have been blown down through wind damage. These are also hard to reforest, to return to forest health. Insects and disease in our national forests are not only consuming parts of our national forests but they are moving over into private lands. Most silviculturalists recognize the only way to stop the insect-infested movements is to destroy the tree, take out the host tree, either burn it or use it if you can get to it early enough, remove it so that there is not the location for the insects to move on year after year. We know all of this because we have over 100 years of silviculture at our disposal, both from our best universities that have taught forestry going back almost 100 years when the first school of forestry started in this country. We know it from numerous experimental stations that we have, both private, Federal, and State and at university centers. We know it because silviculture is a science that is taught and studied and is probably one of the best informed sciences that we have because we have been studying for over 100 years in this area now. With all of this accumulated knowledge we allow special interest groups in Washington to take in hundreds of millions of dollars, scaring people with misinformation, bad science, and pandering to politicians. The President has bought their message, hook, line, and sinker, because according to a Wall Street Journal story about the polling of the environmental organizations in Washington, we find that over 93 percent voted for Mr. Clinton. They are primarily far left. The report also showed that they are contrary in most of the things they report to the actual science that we know in these areas. [[Page H5687]] What we tried to do with the timber amendment that we had was to give the Forest Service the tools and the responsibility to move into the forests and move out the dead and diseased trees. The President today in his veto message said, and I am quoting, ``I have done more for logging than any other single person in this country.'' Well, the President told us his first term here in 1993 that he was cutting the budget deficit with his $100 billion tax increase; then he came to Congress and said he was increasing the deficit by over $1 trillion in his 4 years in office. He told us that he was working to balance the budget, and he did not. He has told this Congress many things. His story in foreign policy and Bosnia has changed no fewer than six times just in the last few weeks, so when he says that he has done more for helping the forests, the unemployed forest people in the Pacific Northwest or other parts of the country, it should be taken with a grain of salt by now. Certainly if you ask the forest families, the tens of thousands of people who are unemployed because of his misinformation and policy he has put in place in the Pacific Northwest, they will tell you very quickly how much he has done for the resource in this Nation So, those of us in Congress by a vote of 277 in the House, which is almost two-thirds of this body, spoke out for forest health, and today the President has vetoed that. It will come back to him. It will be back if there is another rescission package brought forth. It will be back in the Interior appropriations bill, because those of us that recognize the true science in silviculture, the health of our national forests, and recognize the phony misinformation that the President is getting, is wrong, we are going to see that that legislation is put back before him again and again. His closing statement in his veto message was that we had with our timber amendment abolished all environmental legislation. Clearly, he could not have studied this himself. He took this right out of the radical environmental fringe that houses itself in Washington and puts out so much misinformation. It is ludicrous to think that a timber salvage amendment could abolish all of the environmental legislation that this country has passed in the last 20 years. It boggles the mind to think that we could even do it, much less have done it. So I would ask the President to go back and reconsider what he has just said and the misinformation, and sign this bill for the families of America and the resources of this country and our forest health.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about the Presidential veto of the timber rescission or timber salvage amendment that is part of the rescission package that has passed this House, passed the Senate, has been confirmed, from the conferees, by the House and is waiting confirmation in the Senate. The President has promised to veto the entire rescission package, and that includes the timber salvage amendment. The salvage amendment was put together after considerable consultation with the Forest Service, with many groups; in fact, the final amendment reflected a good many suggestions from the White House itself, and still the White House wishes to veto the entire rescission package, including the timber amendment. What we are talking about with the timber amendment tonight is to tell people what is going to be the result of that Presidential veto. First of all, we have to look at what is happening to our forests and what is happening to the jobs related to forest harvesting. Our forests are deteriorating in health because we are not managing them along the lines of our best scientific knowledge in forests. We have a well- funded special interest of environmental groups in Washington that take in over $600 million, and they take in that money by scaring people into thinking the last tree is going to be cut tomorrow or some other fantasy in order to bring those hundreds of millions of dollars in to themselves. This does not meet with true science or with what is actually happening in the forest. The forests are deteriorating because of the bad management that has been pushed by these organizations creating the policy over the last several years. The salvage amendment was an effort to try to return sensible environmentalism and sensible science back to the harvest of our timber. And what else is at stake? Is it better environmental policy for us not to harvest dead and dying wood in our forests, to lose tens of thousands of jobs because we do not allow that harvest, to make the people of our country have to use alternative resources other than wood? And what is the consequence of using alternative resources other than wood? We will make this podium, these chairs, this table out of either wood, metal or plastic. If we make them out of plastic, then we have to import the oil from the Middle East. We have to fight to get it out, many times. We spill it several times along the way. The toxicity in the manufacturing is greater than it is in wood manufacturing. And it is much harder to recycle or to dispose of when its usefulness is over. The same thing with metal. We dig it from the ground. A great deal of energy in the smelting process, and it is much harder to recycle than is the renewable resource of wood. Also, both of those items are finite resources; when they are gone, they are gone. The renewable resource of wood managed on a perpetual yield basis can take our lands, our best suited lands for timber and grow over and over again the multitude of products that we need for all of our home products, paper, many resources that otherwise we would have to use finite resources. Now, it is better for us to use the renewable resource of wood or use up our finite resources? We are today importing over one-third of the timber that we need, over 16 billion board feet. Often this is harvested from far more sensitive environmental areas than we have available to us in the United States. So by forcing these imports, we are damaging tropical rain forests in many cases and other more sensitive parts of land. What we tried to do with the timber amendment, a bipartisan amendment that had the support of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, the United Paperworkers International Union, Western Council of Industrial Workers, National Association of Home Builders, Realtors, Women in Timber and many other small business organizations. It was to craft language that would provide us with 59,000 more jobs during the three years in the timber communities. It would bring in an additional $2 billion in payroll for timber workers in communities all over this country. It would provide over $450 million in additional tax revenue, and it would put over $423 million returned to the Treasury directly. Two hundred three million dollars would be shared with the counties, mostly going to education, which is where the counties put funds coming from the harvest of timber. It would also bring us a lower cost in fighting forest fires, which utilized $1 billion in Federal cost in 1994 and cost us 32 lives in this country fighting fire. The President plans to veto this bill, the entire rescission bill and the timber salvage provision. That would put people back to work, reduce expenditures on forest fires, and improve forest health. Included also was section 318 timber. Many people have said that the timber salvage bill is not needed because the Government has a process now for harvesting salvaged timber. It does. But it has been used in such a way by many organizations through the appeals the harvest in salvaging of timber useless. If timber in the Northwest, in the Southeast, the Southwest, is not utilized within 6 to 24 months, then it usually is lost as far as any practical use and the ability to salvage it. So it must be done quickly. Appeals and other actions by special interests in this country delay it for years. For instance, the section 318 timber, it is in Washington and Oregon, this area has already met all the environmental requirements. This is green timber but it has not yet been released. It has been waiting since 1990, over 5 years. And this meets all the environmental requirements, and it meets, it has already been approved to move, but it has been held up for over 5 years while people in Washington and Oregon are without jobs. I think the salvage bill itself provides an opportunity to review environmental laws. It requires the secretary of agriculture to see that those laws are followed; if he feels that a tract can be salvaged following the Environmental Species Act and the Forest Acts and some other group disagrees with him, they have the right to appeal. They cannot have endless appeals. They must appeal directly to a federal judge, a district court judge and they have 45 days in which the judge will hear the evidence and then make a ruling, and then that is the end. If he feels the environment is endangered, then he can declare the sale unacceptable. If he thinks there is no environmental damage to be done, he can declare the sale to move ahead, and that is the end of the appeals process. The Forest Service itself then puts together, through professionals, the sale, and puts it out to the highest bidder. There is no forest giveaway, there is a sale to the highest bidder for the timber to be utilized. Mr. Speaker, the fact that this legislation brings in revenue, puts people back to work, uses our best science, and gives full protection for environmental laws should mean that the President should not veto this legislation, but should pass it. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to some of the people affected by this. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Of course, he has given an exact case, something very close to home, where individual lives are being impacted by a policy that does not realize science, and does not realize the reality of forest management, but is trying to pander to an elite group of special interests in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the President of the United States that if he is serious about helping working people, and if he is serious about providing a balanced budget and providing resources to carry out a number of programs that he would like to see in that budget, then we have an opportunity here to restore hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers, to the budget, and to put tens of thousands of people back to work. I was mentioning a moment ago that we have section 318 timber that has been approved. If the President signs this bill, we will get the benefit of 8,942 instant jobs, in addition to the ones in the salvage bill, because part of the timber salvage amendment includes three phases. It includes the timber salvage portion, it includes the section 318 timber that has been approved and been waiting 5 years now, past all regulations, been waiting 5 years to be put on the market, and the option 9 that the President himself recommended. With the 318 money we will put 8,942 people to work immediately, $313 million in additional payroll funds for timber workers, $47 million in additional tax revenue, $184 million returned to the Treasury, and $61 million to be shared with the counties for whatever uses they need and see fit. Good-paying jobs are not government-trained jobs, they are reality, they are what is needed in the marketplace. We have 151 job training programs, yet here we could put tens of thousands of people back to work without the taxpayer training. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], who also has a personal experience. He has a personal experience of what is going on in the mismanagement of forests in California.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to his constituency and the people of this country and his willingness to tell them the truth about what is happening in your district, and it is happening in districts all over the United States. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. The President when he indicated that he would veto this bill, he made a statement, and I am quoting from it. He says, ``I object to this amendment which would basically direct us to make timber sales to large companies.'' The people who harvest the timber out in your area, are those the major companies, the Weyerhausers and the other larger corporations? In our area, it is mostly mom-and-pop outfits, they hire maybe under 100 people, they are people in the community, and most of those folks are right there in the community. These are not large companies. These are basic community small businesses. Is that the case in your area?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I would suggest that the President get away from the elite environment that he is surrounded by at the White House and go out and talk to these folks and see how many businesses are involved. Major timber companies that have millions of acres of land do not need this to produce their forest products, but small businesses do. They are being devastated to the point of tens of thousands of jobs all over this country. I think the gentleman brought our another point, homebuilding. The average cost of a home has gone up over $7,000 just over what has happened in the Pacific Northwest, and expected to go higher. We are using today metal studs for construction purposes as well as other metal components instead of the renewable resource of wood. How can you possibly be an environmentalist and want to use a finite product that is hard to recycle, hard on the environment when it is brought in and smelted and produced as opposed to a renewable resource like wood, easily recyclable and can be used over and grown over and over again?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. The gentleman makes another good point. We are not talking about any harvest in national parks. We are not talking about harvesting in wilderness areas or wild and scenic river areas. As you say, 75 percent of the national forests even are off- limits from this harvest. Only about 25 percent of the area which is already being used and harvested from a commercial standpoint, or at least eligible--it is not being harvested now--for harvesting will be impacted. A very small part, one-third, of this Nation's public lands that the Government owns today. I would also remind, and I think the gentleman pointed out a moment ago, management of the forest and thinning of the forest is important for forest health, whether it is down wood or standing wood. There was a wire today, a green wire that came out that pointed out that aspen trees in New Mexico and Arizona are on a rapid decline. It points out that in 1962, there were 486,000 acres and it is down to 263,000 acres now, a 46 percent decrease of aspen, and the primary reason is the aspen, and I am quoting from it, needs open spaces to grow. They need to clear the forests so the younger trees can grow out, and that can be done, according to this green wire, in several ways. One is by wood harvest. That is important in managing today's forest. If you are going to have a wealthy forest, it has to be managed, and harvest is part of that management. [[Page H5561]] I would go back and talk again about what the President said in his statement. He went on in addition to saying this was made up of large timber companies, we were directing the cuts in sales to large timber companies, and that is entirely false. I would say it is close to 99 percent of these companies that are going to be harvesting, that will be winning bids on forest sales, come from small family firms and would be classified as small businesses under all the definitions of small business. He also mentioned there would be a subsidy to the taxpayer. The Congressional Budget Office saw no subsidy, the taxpayer was not subsidizing these sales. In fact, they saw tens of millions of dollars coming into the treasury, and I think we quoted from those figures a moment ago. Then he went on to say that this legislation would essentially throw out all environmental laws, and that is ridiculous. If he would talk to his own chief of the U.S. Forest Service, he would tell them that the environmental laws are not being thrown out, that the Secretary is required to follow a number of the environmental laws. If there was no requirement for following them, there would be no reason for an appeal, and there is an appeal process. I would go to the last segment in the salvage amendment, and, that is, that was inserted by the Senate. It was option 9 timber harvest. The President himself went to the Pacific Northwest directly after his election and promised the people that he would start seeing that the forests there were being harvested. Now he cut the harvest down to approximately 20 percent of what it would be or what it had been in the past, but even that is not happening. The extreme elements who are influencing the administration are seeing that is not happening. Of the 1.2 billion board feet that were selected for harvest under Option 9, almost none of that timber has been cut since the plan was selected by the administration. It was tested in district court, was upheld in district court in December, and the conference language would require that it now proceed and it would insulate it from further judicial review so that we do not have to subject the tens of thousands of employees to endless appeals on this process. In real terms if we restore and bring the Option 9 procedures ahead, it would restore almost 19,000 jobs for timber workers in the communities in the so-called spotted owl areas, it would add $664 million in additional payroll for timber workers, it would add $54 million in additional tax revenue, and $360 million would be returned to the Treasury; $120 million would go to the counties to be shared as we mentioned a moment ago primarily for education. Even the Forest Service estimates that if we do not proceed it may be years and years before option 9 can move ahead, and that in effect is the President denying the people even that part of his promise that he made in the Pacific Northwest. We have a section that is called the 4-D areas, a provision that legitimizes future action for the administration's 4-D section on Endangered Species Act rulings for relief of small landowners which was also included by the conferees. When the administration finishes its 4- D rules, millions of small landowners will be out from under the ESA restrictions on timber harvesting. It would free up hundreds of thousands of board feet of new timber by small property landowners. The acceptance of this provision was basically a good-faith attempt to show that Congress is willing to work with the administration's plan to utilize section 4-D of the ESA to provide relief for small landowners. In other words, the President has made many representations. What we are trying to do is to bring those representations to fruition. Certainly the President can support that. The President's veto means that the administration's commitment to provide relief in timber communities will not happen. The President's veto threat and comments on the timber provisions in the rescission bill is proof that his campaign pledge to put people first has been breached. The number of jobs in the entire rescission bill, including the salvage portion, 318 and option 9, would create over 88,000 jobs; in other words, it would put that many people who have been unemployed this period of time back in their jobs all across this country. Instead of that, the President is willing rather to see that the forests rot or burn than to see that good silviculture, good management, forest health management is put in place. I would remind him that his promise was to help bring economic activity back to the area. His veto of this legislation will kill that entirely. His signing of that bill will give 88,000 people across this country and primary in the Pacific Northwest immediate employment. There are numerous opportunities for us to evaluate this bill. The Congress had hearings, the Committee on Agriculture and Committee on Resources had joint hearings before they requested that I sponsor this amendment in the Committee on Appropriations. We had debate in the Committee on Appropriations, we had debate upon the floor. There were 277 members of Congress who supported this bill; it was opposed by 149. It passed with almost two-thirds of this Congress' support. It passed in the Senate. It came back and was approved, the conference language in the House was approved overwhelmingly, as it will be in the Senate. And so, this is the people through their representatives speaking for what is needed in this country and what they want. The President is vetoing it because he is being asked by a group of ill-informed special interests in Washington not to do it. If you read the Wall Street Journal of 2 weeks ago last Friday you will see why. The environmental organizations in this town, the special interest to which I refer that take in the $600 million and lavish it out to political special interests, were polled as to their support. The report said they were basically left-leaning, 93 percent who support the President of the United States, voted for President Clinton in the 1992 election. And he now is reaching out to pander to that very elite special interest and forget 88,000 honest taxpaying citizens who can be put back to work immediately. I would remind them of one other statement that was made by the group, an environmental group who spoke positively about the President's threat to veto, and I am quoting the Oregon-based Headwaters organization, and it said ``By preventing these clear cuts, President Clinton today saved the marble murrelet from extinction.'' Now that defies sensibility. We are talking about dead timber, we are talking about timber that in many cases has already blown over on the ground, we are talking about timber that has been burned, we are talking about timber that is insect-infested. Clearcutting dead and dying timber is ridiculous, and how you could have saved anything, the marbled murrelet from taking out salvaging dead timber remains to be seen. I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Riggs, whose district also is impacted by this legislation, who has real people who are suffering because of the policies of this administration and because of the veto threat of this administration.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Would the gentleman perhaps consider this question: If the President signs this rescission package, he will put 88,000 people back to work, and these are good, high-paying jobs, that is why we have at least three or four union endorsements here, we have the National Home Builders, we have many organizations endorsing this. At a time when unemployment is relatively high across the country and especially high in the Pacific Northwest and other areas that would be impacted greatest by this, why would the President not sign a bill that would put 88,000 people back to work, would improve the forests' health, would actually by his own Forest Service admission, would really create a healthier forest? Why would he not do that?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. A little while ago I mentioned the study that was published in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago pointed out this special interest in Washington of the environmental movement, and this is to be distinguished from genuine, honest, working people out there that are concerned about the environment. I have three children, I am concerned about the environment. Many people across the country are concerned. I am talking a special interest here that takes in over $600 million by frightening people and does not come close to putting out the truth of what is happening. It is an organization that, according to the Journal report, is very far left. It voted 93 percent for Mr. Clinton in 1992. I know it is a special interest group that backs him. But pandering to that group at the expense of these tens of thousands of wage earners out in that part of the country and doing it against the recommendations that he made himself, promises he made himself, with option 9 and other promises to get these people back to work, I cannot understand why he is picking this very left-wing group over this large part of America's working people, labor unions that want to go back to work, members, others, and I am just confused as to why this administration would pander to this small, elite group as opposed to mainstream America, why he would fly in the face of nearly two-thirds of the House of Representatives. This was a bipartisan effort. To get two-thirds, we had over 70 Democrats who voted and worked hard for the bill. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] was particularly helpful to get the bill passed; the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], others were involved in this, as well as the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and it is all of us who are looking to help these working men and women get their jobs back, high-paying jobs in most cases, to get them back in the mainstream economy, and here the President is threatening to do that, to veto it. He is threatening because of the pressure from a group that does not know a sourwood from a white pine. I had one of them testifying in the Committee on Interior the other day who testified he was an environmental educator. After he told me all the things that were happening in the forest, the world was coming to an end, I tried to ascertain his qualifications. I found out he did not have a degree in anything, and his practical knowledge was void. I asked him what portion of the country was owned by the Federal Government. It is about a third. He did not have a clue. I asked him how many acres were in the U.S. Forest Service system. It is 191 million acres. He did not know. I asked him how much of that 191 million acres could be harvested today. He said it all could. Less than 25 percent of it can be harvested today. What I am saying is, with that kind of misinformation, the President would do well to listen to the working men and women in California and Washington and Oregon and other parts of this [[Page H5563]] country as opposed to listening to a very elite special interest group that is giving him very bad information.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. That falls in line with the President's declaration that these are large companies. These are not large companies. These are small, family-size businesses.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. This is true, and not only that. I doubt if we could get that money expended, and the wood would not go to create jobs, in most cases, if it was harvested that way.