Charles Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], whose State is also involved in this, if he would talk to us about the impact in his area. (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman: I rise in support of the Republican budget not because I agree with every detail, but because this nation must balance it's budget. If we don't we may go the way of Mexico, and if we go bankrupt, there won't be anyone to bail us out. The American people should know that the Appropriations Committee will make the final decisions on what programs will be eliminated, what programs will be cut and what programs may be increased. Today, we spend about $1.12 for every dollar we take in--it's a 12 percent problem and we can fix it. This budget begins the process of making priorities, we've simply got to determine how much money we have, prioritize our needs and when the money runs out, so do the programs. Every spending program has a rationale, a constituency and a lobby. There's been a lot of loose talk in this Chamber about so-called cuts in some programs like Medicare. Only in Washington is an increase in spending a cut. The fact is that Medicare will be broke in 7 years. That means in 2002 there will be no money for Medicare. Those who oppose this budget are willing to scare our seniors and are willing to lie to them, in the pursuit of politics. To vote against this budget is to tell our seniors that we don't care about their healthcare--that we are willing to cast them out--just for politics. The fact is, under this budget, Medicare spending will increase from $4,700 to $6,300 in the next 7 years--that's a 40 percent increase per recipient. That's hardly a cut anywhere in America, except on the other side of the aisle. This budget lays out a road map to follow to a balanced budget and a healthy Medicare System in 7 years. We may not agree with every dot and tittle in this budget--they'll be worked out in the Appropriations Committee--but we must agree with a balanced budget, with a healthy Medicare System, and Social Security off the table.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have had contacts from people all over the Southwest, the Southeast, and the eastern United States asking that the rescission bill be passed, primarily for the timber consideration. We have labor unions in that area that are without jobs. We have tens of thousands of people that are waiting for the President to fulfill his commitment on option 9, which would put timber in the pipeline that would allow those people to go back to work. We have forest health being damaged because of insects, because of fire, because of the damage to the forest that could be obliterated if we could get the salvage wood out of the forest, and this bill provides a mechanism for that. It also gives the taxpayer $135 million for doing it, which would go toward the deficit. It gives us an opportunity to keep our commitment. Reading some of the opposition, one of the folks who urged the President to veto this bill stated that it would stop clearcutting in the West. The depth of dumb cannot be fathomed in this area. These are dead and dying trees, not live trees to be clearcut.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 961, the legislation to reauthorize the Clean Water Act. As someone with experience in growing trees, I understand the concerns about the so-called nonpoint source pollutions from forests. I appreciate that we have extensive regulations which address other sources and that we are looking to control runoff of water from all sources. You would not know it from the rhetoric, but the forest industry has done a pretty good job already in controlling the problem. When I was in the State legislature, I cosponsored sedimentation legislation that today on North Carolina's basis controls runoff from forests as well as other sources. Every State in the country with any significant forest activity has what is called best management practices which are sets of very detailed practices which have to be in place before forest practices are undertaken. For example, the best management practices include everything from ways to build temporary roads with water bars to prevent runoff in other ways. I urge support of the Clean Water Act and the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, in 2 minutes I can tell my colleagues several things about this. First of all, it will restore forest health. Most of the things that have been said about it so far just are not true. Scientists recognize that the forests are undergoing a serious ecological decline because of a lack of management. Fire disasters, unnatural species compositions, disease, insect infestation; all of these are threatening the forest health, and this legislation which has been worked out with professionals, it has been worked out in consulting with the Forest Service, as many people as we could find to try to alleviate this emergency were brought in in this short period of time, and it is an emergency. Even the chief of the Forest Service, Mr. Chairman, has said we need to increase our salvage cutting for forest health. Second, there are tens of billions of dollars of revenue coming to the Treasury, or millions of dollars of revenue coming to the Treasury. It is not a loss. CBO scored it $37 million last year. FPA says it could be as much as $650 million. So it is a very positive revenue producer. Third, it will stabilize the cost of homes. It will create jobs, and that is why the home builders, and realtors and many others are supporting this. It will create thousands of jobs all across this country in a much needed area, putting timber in the pipeline, and that is why the Teamsters Union supports it. It is why the Western Council of Industrial Workers supports it, the United Paperworkers International Union supports it, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters supports it, the International Association of Machinists and the Association of Western Paperworkers, because these are men and women who make the livings of this country and recognize that this will produce jobs, and they are endorsing this amendment in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, it is an opportunity for us. It is an opportunity for us to to this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the provisions of section 307 of H.R. 1159, a measure co-authored by myself and Mr. Dicks, and supported strongly by a number of our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and on the authorizing committees with jurisdiction. I wish to outline the intent of the provision, and the direction we have provided to the agencies affected for two reasons. First, I wish to be sure that the requirements of the provision are not misrepresented as the debate over this bill continues to the other body. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I wish to provide clear direction to the implementing agencies, and do everything possible to assure that the agencies understand, and can execute the direction we have provided. To this latter end, the authors of section 307 have met several times with U.S. Forest Service Chief, Jack Ward Thomas, and his staff since the provision imposes most of its requirements on the Forest Service. The Chief and his staff have been quite helpful in reviewing the terms of section 307, suggesting modifications to assure that these requirements are technically correct, and evaluating the Forest Service's technical and operational capability to meet the requirements of section 307, including the volume targets for timber salvage. As a forester by training, I am very sensitive to saddling our Federal agencies with mandates that they are not able to implement. Based upon our discussion with Chief Thomas it is the clear understanding of the authors of section 307 that--aside from the question of whether the Clinton administration agrees with the goals of section 307 as a matter of politics and policy--the Forest Service can implement the provision of section 307 in a fashion that meets the timber salvage targets contained in this section. Today, I have sent a letter to Chief Thomas which I will include in the Record at the end of this statement. In this letter, I review with the Chief the intention of the authors of section 307 and our expectations about Forest Service implementation of the measure. I have asked the Chief for a prompt response so that, if there is any difference in interpretation, this can be reviewed during Senate consideration of the bill and any necessary adjustments can be made. If the measure passes both bodies and is signed into law, we expect appropriate implementing actions to carry out a clear congressional intent which is, itself, grounded in an understanding of agency capabilities. Now let me review the terms of section 307. Section 307 would provide authority and direction to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to conduct a 2-year emergency salvage timber sales program on lands of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management [BLM]. The purpose of this one-time, short duration congressional mandate is to eliminate the extraordinary backlog of dead and dying trees on Federal lands in all regions of the country. This backlog has been created by the alarming decline in forest health and the unprecedented scale of wildfires over the last 2 years. Without an accelerated and dedicated response from the land management agencies in planning and conducting these emergency salvage timber sales, the decaying trees will soon lose any commercial value, thereby preventing harvesting and the timely accomplishment of reforestation and other restoration activities on the affected lands. The two Secretaries are directed to offer a sufficient number of salvage timber sales during the 2-year emergency period following enactment to ensure that a minimum of 3-billion board feet is sold each year on Forest Service lands and 115-million board feet is sold each year on BLM lands (subsec. (b)(2)). These volume targets were derived after extensive discussion with the Forest Service and BLM. The Forest Service targets were established after consultation with the Agency's field offices. They are statutory mandates that represent reasonable progress toward reducing the backlog of dead and dying timber on our Federal forests. The agencies have indicated that it is within their capability to achieve these targets and thereby improve the health of our Federal forests under the terms of section 307. A timber sale qualifies as a salvage timber sale that can be offered under the provisions of section 307 only if an important reason for the sale is the removal of diseased or insect-infested trees; dead, damaged, or down trees; or trees affected by fire or imminently susceptible to fire or insect attack. Removal of associated trees for the purpose of ecosystem improvement or rehabilitation can occur if the sale has an identifiable component of trees to be salvaged. (Subsec. (a)(4).) Salvage timber sales are to be offered whether or not revenues derived from the sales are likely to exceed the sales' costs (subsec. (c)(5)). In conducting the sales, the Secretaries are authorized to use salvage sale funds otherwise available to them (subsec. (b)(3)). But the Secretaries are not to substitute salvage timber sales under section 307 for planned non-salvage sales (subsec. (c)(7)). Section 307 does not permit any salvage timber sales on specifically protected lands, namely areas designed by Congress as units of the National Wilderness Preservation System, any roadless areas in Colorado or Montana which were specifically designated by acts of Congress by geographical name or map reference as Wilderness Study Areas, any roadless areas recommended by the Forest Service or BLM for wilderness designation in their most recent land management plans, and areas where timber harvesting for any purpose has been specifically prohibited by a specific statutory provision. This proscription does not include any prohibition in any regulation, land management plan, agency guidance, research study, or settlement agreement which purports to rely on general statutory authority (subsec. (g)(2)). This last distinction is important because we do not, even by inference, want to prohibit application of this section in areas where the agencies on their own have restricted timber harvesting. This includes agency initiatives such as the timber sale screens on the East-side of the Cascades and the California Spotted Owl Report, the following environmental assessment, and the pending draft Environmental Impact Statement. Whether and to whatever extent the agencies choose to restore the forest health by scheduling salvage sales in such areas, they are still bound to meet the salvage targets in subsection (b)(2) of this section. In order to ensure that the sales are conducted in a timely manner, section 307 requires the two land management agencies to follow certain schedules, expedited procedures, and reporting requirements. The schedule for offering timber sales requires that sales for at least 50 percent of the volume each agency is directed to make available in the first year must be offered in the first 3 months after enactment, and sales for at least 50 percent of the volume each agency is directed to make available in the second year must be offered within 15 months after enactment. Sales for the remaining 50 percent of the volume required each year can be spread evenly throughout the remaining 9 months of the year. (Subsec. (c)(2).) To track compliance with this schedule, the Secretaries are required to report to Congress every 3 months throughout the 2-year emergency period on the sales and volumes offered during the last 3-month period and expected to be offered during the next 3-month period (subsec. (b)(2)). To meet this schedule, the Secretaries are admonished to use all available authority in preparing and advertising the salvage timber sales. This includes use of private contractors, and applying the type of expedited contracting procedures used to fight fires to the tasks of advertising and preparing salvage sales. To augment the available personnel, section 307 authorizes employment of former employees who received voluntary separation incentive payments under the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-226) without applying the provisions of Section 3(d)(1) of P.L. 103-226. (Subsec. (c)(4).) Sale procedures are expedited by the requirement that each Secretary prepare a single document analyzing the environmental effects of each salvage sale. The level of analysis in this consolidated environmental analysis document is to be that normally contained in an environmental assessment (not an environmental impact statement) under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] on the environmental impacts of the sale generally and in a biological evaluation under the Endangered Species Act [ESA] on any specific effects the sale may have on any endangered or threatened species. (Subsec. (c)(1).) The language of this provision is explicit that these are the only document and the only procedure required from an environmental standpoint to comply with existing laws and regulations (subsec.(c)(6)). For example, the agency does not have to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact under NEPA, nor consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service under the ESA after completing the consolidated environmental analysis document. Nor is an agency bound by any existing documents. On the other hand, if a NEPA document or a biological evaluation is already prepared for any particular sale by the date of enactment, a consolidated environmental analysis document need not be prepared for that sale. (Subsec. (c)(1).) Each Secretary is to make the decisions on a sale's configuration and whether to offer the sale on the basis of the consolidated environmental analysis document. The Secretary may decide to not offer the sale or to reduce the size of the sale for an environmental reason grounded in the consolidated environmental analysis document, but he must then determine if he can meet the applicable volume requirement on schedule. If he determines he cannot, he must substitute another sale or (c)(3).) The Secretary's decision, based on that consolidated environmental documentation, is deemed to satisfy all applicable environmental and land management laws (subsec. (c)(6)). This means, for example, that the Secretary cannot be sued for violation of the Clean Water Act, the provisions of the National Forest Management Act concerning species' viability, unsuitability, or consistency with the resource management plans, or the jeopardy or take standards of the Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, as indicated, a sale can be offered that does not comport with a resource management plan, or interim guidelines, or management directives. This provision is both reasoned and consistent with the one-time, emergency nature of section 307. Few if any such plans, guidelines, screens, or other agency guidance contemplated the dramatic decline in forest health and consequent unprecedented wildfires. Section 307 does not excuse long-term compliance with such agency guidance; instead, it permits only a one-time divergence therefrom. Without such temporary divergence, the very wildlife and other resources that the guidance is intended to protect may be destroyed or damaged, thereby rendering the guidance ineffective for the longer term. Finally, a sale can be offered even if it would be barred under any decision, injunction, or order of any federal court (subsec. (c)(8)). Expedited procedures continue to apply after the decision to offer a salvage timber sale. Section 307 bars an administrative appeal of any sale decision (subsec. (e)). This allows challengers to go directly to court and hastens a final disposition of the challenge--a disposition timely enough to permit the sale and harvesting of dead and dying timber if the court ultimately determines that the sale is legally valid. Finally as to expedited procedures, in language borrowed verbatim from previously enacted law (section 318 of Public Law 101-121), section 307 sets deadlines for challengers for filing and appealing lawsuits challenging salvage timber sales (15 days and 30 days, respectively) (subsec. (f)(1) and (7)) and for the district courts to decide the lawsuits (45 days, unless the particular court decides a longer period is necessary to satisfy Constitutional requirements) (subsec. (f)(5)). To protect challengers, the section requires that each challenged timber sale must be stayed by the appropriate agency for the same 45-day period in which the court hears and decides the case (subsec. (f)(2)). With a mandated automatic stay, restraining orders or preliminary injunctions are unnecessary and, therefore, are barred (subsec. (f)(3)). A court is free to issue a permanent injunction against, order modification of, or void an individual salvage timber sale if it determines that the decision to prepare, advertise, offer, award, or operate the sale was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law (subsec. (f)(4)). As the sale is deemed by law to satisfy the environmental and land management laws (subsec. (c)(6)), the challengers must allege and prove to the court under this standard that the sale was arbitrary or capricious under, or violates a specific provision of section 307. The Secretaries' duties do not stop after the salvage timber sales are sold; they are directed to complete reforestation of the lands as expeditiously as possible after harvesting but no later than any periods required by law or the agencies' regulations. This last requirement is every bit as important as the rest of the section because it completes the forest restoration process and highlights the authors' commitment to sound forest stewardship. Section (i) of section 307 addresses another related timber supply problem of an emergency nature. In this case, the emergency involves government liability for failure to perform the terms of a contract. Previously-offered timber sales in the Northwest cannot be operated due to administrative delays and reviews. Many of these sales were mandated by Congress in Section 318 of the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1990, Pub. L. 101-121; others were offered in fiscal year 1991 and some more recently. Many of these sales were awarded to purchasers years ago; the government will have to pay tens of millions of dollars in contract buyouts if these sales were cancelled. Other sales were auctioned years ago but never awarded; in some cases the agencies rejected bids well after the auction due to administrative reviews and delays and changing standards. This is the case even though the preponderance of these sales were approved for harvest in the Record of Decision accompanying the President's Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, as not jeopardizing the continued existence of any of the numerous species of wildlife considered by that plan. The government will forego $207.8 million in timber receipts if these sales are not operated. Subsection 307(i)(1) frees up all these sales, saving the government over one hundred million dollars in buyout claims, generating the $207.8 million in revenues and immediately providing substantial amounts of timber for mills hurt by Federal supply reductions. It applies to all national forests and BLM districts that were subject to section 318 of the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, fiscal year 1990, Pub. L. 101-121; it applies throughout fiscal years 1995 and 1996, or longer as necessary, notwithstanding any other provision of law; and it requires full compliancy by the agencies within 30 days of the date of enactment of the section. It directs the award of all unawarded sales as originally advertised, whether or not bids on a sale previously rejected, and it directs the release of these sales and all other awarded sales in the affected area so that all the sales can be operated to completion, on their original terms, in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Subsection (i)(2) provides that agency compliance with this section will not provide a legal basis for a court to block an existing agency management plan, or to order an agency to change an existing plan. It leaves in place all other grounds unrelated to this section that may exist for any person to challenge an agency plan for any reason. It does not affect pending cases challenging agency plans for reason unrelated to this section. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, March 15, 1995. Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Chief Thomas: We write to continue our important dialogue on the emergency forest health amendment contained in Section 307 of HR 1159. This amendment has bipartisan support in the House, and will shortly be considered in the Senate when that body takes up HR 1159. We thank you and your staff for the technical assistance you provided to us as we developed the provision. While we understand the Administration has yet to take a position on the measure, we nevertheless appreciate the nonpartisan assistance the Forest Service provided to make sure that the amendment is drafted in a technically and legally sound fashion. We are sensitive to the need to avoid saddling our federal resource management agencies with mandates that cannot be implemented on the ground. To this end we request one more review by your resource specialists and attorney advisors of the final language of Section 307. Enclosed is the final language and a floor statement we made during House consideration explaining our intent in writing this amendment. We want to ensure that the amendment can be implemented in a manner that brings salvage timber to the marketplace as quickly as possible within the environmental process provided. We would like your review to assure that your specialists agree that the language would have the on-the-ground effect that we intend. Alternatively, if this is not the case, we would like to know which provisions are problematic, why this is the case, and what technical changes would better accomplish our purposes. Let me be clear that we are not asking whether the Administration, the Agency, or you support the amendment or agree with its intent. We respect any difference of opinion you might have with specific requirements. Nevertheless, we need to be sure that we have a common understanding that our intent is implementable under the term of amendment. If the amendment is passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President we will expect full implementation of its terms. Since the bill is being taken up in Subcommittee in the Senate next Wednesday, we will need your response by Monday, March 20. We apologize for the short notice, but we are victims of the legislative schedule. We appreciate your continuing assistance and cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, Charles H. Taylor, Member, U.S. Congress. Don Young, Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the statements of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] about the forest salvage bill. It will come up as an amendment on Thursday to the emergency supplemental and rescission package that will be before the House, and the comments the gentleman just made from Oregon are very timely, and I think the whole Nation is beginning to realize that we have in many respects mismanaged our resources over the years. The question has come up about the Forest Service management of property many times on this floor, and I am not here to defend the Forest Service categorically. I am one who believes that the Government generally will mess up a one-car funeral, and consequently most Government agencies are certainly not perfect. But the Forest Service has a history in the main of taking a nation at the beginning of this century where we had ravaged many of our forests and turned those forests into productive forests to the point that we are growing far more timber today than we are cutting. In fact, Mr. Speaker, more die in the forest than we harvest, and that is a shame when you consider that just in the last 3 years the price of lumber for a home has gone up from $4,000 to $6,000 for an average couple, and it is growing, and we have to substitute metal studs, for instance, and other metal components and plastic components for wood components in the home, and that is going to cost the average family more. In addition it is going to be against the environment because when we take metal, which must be mined, first of all creating environmental problems, than it has to be smelted, using a great deal of energy, and then manufactured in a more toxic process, many times greater than wood. In the end of its life disposing of it is much more difficult than wood. And the same thing with plastic. We have to import the oil from outside the country. Often it is spilled on the way here. We have to fight many times to be able to retain our source of oil. And then the manufacturing process for the plastic is often more toxic and its disposal is more difficult. So I am saying to you if you take the environmental path, a renewable resource like wood for making the table, or the dais or the chairs that we have, or many other good products, it is much better for us to use that renewable resource of wood than it is to use finite resources such as metal or plastic. And yet as our country grows and as more homes are needed, we have no alternative but to use some source of materials. The renewable resource of wood is the environmental resource to use. Saying that, we have two sources providing it: First of all from the private sector, from individual farms and individual tracts that are purchased, and a great deal of our forest products come from that. But we also created the National Forest Service at the end of the last century and the beginning of this century to provide fiber for our Nation. Now, the Forest Service is under the Department of Agriculture because it is to be harvested and grown in our national forests. We have a National Park Service under the Interior Department that is not harvested. There is very little management that goes on inside national parks. We have also set aside over 34 million acres inside the U.S. Forest Service in wilderness designation that is not harvested and is managed much like the national parks. There are other specific set- asides such as wilderness designation, wild and scenic rivers, where no harvest is allowed. We are down to probably one in five acres of the one-third of this Nation that is publicly owned that even gets any consideration for harvest. The other 80 percent of our publicly owned land is not harvested. And that certainly, I think, disputes the fact that any sort of harvest will ravage our publicly owned lands because we only give attention to approximately one out of five acres. We need the forest and the harvest also for the economy. We talked a moment ago about the costs going up for sales that are in this Nation now from our Forest Service and from many private lands because of the maze of regulations that have been ensnarled around them. We know that home building, of course, is a very important part of our economy. But as we force homes higher, we are going to decrease the numbers of homes people are able to buy and we are going to hurt the economy and jobs in that way. I often hear comments made on the floor about the forest sales go to big timber companies. That just is not true. Over 90 percent of the forest sales that are made in this country go to small family-owned organizations, all the way from the operation that may be harvesting the timber to the operation that is manufacturing it. The major timber companies in this country, by the great portion, harvest a great portion of the timber from their own lands. So most sales that are made are small sales and they are made to small businessmen, in most cases family-owned businesses. It is just not true that there is any big amount. They also are sold at a public bid. That means that the Forest Service advertises the timber that is for sale and the highest bid then is accepted and the Forest Service has the right to decline a bid if it is too low. So the government gets the top price in the bid process for its timber in most cases. Now, what are we talking about tonight in this amendment? We are talking about not green timber that needs also to be harvested. We are talking about dead and dying trees. We are talking about timber that has been burned. We are talking about almost 30 billion board feet of timber in this country that will rot and die and be wasted unless some of it is harvested. We are harvesting only a fraction of it now because of the maze of regulations. It is important for jobs, as we pointed out, because it can put in the stream in badly harmed areas in the south, southeast, in the Pacific Northwest and other areas, timber that is needed to start the mills going and to provide lumber for homes and for personal use. But it is not just jobs that are involved. Forest health is involved. And it is a question all over this country. In the south and the southeast, pine beetles have ravaged thousands of acres of timber and used those trees as host trees to spread to other healthy parts of the forest and to spread to private lands. We had one member of our Committee on Appropriations from Texas that pled that we try to start harvesting in his particular area because the host insects from the Forest Service were going on to private farms all around and destroying timber there. The gypsy moth has done a great deal of damage. In the Appalachian region, oak decline. Natural disasters, winds, storms, hurricane, and tornadoes, things of that nature have ravaged, broken down timber in the forest. And if it cannot be harvested, it is almost impossible to go in and replant those areas that are destroyed because of the twisted and broken timbers. In the areas out west where you have had devastating fires, you bake the soil, you create a charcoal mass that goes into the streams. It is almost impossible for vegetation to come back. Certainly not selected vegetation or a species that would be harvestable, a species that would be the best species for that forest. And so, all across the Nation, we need for forest health to address the question of harvesting salvaged timber. And this amendment that we are offering on Thursday, that will be in the bill and will be voted on on Thursday, would allow the Forest Service to go in and harvest, over a 2-year period, approximately 6.2 billion board feet of timber. The timber would amount to, probably by that time, about 20 percent of the down and dead timber. We are increasing salvaged timber about 6 billion board feet a year due to natural disaster, so we will not be getting all of the salvaged timber. It will allow the Forest Service to make the decision of which areas are to be harvested. They can pick those that are least sensitive; those that can be harvested the quickest and with the highest return to the government. The Forest Service professionals make this decision, not people who are buying the timber, not the mills, not the timber loggers or the harvesters. It will be made by the forest professionals. They will determine which timber will be put on sale. We know that this will be a plus for the taxpayer, because the CBO has scored a positive return to the taxpayer. The estimates range anywhere from $36 million the first year all the way up to $650 million. And it would be difficult to tell exactly the positive return until the sites are selected. But we know that there will be very little effort, little expenditure, put out for these because during the 2 years of this emergency provision there will not be time for road construction or a great deal of activity to go on in preparation. They will have to go to the commercial areas of the forest. And that is all this applies to, not wilderness areas, park areas, or areas where we cannot cut now, it is to the commercial areas of forest already subject to being harvested. They will have to go to those areas ready and reachable in order to harvest 6.2 billion board feet over the next two years. So we are saying to you that far too often in the past we have allowed people to use hysteria under the guise of environmentalism, to actually harm the environment, to cost thousands of jobs in the Nation, to drive up the cost of people's individual homes, and to hurt the environment, under the guise of environmentalism. Some of it is from individuals who are well-meaning, who just do not have the expertise or the knowledge. Some of it is deliberate hysteria, because many of those organizations take in hundreds of millions of dollars here in Washington, and by scaring people into sending money to protect something not endangered they can continue to take in those funds. That, unfortunately, is a shame. With this bill we are using cooperation with professionals, with the Forest Service, with the best knowledge we have in managed silviculture, to go after a resource that is wasting and provide jobs, taxes, and forest health for this Nation. I hope the people of this Nation will all support us and the Members of this body when we vote on that measure Thursday. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland giving me the time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last week, western North Carolina lost a great statesman and a friend. Former Congressman Roy Taylor who served the constituents of North Carolina's 11th District for 16 years died March 2, after years of declining health. During his tenure on Capitol Hill, Congressman Taylor championed the conservation of natural resource and was known for his exhaustive work on behalf of the people of our district. Those who were here tell of his commitment to 12-hour days and 6-day workweeks. Roy Taylor was born, January 31, 1910, in Vader, WA, but his parents moved to western North Carolina not long after he was born. He attended the public schools in Buncombe County, spent 2 years at Asheville- Biltsmore College, and then graduated from Maryville College in Tennessee in 1931. Mr. Taylor began a career as a schoolteacher in 1931 at Black Mountain High School and the next year married Evelyn Reeves of Leicaster. While teaching, Taylor began studying law and in 1936 graduated from Asheville University Law School. Upon passing the bar that same year, he quit his teaching job and began to practice law in Asheville. In 1943, Taylor left his law practice to serve in combat with the U.S. Navy. Upon fulfilling his duty to the Nation, he was discharged as a lieutenant in 1946. After returning to western North Carolina, Taylor began his political career as a member of the North Carolina General Assembly from 1947 to 1949. He then served as Buncombe County attorney from 1949 to 1960. During this time, he also served as a member of the board of trustees of Asheville-Biltmore College. In 1960, Taylor was elected as a Democrat to the 86th Congress, during a special election to fill the vacancy created by the death of Representative David Hall. Taylor was reelected to the eight succeeding Congresses and retired in 1976. Taylor served 10 of those years as chairman of the House Interior Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation. After public service, Congressman Taylor dedicated his time to the church and his community. He was district governor of Lions Clubs in western North Carolina. He also served as a deacon and Sunday school superintendent of Black Mountain First Baptist Church. Taylor is survived by his wife, Evelyn; daughter, Toni Robinson of Plymouth; son, Alan Taylor of Bent Creek; granddaughter, Stacy Taylor; grandsons, Marshall and Gregg Robinson; sister, Alberta Greene of Enka; great-grandchildren, Katherine Taylor Robinson and Charlotte Whittfield Robinson.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today--a new day in Congress--where Members will finally open the doors of the House to greater public input and disclosure. The idea of the House audit was a brainchild of the Gang of Seven. I am delighted to join my fellow gang members here today and am pleased that the leadership included our idea in the rules package. I am not even sure why we are debating this issue. If a company the size of the House of Representatives did not report the activities of its officers and directors to its shareholders, it would not survive-- disclosure is a key component to gaining the public trust essential for survival in a market economy. It is ridiculous not to support this proposal. The American people are the shareholders of our American Government and deserve to know the activities of their Representatives. Members of the House have been embarrassed and distracted by scandals in its bank, post office, and other departments. An independent inspector general would conduct audits to expose fraud, waste, and abuse. I wholeheartedly support a comprehensive House audit and urge my colleagues to do likewise. It is a proposal that will ensure that the House of Representatives remains The People's House.