135 Cong Rec H 3705
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Congressional Record -- House Thursday, July 13, 1989 101st Cong. 1st Sess. 135 Cong Rec H 3705 REFERENCE: Vol. 135 No. 93 SPEAKER: Mr. BARTLETT; Mr. DeFAZIO; Mr. GLICKMAN; Mr. HUCKABY; Mr. JONTZ; MR. KANJORSKI; Mr. KLECZKA; Mrs. LLOYD and Messrs; Mr. MARLENEE; Mr. MILLER of California; Mr. MORRISON of Washington; Mr. MRAZEK; Mr. OLIN; Mr. REGULA; Mr. RHODES; Mr. SCHEUER; Mr. TALLON; Mr. VOLKMER; Mr. YOUNG of Alaska TEXT: Text that appears in UPPER CASE identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the House on the floor. [*H3705] AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. VOLKMER TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. DE LA GARZA Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. de la Garza: The amendment is amended on page 8 by inserting after line 24 the following: "The Secretary shall also maintain a buffer zone along all tributaries of such streams in accordance with best management practices for water quality.". Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have offered now has to do with the buffer zone language that is in the substitute of the Committee on Agriculture, and merely clarifies the buffer zone language as it applies to tributaries of the anadromous streams which are used in the fishing process. The amendment I am offering now provides that the buffer zone shall extend to tributaries of such streams in accordance with the best management practices for water quality. Now, this is exactly the language that was proposed to Members by the Southeast Alaska Sailors from Ketchikan who are the fishing industry in Alaska. We have proposed different buffer zone language totally in the substitute,and with my amendment, different from the Committee on Interior bill. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs bill extends a buffer zone not only on all the anadromous streams but also on all tributaries of 100 feet. It also provides that in the Interior bill that the buffer zone cannot be crossed, it has to be maintained in the existing State, which means that there cannot even cross over or build crossings to be able to timber in adjacent or other land next to the buffer zone. As a result, it has been estimated that the language of the Interior bill would actually eliminate approximately 30 billion board feet for cutting in this area. Therefore, the language we have offered and the amendment that I am now offering to the substitute conforms with the wishes of the fishermen in Alaska who actually protect the streams as needed to be, but also permit timbering in areas. They agree with that. They, too, realize that the timber industry is necessary to southeast Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to the Agriculture substitute. We have no problem if the committee wants to amend their own substitute. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. MORRISON of Washington. Mr. Chairman, we looked at the gentleman's amendment and concur. This clarifies the intent to match standard practice in other forests, and commend him for offering this. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] to the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza]. [*H3706] The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Marlenee]. Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of both the Agriculture and Interior Committees. Both committes are offering legislation pertaining to the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. The Agriculture Committee bill is reform. The Interior Committee bill abrogates the finely crafted agreements reached by all parties in 1980 when Congress passed the Alaska Lands Act. I favor standing by our commitment and our word. I favor the Agricultural Committee bill -- just like the chairman of the Agriculture Committee does. Both bills save $40 million, but the Interior Committee bill could cost hundreds of millions of dollars according to the Congressional Budget Office. This is because the Interior Committee bill would unilaterally break a government contract with the only year-round manufacturing plants in Alaska. The Agriculture Committee looked at this provision, and rejected it. We were looking for savings, not scalps. The Interior Committee bill is excessive, reducing the legal size of industry by 61.5 percent. This is a U.S. industry which paid over $40 million to the U.S. Treasury in taxes and Social Security, and whose products contributed almost a half billion dollars to the U.S. economy last year. The Interior Committee bill is a partisan, irresponsible, and revolutionary bill, which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of American jobs. The Agriculture Committee bill is a bipartisan, responsible reform package, designed to save money and jobs. After hearing testimony before both committees and looking at both bill, I support the Volkmer-Morrison Agriculture Committee bill. I hope you do, too. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It is sort of ironic, here I am urging a vote on the Agriculture bill that far exceeds the same bill that we voted on last year. That should show Members how bad the Interior bill is. I respected the comments of the chairman of the full committee. Let Members throw all the figures out the window and think of the people effects, and how it affects those dreams and hopes. The Agriculture bill is a bill that goes much beyond what I think is necessary, certainly beyond what most people in Alaska think is necessary. However, it is the bill that has been comprised and worked together with all members of that committee, long and lengthy hearings, and they have done the job to maintain the industry and the people factor in this legislation. I think it is important that we recognize that effort. There is something basically wrong with a bill that comes out of a committee that is strictly along party lines. Frankly, it is westerner most of the times against easterner or vice versa. I understand that. However, it does not recognize the human factor. Do I buy a car? Do I have my children's teeth straightened? Do we put new carpet in? Can we bring our mother up to visit so she can see her grandchildren? Those things are not answered under the Interior bill. They are answered under the Agriculture bill. Mr. Chairman, I am urging my colleagues to do as the chairman mentioned, let Members have a bill that takes care of all, let Members not divide into small different groups. Let Members have legislation that has a possibility and a reality of being signed. Let Members not continue to go through this constant divisive issue, year after year after year, not only in the Congress, but in fact, in the State of Alaska. There have been some accusations made about the companies, as if the companies were an entity into themselves. They are not. These are people. People that work. People that want to depend upon this Government's word. I urge a yes vote on the Agriculture bill, a resounding yes for what is right and just. Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I know that both committees have worked diligently and in good faith on this issue. It is not the easiest issue in the world to deal with. I feel a bit difficult, as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, opposing my own committee in this regard and supporting the Interior Committee, but that is consistent with the position I took last year on the floor of this House as well as in committee. Last year, I believe I talked with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] about offering an amendment to terminate the contracts in question with the two companies, that in my judgment were preferential, and not in the best interests of the taxpayer. At that time he persuaded me not to offer the amendment, that they would like to work this matter out in the course of the legislative process. That did not happen, and so today I feel it necessary to honor my position of a year ago, as well as what I said in the Committee on Agriculture, and that is to support the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs position. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the Members of the House regarding a provision of H.R. 987, the Tongass Timber Reform Act. I rise in support of the termination of the two long- term timber sale contracts on the Tongass National Forest, which are currently held by Louisiana-Pacific Ketchikan and Alaska Pulp Corp. Mr. Chairman, these contracts are and will continue to be an affront to the sound conservation and management of the unique forest resources of southeast Alaska. These contracts are the root cause of millions of dollars of taxpayers losses each year due to heavily subsidized timber sales in the Tongass National Forest. These contracts continue to permit two large timber companies -- one a wholly owned Japanese firm -- to maintain monopolistic control over the forest products industry in southeast Alaska and have eliminated all possibility for fair competition for timber sales to occur.