Date: 2000-06-14
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. let me say at the outset that the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations. the gentleman from Wisconsin . had it about right. That is that we are arguing over a pot of money here that in and of itself does not cure either problem. If we left it in the account. it would not cure the problems that the gentlemen in opposition to the amendment have spoken about. and if we are fortunate enough to transfer it into the fish and wildlife account. the fact of the matter is that we still will not deal with that account with the urgency which it is due. The problem with this amendment is that it is different in different parts of the country. but I would invite colleagues to come to the Sierra and look at the watershed there and see that we are in continued decline in those great mountains from activities that have taken place in the last several years. and many years ago. We still have not been able to restore habitat. We still have not been able to restore water quality. In fact. they all continue to be in decline. The very speciet that have already been listed continue to be in decline .so it is not about recovery. That is why this money is so urgently needed in the fish and wildlife account. That is why the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) felt it was necessary to offer this amendment. It is not as though this would leave the forestry account naked because. in fact. it puts the forestry account back to what the administration requested. and several million dollars above last years level so that they can continue. It is not like the investment in the forestry account has been the best deal for the American taxpayers. From 1995 to 1997. we spent $1.2 billion to administer this fund and we got back $125 million. We lost almost $900 million administering this forest program. The suggestion is that one is either for forest health if they want. to cut trees or one is against it if they want to do fish and wildlife habitat. The fact of the matter is that both of these are tools of forest management. Habitat restoration is part of forest management. as is forest health. But this leaves the salvage accounts that are used in forest health intact. It leaves the wild lands fires account intact. and it allows us to address some of the most urgent needs where we continiue to have these watersheds. habitat. and species in decline. The bottom line is this. our budget may be in surplus but our society is not. We have argued now appropriation bill after appropriation bill where the needs. the urgent needs. for those who are from States with great forest resources. are telling us we need $750 million a year. and we are arguing over $14 million. We are arguing over $14 million. So we have a society that is in great deficits. When HHS was out here earlier in the day. we were arguing over the lack of being able to provide a decent education to children. to be able to provide help for handicapped students. all of which are in deficits. We walk around pulling our suspenders and talking about a surplus. Well. this is a deficit account here. both on the forestry side and on the fish and wildlife side. but the more urgent account in this particular case happens to be fish and wildlife because the decline is continuing and that threatens the economy. that threatens the ability of commercial fishermen. that threatens the forest health in a grander scale and then comes back and calls for more people to limit the logging. So we should support the WuSmithUdall amendment.