Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004-Continued

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004—CONTINUED

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from California, Ms. Boxer, has offered an amendment seeking to strike expedited judicial review of timber sales from U.S. Forest Service Regional X, covering the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.

While some use flowery terms to characterized the Tongass National Forest as the "last intact temperate rain forest" or the "crown jewel of our national forest system," they merely gloss over the realities of our forest. The Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, and others use overstated hyperbole meant to shift the focus of the debate from what we truly ought to be looking; that is, creating more jobs in America.

For months now Senators from the other party have come to floor to decry job losses in the United States—lost jobs that they somehow blame on President Bush.

Yet they need only look at the pursuit of their own policies that have led to our increased reliance on foreign natural resources and lost economic opportunity.

Alaska has the highest unemployment rate in the country, and every time I go back home to see my constituents—which is quite frequently—they ask me how we can create more jobs.

In Alaska we used to have thousands of timber and timber-related jobs. Now we have less than one thousand. That is criminal in a State that boasts the largest single national forest in the country.

The Tongass Forest is large enough to set aside land for future generations while also providing valuable timber for American manufacturing and U.S. jobs. Allow me to put it in perspective. In 2002 there were 110,000 people employed by the timber industry in California. In Alaska just 650 people were employed in the timber industry in 2002—again, in a State with the largest national forest. These are statistics from the American Forest and Paper Association.

In 2002, California produced 2.63 billion board feet of timber. During the same time in Alaska just 30 million board feet were produced. That figure makes California the fourth largest wood producer in the U.S. That means during FY 2002 Region X (the largest region in the Forest Service system) produced the least amount of timber—(Source: U.S. Forest Service).

While the Senator is offering an amendment that she thinks is the right thing to do to protect the environment, she must realize that this issue has been debated for literally decades, going back to when Alaska was a territory. Just as timber harvests take place in other national forests the Government saw fit to allow some limited, but sustainable, timber harvests to take place in the Tongass. Unfortunately some misguided and illegal policy changes under the Clinton administration set back timber jobs in Alaska during the 1990s. Fortunately the courts and the current administration have seen fit to reverse those rulings to follow the law. Unfortunately there are those who want to continue filing lawsuit after lawsuit, clogging up an already overpacked docket to keep Alaskans out of work.

I would say to those who continue to criticize job losses in the United States that one way to overcome them is to allow people to get back to work.

The problem is we can't get people back to work with the continued threat of frivolous litigation. The Senator's amendment seeks to allow people to further burden our courts under false pretenses of saving Alaska from Alaskans. It is an insult to me and my constituents to hear people attack our State.

We have a right to good jobs—just like those in California. We have a right to send our kids to good schools, just like in California. We have a right to have parks and hospitals and all the other infrastructure that is in the towns and cities in California, but our towns in Alaska needs jobs and industry to make them a reality.

As a State in this Union we entered to become an equal among equals. But that does not mean that we don't know what is in our best interest as a State and as individuals. The amendment my colleague offers seeks to provide more opportunities for litigation after we have already undergone lawsuit after lawsuit and lengthy administrative processes.

The language in the current bill does not cut off access to the courts. It merely requires that any application for judicial review be filed within 30 days after exhaustion of the Forest Service appeals process. Currently I am told the time limit is 6 years. The language applies for Record of Decisions for any timber sales in Region X of the Forest Service that had a Notice of Intent prepared on or before January 1, 2003.

The language does not restrict the right of the public to litigate timber sales; it simply speeds up the process by encouraging the court to render a decision within 180 days of the application.

Since 1990, at least nine timber sales on the Tongass have been litigated. Individual sales have been held up sometimes for years during the litigation process. What the families and the people who depend on the timber industry seek is simply some finality and a reasonable time for decisions.

According the Alaska Forest Association, my State has lost over 1,400 jobs in the recent years and the timber industry has ground down to a virtual standstill. Only 650 people remain employed in an industry that was once year round and spread throughout the region. Whole communities have vanished.

These people are not threatening the last remaining temperate rain forest in the United States, but their ability to provide for their families and for their families to have a future is threatened by lawyers and protracted litigation. The protracted litigation and the time to resolve that litigation could cost them their livelihoods and their family owned businesses. The ripple effect extends way beyond the individuals and the employees—it rips into the fabric of the communities in southeast Alaska. These are the things that the language of the appropriations bill seeks to address.

I support that language in the bill because I have seen firsthand what the endless litigation has done to my communities. I oppose the Boxer amendment because it seeks to empower more frivolous law suits and more delays. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to support more jobs in Alaska and America.