 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
|
|||||
|
Summer/Fall 1999 |
|
Cynthia McKinney is Georgia’s first African-American Congresswoman, and the only woman serving in the state’s congressional delegation. Rep. McKinney has emerged as one of the most prolific advocates for conservation in the US Congress. HR 1396, which she introduced, is the first bill that truly addresses the incentives which drive the Forest Service. Misinformation swirls around this bold new attempt at reform; to set the record straight, we interviewed Rep. McKinney on August 12, 1999 regarding HR 1396, the National Forest Protection and Restoration Act. What inspired your interest in reforming the Forest Service? I became involved with this issue by following the lead of my constituents. I am lucky to have a strong environmental constituency who I can rely to direct me to important issues. In my 1996 campaign I had very strong support from the environmental community, and my relation with those environmental constituencies fostered my sponsoring the National Forest Protection and Restoration Act (NFPRA; HR 1396). It is easy to hear from Fortune 500 companies (like some logging companies), that their industry doesn’t have such a negative effect on the environment—that they tell me the whole story—but my experience leads me to believe otherwise. For example, one industry representative tried to tell me that pine trees were the source of Atlanta’s air pollution. I am happy, and lucky, to have an informed constituency who understands the issues and can set the record straight. The Sierra Club facilitated the educational process for me. They were the ones who started giving me information on the costs and effects of logging in our National Forests. Rene Voss and the Sierra Club were the ones who took me up in a plane ride over the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest to see the effects of logging and clear cuts in our state, and its effects on the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River corridor, and other treasures of our forests. How many co-sponsors do you have, and how many will be needed to pass the bill in the House? There are currently 61 co-sponsors (and growing!), and we will need 218 votes, a majority, in order for this bill to pass the House. The bill has often been called the "Zero-cut Bill." My reading of the bill indicates that some timber harvesting would be allowed. Is this true, and under what conditions would it occur? Has the "Zero-cut" label hurt your cause? I am not aware that our efforts have been hampered by the name. I would believe, however, that some environmental groups, ones that are kind of middle-of-the-road, or ones who have mixed constituencies, might not support it. They may be fearful of such an extreme bill. I would be willing to help those interests push similar efforts—less extreme efforts—but I am not willing to compromise on our bill’s provision. There would be limited logging allowed, however. This would be to improve the original, natural landscape, for instance, or to improve the health of the forest, but there would not be any commercial logging—for profit—allowed in our National Forests. How would the passage of HR 1396 affect local counties as per their income from the 25% fund? The revenue sharing payments would continue at their 1996 level through 2003, except to Oregon, Washington and California counties, which are guaranteed payments through 2003 under existing federal law. If the money in the funds falls below $380 million prior to 2003, the revenue sharing payments commitment to counties would be paid from the General Fund (of the US Treasury). This would actually result in a greater amount of money going to Georgia's counties than they get now, since lawsuits have halted all timber harvesting in the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. How will the Committee of Scientists, established to counsel the Forest Service on restoring the natural landscape for the national forests, be chosen so as to ensure non-biased science is utilized? The most important thing, the thing to worry about now, is the passage of the bill. The issue of who science nominates, or what gets pushed, will be decided later. To answer the question though, I would like to see the Committee assembled by the National Science Foundation, or another (supposedly) non-biased science organization. How long would it take to come up with new Forest Plans under the guidance of HR 1396, and what would guide national forest management in the interim? It would be difficult to estimate how long it would take the Forest Service to establish new plans. This bill would, in effect, be an entire paradigm shift for the Forest Service. They would have to amend not only their current plans, but the bill would also force them to change the entire process of creating a forest management plan. In the past, the use of timber targets, or forecasting future timber harvests, was used to determine the forest management plan for a year, or other time period. After timber harvesting had been planned and accounted for, only then would recreation, restoration, and other mixed uses be considered. After passage of the NFPRA, timber harvests will not be considered, and following forest restoration concerns, the myriad of other uses would be used to determine the forest management plan. The really important issue, though, is to get the Forest Service off of the timber target system, end the mindset of "cut trees to get your budget, or we will find someone else who will," and begin the new age of considering ecology and science when determining the answers to where, when and what we do to our forests. How can we convince the average man or woman at the grassroots level that this bill is good for them? The GAO (General Accounting Office) said that the Forest Service, our Forest Service, lost $2 billion during the period from 1992 to 1997. The best way to convince someone that something is good, in government at least, is through their wallets. A $2 billion dollar loss—in any federal agency—is absurd, and cannot be allowed to continue. That fact alone certainly turns some heads. While the financial benefits of this bill should be motivation enough to support the bill, the ecological impacts of logging on our streams, wildlife and the forests in general are often so bad, and so obvious, that anyone who understands or cares about our environment will see the need to end this terrible practice. What is your time frame for passing HR 1396, and are there sponsors ready to take up this bill in the Senate? I think that it will take a couple of Congress’ to get the sponsors necessary to pass the bill. I realize that this is a several year process, and that we may have to wait until we return to a Democrat-controlled Congress, or for Congress to mutate into one more friendly on environmental issues. That’s OK though, I am not going anywhere. |