Release No. 0310.96 Remarks by Secretary Dan Glickman Audubon Society Annual Convention Washington, D.C.-- JUNE 9, 1996 INTRODUCTION [CHURCHILL JOKE] But it is a pleasure to be here with you today. There are few things that give me greater pleasure than being asked to come and talk about what the U.S. Department of Agriculture is doing for the environment. It's a message I take a great deal of personal pride in. But I have to be honest. Your invitation made me a little nervous. The letter was very kind, going through all the things I've done for conservation. But it included a rather ominous line, "We ask that you try to bring birds into your speech wherever possible." This being the Audubon Society that seemed a perfectly reasonable request. But when I sat down to think about the relationship between USDA and birds, I have to tell you the first picture that came to mind wasn't very pretty. I do have a lot to say about all the good things USDA is doing to protect birds. But I also know there are a good number of chickens and turkeys who would take great exception to my comments. So I was quite relieved to learn that you wanted me to talk about the other birds USDA comes into contact with. The ones we want to protect and see thrive in a healthy, natural habitat. WHY USDA? Now I may have lost some of you already. After all, I am the Secretary of Agriculture, and most people -- quite naturally -- associate me with food, farming, and some unlucky chickens. But you should also associate me with forestry. 4 out of every 10 USDA employees work for the Forest Service -- which manages more public land than any other government agency. And you should associate me with natural resources because a good number of our people work for the newly empowered Natural Resources Conservation Service. Actually, when you add up everyone who's working on the environment and conservation and compare it to those who are working directly on farm programs -- we actually have more environment and conservation folks. But it's not simply a numbers game. It's a question of how we use our resources. Historically, USDA has not been known as a champion of the environment. With President Clinton's strong support, I'm working to see that change. This Administration is committed to leaving a sustainable environment as its legacy. That means that the concerns of the environment can't simply be the concerns of the Environmental Protection Agency. They must be the concerns of every department. So my mission as Secretary of Agriculture is to take a more active and engaged role in forestry and conservation issues. This approach has a lot of appeal to me personally because 50 years from now, no one will remember the price of corn, or the set-aside rate for wheat, but they will notice if there's clean air and water, fertile soil, an abundance of wildlife and healthy forests. USDA, BIRDS & OUR PUBLIC LANDS As the Secretary of Agriculture, I'm the single biggest proprietor of public lands in the country -- 191 million acres in 44 states. I consider this one of my most important duties. That alone is a big change from the way things have been. Previous administrations have focused more on the food and farm aspects of USDA and paid little attention to forestry. As a result, the Forest Service has operated pretty independently for a long time now. That is not the case anymore. One of the top priorities of this Administration is sustainable forestry management -- for me, that means a sustained, direct involvement in Forest Service activities. Unlike private lands where owners have to deal with the financial bottom line. America's public lands are a reflection of America's priorities. Sound stewardship must be our bottom line. As all of you know, our federal lands are frequently safe havens for threatened and endangered species -- including many migratory birds. These are places where they can breed or just take a pit stop amid the relative peace and security of complete ecosystems dedicated to their survival. The main way we assist bird populations is through the Partners in Flight program -- which the Forest Service takes part in along with a host of other government agencies and private groups. Our philosophy is simple: We want to get to these populations before they are threatened. We want to create safe havens where they can thrive, and whenever possible we want our management practices to mimic natural ecosystems. We want to provide vast stretches of land where man's impact on the environment is minimal and positive. RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER I asked the Forest Service to provide some examples of things they do, and I promptly received reams of information. I was particularly taken with the story of the red-cockaded woodpecker which was listed in 1970. As with many endangered species, the bird's range has been reduced primarily to our national forests -- in this case mainly in the Southern United States. Protecting this species has been a constant struggle, but in 1989 Mother Nature dealt what appeared to be a fatal blow. Hurricane Hugo struck the coastal plain of South Carolina and destroyed nearly 87% of the active cavity trees. Everyone here knows that when you destroy habitat, you destroy the birds who inhabit it. We lost 63% of our red-cockaded woodpeckers in the Francis Marion National Forest in that storm. Even worse, the habitat of the surviving birds was in ruins. We humans could hardly have been more destructive ourselves. The losses were considered by many to be insurmountable. But the Forest Service had just one question: How do we bring our birds back? And one philosophy: Whatever it takes, we'll do it. We went through the habitat and constructed artificial cavities in active clusters to encourage colonization, and we set up a sort of dating service' -- relocating juveniles to new settlements where they could meet other nice, young, eligible woodpeckers. Today, the red-cockaded woodpecker is on its way back. At last count, the population in the Marion National Forest is at 333 groups -- three times what it would have been without a little help from their friends in the Forest Service and at the Audubon Society. THE CHANGING CULTURE OF AGRICULTURE We at USDA are proud of what we're doing with America's public lands. But in developing conservation strategies, we can't overlook the fact that 75% of our country's land is in private hands. We have to reach out to private landowners, and this means changing the culture of agriculture -- something I believe is firmly underway. Recently, we asked farmers to tell us what they thought about protecting wildlife habitat on their lands. They didn't say, Forget it. We have our own hides to think about.' The overwhelming answer was, Tell us more.' We're finding that if people understand the importance of protecting wildlife and the willingness of government to help, people want to do the right thing. Albert Einstein once defined the environment as everything that's not me.' For far too long, I think many saw environmentalism that way. It has nothing to do with what's best for me. It's about what's best for animals and for nature.' But today, I think more and more Americans view the environment in selfish terms, and that's a good thing. We're realizing that what's best for animals is usually best for us. And what's good for the environment is often good for the economy. We're starting to see our own interests and those of the world around us more in confluence than in conflict. As a result, we're coming to a common-sense consensus that we need to seek out a natural balance' that recognizes the symbiotic relationship between people and their environment. No one understands that relationship better than those who make their living off the land. FARM/CONSERVATION BILL So when we look around for allies, farmers should be a natural choice. And when we develop conservation strategies, we need to ensure that government is a strong partner. Thanks to the leadership of this Administration and your organization we recently took a historic step in that direction. When Congress passed the farm bill, it also passed the single most important piece of environmental legislation since President Clinton took office. The farm bill gives agriculture a new vision for the future -- one in which conservation plays a more central role in agriculture, and one in which wildlife habitat plays a more central role in conservation. Most importantly, this bill gives our programs teeth -- not in the form of a big stick' that would perpetuate the old antagonisms between agriculture and the environment, but a big carrot' -- a $2.2 billion boost for our conservation efforts. This way, government doesn't boss people around on their land. We teach people why these efforts are so important, and we put our money where our mouth is. This way, people want to do the right thing, and they do it better as a result. Birds will be a big winner. This bill -- for the first time -- identifies wildlife habitat restoration as one of the central goals of conservation. That means when we develop conservation strategies, we have to take into account the well-being of the wildlife as well as the land. So if farmers come to us for help with soil erosion, we can offer incentives to protect habitat as well. These changes will breathe new life into existing programs like the conservation and wetlands reserve programs. And we have new ones as well. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program will provide financial help to livestock and crop producers who adopt more environmentally sound practices. And the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program is the first of its kind to be specifically dedicated to the protection and restoration of habitat on America's agricultural lands. These programs are voluntary. They operate from a basic belief that by offering sound, expert advice and cost-sharing incentives, government can work with private landholders in the best interests of the environment. Some have been skeptical of this approach. I am not. If you ask the people who are involved with these programs what the limits will be, they'll tell you it's how much money we invest. There's little question about how much interest there will be. Our farmers want to be a part of these programs. APPROPRIATIONS There's a real change going on out there. Unfortunately, it doesn't always reverberate back to Washington. Right now we're going through the appropriations process, and the outlook for our conservation programs is not good. The committee eliminated funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and nearly cut in half the Administration's request for 226,000 wetland reserve acres. It's now down to 130,000 acres. I believe these changes are at odds with our nation's priorities. The American people have made it abundantly clear that we need to do more for the environment, not less. In passing the farm bill, the Republican majority in Congress took part in a bipartisan effort to pass landmark pro-environment legislation. Now, they need to back up their green' vote with another shade of green. We started this in a bipartisan spirit of cooperation. I hope to see it through in that same fashion. But I must make it clear that when it comes to the environment, this Administration will do everything in its power to ensure that we do not lose through a lack of funding what we have gained through insightful legislation. This organization can play an important -- even deciding -- role in this debate. Birds may not vote, but there are 65 million Americans who watch and feed them who do. And our message is not just an environmental one. Birding activities pump $6.5 billion into our economy every year, supporting nearly a quarter of a million American jobs. TIMBER And I do believe that the economics of the environment -- particularly in our national forests -- have to be taken into greater account. By the year 2000, our national forests will generate more than $130 billion for America's gross domestic product. It's worth breaking that number down, so we recogize all of the contributions our forests make to our economy: -- $97.8 billion will come from recreation; -- $12.9 billion will come from fish and wildlife -- and, $3.5 billion will come from timber. I think it's high time the natural splendor of our national forests got the respect it has earned. This Administration has not minced words in expressing its dissatisfaction with Congress in passing the timber rider on the rescissions bill. We are actively working to minimize its potential harm and rescind the legislation. There are legitimate reasons for authorizing the sale of salvage timber. But when it comes to green timber, this Forest Service will be its most dedicated stewards. The salvage program has come under a lot of scrutiny lately -- from your organization, others, and even people within the Forest Service. In response, we've gotten the Interagency Salvage Review Program underway as requested by the President. This review will look into many aspects of our salvage program to see if we've met the President's directive to implement it in the most environmentally sensitive way allowed under the act. In the meantime, I will ensure that the salvage program is not used as a ruse to harvest in forests that are substantially healthy -- because the value of a healthy tree is much greater than the sum of its collective parts. CONCLUSION Whether it's old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest or the red-cockaded woodpecker in South Carolina -- we need to view each challenge as part of the broader picture of environmental protection: The way to protect birds is to protect our national forests. The way to protect birds is to protect entire ecosytems. The way to protect birds is to preserve the habitat they share with a myriad of plants and animals. And by protecting birds, we protect ourselves. It goes back to the whole notion of the canary in the coal mine. The presence and abundance of birds have long been a symbol of a healthy environment. A vigorous bird is an affirmative answer to a basic question: Can life exist? In Greek mythology, birds were considered messengers of the gods. They're also a universal symbol of renewal -- proof positive that life can and does reinvigorate itself. That's why when we think of Spring, we think of flowers blooming and birds chirping in the trees. Our children must never know a silent Spring. Thoreau once said, The bluebird carries the sky on its back.' I think what he meant was, we all have a pretty big stake in ensuring its continued flight. Thank you for dedicating a part of your life to this task. You may be a little surprised to see us, but USDA will be standing right by your side. Together we will pass on a legacy worthy of our children -- a world in which people and their environment exist in greater harmony and both are healthier, happier and more prosperous as a result. Thank you. # NOTE: USDA news releases and media advisories are available on the Internet. Access the USDA Home Page on the World Wide Web at http://www.usda.gov