STATEMENT OF HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE 

 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 



Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I want to thank the Chair for holding this very important and 

 timely hearing. I would ask that the full text of my remarks be en- 

 tered into the record and I will summarize in the interest of time. 



Mr. Rose. It will be done for all witnesses and you certainly. 

 Thank you. 



Mr. DeFazio. Thank the Chair. 



Again, the major concern I have on this issue, as the Chair is 

 aware, a number of years ago I asked for a pest risk assessment 

 on the Siberian log imports, and we have what was I would say the 

 most comprehensive report done on that issue. It pointed to very 

 significant potential problems for forest resources in the United 

 States from exotic pest imports, and also pointed to a very vigorous 

 treatment regime under which we could reduce the risk dramati- 

 cally. 



Unfortunately, in the case of New Zealand and Chilean timber, 

 the treatment regimes and the risk assessments were nowhere 

 near as rigorous as those that were done for Siberian timber. We 

 all know the sorry history in this country, Asian Chestnut blight, 

 Dutch Elm disease, white pine blister rust. Port Orford Cedar root 

 rot. Some we still do not know nor can we identify from whence 

 they came, but we know they are exotic imports. Others, such as 

 Port Orford Cedar root rot, came from a Seattle nursery, from a 

 foreign import in the 1920's, and has spread throughout the region. 

 Some others we are not quite certain but we know they were exotic 

 imports. 



White pine blister rust is estimated to have infected pine stands 

 covering more than 9 million acres in the West, and more than 

 $100 million has been spent on what have been pretty largely inef- 

 fective control efforts and it continues to spread and take a toll. 



So the question is what are we potentially exposing ourselves to 

 here? Seems to me that both APHIS, now joined by apparently tes- 

 timony from the Forest Service, is not taking its responsibility seri- 

 ously. Its responsibilities are not to maximize the profits of log im- 

 porters. Their responsibility is to place the health of U.S. forests 

 first, and I fear that in this case undue lobbying has convinced 

 them to adopt what are very shortsighted and inadequate restric- 

 tions for pest and pathogens on logs from New Zealand and Chile. 



We will hear from a number of scientists, and I would urge the 

 agency advocates who are here to listen to the scientists who will 

 follow them on a panel. I don't believe there is a single scientist 

 who is going to support what they have proposed. 



I would say, Mr. Chairman, that under their proposed regula- 

 tions it is not a question of whether we will introduce some new 

 white pine blister rust or some new Port Orford Cedar root rot or 

 something else, it is when and how quickly it will spread and how 

 dramatic the problems will be. 



There is no scientific justification for their less rigorous stand- 

 ards, and, in fact, they seem to recognize that in their regulations 

 because they have imposed some laughable post import protections, 

 such as the visual inspection of ship loads of logs in Coos Bay. 



