59 



Enclosed is the 10 year ASR record, with an estimate of the outcome 

 average appropriated costs. In 1990 the Forest earmarked S7.13/M more th. 

 took in; in 1991 the Forest earmarked S6.63/M more than it took in; in 

 the earmarked figure jumped to S14.84/M more than this Forest took in. 



If Mr. Riley wanted me to invest in this Forest, telling me the sort c 

 financial reward I might secure, I would get a Brinks agent to guard my bank. 

 You should beware of his suggestions on wise ways to use the taxpayer's 

 money. His track record wouldn't take him far in any reputable financial 

 institution . 



Unfortunately, the same is true of the Forest Service's efforts to portray 

 the financial results of its timber program. It understates costs. It fails 

 to count all its costs. It doesn't have a system that permits focusing on the 

 relation between gross timber receipts, timber receipts (assets) consumed, 

 and cash required from the Federal taxpayer. It doesn't show the multi-year 

 cash or accrual situation. 



Sec. 6(1) of NFMA requires the Service to develop and provide the public with 

 annual representative samples of costs for reforestation, stand improvement 

 and below-cost timber sales. After 17 years, it has not done so. If decisions 

 are going to be made on whether an activity needs a subsidy, and if the costs 

 can be weighed of securing desired benefits one way versus another, one needs 

 to know the costs. The Forest Service eschews this sort of reality facing. 



Even more fundamental, the Forest Service pretends that timber sales that 

 must be subsidized to continue on many Forests, does not need a subsidy. 



Subsidies are part of the American way of life. They can play a useful role. 

 The dilemma faced by the Executive branch and Congress is deciding whether to 

 subsidize an activity, and, if so, how much, to whom, and for how lone. 

 Below-cost timber sales require annual subsidies in real dollars that 

 Congress must appropriate that are in excess of $200,000,000 annually. That's 

 $1 billion every 5 years. As the late Sen. Dirksen once said as I recall, 



"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon youri 

 talking about a lot of money." 



Last year Pres. Bush said: 



"In the United States, responsible forest conservation is a long-standing 

 tradition. Annual forest growth now exceeds timber harvests by 37 percent, 

 and the total national volume of wood is 25 percent larger than it was in 

 1952." [U.S. Actions For A Better Environment, White House undated, June 

 1992, page 8; Source; For. Stat, of U.S. 1 987 , PNW-RB-1 68 ] . 



There are these issues: Do we need to subsidize public timber to meet U.S. 

 wood needs? If so, should we subsidize private and public timberland, and if 

 so where and how much? What effect do subsidies of a public asset have on the 

 private timberland, 70% of the land? What does a compassionate government do 

 about regulating subsidies of public timber that are in place? 



Robert E. Wolf, 3245 Bowen Road St. Leonard Md , 20685-2411 [bctstsen.doc] 



