31 



I am pleased to have Jim with us. 



Senator Daschle. The entire statement will be made part of the 

 record, and we invite you to proceed with your testimony at this 

 time. 



STATEMENT OF JAMES RILEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 

 INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, COEUR 

 D'ALENE, IDAHO 



Mr. Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator 

 Craig. 



I am Jim Riley, with the Intermountain Forest Industry Associa- 

 tion, and today I am testifying on behalf of the American Forest 

 and Paper Association as well in my statement. 



I am going to summarize a couple of the highlights of my state- 

 ment. The written statement does cover all of these issues in detail, 

 and I won't take the committee's time in a detailed review. 



I do want to say that I have been part of hearings on this issue 

 now for the better part of 10 years, I think, and it has been inter- 

 esting to me on both the Senate side and the House side as Con- 

 gress has investigated the so-called below-cost problem, that they 

 all arrive at the same conclusion, and that is that this issue strikes 

 at the heart of many interlocking and fundamental policies which 

 regulate the forest management of our national forest lands. And 

 when you look at that, you find that we have had three decades of 

 congressional policy which have established a multiple-use frame- 

 work for the Forest Service and which has specifically directed the 

 Forest Service not to look at profit-maximizing, revenue-generating 

 alternatives as being the preferred course of action for forest man- 

 agement. 



We have actually taken exception to that in some cases over the 

 years, but I think over the last 5 years in particular, we have spent 

 a great deal of time trying to work with State fish and game agen- 

 cies, local sportsmen's groups, local environmental organizations, 

 trying to find more ways to bring more harmony in the woods of 

 Idaho, Montana, and quite frankly in your State of South Dakota, 

 as you know. 



Those have been expensive propositions in some cases, and exper- 

 imental. We have reduced the cash revenue from timber sales dif- 

 ferent harvest methods that remove less timber. We have increased 

 the cost to the Forest Service in doing their evaluations and stud- 

 ies, and in many cases have probably turned what would otherwise 

 be cash-profitable, highly cash-profitable, timber sale propositions 

 into ones which have minimal cash benefits but are more harmoni- 

 ous from a multiple standpoint. 



When you look at the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 

 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the message has 

 been clear to the Forest Service in all of those, and that is to 

 manage for a broader array of policy objectives and do what Jim 

 Lyons said earlier today, which is to make timber management a 

 tool of forest management, not a sole objective. 



So it becomes a bit of an irony, and quite frankly, in my opinion, 

 in direct conflict for Congress or the administration to come along 

 afterward and penalize areas of forest management where we have 



