17 



run; criticism of waste, and the goal of using the forest to benefit 

 the general public, not the little man, not the big man. 



I believe this same philosophy should apply today. Our forests 

 must be managed so they remain ecologically viable while provid- 

 ing recreational and economic opportunities for the Nation. 



And so we arrive at the matter of below-cost timber sales. The 

 administration's fiscal 1994 budget includes a $46 million cut di- 

 rected against timber programs that fail to make money. This is 

 the first year of a 4-year plan to eliminate all so-called below-cost 

 timber programs on national forests by cutting the Forest Service 

 timber budget $274 million. 



The Forest Service is certainly vulnerable to criticism over their 

 timber program. There are no doubt countless examples of the 

 Forest Service offering timber sales that make absolutely no sense 

 economically or ecologically. Still, I have grave concerns over 

 where this proposed policy will take us. 



I believe the focus on below-cost timber sales and the consequent 

 reduction in Federal funding will only serve to frustrate the ability 

 of the Forest Service to move toward ecosystem management. 



For many years now, land managers, scientists and the environ- 

 mental community have implored the Forest Service to shift 

 toward ecosystem management. I support this direction and plan to 

 actively promote its implementation. Still, this shift in policy will 

 not come without a price. Ecosystem management will in the short 

 term be extensive. Management costs will undoubtedly rise above 

 their present levels. It is completely contradictory to slash $274 

 million from the Forest Service budget and then expect the Forest 

 Service to successfully implement a comprehensive new manage- 

 ment philosophy. It can't be done. 



In focusing on the below-cost issue the administration has chosen 

 to treat a symptom rather than the underlying problem currently 

 facing the Forest Service. If we want to get to the heart of the 

 problem, the focus must be on the long-term transformation to eco- 

 system management, and we must be willing to bear the costs asso- 

 ciated with this new direction. 



In the meantime, there are several initial steps that should be 

 taken toward the goal of ecosystem management. I believe these 

 suggested measures are fiscally prudent, ecologically responsible, 

 and sensitive to the thousands of families that rely on the National 

 Forest System for their livelihood. 



First, the Forest Service must become cost efficient. Even the 

 Forest Service admits that there is fat to be cut. Programs need to 

 be streamlined for practicality; administrative overhead needs to 

 be reduced; and the agency needs to be downsized. The climate of 

 the 1990's has taught private industry that survival depends on ef- 

 ficiency, and Government should not be the exception. 



Second, we must begin in earnest to examine exactly how to best 

 move toward ecosystem management. I would hope the Forest 

 Service would convene a multidisciplinary team of respected hy- 

 drologists, biologists, foresters, and land managers to examine a 

 wide array of forest issues, including the timber program, to deter- 

 mine how to best implement ecosystem management. 



And finally, the Forest Service must re-examine the way in 

 which it builds timber roads. The manner in which the Forest 



