8 



them and I ask unanimous consent to include these letters and a statement from 

 real Kentuckians who rely on the timber industry in eastern Kentucky. They do not 

 necessarily appreciate Government interference in their lives, nor do they care for 

 outsiders who claim to know what is best for communities. 



Some preservationist groups claim that it is only the "big timber" interests which 

 benefit from our current timber sales policy on national Forest Service land. I can't 

 tell you about other parts of the country, but I know there are hundreds of Ken- 

 tucky families who have been in the timber business for generations. These families 

 own the land adjoining the national forest, and they live in the communities within 

 the boundaries of the forest. These families cut the timber, work in the sawmills, 

 and have jobs in the secondary businesses which produce the final products from 

 Daniel Boone Forest timber. 



It's not the big corporations, the rich boards of directors, or the wealthy stock- 

 holders who will be hurt by ending timber sales on the national forests. It is the 

 families in eastern Kentucky who have an urgent need for jobs to make it possible 

 for adults to provide for themselves and their families. 



Constraints on timber harvesting are widespread and growing. While it is much 

 worse in the Pacific Northwest, we are experiencing some of the same problems in 

 Kentucky. By the year 2000, timber harvesting in the Pacific Northwest could fall 

 by one-third to one-half because of protected animal habitats, primarily the spotted 

 owl. According to the National Forest Products Association, the future availability 

 of forest products is clouded by signs that additional constraints on timber harvest- 

 ing will increase not only in the Pacific Northwest but nationwide. 



So many of the benefits gained from the sale of timber are impossible to quantify. 

 Saying "don't cut trees if there is no profit" is far too simplistic for such a complex 

 issue. Without proper management of our national forests we will have less diversi- 

 ty in the ecosystem and an overall lower quality forest. The economies in our forest- 

 dependent counties will suffer and jobs will be lost, and in the case of Kentucky 

 these counties have the highest need for jobs and economic development. 



There is no doubt that Kentucky's forest industry has tremendous potential. The 

 people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky hold a renewable natural resource worth 

 billions of dollars which will last for centuries. With proper management the forests 

 can be maintained and even improved and jobs can be created. Limits can be placed 

 on the amount of timber harvested, but the elimination of timber sales from the 

 forest means a loss of opportunity that will be felt for years to come by the people of 

 eastern Kentucky. 



Prepared Statement of Hon. Thad Cochran, U.S. Senator from the State of 



Mississippi 



Mr. Chairman, I join you today in welcoming our witnesses and I want to thank 

 you for calling this hearing to discuss the timber sale programs of the U.S. Forest 

 Service. 



In Mississippi last year, the timber sale program generated gross revenues of 

 $20.7 million with a gain of $14.9 million and payments to the counties of $5.6 mil- 

 lion. In all, the program yielded a net gain of $9.3 million, all of which was returned 

 to the U.S. Treasury. 



I look forward to the testimony of these witnesses and the ideas they may offer 

 with respect to possible changes in the accounting system for the timber sale pro- 

 gram. 



Prepared Statement of Hon. Conrad Burns, U.S. Senator from the State of 



Montana 



Mr. President, I rise to address an issue of national importance, the so-called 

 "below-cost timber sale" program. This is an issue of grave importance to the 

 timber industry, not only in Montana, but the Pacific Northwest, New England and 

 the South. I've got 105 statements just from Libby, Montana right here, that sum up 

 the problem very nicely. 



The problem with the term "below-cost timber sales" is not necessarily profit. 

 What makes timber sales "below cost" are the expensive appeals and litigation 

 costs, the extensive environmental studies that should be routine, maintenance of 

 multiple use charged back to the timber program, inefficiency in the Federal Gov- 

 ernment and an accountability problem. 



