While some timber sale programs on 60 national forests have been below cost, I 

 would argue that that fact alone doesn't even begin to tell the full story. The bene- 

 fits from these sales far outweigh any perceived problems as I, and others, will 

 make clear. And let's not lose sight of the fact that Forest Service timber sales in 

 fiscal year 1992 generated a profit of more than $254 million on total revenues of 

 slightly more than $1 billion. That's a darned good return by any standard. 



I would take to task those who claim the "below-cost forests" generate little bene- 

 fit. During 1992, the below-cost forests produced 1.6 billion board feet of timber. 

 That created about 20,300 logging, milling and other direct jobs nationally. That's 

 20,300 people who had a stable job, food on their families' tables and could afford to 

 buy a home. That's 20,300 people not receiving unemployment compensation, job re- 

 training, etc. that the taxpayers would have provided. In light of our current eco- 

 nomic situation, that's good news. It should also be noted that those jobs generate 

 approximately $119 million in Federal income tax revenues. These tax revenues 

 alone are greater than the projected savings from eliminating all below-cost sales. 



In my home State of Idaho, timber programs on five national forests would be 

 eliminated under the administration's proposal. In 1993, those forests produced 155 

 million board feet of timber which created nearly 2,000 direct jobs. In a rural State 

 such as mine, 2,000 jobs is a big deal. Further, from those five national forests, $3 

 million was made as payment to Idaho. That's $3 million spent on school programs 

 and improved or new roads. This is real money and real benefits for Americans. 



Look beyond the immediate jobs for those people. Indirectly, logging companies 

 create jobs for other Americans. For example, below-cost forests produced enough 

 timber to build 145,000 new homes. In Idaho, the 5 forests produced enough timber 

 to build 10,000 new homes. Not only do construction workers have jobs, suppliers 

 and distributors have jobs, the local grocery store can continue to operate, and on it 

 goes. Even so, our timber supply has been dwindling — not because there are less 

 trees to harvest, but because of a series of outside influences. We all have heard 

 about the effects the spotted owl and timber sale appeals and litigation have had on 

 the Pacific Northwest's timber supply. What we may not realize is that the total 

 timber harvested in fiscal year 1992 was 7.3 billion board feet. The total timber sold 

 or awarded through contracts for the same period was 4.8 billion board feet. These 

 figures illustrate that, whatever we accomplish here today, there will be a continu- 

 ing downward slide in timber harvest and revenues resulting from the forces al- 

 ready at play. Eliminating below-cost timber sales only makes a bad situation worse. 



The elimination of below-cost sales in the face of increasing domestic demand for 

 wood products only intensifies our dependence on foreign sources of timber. It is es- 

 timated that the United States imports from other countries 45 percent of the wood 

 products Americans use each year. Our demand for timber and paper products is 

 simply not going to go away. Thus, by eradicating timber sales in below-cost nation- 

 al forests the administration is forcing Americans to look elsewhere for timber prod- 

 ucts and to become more dependent on other countries to meet our needs. This 

 makes no sense. 



We are all interested in adopting ecosystem management principles in the man- 

 agement of our Federal forests. I'll make a flat statement here — ecosystem manage- 

 ment cannot be carried out without using below-cost timber sales. Timber sales will 

 be needed to manipulate vegetation, improve biodiversity, change tree species com- 

 position, and ensure good growing conditions. Generally, they will be below cost be- 

 cause they will harvesting timber which is sparse, small, or deteriorating from in- 

 sects and disease. 



Timber sales are an absolutely necessary tool in the fight to restore forest health. 

 Throughout the West we are suffering an epidemic of insects and disease which, 

 combined with drought conditions, has left us with millions of acres of standing, 

 dead and dying trees of low value. Timber sales are the only cost-effective tool we 

 have to remove the dead biomass, which would otherwise become fuel for wildfire, 

 provide the conditions needed to regenerate new forests, and guarantee growing 

 conditions which will discourage future insect attacks. If we don't employ below-cost 

 sales, we will witness future events such as the catastrophic fire which roared 

 through the Boise foothills last year. The foothills fire, burning dead and dying 

 timber, cost $28 million to suppress. An additional $8 million will be spent to reha- 

 bilitate the forests and the watersheds. Does it make sense to eliminate below-cost 

 timber sales which might greatly reduce the intensity, the spread and the cost of 

 such fires in the future? Not to me it doesn't. 



Similarly, near Bend, Oregon, lodgepole pine, killed by the mountain pine beetle, 

 burned in a catastrophic fire. Thousands of acres and dozens of homes were de- 

 stroyed. These examples are painful reminders that we must take proactive steps to 

 protect and promote forest health or we will pay a very dear price. Timber manage- 



