Now, on the other side of all of this, let's talk about another 

 issue, and that is ecosystem management, a concept that the Forest 

 Service has been moving toward for some time, Mr. Chairman. If 

 we arrive at ecosystem management in the future, we have to deal 

 with ecosystems, and that means we have to manage those systems 

 in a way that is environmentally sound, which might include vege- 

 tation manipulation, it might include change of species composi- 

 tion — I am talking about trees in this instance — it might include 

 the promotion of growth by a wider spacing of trees. All of that is 

 part of it. In those instances, as a tool of management, below-cost 

 timber sales becomes increasingly valuable. 



Well, Mr. Chairman, the story goes on and on. The point I want 

 to make — and I think it is a very clear point — is that if we decide 

 to eliminate below-cost timber sales as a part of the overall basket 

 of management tools that the U.S. Forest Service has on our public 

 lands, there is another side of the story, and I have just talked 

 about it — thousands of jobs, tremendous social costs, and a lot of 

 other types of things including environmental consequences. 



Last year in my State of Idaho, we saw a wildfire wipe out over 

 250,000 acres of treed and partially treed forest lands, literally in 

 hours and days — trees that had been devastated by drought, where 

 management required salvage sales, all of them below cost in 

 nature, but all of them necessary as a tool. In other words, Mother 

 Nature did her job of management because we were denied the 

 tools of management in part. Well, the cost of suppressing that fire 

 was $28 million, and rehabilitation was $8 million, and the story 

 goes on and on. 



The Forest Service, in my opinion, needs the tools of below-cost 

 sales along with all of the other things that are necessary in the 

 equal and even management of the forests. That is why these hear- 

 ings are important. That is why I am extremely concerned about a 

 policy to wipe out the tool of below-cost timber sales. I ask of this 

 administration: If you are going to do that, where are you going to 

 get the fiber to build the 145,000 homes that you will not be able to 

 build, and where are you going to get the necessary money to do 

 the kind of retraining of the thousands and thousands of jobs, some 

 20,300 jobs, of people who will be unemployed? That doesn't take 

 into consideration the people unemployed out in the West as a 

 result of the spotted owl and other decisions. 



Mr. Chairman, I have rambled, and that is a broad overview of 

 the issue at hand. Let us get on with the hearing and those who 

 have come to testify. 



Let me also ask unanimous consent to enter in the record the 

 statements of Senators Mitch McConnell and Thad Cochran. 



Senator Daschle. Without objection, and also without objection a 

 statement from Senator Burns of Montana will be made a part of 

 the record as well. Thank you, Senator Craig, for your comments. 



[The prepared statements of Senators Craig, McConnell, Cochran, 

 and Burns follow:] 



Prepared Statement of Hon. Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of 



Idaho 



Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be here this afternoon to discuss the effects of elimi- 

 nating timber programs from our national forests that are "below cost." 



