As it relates to the issue at hand, these below-cost forests that 

 were argued and discussed produced 1.6 billion board feet of timber 

 during 1992. Now, that was in direct jobs about 20,300 jobs. 



If you want to look at it in Federal tax dollars of revenue lost if 

 you were to eliminate those below-cost sales, Mr. Chairman, that 

 would be about $119 million in Federal income tax revenue. 



The timber programs for the five forests in my State of Idaho 

 proposed for elimination produced 155 million board feet of timber 

 in 1992. That is 2,000 jobs, or $3 million of stumpage fees going to 

 the State and to the counties for schools and road construction 

 under the law. And if you will, that 155 million board feet repre- 

 sented the material to build 10,000 new homes in the United 

 States. 



So when you consider the cost of eliminating these forests from 

 production, then you really are talking about jobs and social wel- 

 fare factors, loss of tax revenue and a variety of other issues, be- 

 sides all of the other arguments that might be placed on the other 

 side. 



Let me also say that there is no mandate in public law to require 

 the Forest Service to make a profit. There are a good many pro- 

 grams that they are involved in. In fact, I don't believe there are 

 any national forest programs that return a profit outside of the 

 timber program. That is one side of the story. 



Now, if we look at it from a national scope, below-cost forests 

 produce enough timber to build approximately 145,000 homes in 

 this Nation. Total timber harvest in 1992 on all national forests — 

 you mentioned the 10 billion board feet high — was down to about 

 7.3 billion board feet. The total timber sold was about 4.803 billion 

 board feet. What that means is that we are currently selling a lot 

 less on an annualized basis than is being logged. In other words, 

 our total sales are dropping. Those 7.3 billion board feet were cu- 

 mulative sales that could have been 3 or 4 years hence. 



So my point is we are now headed toward an even greater fiber 

 or material supply issue in this country as it relates to the avail- 

 ability of it in sheer numbers. And of course, we have all heard the 

 stories about the phenomenal ramp-up in prices of both stumpage 

 and building studs and all of those kinds of dimensional timbers 

 that are produced. 



Total revenues for the national forest and timber programs in 

 Idaho was about $82 million. Of those total revenues, $10 million 

 happened to come from those five below-cost forests in my State. 

 Total timber harvest in Idaho's national forests was 723 million 

 board feet, and 155 million was below-cost. So it represents a sub- 

 stantial portion. 



Mr. Chairman, here is a very important figure. The United 

 States now imports 45 percent of its wood fiber — a very significant 

 figure. If we don't produce it, we will import it from somewhere. 

 My guess is we will import it from the forests of Brazil, and cer- 

 tainly we are concerned about those rain forests and the lack of re- 

 forestation and the lack of management there, or we will import it 

 from Chile, or we will import it from the slopes of Siberia. In none 

 of those countries is there a comparable environmental sensitivity, 

 or the kinds of reforestation programs that we have here. 



