8 



in western Oregon already have cost the taxpayer some $2 billion in potential tim- 

 ber harvest. 



Second, by its own admission BLM for two years in a row has budgeted no money 

 for pre-commercial thinning. As we all know, this will lead to even greater decreases 

 in potential harvest levels. 



Third, we are missing, the biological window — the moment of opportunity — to com- 

 plete this work for maximum future harvests. It's a question of either doing it now, 

 or not being able to do it at all. 



Mr. Chairman, people from my part of the country have a special connection to 

 these forests. Aside from the fact that many of them depend on the good manage- 

 ment of these public timberlands for their jobs, mv constituents also want to feel 

 confident that the woods will be managed well for their children and grandchildren. 



Beyond that, taxpayers everywhere are asking for greater federal spending ac- 

 countability. 



When they read that the BLM doesn't have the money to accomplish needed refor- 

 estation projects, they are more than a little upset when the inspector general says 

 that ". . . the bureau's three-tiered field organizational structure [is] highly ineffi- 

 cient and embedded with redundancy," and further that ". . . staffing resources 

 costing as much as $49 million could be converted from administrative support and 

 program oversight to program operations." 



Mr. Chairman, $49 million could plant a lot of trees. The IG's remarks concerning 

 BLM's over-populated management structure came in testimony before the Natural 

 Resources Committee two months ago. 



Finally, our state is looking at the loss of many timber jobs as we try to regain 

 an environmental balance in the forest. We need this reforestation work because it 

 means jobs . . . jobs now, not just in the future. My friend. Jack Desmond of the 

 Northwest Reforestation Contractors Association, has estimated that doing all of the 

 reforestation work we need to do in order to preserve forest health and make forests 

 more productive could mean an additional 7,000 jobs, almost immediately. 



In a nutshell, a few dollars wisely invested, today, will mean a return many times 

 over in eventual timber sale receipts, jobs and healthier forests. Last summer. Dr. 

 Ross Gorte, a timber economist with the Congressional Research Service, testified 

 before my small business subcommittee that this kind of investment could mean 

 hundreds of millions, even billions of board feet in additional timber harvest. 



That brings us to the legislation, which I will briefly detail. 



The Timber Management Improvement Act of 1993, has these key elements: 



It would direct the secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to prepare an exten- 

 sive yield report on second-growth lands in the Northwest. This would be the first 

 such survey since the early 19708. 



It amenas the Knutson-Vandenberg Act to include BLM timberlands. For the first 

 time, reforestation of BLM lands woi2d be funded through a certain and sure, sales- 

 receipt-fiinded trust. 



The Act also would be amended to limit K-V fiinds to reforestation and stand en- 

 hancement activities . . . what we believe to be the law's original intent. 



Finally, additional monies would be made available in Ch-egon, Washington and 

 Northern California for enhancement of second-growth forestry on private wood- 

 lands under the Forest Assistance Act. 



This approach has been endorsed by a broad spectrum of forest users, including 

 the Northwest Reforestation Contractors, the Oregon Forest Industries Council, and 

 the Wilderness Society. I also have a detailed report fi-om the Congressional Re- 

 search Service which supports many of the assumptions and directions taken in this 

 legislation. I'd be happy to share that with the committee. 



Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank you for holding this very timely hearing. 



Mr. Vento. We will examine the suggestions you have made 

 carefully as we turn to legislation or improvements, especially with 

 the K-V fund. I understand, not from your oral remarks but from 

 discussion with staff, that you intend to provide a BLM fund simi- 

 lar to the K-V fund to provide certainty and predictability. It 

 sounds like you are trying to refine or define better the utilization 

 of the K-V fund in these areas. 



The irony of this is that it is driven by timber receipts, £ind as 

 timber receipts drop, the funding driven by timber receipts will, by 

 necessity, be atrophied. That is the dilemma that we face. If any 

 region in the coimtry could have or should have been able to do a 



