6 



ton, and northern California, the areas most likely to feel the eco- 

 nomic brunt of the northern spotted owl habitat designations. We 

 focused on second growth forests, lands likely to remain in the tim- 

 ber base, because we have seen years of lost opportimities on these 

 lands. 



Before I explain the legislation let me just make three points as 

 to why this legislation is needed. First, the Interior Department In- 

 spector General informed the Natural Resources Committee 2 

 months ago that shortfalls and backlogs in reforestation activity in 

 western Oregon have already cost the taxpayer an astounding $2 

 million in potential timber harvests. Second, by its own admission, 

 BLM for 2 years in a row has budgeted no money for pre-commer- 

 cial thinning. We all know this is goin^ to lead to even greater de- 

 creases in potential harvest levels. Third, it seems to me that we 

 are missing the biological window, the moment of opportunity to 

 complete this work for maximum future harvests. It is a Question 

 of either doing it now, or in my view, simply not being able to do 

 it at all. 



I think we also have to recognize that taxpayers everywhere are 

 asking for greater Federal spending accountability. When tax- 

 payers read in the papers that the BLM doesn't have the money 

 to accomplish needed reforestation projects, taxpayers are more 

 than a little upset when the Inspector General says, and I quote: 

 •The Bureau's 3-tiered field organizational structure is highly inef- 

 ficient and embedded with redundancy." It goes on to say, "Staffing 

 resources costing as much as $49 million could be converted from 

 administrative support and program oversight to program oper- 

 ations." 



Mr. Chairman and colleagues, $49 million could plant an awful 

 lot of trees, and I would add that the Inspector Greneral's comments 

 concerning BLM's overpopulated management structure came in 

 testimony that was delivered just 2 months ago before the Natural 

 Resources Committee. 



I think part of my argument, Mr. Chairman, and then I want to 

 explain the bill, is that a few dollars wisely invested will mean a 

 return many times over in eventual timber sales receipts, jobs and 

 healthier forests. In a bit, you are going to hear from a friend of 

 all Northwest residents. Jack Desmond of the Northwest Reforest- 

 ation Contractors Association, who has estimated that doing the re- 

 forestation work that we need in order to preserve forest jobs and 

 make forests more productive could mean an additional 7,000 jobs 

 almost immediately. 



I would also add that Dr. Russ Gordy, a timber economist with 

 the Congressional Research Service, who has testified before my 

 subcommittee and has worked with us in our investigations over 4 

 years, has indicated that this kind of investment comd mean hun- 

 dreds of millions, even billions, of board feet in additional timber 

 harvest. 



Now, with respect to the legislation that I and our colleagues in- 

 troduced yesterday, it really has four features. First, 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 is 

 important because the last such survey was done in the early sev- 

 enties. 



