105 



Tons (MSTN), 1985 was 4.9 (MSTN), 1986 was O(MSTN), 1987 was O(MSTN), 1988 

 was 11.5(MSTN) of woodchips exported. 



Senator Wirth. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. 



For the record, Mr. Leonard, what is the Forest Service position 

 on S. 237? Do you support S. 237? 



Mr. Leonard. We do not object to its passage. 



Senator Wirth. Let me ask you a question. Do you support S. 

 237? 



Mr. Leonard. No. Our formal position is that we have no objec- 

 tion. 



Senator Wirth. What about the notion of a Congressionally man- 

 dated allowable sale quantity as in S. 237? Is that a position that 

 the Forest Service supports? 



Mr. Leonard. That is the current law. S. 237 in effect would 

 simply maintain the current law. 



Senator Wirth. Do you support putting that into legislation? Is 

 that the Forest Service position, that you would like to have that 

 sort of thing put into a piece of legislation? 



Mr. Leonard. We certainly would rather not have those as a 

 mandate, but in our valuation of S. 237 when we took the position 

 of no objection, it was in the context of this current law. 



Senator Wirth. I know the whole purpose is to debate whether 

 the current law is a good idea, and you are saying because it is in 

 the current law you are going to support it rather than looking at 

 it. 



For example, I remember last year when we were marking up 

 Senator McClure's legislation in Idaho, Senator McClure wanted to 

 put that kind of an allocation in the legislation. The Forest Service 

 opposed it. There is a reason for your opposition of it in Idaho and 

 support of it in Alaska; is that right? 



Mr. Leonard. Again, Senator, our position on S. 237 is no objec- 

 tion, not one of support. 



Senator Wirth. You are not answering the question. You are 

 masterful at not answering the question. That is fine, Mr. Leonard. 

 I understand that you are probably in a tough political position, 

 and I respect that. 



Let me ask you also about the question of other criteria in the 

 legislation, and I will really ask you in the form of a statement. 

 What we are debating here is the overall approach that the United 

 States is going to take to the management of our national forests. 

 Are we going to manage the national forests with the number one 

 priority continuing to be placed upon below-cost timber sales and a 

 single priority to extract as much as possible out of that forest in 

 terms of timber? 



That is an historic position that has been taken by the Forest 

 Service for years and years and years. There are many of us who 

 believe that that is a misguided set of priorities and that what we 

 ought to be doing in this country is managing our forests with 

 equal priority given to other uses. 



For example, it is my belief that if we look at a lot of forests we 

 would be a lot better off as a country if we managed those forests 

 for recreation, for fish and wildlife values, for water quality and so 

 on, and that if we took the money that you all are spending to sub- 

 sidize timber sales and instead put it toward those other manage- 



