23 



out of wood. It will be made out of wood, plastic, or metal. If we 

 make it out of the renewable resource of wood that we are growing 

 far more than we are cutting — in fact, we are letting more rot in 

 the forest than we are harvesting today — it is a renewable resource 

 that can continue to provide this service for generations to come in 

 the things we need. We are going to need more tables, more chairs, 

 more things of which wood is made. 



Harvesting forest is important, and our national forests were cre- 

 ated as a fiber reserve so that the Nation would have a supply of 

 fiber in the future. Our national parks were created to protect 

 things like Old Faithful and other areas, and we put thri under 

 Interior. 



We put the national forests under Agriculture because we had 

 made such dramatic growth in growing crops such as corn and 

 wheat. We knew that that kind of science applied to timber would 

 enable us to continue to furnish the Nation with a wood supply 

 well into many centuries to come. 



If we stop cutting wood in the forest — and let me tell you in the 

 Appalachian Range, I would say over half of the hardwoods making 

 this furniture comes from the national forests, and more of it will 

 have to come from there in the future — then we will not have this 

 furniture. We will have to move to plastic or metals. 



If we go to plastic, we must import the oil. We fight to get it out 

 of the Middle East. We spill it two or three times on the way, and 

 the process is more toxic consequently from an environmental 

 standpoint. Wood is the way a true environmentalist should be 

 going, trying to get a renewable resource that is very low in energy. 

 Metal takes eight times the energy to make this table than you do 

 with wood. The recycling is much easier here than it is with thin 

 metals or thin plastics. 



So if you were a real environmentalist, you ought to be looking 

 toward promoting wood to take the place of finite resources such 

 as metal or plastic rather than destroying renewable resources and 

 having to rely more on finite processes. 



The Forest Service appeal process — we found during the salvage 

 legislation in that bill that we passed recently and will be chal- 

 lenged again, the salvage process gave us some insight of progress 

 that can be made without the numerous appeals and at the same 

 time protecting the environment. 



In salvage, the Secretary must certify that the environmental 

 laws that we have today are being met, and then if there is an ap- 

 peal, it goes directly to the District Court, and they have 45 days 

 to make that decision. 



And if they decide that the site to be cut is violating an environ- 

 mental policy, then it will not be cut. If they decide the other way, 

 then it will be cut, and you get a speedy cutting which is absolutely 

 essential in salvage. Otherwise, you lose the value of the timber. 



But what we have found is there has been no appeal at all in 

 the salvage area; not to 318 we are talking about, we are talking 

 about salvage where there has been any indication that environ- 

 mental law is being bypassed, that the Forest Service is abusing 

 its ability for rapid appeal. And, in fact, there have been very few 

 appeals at all because the Forest Service has used prudent judg- 

 ment in carrying out salvage legislation. 



