The Subcommittee will receive testimony today from witnesses 

 here from Montana, Tennessee, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Alaska, in 

 addition to the Forest Service. One witness, Mr. Matson, works in 

 Kanab, Utah. Thank you for coming to testify today. We were ex- 

 pecting several witnesses from the minority, and I am disappointed 

 they have chosen not to attend. I thank our witnesses and Mem- 

 bers for your participation in the hearing today. I will turn to my 

 colleague from Colorado for any opening comments that you may 

 have. 



Mr. Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just interested in 

 hearing the testimony and don't have anything for the record. 

 Thank you. 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you. We are always pleased to have with us 

 the dynamic heads-up and forward-looking gentleman from Califor- 

 nia, probably one of the m^ost effective Congressman I have ever 

 served with, the Honorable Wallace Herger. Mr. Herger, we will 

 turn it over to you for whatever pearls of wisdom you would like 

 to give us. 



STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A U.S. 

 REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 



Mr. Herger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that I had 

 an opportunity to treat you to that diet soda last night, but thank 

 you very much. I do thank you for this opportunity to testify before 

 the Subcommittee today. 



Mr. Chairman and members, last October, during a Timber Sal- 

 vage Task Force oversight hearing in my district of Redding in 

 northern California, a forest planner from the Klamath National 

 Forest informed the Task Force of a lawsuit filed by nine environ- 

 mental activist groups and underwritten by the Sierra Club Legal 

 Defense Fund. 



The appeal challenged the newly completed Klamath National 

 Forest plan, which was amended to comply with the President's 

 Forest Plan, and sought an immediate stay on all timber sales, 

 road building, grazing, and mining on the Klamath National Forest 

 pending litigation. Simply put, it demanded that all multiple-use 

 activities on the forest be shut down completely. 



Ironically, the litigants had played a prominent role in develop- 

 ing the forest plan they were challenging. The revised plan had re- 

 duced timber harvests by three-quarters, added over 100 miles of 

 wild and scenic river protection, established strict visual quality 

 standards, and provided extensive environmental protections. 



It would do so at a terrible economic cost to rural communities 

 in my northern California district. Yet, this was not enough for the 

 litigants. They did not get everything they wanted at the negotia- 

 tion table, so they turned to the Courtroom. 



Mr. Chairman, this example strikes at the heart of what is 

 wrong with our current system of forest management. Litigation is 

 replacing science-based planning as the preeminent forest manage- 

 ment tool. The results are proving to be catastrophic, both economi- 

 cally and environmentally. 



Each year, administrative and judicial appeals cost the Forest 

 Service, and ultimately the U.S. taxpayer, hundreds of millions of 

 dollars in direct agency costs and foregone revenues. The impact of 



