[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 27 (Friday, March 11, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL 
                               RESOURCES

                                 ______


                       HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 10, 1994

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I am here before this 
subcommittee to say a few words on behalf of the Giant Sequoia National 
Preservation Act which I introduced in May of last year. As I have 
stated before, my intent in introducing this bill was to ensure that 
the giant sequoia mixed conifer ecosystem would have permanent 
protection within a national forest preserve. It is essential that the 
protection of this ecosystem be insured by law, and not be subject to 
changes in the interpretation of or the adherence to the National 
Forest Management Act that might result from a change in 
administrations.
  The giant sequoias are not only the world's largest trees, they are a 
living part of California's environmental history, the Earth's oldest 
living things. Millions of visitors come from within California, and 
from other areas of the country to walk through the sequoia and redwood 
forests. This ecosystem is a valuable and unique natural resource which 
will provide many more economic possibilities as a healthy, intact 
ecosystem than it will be a fragmented landscape with the scars of 
excessive clearcutting.
  The bill calls for scientific research within the preserve, providing 
a living laboratory for use by scientists from the Forest Service and 
other organizations. As chairman of the House Science Committee, I am 
especially interested in better utilization of science in the 
development and implementation of land management. Obtaining 
information on a species as long-lived as the Giant Sequoia represents 
a unique scientific challenge.
  I know that there is concern about the loss of jobs that will result 
from the ban on commercial timber harvesting. I do not like to see the 
loss of even one job. For this reason, I have made provisions in the 
bill for annual payments to local communities and for the establishment 
of job retraining, technical assistance, and loans and grants to help 
affected communities diversify their economies.
  I should point out that if we do nothing with this there will be 
timber job losses. There is evidence that timber removal from the 
Sequoia National Forest over the past decade has exceeded sustainable 
rates. This pattern of overcutting will result in not only loss of jobs 
in the mills, but in the degradation of a valuable recreational 
resource. Ironically, allowing the current situation to continue will 
foreclose future diversification options to research and tourism. I 
believe that this bill will ultimately protect jobs as the forest.
  Some of my colleagues from Californian are in opposition to this bill 
in its current form. They feel that this legislation is unnecessary and 
that the loss of timber-industry jobs in their districts would present 
an undue hardship on their constituents. I hope that once they have 
heard all of the information presented at the hearing today, that they 
will work with me to improve any current deficiencies in this bill and 
join me in support of it. All Americans are affected by current 
management policies in the Sequoia National Forest even though they do 
not reside within the districts containing the Sequoia National Forest. 
The concerns of the many southern Californians and citizens from the 
other States in this Nation who come to the Sequoia National Forest to 
enjoy all of the recreational opportunities available within this 
forest should also be considered.

  The Forest Service's own records show the recreational value of 
Sequoia National Forest to be substantially greater than the timber 
value. In fact we are losing money on the timber program in this 
forest.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the estimates provided to me by the 
Congressional Budget Office be entered into the Record. Item one 
indicates that implementation of H.R. 2153 would result in a timber 
program savings of about $6 million annually.
  In spite of the greater recreational value, most of the budget for 
this forest is used to support clearcutting of timber. This skewed 
distribution of resources should be corrected. We should be investing 
scarce taxpayer dollars in areas where they will produce the greatest 
benefit for the most people. This bill is a step in that direction. By 
redirecting the budget of the Sequoia National Forest to greater 
support and development of the recreational uses of this area, more 
people can enjoy this unique natural resource.
  We have been privileged to be one in the long line of generations 
that have enjoyed and marveled at the majestic nature of the Giant 
Sequoia. I introduced the bill to insure that our generation would not 
be the last one in the line.
  Thank you very much.
                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC. March 8, 1994.
     Hon. George E. Brown, Jr.,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: I am pleased to respond to the five 
     questions you asked in your letter of February 24 regarding 
     the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for H.R. 2153, 
     the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993.
       1. Reduction in Timber Program Costs in Affected Forests. 
     In our analysis of the bill, we estimated that once fully 
     implemented, H.R. 2153 would result in timber program savings 
     totaling about $6 million annually. This is consistent with 
     your point that the average annual timber program losses in 
     the affected forests currently total at least $5 million. CBO 
     expects, however, that the bill's provisions would take at 
     least one year from the date of enactment to be fully 
     implemented. Thus, we anticipate that the full impact of such 
     savings would not be realized until fiscal year 1996.
       2. Payments to Counties. We agree with you that the 
     payments to counties from the affected forests currently 
     total about $1 million annually. Our cost estimate reflects a 
     savings of this amount beginning in fiscal year 1995. As with 
     the timber program costs discussed above, we assumed that it 
     would take at least one year after the bill's enactment to 
     fully implement the bill's provisions. Consequently, CBO 
     estimated that the savings from lower payments to counties 
     would be about $500,000 in fiscal year 1994 and around $1 
     million in each of the subsequent years.
       In calculating the tax equivalency payments that would be 
     paid to the affected counties in lieu of the payments they 
     would be due under current law, CBO relied on information 
     from your staff, the Forest Service, the California State 
     Board of Equalization, and the local counties. The Board of 
     Equalization provided us with the 1993 Value of Timberland 
     schedule sent to all counties in the state. This schedule 
     established the value per acre for tax purposes of various 
     grades of timberland, ranging from redwood to mixed 
     conifer. The Forest Service indicated that the lands in 
     the proposed preserve would be classified chiefly as mixed 
     conifer, resulting in a total land value in the preserve 
     of about $50 million (442,425 acres valued at about $105 
     per acre). The affected counties told us that their tax 
     rates were approximately 1 percent. Applying this tax rate 
     to the estimated land values yielded an estimated tax 
     equivalency payment totaling about $500,000.
       3. Yield Tax Payments. The federal budget does not record 
     the acquisition of disposition of physical assets as 
     budgetary transactions. Because the yield tax payments made 
     by the federal government are ``paid'' to the state of 
     California in the form of timber assets, not cash, the value 
     of such ``payments'' is not recorded in the budget or 
     included in our cost estimate.
       4. Fire Management Costs. CBO's cost estimates include all 
     effects on the federal budget that result from the enactment 
     of new legislation, regardless of where such costs are 
     accounted for by the affected agency. The Forest Service 
     interpreted H.R. 2153 to require that any work done within 
     the Giant Sequoia Preserve to clear away underbrush as part 
     of their fire management plan for the area would have to be 
     done without the use of mechanized equipment at greater cost 
     to the agency. As a result, we estimated that fire management 
     costs would increase by about $3 million annually.
       5. Timber Contract Buyout Costs. In a letter to CBO dated 
     September 16, 1993, the Forest Service stated that ``there 
     are 7 existing timber sales within the proposed boundary [of 
     the preserve]. If we were to buy out these sales, it would 
     cost approximately $8,750,000.'' The Forest Service 
     interpreted the bill to require that these contracts, 
     covering an estimated 25 million board feet of timber, would 
     have to be cancelled and the contract-holders compensated. 
     CBO included such costs in the estimate for H.R. 2153 because 
     the federal government agrees in the timber contracts to pay 
     for costs already incurred by the purchaser plus damages if 
     the contracts are cancelled.
       We have recently received more detailed information from 
     the Forest Service which indicates that only about 11.4 
     million board feet of timber are currently under contract in 
     the affected areas. Assuming additional contracts are not 
     entered into before this bill's enactment, buyout costs are 
     more likely to be in the range of $4 million to $5 million 
     and would be incurred in the first year after enactment.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert D. Reischauer,
     Director.

                          ____________________