[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 136 (Monday, September 26, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        THE FOREST AND THE TREES

                                 ______


                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 26, 1994

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in recent years, the debate 
over the spotted owl and its forest habitats has overshadowed a deeper 
problem--the continuing web of Federal subsidies and policies which is 
leading toward destruction of American's forests.
  These are strong words--but not to anyone who has flown over an area 
which has been clearcut, or listened to fishermen who have discovered 
their streams and rivers filled with silt from careless logging.
  I am inserting into the Record an editorial from the September 2 St. 
Louis Post-Dispatch which accurately lays out the problems with our 
subsidies for forest destruction.
  One of the questions we need to ask ourselves is why should the 
Federal Government continue 19th century-subsidies which lose money? 
Why should these Western extractive industries be given benefits 
withheld from other businesses.
  Why can't we all agree that the 19th century is over and it's time to 
change?

           [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 2, 1994]

                        The Forest And The Trees

       Charles F. Wilkinson, an attorney who specializes in 
     natural resource law, called the destructive logging of 
     American forests throughout the 1980s ``nothing less than the 
     plundering of an extraordinary public asset.''
       Unfortunately, the damage to the American wilderness has 
     been obscured by narrowing the focus to the controversy over 
     the spotted owl. This casts the debate in unfairly simplied 
     terms: jobs vs. the environment; the preservation of a way of 
     life vs. the preservation of a species of life. In fact, the 
     issue of logging in national forests, on public lands, is far 
     more complex than that.
       The decline in jobs in the timber industry can be 
     attributed in part to factors unrelated to the environment. 
     Changes in the industry itself--increasing worker 
     productivity and exporting unprocessed logs--account for 
     substantial job loss, a loss that wouldn't be halted even if 
     every inch of old-growth forest in the Northwest could be 
     chopped down.
       In some areas, the priority given to logging by the Forest 
     Service pits jobs against jobs. Ranchers and farmers who rely 
     on water sources on public land for irrigation are upset with 
     clearcutting by timber companies because of erosion and 
     disruptions in the seasonal flow of water--all of which 
     jeopardize their way of life. The fishing industry is 
     threatened by careless logging that leaves streams and rivers 
     clogged with silt. The tourism industry, which sells 
     wilderness adventures, skiing and passive outdoor recreation, 
     can also be hurt by the ugly scars left by logging.
       So why should taxpayers care? Because they subsidize the 
     timber industry. Below-cost sales of timber from public land 
     plus other policies favorable to the logging industry 
     contribute to the overcutting of the nation's forest to a 
     level beyond what some environmentalists say, is sustainable.
       Federal policy actually directs the Forest Service and the 
     Bureau of Land Management to collect market value on timber 
     cut from federal land. But as pointed out in ``Taking From 
     the Taxpayer: Public Subsidies for Natural Resources 
     Development,'' a report of the House Committee on Natural 
     Resources, that's easier said than done.
       Establishing market-value prices is difficult, given the 
     variation in types and quality of timber and market 
     fluctuations. And, as the House committee's report also makes 
     clear, certain accounting procedures used by the Forest 
     Service tend to under-count below-cost sales.
       That can lead to some absurdities. The House report cites 
     one egregious example of the government's underpricing its 
     resources; ``More than half the costs of timber roads are now 
     never counted as expenses of the timber sales. * * * Building 
     roads into roadless areas for the sole purpose of taking out 
     timber is deemed a capital improvement that benefits the 
     forest in general, not the timber purchaser.''
       Whether it's subsidies for logging, grazing and mining, the 
     taxpayer is faced with the same questions: Do these 
     giveaways, generally to major corporations, make financial 
     sense at a time when the government has such a large deficit? 
     Shouldn't business have to play by the rules of the free 
     market?
       Certain subsidies may be justifiable, but any gift from the 
     taxpayer ought to serve some public policy purpose. For 
     example, subsidies may be needed to keep small businesses or 
     small communities alive or to encourage environmental 
     restoration.
       Most of all, subsidies should never underwrite violations 
     of public policy of the public trust. Increasingly, Americans 
     look at the West and see in it more than resources to be 
     extracted and private profits to be made.
       They also deeply value the preservation of the West's 
     majestic beauty and the integrity of its complex ecosystems. 
     These ends are not necessarily antithetical. No side has to 
     get out of Dodge City by sundown.

                          ____________________