[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 65 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E905]]



   INTRODUCTION OF THE 1998 U.S. FOREST SERVICE ORGANIZATION REFORM 
                              LEGISLATION

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. JOE SKEEN

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 20, 1998

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that is 
long overdue and desperately needed. My legislation, the 1998 U.S. 
Forest Service Organization Reform bill is simple legislation. Under 
this proposal the current Regional Offices of the U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS) would be eliminated. In the terms of organization structure they 
would be replaced by state USFS offices. Each state would have a state 
director, just as several other agencies within the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture operate. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in the 
Department of the Interior also is organized in this manner.
  Authority would be granted for the establishment of up to six 
technical support centers as well as allowing the USFS to have multi-
state directors where the Federal presence is minor. The Forest Service 
office for a state would be responsible for the administration of 
National Forest System lands within the state.
  I have come to the conclusion that I can no longer wait for the USFS 
to do the right thing. I can no longer wait for them to solve their 
management problems. I can no longer wait to see our Forests suffer 
from neglect, mismanagement and misuse. This administration's record on 
addressing the major issues facing our Forest on these issues is 
dismal. Reinventing government in the USFS today means that nobody is 
in charge. It means forest plans that nobody can understand. It means 
lawsuits and court decisions that destroy people's livelihoods and 
damages their families irreparably.
  USFS state offices will be the first step in bringing accountability 
into this agency of government. This office will be closer to the 
people in the state. The Director will interface directly and often 
with state officials, local government and concerned citizens. The 
Director will be accountable for what happens in the forest of the 
respective states. No longer would the USFS be able to hide in their 
regional offices. No longer would they be able to ignore problems in 
the respective states. The BLM manages more land than the USFS. The BLM 
planning program has been a model of unbridled success when compared to 
the disastrous Forest Service process. Part of the reason for this 
success is having a more responsive State office.
  I would add at this point I have met numerous excellent USFS 
employees and I have been continually puzzled as to why these good 
people cannot make this agency work? Why, year after year, do we have 
study after study that talks abut the mismanagement? I have finally 
decided that it is the structure of the USFS that is smothering the 
abilities of the individual employees and stopping them from solving 
the problems on our Forest Service lands. Today, we have ``teams'' and 
``team leaders'' in government but not supervisors. Let me repeat, we 
have teams and team leaders, but not supervisors. Our forests deserve 
attention not unsupervised teams. We need people who will be responsive 
to the needs of our natural heritage--not to the faceless bureaucracy 
that currently exists in the Forest Service.
  There is no doubt that the USFS will say the cost of implementing 
this legislation is too expensive. It will not be too expensive or more 
expensive. Not if they do it right. They need to stop trying to protect 
their sacred regional office turf. If USDA agencies can do it and BLM 
can do it, then so can the USFS.

                          ____________________