Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is interesting to stand before the Senate this afternoon to discuss this amendment in the context of fiscal responsibility. The amendment that is proposed by my colleague from New Hampshire is about eliminating a subsidy for the timber industry. But when we look to it, it is very specific. It is not the elimination of subsidies for assistance throughout our National Forest System. It is just specific as to one national forest, and that is the Tongass, located in the State of Alaska. If, in fact, what we are focusing on today is looking at cost cutting, looking at efficiencies, looking at elimination of Federal funding in areas where it doesn't make sense, should we not be looking at this amendment and its application across the country? Wouldn't the supporters want to hold timber programs in all national forests to the same standards to eliminate subsidies and financial waste?

When we look at a list of our national forests, we have some 111 national forests spread across the country. Mr. President, 105 of the 111 national forests spend more on their timber programs than they collect in their receipts. This is not just focusing on the Tongass because it is way out of whack in terms of the costs that are expended on the Tongass; 105 out of 111 of the national forests spend more on their timber programs than they collect in receipts. What we have today is an amendment that singles out the Tongass National Forest and no other national forest in the country.

Let's continue with the fiscal argument and how this doesn't work as it relates to the Tongass. According to the Forest Service, in fiscal year 2004, it cost $6.05 per acre to manage the Tongass National Forest, which is very comparable, if not more efficient, than most of these other national forests for which we have the analysis.

Looking to the White Mountain National Forest in the State of New Hampshire, to manage that forest on a per acre basis is $19.39. Again, the Tongass cost per acre, in terms of management, is $6.05. Why aren't we looking at what is happening in the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire?

The Forest Service has in place in the Tongass a program that is designed to produce 150 million board feet a year. Yet 238 million board feet is on hold because of appeals and litigation. That is about a year and a half of product that can't get to market because of litigation. Seventy five percent of the costs associated with the timber program in the Tongass are the result of NEPA appeals and litigation. It is estimated that without these costs, the Tongass timber program could produce on average of about a 13-percent profit margin. So we recognize that we have some issues going on in the State of Alaska, particularly in the Tongass, that we are not seeing outside. We understand that the rate of litigation or the incidence of litigation in the Tongass is four times that of litigation that goes on with sales in any of the other national forests.

The economic argument, I contend, doesn't hold up. You can't separate the economic argument from the frivolous lawsuit argument. The reason the costs are so high is because of the lawsuits. You solve the lawsuit problem and you solve some of the economic problem.

It is interesting. The same organizations that are all about this amendment in trying to shut down any road activity in the Tongass are the same people filing the lawsuits. The reality is that the Tongass National Forest is singled out because it has been on the hit list of environmental groups who really oppose all logging, specifically in the Tongass.

I know my colleague's intention is not to change the status to wilderness. It is not to shut down the timber industry. But, in fact, that is what the impact of this amendment would be, to effectively shut down the industry in the Tongass. It would put hundreds of Alaskans in small rural communities out of work, communities that are dependent on the timber industry for their survival. It would work to eliminate the timber receipts that we receive in our schools that help educate our kids. It would devastate the economy in southeast Alaska, an economy that has already been so hard hit. We are looking at unemployment rates so far above the national average and, in the Southeast, an average that is absolutely unacceptable, 9 percent, 10 percent.

I understand it is not the intention of the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from New Mexico to shut down the Tongass, but that is what it is going to do.

If, in fact, we are going to talk about the fiscal side, if we are going to look to the elimination of subsidies, it should not just be about the Tongass. Let's take a look. Maybe we need to have hearings in the Energy Committee's Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests and bring everybody together, put them at the table--the timber industry, the communities, the taxpayer advocate groups, environmental groups. Let's hear about it.

We have several colleagues who would like to speak on the amendment this afternoon. Before I sit, it is important to correct the record. Supporters of this amendment have said that the Tongass spent $49 million on its logging program in 2004. In fact, the correct amount that was spent on the Tongass program in 2004 was $22.5 million. They also say that the revenue on the Tongass in this same time period was $800,000. In fact, it was $2 million. I want to make sure we have the numbers straight as we are looking at this and where they are being spent.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/