SUNUNU SENATE FLOOR REMARKS REGARDING MEASURE TO RESTRICT USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR TONGASS LOGGING

WASHINGTON, DC – United States Senator John Sununu (R-NH) delivered remarks on the floor of the United States Senate on June 27, 2005, regarding an amendment he introduced to the Fiscal Year 2006 Interior Appropriations Act to restrict the use of federal taxpayer funds to build logging roads in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. Senator Sununu introduced the amendment with Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM); Sununu’s comments follow:

“This amendment is pretty straightforward. It reads very simply: To place a restriction on the use of Federal taxpayer funds to be used to build logging roads in the Tongass National Forest on behalf of private companies. This is a case where we need to be very careful about providing Federal subsidies for private corporations.

“This was a topic of discussion during some of the remarks I made on the Energy Bill and I have raised this issue many times in the past. We need to be careful about using Federal resources to provide subsidies for private companies because it distorts the marketplace, promotes inefficiencies, and isn’t good stewardship of Federal resources.

“In 2004, the Federal Government, through the Forest Service, spent between $45 and $50 million building logging roads in this segment of the national forest. They took in roughly $1 million in revenues. I would like to make sure we give the benefit of the doubt any time we are spending money. We understand it can have economic impacts, it can create jobs and the like, but to spend $45 or $50 million on programs that provide $1 million in revenues when there is a timber sale seems like an enormous inequity to me. If you compound these shortfalls over 20 years, the losses amount to between $750 and $850 million. I don't think this is an appropriate use of Federal resources.

“I am pleased to offer this amendment with Senator Bingaman. I hope it will restore a little bit of fiscal restraint and balance to this Interior Appropriations Bill. It is important to recognize what this amendment does not do because, as the debate is carried forward, I want to make sure that concerns raised speak to the amendment and not to other issues.

“What this amendment does not do is prohibit logging in the Tongass or any other segment of our national forest. It doesn’t change policy regarding logging in any substantive way. It doesn’t curtail uses in the national forest, again, in the Tongass or anywhere else in the country. I come from a state, New Hampshire, that has a great tradition of multiple-use in our national forest system – recreational use, economic operations, timber program, hunting, fishing. It is a true multiuse forest. I believe that general approach to our national forest makes the most sense.

“Finally, this amendment does not restrict the use of private funds to build logging roads. I don’t think that is inappropriate in any way. If we have a timber sale on any segment of the national forest, that should be conducted in an open, transparent way, but the market should dictate the attractiveness of a particular cut, the sale of that timber, the pricing, and the like.

“People who speak to this amendment may well raise concerns about regulation, about legal barriers and legal obstacles, about subsidies that other timber concerns in other countries may enjoy. Those are all valid concerns. I have stepped forward to try to address those concerns to allow timber management, an important segment of our economy, to operate in a fair and reasonable way. But this amendment doesn’t address or solve or make worse any of those concerns. Those are issues that we need to continue to address. We should have reasonable regulatory processes that are understandable, that allow appropriate timber sales and logging operations to continue on national forest land. We should do everything in our power to minimize frivolous lawsuits throughout our economy but also those types of frivolous lawsuits that might necessarily hinder and raise the cost of the timber program. And, of course, there are subsidies being provided by other countries. New Hampshire and Canada share a border, and the issue of subsidies in the timber industry – placing operations in the United States at a competitive disadvantage – is something that I have dealt with time and time again.

“But all this amendment does is say we will no longer use Federal funds to support the building, construction, and planning and development of roads for private entities in the Tongass. When you have a cost of $45 or $50 million for revenue of just $1 million, you don’t have to be an economist to understand why this amendment makes good, common sense for the taxpayer.

“I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It has been endorsed by a number of groups who are looking at this matter from a purely fiscal perspective and doing what is right for taxpayers. It reflects much more commonsense use of Federal resources.”

-30-