Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to take just a minute to address 48 extraordinary hours in my life -- (Senate - June 28, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 1026
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to speak on my amendment. I had an opportunity to present more complete remarks last night so I will try to speak briefly this evening.
I appreciate the work of both Senators from Alaska and understand that this is naturally an issue of great personal interest and commitment for them.
I wanted to address briefly a few of the general remarks that were made, especially those, for obvious reasons, that referred to me. First, I do not think I have ever been accused of being an extreme environmentalist. I certainly do not consider myself an extreme environmentalist.
In that regard, I believe one simply has to look at the basic premise of this amendment. It does not create a new wilderness designation. For my part, I have opposed President Clinton's roadless initiative. I have supported the multiuse concept in national forest land across the entire country and will continue to do so. So I just do not think it is fair or appropriate to throw around a label like that cavalierly, and I trust that it was not meant that way.
Second, I emphasize the point that from my perspective, this is about fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint.
The suggestion was made a number of times that it was not. Frankly, I do not think that is quite appropriate because it suggests a set of motives that just are not there.
One does not have to go any further than the amendment I offered last week to the Energy bill to strike some of the more egregious taxpayer subsidies in that Energy legislation or my vote against the highway bill that broke the budget or my vote against a prescription drug bill that we knew then and we know now had costs far in excess of its prescribed $400 billion or my vote against the Energy bill in its final form today. I believe it is fair to stand on my record that the votes I have cast, the amendments I have offered of this type that have dealt with taxpayer subsidies, have all been motivated by one thing and one thing only, and that is doing what I believe is appropriate and right when we are handling taxpayer resources.
In the case of the support and the subsidies that go to private logging firms, I believe we have to draw a line somewhere. When we look at the Tongass and see $49 million in costs for a timber program that yields for the taxpayers $800,000 in revenues, something is not right. The opponents of the amendment will say: Well, only $15 million, $20 million, or $25 million is going directly for the cost of building roads. But in my book, $25 million for $800,000 in revenue is still a pretty bad deal.
There are a lot of reasons listed for the high cost of a timber program on the national forests, and I am very sympathetic to many of the concerns raised: high legal costs, an unbearable bureaucracy, regulatory costs associated with not just completing, in some cases, redundant environmental studies but then defending them in court. I am willing and I have voted in the past to support efforts to deal directly with those costs and to support efforts to allow appropriate consideration, but deliberate consideration, of those challenges. I will continue to do so.
Because there are such things as frivolous lawsuits that are in the pipeline does not justify a $15 million subsidy or a $25 million subsidy or a $35 million subsidy or a $48 million subsidy. The subsidy itself cannot and should not be used to defend or respond to bad behavior in other ways. So we need to fight those costs, the legal abuses, and burdensome environmental regulations that are not appropriately applied, but those issues are separate from the question of whether we should use taxpayer funds to subsidize the construction of roads to support private timber firms.
Again, I come back to the basic point that this is about fiscal responsibility. When I hear that phrase, ``this is not about fiscal responsibility,'' it really has to be read as questioning my motives or, frankly, the motives of any of those who are supporting this amendment. I do not think the Senate floor is the appropriate place for that kind of a question.
The facts are pretty straightforward. In fiscal year 2004, the timber program on the Tongass cost $49 million, and $800,000 was yielded in revenues. That does not mean that profitability as applied to a private firm should be the standard for any multiuse effort or any effort to harvest timber on national forest lands because we know national forest lands are unique, and we know that the Forest Service has to be involved in doing things that many private timber firms either cannot or would not be asked to do in the private sector. So I recognize that.
The Senator from Alaska made a point that the loss in New Hampshire in the timber program was about $800,000. If so, I would hope that over time we can do better than that in my state, but there is a big difference between $800,000 and $48 million. The disparity of cost or the costs associated per million board feet taken out are similarly quite significant, the loss per million board feet in New Hampshire being approximately one-third of that in the Tongass in data that I have seen.
So profit should not be the standard, but at the same time it is hard for me to justify taxpayers paying the cost of the roads. I do not think asking private firms to pay for the cost of building the roads to access the timber they purchase is too much of a burden to bear.
Finally, with regard to the multiuse concept that was mentioned, I strongly support the development and application of forest plans that are put together locally using local stakeholders. It has been very successful in New Hampshire. I imagine it has been successful in other parts of the country. In New Hampshire, we enjoy national forest lands for recreation, hunting, fishing, economic interests, and a timber management program. But even where multiple use is concerned, we need to strike a balance, a balance between the taxpayers' interest and a balance between the long-term health of the forest itself. Where the taxpayers are concerned, a subsidy of $45 million or $48 million per year, stretching as far as the eye can see at this particular time, is unnecessary.
I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I hope this at least can lay the foundation for looking at subsidies not just in this industry but in other areas with a little bit of a sharper eye. At a time when we have $300 billion or $400 billion deficits, I do not think there is any area of the budget that does not deserve tougher scrutiny.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov