James Hill: “the one thing I have learned this evening is how little the proponents of the Porter amendment understand about timber…”

“the one thing I have learned this evening is how little the proponents of the Porter amendment understand about timber sales. What people have to understand is that when the Federal Government sells timber, in some instances it is necessary to construct a road and in other instances it is necessary to reconstruct an existing road in order to provide access to the timber. The standing practice is that the Forest Service will either construct the road, or allow credit against the timber sale for the cost of the construction. Why is that not a subsidy? It is not a subsidy because the timber sale anticipates or takes into consideration access. Therefore, the Government receives a higher price for the timber because access is provided. If the bidder had to provide that access, then the bid price would simply be lower. The problem with all this for me and my folks in Montana is that by eliminating the prepaid credit, it is going to hurt local governments. The reason for that is that 25 percent of the proceeds of the timber sales, including the road credits, is given to local governments. It goes to counties and it goes to school districts. This amendment, pure and simple, will take $10 million out of the budgets of local governments. It is important to understand that in recent years there have been dramatic reductions in the timber harvest on these Federal lands. The result has been large reductions in payments to these communities already.”