Maurice Hinchey: “Mr. Chairman, what the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) was trying to do in bringing her amendment before the House…”

“Mr. Chairman, what the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) was trying to do in bringing her amendment before the House was to give us the opportunity to talk about the future direction of the Forest Service. Specifically, we need to determine what its priorities are; that is to say, what the Forest Service priorities should be in managing the national forests and how the Forest Service should spend the money allocated to it. Historically, the Forest Service has brought a great emphasis on timber production. The gentlewoman from Oregon was not saying in her amendment that timber production should be shut down entirely, as some have inferred, that is not the case, but that it should be put in context among the other purposes of the Forest Service. Commercial timber harvests should pay their own way and should not receive direct or indirect subsidies from the taxpayer. Here are a few principles that we support: The national forests are owned by all the American people and should serve the diverse interests the American people have in the forests. Those diverse interests include watershed protection, recreational use, wildlife habitat, as well as timber production. Watershed protection probably serves the greatest number of people today. According to the Forest Service, the greatest number of direct forest users are recreational users, and recreational users produce the greatest amount of forest revenues.”