Editorial: Taking ax to timber subsidy

Tuesday, Sept. 7, 1999 | 9:31 a.m.

Before Congress adjourned for its August recess it didn't take care of a lot of unfinished business, including the issue of reducing a subsidy for the timber industry. Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., will try to amend the U.S. Forest Service's budget to stem this corporate welfare, which provides federal funds to logging companies to offset the cost of building roads in our national forests. Bryan has been dogged in his pursuit of this issue, narrowly missing in 1997, when his attempts to end the subsidy lost in a 50-50 tie vote. The senator was ready to try again in 1998, but the Interior Department's appropriations bill didn't reach the Senate floor.

There are significant problems with the subsidy. For starters, it is absolutely unnecessary for taxpayer money to be spent on what should be a cost of doing business. If these companies believe there is going to be an economic gain, then they alone should pick up the tab. In addition, building more roads through our national forests frequently results in devastation to the environment. While this is an issue primarily affecting Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, even Nevada has seen its share of problems. Logging roads are believed to have contributed to runoff at Lake Tahoe, which in turn has helped muddy the lake's clarity.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, genuflecting to the timber industry, earlier this year added $34 million more than the Forest Service requested in its timber sale management and road construction programs. In response, Bryan wants the full Senate to eliminate this increase. Bryan wants the money to be returned this way: About $21 million would go to Forest Service environmental programs to strengthen wildlife protections and the remaining $13 million would be returned to the federal treasury.

In terms of the actual dollars being cut from the budget, it might seem a pittance compared to the billions of dollars in other appropriations handled routinely every year by Congress. But Bryan's proposal is important and a key step in having the American people reclaim these forests for public use rather than allowing their degradation for commercial purposes. When the Interior appropriations bill comes up for a vote, the Senate should adopt Bryan's plan and end this destructive corporate welfare.