WASHINGTON -- One of Congress' top Republican budget negotiators threw his support behind a plan Tuesday to stop subsidizing timber companies' construction of logging roads on national forests.
Rep. John Kasich, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Budget Committee, joined an unusual coalition of liberals and conservatives in backing the proposal, which they said could save taxpayers more than $100 million over five years.
But Rep. Bob Smith, R-Ore., chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and timber industry leaders quickly began rallying support against the idea. They say there is no subsidy.
While environmentalists have advocated an end to subsidizing logging roads for years based on concerns about ecological damage, the attack on "corporate welfare" Tuesday centered on fiscal arguments.
"We've reformed welfare for those who don't have money or powerful Washington lobbyists," Kasich said. "Now it is time we did the same thing for those corporate welfare programs that aid the rich and powerful at the expense of taxpaying families."
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader lent his support to the effort, as did leaders of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Friends of the Earth, who took specific aim at the Forest Service program that helps timber companies pay for the roads.
"There's just no reason we should be helping timber corporations spin sawdust into gold," said Courtney Cuff of Friends of the Earth.
More significant in terms of political support was backing from a series of conservative organizations, including the National Taxpayers Union, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Citizens Against Government Waste. The logging-road proposal was among a dozen spending items the coalition members said they want to eliminate.
Even before the list was unveiled, Smith sent a letter to Kasich with a series of questions that he said need to be answered before federal logging programs are cut.
"I have come to realize that the Forest Service timber and road building programs, while needing some serious adjustments, are not subsidies to the forest products industry," Smith wrote.
"Federal timber subsidies' are largely a myth, but Rep. Kasich and I are committed to understanding and solving the problem," added Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, chairman of the House Resources Committee.
Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., a member of the Appropriations Committee, said he opposed the proposal and expected it would be defeated if it made it to the panel's subcommittee on agriculture.
"I'm supportive of John in the need to cut unnecessary programs, but he is wrong about this. You would see a tremendous negative impact on small timber communities and small timber companies out in our region," Nethercutt said.
Kasich earlier asked the General Accounting Office to conduct an audit of the Forest Service's logging road program. Coalition leaders said preliminary reports from the GAO indicate both timber companies and recreational users are being subsidized in their use of the roads.
"If private companies are going to profit from activities on public lands, they should pay all associated costs, including the costs of road construction," the coalition said.
Timber industry leaders defended the Forest Service program, which in most cases provides companies with credits to use in bidding for federal timber in exchange for the cost of constructing the roads.
"We do agree companies shouldn't be subsidized. The answer in our case is we are not," said Doug Crandall, a timber expert at the American Forest & Paper Association. "This is more an issue that has been brought up by people who don't want trees cut on federal lands. This is a convenient way to get at that."
Chris West, vice president of the Northwest Forestry Association in Portland, Ore., said roads can be built cheaper under the current credit program. Rising costs of road construction would cause timber companies to bid less for timber, providing less money to the federal treasury, he said.
"Right now, we are the only ones who use the roads who have to pay for them," West said. "Roads are not used strictly for timber. All sorts of them are used for fire access, recreation, etc."
Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., acknowledged a change in Forest Service policy could result in an increase in lumber prices and cost some timber jobs.
"Yes, every time you take a subsidy away, there is going to be some dislocation, that is indisputably true," Andrews said.
