King Blasts Massive Cuts to Forest Service

To watch or download the exchange click here

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) raised concerns over the Administration's proposed cuts to forest research, partnerships with state and tribal authorities, and maintenance of public lands. In a Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) committee hearing, King pressed Chief of the United States Forest Service (USFS) Tom Schultz on the rationale behind cutting vital forest services, drawing a contrast with the President's White House ballroom project which could be receiving a billion dollars in a bill as soon as next week.

The Administration's planned cuts and reorganization of the USFS present serious challenges for logging, mining, and firefighting on 200 million acres of U.S. land, as well as thousands of trails and forests that millions of Americans visit every year.

"Budgets represent priorities, and it's fascinating to me that if you add together the cuts for service operations, forest and rangeland research, and state, private and tribal forestry, that pretty much exactly equals the proposed billion dollars in the reconciliation bill for the ballroom. So, the President's ballroom has a higher priority than forest research, state and tribal forestry, and Forest Service operations.

"So, another way to look at it in perspective is that number represents 3/10 of 1% of the proposed increase in the defense budget this year to $1.5 trillion. So, I don't understand the priorities here. I just don't think it makes any sense…your statement is that "The budget eliminates the account for state, private, and tribal forestry funding to ensure fiscal responsibility and to better balance the appropriate roles of federal and state government." That's a euphemism for we've got the gold mine, you get the shaft. You're shafting the states and the tribes. About ten times today you've used the word partnership. It ain't a partnership if one side has to give up everything, and the other side says, this is what we're going to do, and we're not going to give you any money to do it; why in the world are you seeing the basis for the partnership that you keep talking about? Why should anybody partner with you when, on the one hand, you're saying, well, here are our terms and conditions, but by the way, we're not going to give you the money that we've historically given you year after year? What's the justification for that?" asked Senator King.

"Mr. Chairman, Mr. King, thanks for the question. So, in many cases, the partnerships that we have, they're mutually beneficial. That's how it works. So historically, the state and private funding was about $300 million. And that funding was supporting a lot of different programs for states. What we've seen over time, though, is that there is a need to take a look at those programs and how they're funded and the responsibility of the states and other partners," replied Mr. Schultz.

"So, it's a zero value. It's going from $310 million to 0. So, you're saying there was no value in those expenditures whatsoever?" Senator King asked.

Mr. Schultz replied, "Mr. Chairman, Senator King, when I mentioned I worked in state government for over 25 years before I came into this role, and there has always been concerns and questions about the appropriate role of the federal funding versus state funding. And we've seen different states address that differently. Some states have increased funding for the state and private programs through the state legislatures, and others have not. So, it's something that has been an ongoing issue and a discussion about how much of that burden shifted more states or the federal government.

"Well, how much of the burden? Your budget says zero is for the federal government as far as the states are concerned." Senator King asked.

As a lifelong advocate for conservation and Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Senator King is among the Senate's most prominent voices advocating for conservation of public lands. He has been outspoken regarding cuts to National Parks and conservation services. Last month, in response to budget cuts and reorganization at the USFS, Senator King joined 33 of his Senate colleagues to raise concerns about harmful workforce reductions.

###