{
  "id": "RL32485",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32485",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 105155,
      "date": "2004-07-21",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:11:57.038901",
      "title": "Below-Cost Timber Sales: An Overview",
      "summary": "The USDA Forest Service (FS) sells some timber at prices that are less than the agency expenses\nto\nadminister the timber program. These  below-cost  timber sales have been debated by\nCongress\nsporadically for more than two decades, but no policy to address the issue has been adopted\nlegislatively or administratively.\n  Part of the debate over below-cost timber sales has been about their relative frequency. At the\ndirection of Congress, the FS developed a system for reporting the financial and economic results\nof timber sales. Data were reported annually for each national forest, beginning with FY1989, but\nno report has been issued since FY1998. Interest group estimates of \"losses\" continue to be made\npublic with much fanfare and attendant news stories, but the estimates of the financial results of FS\ntimber sales vary widely. This disparity is due to differences in basic approach -- profit-and-loss,\ncash flow, or other approach -- and in assumptions about relevant costs.\n  The FS sells timber for a variety of reasons. In some cases, the purpose may be to provide\ntimber for a local mill, and mills (and communities) have been built on the implicit promise of\ncontinuing timber availability. Timber sales may also be used to modify existing conditions -- to\nreduce fuel loadings, to alter the mix of tree species, to provide habitat for specific animal species,\nto restore forests to more natural conditions, to provide access for recreation and other uses, etc. \nWhile alternative means of modifying vegetation exist, timber sales may be more efficient (have a\nlower net cost to the Treasury and to society) than the alternatives, even though the sales may not\ncover costs according to strict financial criteria.\n  The issue is what, if anything, Congress and the Administration should do about below-cost\ntimber sales. Some argue that no action is warranted, because the fiscal concern is merely a tool\nbeing used to reduce timber sale levels. Others are concerned about the net cost to taxpayers, about\nthe environmental damages that result from some timber sales, or about alleged \"subsidies\" to timber\ncompanies. The debate is often characterized as either \"do nothing\" or \"eliminate all below-cost\nsales.\" However, other options exist. Choices for a below-cost policy might include how to measure\nfiscal results, over what geographic and temporal scales, with what opportunities to demonstrate\nimprovement, and with how much agency discretion over how to factor costs into the decision to sell\nor not to sell timber.\n  This report provides background on the issue; it is not anticipated that it will be updated.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32485",
          "sha1": "4b2281ab4e42ba35d7f2eacccba9b7ff084e2c06",
          "filename": "files/20040721_RL32485_4b2281ab4e42ba35d7f2eacccba9b7ff084e2c06.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20040721_RL32485_4b2281ab4e42ba35d7f2eacccba9b7ff084e2c06.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy",
    "Energy Policy"
  ]
}