I would like to thank my colleagues and our witnesses for their attendance and participation in this morning's hearing. I would particularly like to thank Chief Dombeck for joining us today.

This is the fifth in a series of hearings that began in Sunriver, Oregon in January of this year. There Chief Dombeck, Governor Kitzhaber and I, in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, discussed how to address the near catastrophic conditions of the Eastside forests of Oregon. Our discussions led us to a number of significant conclusions. First, and most significantly, we have concluded that active forest management is essential to restore the health of these neglected forest ecosystems and the communities within and adjacent to them. Second, we have agreed that we need to act immediately in those areas of the forest that are at greatest risk of destruction by catastrophic natural disturbance and where we can realize the most immediate success. Third, we have recognized the absolute need to base our forest management policy on the best verifiable science, recognizing that science is open-ended we needn't wait for the "final word" before we proceed with decision-making. Finally, we have concluded that federal forest managers must be accountable to the public and their elected representatives for achieving measurable on-the-ground results that both improve forest health and maintain local economies.

Since our hearing in Sunriver the Committee has expanded its inquiry beyond Oregon to determine whether these conclusions might be applied nation-wide. We began by examining the seminal scientific report on forest conditions in our country prepared by Dr. Chad Oliver and his associates. The Oliver Report concludes that we are failing to achieve many of the most critical values that society wants to derive from our forests, including protection from catastrophic natural disturbances, providing a full range of species habitat, reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and maintaining healthy and productive watersheds. The report also demonstrates that proactive forest management is needed to reverse these conditions.

In my opinion the Oliver Report represents the best available science on forest conditions nationwide, the values society wants to derive from our forests, and the trade-offs associated with alternative management decisions. I will be particularly interested to hear whether the Chief shares this view.

The Committee then turned its sights on the issues that pertain to specific regions of the country as they relate to the findings in the Oliver Report. Last Thursday we examined the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast. Today we will focus on the Inland West and the Northeast. I have asked our witnesses today to specifically address the extent to which the forests in their regions are providing the values identified in the Oliver Report and to make specific policy recommendations on how to improve the ability of the forests in their regions to provide some or all of these values with the fewest potential negative trade-offs.

I would like to be optimistic enough to think that, at the end of this process, we would conclude that forest ecosystem health restoration might proceed administratively with little or no direct action by the Congress. Unfortunately, however, I simply cannot ignore the facts that continue to confront this Committee. Decades of perpetual agency planning have failed to reverse accelerating declines in forest health on our national forests. Project-level decisions are still mired in time-consuming process, including protracted interagency consultations and delay-riddled appeals and litigation. Local managers have no incentives to be efficient with their time and resources. There remains a gaping disconnect between management objectives and results. And above all of this looms the contention, made observed by the General Accounting Office and others, that the Forest Service does not have a clear sense of its own mission.

And these are only the ailments that plague the management of our national forests. Private landowners face equally challenging obstacles that prevent them from maintaining healthy forest ecosystems on their land. These require our attention as well. We must replace disincentives to wise forest management on private land with incentives that promote good stewardship and preserve those forest values that society deems most important. We must establish and maintain appropriate relationships between federal agencies and land owners that foster mutual cooperation. And, above all, we must ensure that our policies affecting private property jealously protect the rights of property owners.

In my opinion, if we truly want to improve the health of our nation's forest ecosystems - and I mean all ecosystems, both in the east and the west - then it is essential for this Congress, and specifically this Committee to become fully engaged in developing forest health policy using every tool at our disposal, including legislation.

I continue to work closely with the Appropriations Committee to provide much-needed funding for our most important forest health restoration activities. However, this is only a part of the equation. As stewards of our nation's forest resource, we have a duty to guarantee taxpayers a measurable return on their investment. So far our efforts on this front have been modest at best.

In the weeks ahead, I intend to focus my energies on identifying specific steps, including legislative steps, that we can take immediately to improve our current situation. Using the science currently at our disposal, I am determined to make our forest management more creative, more proactive, more efficient and more results-oriented. That was the message of Sunriver. That is our duty as policy makers. And, in the end, that is what will ultimately sustain our forests as healthy, productive resources for generations to come.