[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY'S ROLE IN CLIMATE 
                               SOLUTIONS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON UNDERSERVED,
              AGRICULTURAL, AND RURAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
                             UNITED STATES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                           SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

                               __________

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                               

            Small Business Committee Document Number 117-033
             Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
             
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
45-582                     WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------             
             
             
             
                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

                 NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman
                          JARED GOLDEN, Maine
                          JASON CROW, Colorado
                         SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
                         KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
                        DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
                         MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
                       CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
                         TROY CARTER, Louisiana
                          JUDY CHU, California
                       DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
                       ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
                     CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
                          ANDY KIM, New Jersey
                         ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
              BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Ranking Member
                         ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
                        JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
                        PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
                        DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
                        CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
                       ANDREW GARBARINO, New York
                         YOUNG KIM, California
                         BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
                         BYRON DONALDS, Florida
                         MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
                      SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin

                 Melissa Jung, Majority Staff Director
            Ellen Harrington, Majority Deputy Staff Director
                     David Planning, Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Hon. Jared Golden................................................     1
Hon. Jim Hagedorn................................................     3

                               WITNESSES

Mr. Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging 
  Contractors of Maine, Augusta, ME..............................     7
Dr. Adam Daigneault, Associate Professor of Forest Policy and 
  Economics, University of Maine, Orono, ME......................     9
Mr. Mark Thibodeau, Regional Manager, ReEnergy Stratton LLC, 
  Carrabassett Valley, ME........................................    11
Mr. Scott Dane, Executive Director, American Logger Council, 
  Gilbert, MN....................................................    13

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:
    Mr. Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging 
      Contractors of Maine, Augusta, ME..........................    31
    Dr. Adam Daigneault, Associate Professor of Forest Policy and 
      Economics, University of Maine, Orono, ME..................    35
    Mr. Mark Thibodeau, Regional Manager, ReEnergy Stratton LLC, 
      Carrabassett Valley, ME....................................    41
    Mr. Scott Dane, Executive Director, American Logger Council, 
      Gilbert, MN................................................    46
Questions for the Record:
    None.
Answers for the Record:
    None.
Additional Material for the Record:
    American Loggers Council.....................................    52
    Biomass and Carbon Neutrality................................    58
    Future Logging Careers Act...................................    62
    Grandfathering Roads Being Transferred to the Interstate 
      System.....................................................    65
    Interstate Route Corridor Legislation........................    67
    Mill Closure Due to Federal Timber Supply....................    68
    National Policy of Forest Management and Wildlife Press 
      Release....................................................    71
    Outdoor Recreation Roundtable (ORR)..........................    73
    RFS Congressional and EPA letters............................    75
    Safe Routes Act..............................................    79
    Sustainable Forestry Initiative Statement....................    83

 
            SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY'S ROLE IN CLIMATE SOLUTIONS

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

              House of Representatives,    
               Committee on Small Business,
                       Subcommittee on Underserved,
              Agricultural, and Rural Business Development,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in 
Room 2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jared Golden 
[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Golden, Carter, Delgado, Williams, 
Hagedorn, Stauber, and Salazar.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Good morning, everyone. I call this 
hearing to order.
    And, without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
a recess at any time.
    I am going to begin in noting some important requirements. 
Let me first say that standing House and Committee rules and 
practice continue to apply during hybrid proceedings.
    All Members are reminded that they are expected to adhere 
to standing rules, including the rules of decorum. House 
regulations require Members to be visible through a video 
connection throughout the proceedings, so keep your cameras on. 
Also, please remember to remain muted until you are recognized, 
in order to minimize background noise. If you have to 
participate in another proceeding, exit this one and log back 
in later.
    In the event a Member encounters technical issues that 
prevent them from being recognized for their questioning, I 
will move to the next available Member of the same party, and I 
will recognize that Member at the next appropriate time slot, 
provided they have returned to the proceeding.
    For Members and staff physically present in the Committee 
room today, in accordance with the attending physician's most 
recent guidance, Members and staff who attend this hybrid 
hearing in person will be required to wear a mask in the 
hearing room. Furthermore, all Members and staff who have not 
been fully vaccinated must maintain 6-foot social distancing. 
With that said, Members will be allowed to briefly remove their 
masks if they have been recognized to speak. That includes 
those who are here with us testifying today, as well Mr. Dane.
    I will now do a quick brief opening statement, kind of 
brief; we will see.
    In the State of Maine, we are home to a strong logging and 
forest products industry, and it has been that way throughout 
our history. Thousands of Mainers make their living in the 
woods or in mills, making things out of wood fiber.
    The industry has faced tough times in recent decades for a 
variety of reasons, from trade policies, outsourcing of jobs, 
demand slumps, and more. The loggers and other forest products 
workers, many of them small businesses, love what they do, and 
they have kept at it as a way of making a good living and as a 
way of life.
    That is important because small businesses in the forest 
products industry and the sustainable forestry they practice in 
Maine are primed to play an important role in the growth of 
renewable energy in combatting climate change in the years to 
come. It is a great opportunity for small businesses in rural 
heavily forested States like Maine and for the communities that 
they call home.
    America's forests and woodlands are vast. These natural 
resources cover about a third of the country and nearly 90 
percent of my State. These forests house diverse wildlife, 
improve air and water quality, sequester carbon dioxide, and 
provide critical resources for the U.S. and countries 
worldwide. Sustainable forestry seeks to manage forests to 
support the natural forest resources and ecosystem services we 
need now and in the future. These practices include protecting 
forests from wildfire, pests, and diseases, and preserving 
forests.
    I am proud to say my home State of Maine has many 
landowners and businesses that use these practices. We have a 
healthy forest as a result.
    Sustainable forestry can also help combat the impact of 
climate change, which has already begun to hurt forest health 
across the country. Unpredictable temperature changes, drought, 
fire, and invasive pests pose a fundamental threat to our 
beloved woodlands.
    Fortunately, sustainable forestry can maintain and restore 
carbon sequestration in forests, helping to fight climate 
change and keep our forests intact. The people doing this 
sustainable forestry are often small businesses. As I said, 
they are logging operators, forest products companies, biomass 
facilities, and many more. These are folks who create jobs and 
keep their local economies moving, while keeping our forests 
healthy and contributing to efforts to mitigate climate change.
    And as we are seeing, the market for the products that 
sustainable forestry produces is full of potential. Woody 
biomass, such as waste from logging and milling, can be used in 
industrial applications to produce steam and electricity, 
reducing the use of fossil fuels. Cross-laminated timber is 
being used in buildings in the U.S. and across the world. And 
innovative new forest products hit the market every year.
    Keeping our forests healthy helps to promote 
sustainability, address climate change, and ensure that small 
businesses and workers in rural areas share in the economic 
benefits.
    As Congress looks to address and mitigate the negative 
sides of climate change and bolster American small businesses 
with the bipartisan infrastructure bill and other legislation, 
we should support industries that help on both fronts.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how 
policies can be put together here in Congress that will help 
them to be successful businesses, as businessowners, that will 
help them to continue to make a living the way that they choose 
and enjoy while also taking part in good sustainable forestry 
that makes for a healthy forest.
    I would now like to yield to Mr. Stauber who is--I am 
sorry, I am not yielding to Mr. Stauber for opening statements; 
rather, recognizing Ranking Member Hagedorn for his opening 
statement.
    And it is a real pleasure to be here with you today. Thanks 
for joining us. And I was very glad to find out you would be 
attending this morning.
    Mr. HAGEDORN. I thank you, Chairman. Appreciate you holding 
this hearing. And I look forward to the witnesses' accounts. 
You could have yield to Mr. Stauber. He is quite an expert on 
these issues, and I look forward to hearing some of his 
comments in just a little bit.
    Minnesota, like many places around the country, home to 
some beautiful forests and provide us incredible scenery, but 
also some awesome products that we use every day and we rely on 
every day. And this hearing is a lot about how we can help 
small businesses to continue to provide those types of products 
to the American people. And let's face it, there are distinct 
similarities in the economic challenges facing small businesses 
in any rural economy, whether it be agriculture, forestry, 
mining, or whatever sector. All rural economies are vital and 
important to the health of our country, and forest product 
sector is no different.
    Forest products make up about 1.5 percent of the total U.S. 
economy and contribute about 5 percent of America's total 
manufacturing output. That is quite large when you think about 
it. And for many rural States, timber is the economic 
cornerstone contributing a substantial amount of employment 
income.
    The timber provides higher than average wages, a variety of 
opportunities for employment, manufacturing sales, and a host 
of other economic opportunities, all contributing to a robust 
and dynamic rural forest economy.
    Rural forest economies depend on the tireless efforts of 
small businesses executing forest management practices day in 
and day out. Historically, the timber industry has--primarily 
consists of small, multigenerational, family-owned businesses 
with less than 20 employees. People would think they are 
actually probably big companies. Not so. The margins generated 
by these businesses are slim. Just 1 to 3 percent on average. 
And they assume millions of dollars in bank loans for expensive 
logging equipment on top of daily operating needs.
    So, you know, there is a lot at risk, a lot at play. Our 
small businesses are on the hook, and still those margins are 
very small. We have to do what we can to help.
    This places significant financial pressure on small 
businesses to harvest timber year-round. Unfortunately, current 
events have exacerbated the economic challenges these small 
businesses are already facing in this industry. The COVID-19 
pandemic shuttered schools, offices, and other industries 
reliant on paper. Pandemic-related closures of essential links 
and forestry supply chain, such as mills and other wood 
consumers, have placed timber harvesters and haulers in a vise, 
threatening their incomes.
    Compounding the problem are recent increases in operational 
expenses due to skyrocketing inflation, such as the rising cost 
of fuel, which has culminated in a 10 to 40 percent loss in 
revenue for many small businesses compared to the same 
timeframe in 2019.
    Small businesses in the timber industry are also grappling 
with significant, longer-term economic consequences stemming 
from the recent heavy wildfire activity. Small businesses lost 
valuable logging equipment, suffered from idle operations, and 
saw their incomes go up literally in smoke as millions of acres 
of revenue-generating timber were badly burned or damaged. 
These losses will be felt for generations, as it takes decades 
for lands to be rehabilitated and new growth to mature for 
harvest.
    Congress must work in bipartisan fashion to help better 
serve the forestry industry. One bill out there, H.R. 2612, the 
RESTORE Act, introduced by my friend, Congressman Doug LaMalfa 
of California, would allow for landscape sale of management 
projects to give foresters a more reliable access to federal 
timber, which often gets tied up with unnecessary litigation. 
This is especially important to the countless number of 
foresters who depend on a reliable source of federal timber and 
serve as partners in the Forest Service efforts to properly 
manage our forestlands to prevent fires.
    Congressman LaMalfa offered the RESTORE ACT as an amendment 
to the agriculture bill. I was there and voted for it, but 
unfortunately it was blocked by the majority.
    To close, I would like to highlight just one more challenge 
facing small businesses in the American forestry industry, 
namely, its aging and declining workforce. The Bureau of Labor 
Statistics projects that over 7,000 openings for logging 
workers, on average for each year over the next decade--so 
7,000 jobs open each year for--during this next decade. This 
logging has been characterized as difficult, dirty, dangerous, 
and even declining. However, the adoption of modern technology 
is attempting to disrupt this perception, creating a more high-
tech working environment from qualified and skilled tradesmen 
to mechanical engineers.
    I hope from the testimony of our esteemed panel we will 
learn more about how we can reignite interest in this noble 
profession, grasp a better understanding of the economic 
realities, and try to have some good government policies in 
order to further their businesses.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you.
    I would like to take a moment to explain how the hearing 
will now proceed. Each witness has 5 minutes to provide a 
statement, and each Committee Member will have 5 minutes for 
questions. Please ensure that your microphone is on when you 
begin speaking and that you return to mute when finished.
    We will now quickly introduce our witnesses.
    Our first witness is Mr. Dana Doran, executive director of 
the Professional Logging Contractors of Maine. Prior to 
representing Maine's independent logging contractors, he served 
with both public and private organizations, including the U.S. 
Department of Labor, the Maine Department of Labor, Central 
Maine Power Company, and Kennebec Valley Community College.
    Thank you for joining us today, Dana.
    Our second witness is Dr. Adam Daigneault--you will have to 
forgive me if I mispronounce this, sir--associate professor of 
Forest Policy and Economics at the University of Maine. He is 
the head of the UMaine Forest Policy and Economics Lab. His 
research focuses on a wide range of issues, including 
freshwater management, climate change mitigation and 
adaptation, and assessing the socioeconomic impacts of 
environmental policy on the natural resource sectors.
    Thank you for joining us today.
    And I can tell you they do amazing work, the University of 
Maine, and they are great partners with folks like the logging 
contractors and the forest products industry in the State.
    Our third witness is Mr. Mark Thibodeau, regional manager 
for ReEnergy Biomass Operations in Maine. ReEnergy's bioenergy 
facilities transform sustainably sourced woody biomass, other 
wood waste, and other organic residues into renewable clean 
energy that provides power to thousands of homes and businesses 
in Maine. Mr. Thibodeau is a lifelong Mainer and a graduate of 
the Maine Maritime Academy.
    Thanks for joining us today.
    And Mr. Stauber will now introduce the minority witness.
    Mr. STAUBER. Well, thank you, Chairman Golden and Ranking 
Member Hagedorn, for your leadership on this Committee. It has 
been wonderful to work with you.
    You know, northern Minnesota is blessed to have a rich 
forest landscape and a robust logging and milling industry, 
acting as a keystone of our State's economic engine. Therefore, 
I look forward to the discussion ahead of us today on the role 
of small business and forest management and carbon 
sequestration.
    First of all, forest management, and especially logging, 
means solutions. Forest management is a solution to preventing 
and mitigating wildfires. Forest management is a solution to 
ensuring sustainable public lands. Forest management is a 
solution in facilitating recreation. Forest management is a 
solution for economic development and job creation. And forest 
management is a solution to sequestration of carbon.
    And all of these solutions through forest management is 
driven by the small business community. In my district and 
nationwide, tens of thousands of loggers work in private, 
county, State, and federally owned forests, creating jobs and 
finding solutions. So let's be clear, so-called climate 
solutions are impossible without logging and forest management.
    For example, in Minnesota and throughout the nation, our 
loggers plant three trees for every one harvested. As we all 
know, these living trees sequester carbon and, towards the end 
of their lifecycle, create more jobs. On the other hand, a dead 
tree that falls into the woods isn't just a proverb; it emits 
carbon into the atmosphere and provides fuel for wildfires, 
multiplying its carbon intensity.
    Our forests sequester 15 percent of American's carbon each 
year. But this is impossible without the proactive management 
and reforestation efforts of small logging companies throughout 
our nation. However, our logging businesses are discouraged due 
to this administration's mounting crisis and poor policymaking.
    And here are several examples. Transportation fuel costs 
are up exponentially. Why? This administration opted to ban 
domestic oil and gas development and instead rely on OPEC to 
provide the fuels our small business truckers need to move the 
product to market. Skyrocketing energy prices and economic 
shutdowns endanger mills, meaning fewer markets for logs and 
timber products. Passage of big land bills and amendments that 
take federal lands completely offline mean our loggers can't 
proactively manage our forests, they can't clear dead trees, 
and they can't help to prevent wildfires.
    Furthermore, older loggers are aging out of this 
profession. And because there is more land offline and fewer 
markets than ever before, the younger generation doesn't see 
the promise of those future logging jobs.
    Burdensome regulations for public land management, coupled 
with lawsuit after lawsuit from activist groups, complicate 
project permitting and tie up projects in legal costs.
    Moreover, this administration's nominee to lead the Bureau 
of Land Management endangers the lives of loggers. In Idaho, 
with tree spiking, a form of eco-terrorism, illustrating 
further hostility to these small business loggers. I don't know 
of a way to discourage logging more than to nominate someone 
who willfully put lives of loggers at stake as a leader of one 
of our largest land management agencies.
    So in order for responsible forest management to continue, 
we need to support policies that encourage instead of 
discourage logging. We need cheap, reliable energy for 
transportation and the powering of our mills. We need to 
expedite the process for compliance. We need to reform our 
broken NEPA process and keep loggers in the woods, not in the 
courtroom.
    We need to pass my own bill, the Healthy Forests for 
Hunters Act, which streamlines environmental reviews for timber 
projects on federal land that benefit wildlife habitat, 
simultaneously supporting forest management and boosting 
hunting opportunities nationwide. And we need to vote against 
land packages and amendments that halt responsible management.
    We need to encourage loggers to grow into the profession 
with robust workforce--with a robust workforce, pipelines, and 
administrators of land management agencies that aren't a threat 
to our small business and our logging community.
    If we do these things, we will empower our small business 
loggers and truckers to do what they do best, which is manage 
our forests, find solutions, including climate solutions.
    With all that said, I am pleased to introduce a constituent 
of mine as the Republican witness today. Scott Dane currently 
serves as the executive director of the American Loggers 
Council, which represents nearly 10,000 small businesses and 
50,000 employees and spans 30 States. Prior to this role, Scott 
served as executive director of the Minnesota Associated 
Contract Loggers and Truckers, our State's association 
representing the small businesses that play a key role in 
northern Minnesota's economy.
    There are few who can speak with more authority than Scott 
on timber and transportation. As he tells us in his opening 
remark, our loggers are key to forest health and a thriving 
economy. As a once-in-a-half-a-century wildfire raged across 
northern Minnesota, the loggers Scott represents played a key 
role in creating fire breaks and working to mitigate the 
damage.
    Scott, thank you for your advocacy, and thank you to the 
loggers for their hard work, and their families. I look forward 
to your testimony.
    Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you very much.
    I am now going to go to our witness testimony. And we will 
begin with Mr. Doran, who is recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF MR. DANA DORAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PROFESSIONAL 
LOGGING CONTRACTORS OF MAINE, AUGUSTA, ME; DR. ADAM DAIGNEAULT, 
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY 
  OF MAINE, ORONO, ME; MR. MARK THIBODEAU, REGIONAL MANAGER, 
 REENERGY STRATTON LLC, CARRABASSETT VALLEY, ME; AND MR. SCOTT 
 DANE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN LOGGER COUNCIL, GILBERT, MN

                    STATEMENT OF DANA DORAN

    Mr. DORAN. Good morning, Chairman Golden, Ranking Member 
Hagedorn, and Members of the Committee on Small Business, 
Subcommittee on Underserved, Agricultural, and Rural 
Development. My name is Dana Doran, and I am the executive 
director of the Professional Logging Contractors of Maine.
    The PLC of Maine is the voice of independent logging and 
associated trucking contractors throughout the State of Maine. 
Our organization was formed in 1995 to provide contractors with 
a voice in a rapidly changing forest industry. I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak before you today.
    As of 2017, logging and trucking contractors in Maine 
employed over 3,900 people directly and were indirectly 
responsible for the creation of an additional 5,400 jobs. This 
employment and the investments that contractors make contribute 
more than $620 million to our State's economy each year. Our 
membership, which includes about 210 contractor Members, 
employs over 2,500 people and is responsible for 80 percent of 
Maine's annual timber harvest.
    Thank you very much again for providing me the opportunity 
to testify on behalf of our membership in the state regarding 
sustainable forestry's role in climate solutions. Thanks as 
well for recognizing the work of our national partner with the 
American Loggers Council and having Mr. Dane before you today.
    Whether it is here in Maine or across the United States, 
the timber harvesting community is a vital part of the 
responsible management of our nation's forests, as well as a 
vital partner in creating solutions for preservation of our 
climate.
    Many on this Committee might find it odd for a trade 
association that represents loggers and truckers in the state, 
typically a conservative group, to stand before you today to 
discuss how timber harvesting can be part of the solution and 
not part of the problem as it relates to climate change. With 
that in mind, I can say with great honesty that this perception 
is not reality when it comes to Maine's logging and trucking 
community.
    Over the last 20 years, we have learned to recognize and 
prepare for our role in climate mitigation through our work on 
the ground. We have been accustomed to wildly changing weather 
patterns, mud seasons that extend not just weeks but months, 
and the influence of invasive species and pests in the forest. 
As a result, the timber harvesting community has been required 
to adapt quickly.
    Two decades ago, our Members could work between 46 and 52 
weeks a year. Mud season was restricted to the months of April 
and May, but now, our members are limited to work between 38 
and 44 weeks per year. It is clear to Maine's legacy industry 
that climate and weather patterns have indeed changed, and this 
change is adding cost and lowering profitability.
    During the same time, there has been an ad hoc approach to 
both technology and public policy. While well intended public 
policy changes for the respective mandates have brought about 
positive change on one side, I can tell you that they have had 
a negative impact upon our industry.
    One primary example of this is the use of tier 4 engines, 
which has been mandated by both Congress and the federal 
government. While the technology has been positive in terms of 
curbing emissions, and we have fully adopted it, it has also 
added cost in terms of 25 to 50 percent to every piece of 
equipment used in this industry over the last 10 years.
    Loggers and truckers are price takers and have no ability 
to charge more for the work that they do. And so it is our 
opinion that changes like this can have a positive impact, but 
you have got to take into consideration the negative impacts at 
the same time. Loggers and truckers were never included in the 
discussions that took place in Congress related to this policy 
change, and, therefore, we just ask that going forward we are 
included for any future changes that take place.
    From a state perspective, I would like to touch upon what 
Maine has done in terms of a leadership role. Our current 
Governor, Governor Janet Mills, has created a climate council 
as well as a forest carbon task force. I have been a Member of 
both the climate council as well as the forest carbon task 
force over the last two years.
    In terms of the Mills administration climate action plan, 
it has been very obvious that forests are part of a carbon 
storage and climate mitigation strategy, especially timber 
harvesting contractors. But, there must be incentives to 
promote high-quality, on-the-ground performance by loggers and 
investment in low-impact harvesting equipment. To achieve both 
goals, contractors must work to reduce emissions and minimize 
impacts, but there must be financial incentives to do so.
    Here in Maine, we have something called the Direct Link 
Loan Program, which has been funded by U.S. EPA water quality 
funding. It has been a help to lower the cost of harvesting 
equipment, but at the same time we don't have enough funding. 
And I would ask this Committee to consider including more 
funding for that program and making it a statewide--excuse me, 
a nationwide program.
    Lastly, our Master Logger Program, which we created here in 
the State of Maine back in the year 2000, which is the world's 
only third-party certification program for logging contractors, 
has now been adopted in 19 other States and has been adopted in 
three other foreign countries and is on target to expand to an 
additional three other foreign countries in the future. It is 
similar to the Forest Stewardship Council as well as in 
addition to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.
    And I would ask that Congress take a hard, fast look at 
this and try to adopt it for federal agencies, federal forests. 
We would like to see the federal government actually adopt it 
as a requirement for working on federal forests, not just 
forest management standards with SFI and FSC, but also look at 
third-party certification for timber harvesting contractors at 
the same time.
    In my written testimony today, you will see the benefits of 
the Master Logger Program, where it has been adopted, why it is 
so important, and why third-party certification of logging 
companies and not just training for loggers is more important 
in the long run.
    So, with that, I think I have come to the end of my 
testimony. I am happy to answer any questions at the end of the 
hearing by any Members.
    And, again, I would like to thank Congressman Golden and 
Ranking Member Hagedorn for inviting me today and participating 
before the Committee. Thanks very much. Appreciate your time.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you.
    Dana, you got to see if you can screen-share some photos of 
me on some of the equipment up there for the Members down here, 
driving around, you know, learning a thing or two.
    But it is a great program he was talking about. We will 
have more time to talk about it later.
    Next up--I am not going to do you the disservice of 
butchering your last name. Adam, you are up. And you can call 
me Jared anytime.
    You are still on mute.

                  STATEMENT OF ADAM DAIGNEAULT

    Mr. DAIGNEAULT. My apologies.
    All right. Thank you, Chairman Jared Golden, Ranking Member 
Hagedorn, and Members of this Subcommittee, for holding this 
hearing today and the opportunity to testify on this important 
topic. My name is Dr. Adam Daigneault, or Daigneault--as our 
namesake comes from your hometown of Lewiston, Jared--and I am 
an associate professor of Forest Policy and Economics here at 
University of Maine. I have been working on issues related to 
forest management economics and policy for nearly two decades.
    Forests across the globe are highly valued for their 
diverse ecosystem services, including timber, fiber, and fuel 
resources, carbon sequestration, freshwater habitat, 
recreation, and cultural values.
    As noted by Member Hagedorn's opening remarks, across the 
U.S., forest-related businesses support at least 3 million jobs 
and generate around 5 percent of total manufacturing GDP. 
However, forest resources across the country face increasing 
pressures from shifting markets, land use change, policy, and 
climate change.
    U.S. forest systems, ecosystems, and the wood they produce 
are a large carbon sink. Our forest sector removes more than 12 
percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions. And while forest 
carbon stocks are increasing in this country, it is uncertain 
if this trend will persist with changing socioeconomic and 
climatic conditions. Thus, forests have an immense potential to 
help mitigate climate change if landowners are provided 
adequate incentives and technical assistance.
    Forest carbon is a low-cost climate solution, and 
nationwide sequester rates could double with the proper 
incentives. For example, Maine's forest and wood products 
already remove about 70 percent of the State's annual 
greenhouse gas emissions, expect to be a huge contributor to 
achieving their net-zero emissions target by 2045.
    Sustainable forest management and harvests are key to 
enhancing forest carbon sinks. Without this, forests grow 
slower, are less resilient to climate change, and sequester 
carbon at lower rates. And a wide range of sustainable forest 
management practices should be used to promote climate 
solutions while maintaining timber supply. These include 
quickly regenerating sites with climate change resistant 
species, reducing the risk of loss to natural disturbance, 
conducting treatments to increase growth, and using efficient, 
climate-friendly harvesting practices.
    Markets are really key to maintaining the health and 
sustainability of our forests. Finding new uses for wood and 
supporting rural communities to ensure vibrant workforce can 
improve forest health. Robust and stable timber markets enable 
to carefully plan harvest of trees that allow forests to have 
appropriate stocking levels, balanced age classes, and species 
diversity.
    Continued research and development into new and more 
efficient uses of wood are critical to supporting our rural 
economies. These include wood bioenergy, biofuels, mass timber, 
nanocellulose-based products, and bioplastics. The University 
of Maine is researching many of these innovations thanks to 
grants from the USDA, DOE, NSF, and more.
    As noted, markets play a key role also in keeping forests 
as forests. Land is a commodity, and low-value land risks being 
converted to alternative uses. We need to promote markets for 
all grades of wood and forest uses that will help maintain or 
increase its value, incentivize management, and reduce 
deforestation.
    Timber harvesting is necessary to meet both societal needs 
and mitigate climate change. Nearly 20 percent of our forest 
carbon is in harvested wood products, which can be substituted 
for emissions-intensive materials like steel and concrete. 
Incentivizing practices that maintain our increased harvest and 
carbon will be a win-win for society and the climate.
    Wood-based bioenergy is part of the climate solution. 
Bioenergy markets increase forest value and incentivize removal 
of wood that otherwise dies and releases carbon. Putting this 
to use can reduce fossil fuel emissions. A federal renewable 
energy standard for sustainably harvested biomass would improve 
low-grade wood markets.
    Several federal programs could be utilized to incentivize 
forest management and enhance carbon sinks. These include the 
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service programs like 
EQIP and CSP, and the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Stewardship, 
Forest Legacy, and Forest Inventory Analysis programs, to name 
a few. Enhancing these programs can improve forest conditions 
and wood utilization, thereby increasing both carbon stocks and 
the flow of timber products.
    Additional funding must be devoted to reducing the risk of 
wildfire and other natural disturbances. Maintaining or 
increasing federal tax incentives, like the management and 
reforestation deductions, will incentivize landowners to 
actively manage their land for timber, carbon, and other co-
benefits. We must continue to support research and economic 
development in the forest products and land management sectors 
through federal grants from the USDA, DOE, NSF, EDA, and 
others.
    The opportunities and challenges for sustainably managing 
our forests for timber, carbon, and other ecosystem services 
are notably complex. Given the recent changes to our forest 
ecosystems in the wood products sector, there is more need than 
ever to employ the very best science to inform decision-making. 
We must continue to research and promote opportunities that 
simultaneously improve the resilience of our forests and the 
rural economies and people who depend on this key natural 
resource.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on this topic. 
I invite you all to visit Maine and see all the great things 
that are going on at our universities and working forests to 
implement sustainable forest management and grow our forest 
economy.
    And, Representative Golden, I look forward to seeing you 
again in December at the Millinocket Marathon.
    Thank you.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you, Professor Daigneault. Did I get 
that one better? Getting closer?
    So, actually, growing up, I always wondered why my great-
grandmother called me ``Jerod''. And they came down out of like 
Chicoutimi, to the Lewiston area. But the French-speaking 
tradition stopped with my mother's generation, at least with 
me, but it sounded familiar, Lewiston area.
    Mr. DAIGNEAULT. Yeah, it is the same for me as well, but--
--
    Chairman GOLDEN. Absolutely. By the way, I am not sure that 
I have a half marathon in me. That was a brutal race. That was 
a cold day. And I had a good time, and it was for a great 
cause. And you want to talk about an old mill town, very, very 
much related to this.
    Mr. DAIGNEAULT. Yeah. And it is an excellent way to--you 
know, innovative ways that people are trying to, you know, prop 
up the rural communities.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Yeah, that is right. Absolutely. Thanks, 
Professor.
    Next, we will hear from Mr. Thibodeau.

                  STATEMENT OF MARK THIBODEAU

    Mr. THIBODEAU. All right. Good morning, Chairman Jared 
Golden, Ranking Member Jim Hagedorn, and Members of the 
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you to discuss sustainable forestry's role as a climate 
solution. I will be speaking specifically to wood energy as a 
climate solution this morning.
    My name is Mark Thibodeau. I am a lifelong Mainer, and I am 
a graduate of Maine Maritime Academy with a degree in marine 
systems engineering. I live in Maine's Second Congressional 
District, and I serve as regional manager for the energy 
biomass operations. I have managed five biomass power plants in 
Maine in the course of my career as well as five in California.
    In Maine, ReEnergy operates two biomass power facilities, 
both in the Second Congressional District. We operate a 39-
megawatt facility in Livermore Falls and a 48-megawatt facility 
in Stratton. We use sustainably harvested forest and mill 
residue as fuel to generate baseloaded renewable electricity. I 
like to stress the baseloaded portion of that.
    The Stratton facility supplies--also supplies and provides 
electricity directly to the adjacent lumber mill. Our wood ash 
from the Stratton facility is also used by more than a hundred 
Maine farms as a soil amendment for balancing soil pH and 
enhancing nutrient levels, and has also been approved as an 
organic fertilizer.
    ReEnergy also operates a 60-megawatt biomass power facility 
in New York, the ReEnergy Black River facility, which is 
located inside the fence at the U.S. Army installation of Fort 
Drum. That plant provides all the post's electricity from 
behind the meter, creating inner security and resiliency.
    And, lastly, we operate a 50-megawatt Albany Green Energy 
facility that is a 50-megawatt biomass heat-and-power facility 
located in Albany, Georgia. This facility supplies electricity 
to Georgia Power and steam to Proctor & Gamble and a nearby 
Marine Corps Logistics Base.
    I would like to discuss how biomass energy supports 
sustainable forestry. Sustainable forestry is an important 
contributor to mitigating climate change and reducing the risk 
of wildfire. When forested lands are maintained and harvested 
in a sustainable way, the forest continues to grow and consume 
atmospheric carbon.
    Wood markets and wood utilization are essential to forest 
maintenance. Without an outlet for owners to sell their 
harvested wood, the owners are more likely to sell the land for 
other uses.
    Biomass product is an important component of the larger 
wood market. After the higher value fiber is sold to make 
lumber, furniture, or paper, the landowner is left with lower 
value fiber like tops, the limbs, and thinnings that cannot 
easily be made into other wood products. When these leftovers 
or residues are sold to a biomass power facility, the landowner 
is able to further capitalize on that harvest, and the unusable 
fibers go toward generating baseloaded renewable energy.
    The biomass power facilities are located primarily in rural 
areas with active forests and/or agricultural economies. In 
some areas, biomass power facilities are actively involved in 
the reduction of catastrophic wildfires by repurposing forest 
debris that is very hazardous during wildfire season.
    Our fuel suppliers follow best management practices that 
ensure sustainable forest management. In all of our 
communities, forest growth greatly exceeds removals.
    What are some of the carbon benefits of biomass? Energy 
generated from biomass is recognized as having carbon benefits 
by most scientists as well as many environmental organizations 
and regulators. This is because the carbon released by biomass 
power generation is already part of the carbon cycle 
circulating between the atmosphere and the biosphere. Thus, 
like other types of renewable energy, including wind, solar, 
geothermal, and hydro, biomass energy production displaces 
greenhouse gas emissions that would have been produced had that 
energy been generated from fossil fuels.
    Even though the combustion of biomass generates biogenic 
emissions of CO2 on a gross basis, when the lifecycle benefits 
of biomass are calculated, the net emissions for biomass are 
considered neutral or negligible, depending on the type of 
biomass. My written testimony provides much more information on 
the carbon benefits of biomass.
    With respect to federal policy issues, we are active 
Members of the Biomass Power Association, and it often seems to 
us that biomass power is the least understood renewable energy 
resource. We have been working for years to urge the 
Environmental Protection Agency to implement the electricity 
portion of the renewable fuel standard and activate its biomass 
pathways, for an example, and to address definitional 
interpretations of the term ``biomass'' in the Renewable Fuel 
Standard.
    Without equitable policy support, it can become difficult 
for biomass to serve as a robust part of the country's 
renewable energy portfolio. We have been trying to address tax 
inequities that prioritize the growth of other renewable 
technologies at the expense of biomass and other baseloads.
    Regarding the role of biomass in underserved communities, 
there are many underserved communities across the country that 
rely on forestry for income, with biomass being part of their 
revenue stream. For example, Native Americans are the largest 
owners of commercial forestry resource in the United States, 
controlling 16 million acres of forestland. Some of our fuel at 
our facilities here in Maine comes from Tribal land managed by 
the Penobscot nation. My written testimony provides additional 
examples of underserved communities involved in the forestry 
sector.
    So, with that, I appreciate the opportunity to provide 
testimony today to the Committee, and I thank you for your 
public service. Please feel free to contact me at anytime with 
questions or concerns.
    And as always, Representative Golden, you are always 
welcome for a plant tour, as well as any other Members.
    Thank you.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. And now we will hear from Mr. 
Dane.

                    STATEMENT OF SCOTT DANE

    Mr. DANE. Chairman Golden, Ranking Member Hagedorn, and 
esteemed Committee Members of the Subcommittee on Underserved, 
Agricultural, and Rural Business Development, I appear before 
you today on behalf of the American Loggers Council, a 
nonprofit timber industry trade association representing 30 
States, to address the role that forest industry performs in 
supporting sustainable forestry and the contribution that 
healthy managed forests provide in addressing climate issues.
    Put simply, loggers ensure healthy forests. As a Minnesota 
DNR commissioner told a prior governor, Governor, the Minnesota 
DNR doesn't manage the forests; the loggers do it for us. 
Public and private land managers cannot accomplish their 
healthy forest objectives without loggers. Healthy forests 
depend upon a healthy, stable, sustainable timber industry. You 
can have both, but you cannot have one, healthy forests, 
without the other--loggers.
    The logging industry represents jobs in rural America. 
Although the timber resource continues to increase, logging 
capacity continues to decrease. This is the result of minimal 
profit margins, high capital investment requirements, forest 
products, mill closures--or forest product mill closure due to 
shifting markets, including the COVID pandemic, for traditional 
forest products such as paper, and workforce development 
challenges.
    For the most part, loggers have not seen much, if any, 
increase in the delivered price for wood sold to mills in the 
last 10 years. While they are in the same period, equipment 
costs have increased 30 percent, insurance premiums have 
increased 20 percent, and, recently, fuel prices have increased 
50 percent. When lumber prices skyrocketed this year, most 
loggers did not see any benefit, and in some cases actually 
experienced price cuts.
    From a workforce development perspective, the timber 
industry workforce is aging, with the median age being well 
over 50 years old. The workforce is predicted to continue to 
decline by 14 percent over the next 8 years.
    Logging is difficult and dangerous work, but those risks 
should not reflect it in the wages and benefits paid. Logging 
is not competitive with other comparable industries, and 
younger workers are not entering the logging industry at the 
rate that older workers are leaving.
    One of the greatest challenges is transportation. There is 
not enough trucking capacity to meet the demand. Additionally, 
insurance rates in some regions are $10,000 to $15,000 per 
truck per year. Trucking is the weak link in the timber 
industry supply chain.
    The American Loggers Council has submitted a briefing paper 
as part of our full testimony that addresses these challenges, 
and proposes legislative and policy changes that would provide 
assistance in resolving some of these issues.
    However, this is about more than rural agricultural jobs. 
Healthy forests are vital to addressing climate change and, 
particularly, carbon sequestration. Nothing absorbs and stores 
more carbon than forests. That is why the global Trillion Tree 
Initiative was joined by the United States in recognition of 
the carbon sequestration role that trees provide.
    We need young, healthy, diverse, and growing forests, not 
overmature, dead, diseased, and dying trees, and certainly not 
burning forests. Older forests absorb and sequester two-thirds 
less carbon than younger forests. If we don't agree upon that, 
then the timber industry will have limited opportunity to 
contribute to sustainable forestry as part of carbon 
sequestration and climate solutions.
    Poor forest management does not create healthy forests, but 
instead negates the potentially positive benefits that would 
otherwise be achieved from sustainable forestry practices. This 
is evident in the increase in wildfires in the U.S. and around 
the world. Global wildfire carbon dioxide emissions are at 
record highs.
    The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service of the EU 
found that burning forests released 1.3 gigatons of carbon 
dioxide last month alone; the highest since the organization 
began measurements in 2003. The U.S. was a leading contributor. 
Scientists are concerned that areas with dense vegetation, 
including many of our national forests, have become the 
source--are becoming a source rather than a sink of greenhouse 
gases.
    A recent study that the U.S. Forest Service participated in 
acknowledged that a warming climate has extended the wildfire 
for obvious reasons. However, the study found that climate 
change accounts for just 14 percent of the influence of more 
destructive wildfires, while noting that live fuel was the 
largest factor accounting for 53 percent.
    Last May, I had the opportunity to fly over and survey the 
aftermath of wildfires in California. A video of the helicopter 
survey was produced and is included in my full testimony for 
the Congressional Record. If that video does not initiate an 
honest, science-based dialogue to develop a new national policy 
on forest management, wildfire mitigation, timber salvage, and 
restoration, nothing will.
    Sustainable forestry practiced and performed by the 
American timber and forest products industry is part of a 
solution in meeting the objectives of climate initiatives. 
However, it is entirely dependent on the rural jobs that the 
timber and forest products industries provide. The timber 
industry, healthy forests, and rural jobs are the climate 
solution.
    Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you all very much for your opening 
statements here.
    We are going to get to the Q&A portion now, and I will go 
ahead and kick things off with my 5 minutes.
    I think both Mr. Dane and Doran talked a little bit about 
some of the pandemic-driven related struggles of the logging 
industry over the last year. And as you both know, no doubt the 
Maine delegation in particular, although we have certainly had 
allies here in Congress, to get additional support for loggers 
and logging truck drivers that have been struggling through the 
COVID-19 pandemic.
    Could you talk a little bit about how the COVID-19 pandemic 
impacted the timber industry and why relief was needed for 
these small businesses at the same time that consumers were 
seeing higher lumber prices? In addition, can you talk about 
the success to date of the program? I know they haven't closed 
out the applications, but what do you expect in regards to the 
overall success of the program? And what are you concerned 
about as you look forward over the next year?
    And I think we can start with Mr. Doran. Mr. Dane, if we 
have some time, you can comment.
    Mr. DORAN. Sure. I would be happy to. Thank you, Chairman 
Golden, Jared. And I do have photos of you. If you would like 
me to screen-share, I would be happy to put them up so there is 
actual proof of your work in the woods. I will look for your 
discretion on that.
    So in terms of your question, you know, starting with the 
pandemic and the impact. So in 2020, you know, we saw, 
basically, the pandemic start before it even came to the United 
States. As a result of the pandemic and its impact upon China 
and the Far East, we started to see markets start to close or 
be reduced as far back as January of 2020, and it just 
dissipated from there, between pulp and paper impacts, saw log 
products, obviously, disruption of demand paper products, 
whether it is in office buildings or restaurants, et cetera. In 
2020, our Members saw a drop of between 30 and 50 percent, and 
that has just compounded over the last 18 months.
    You alluded to what has happened with saw log markets. All 
of you read the headlines of sky-high lumber prices. I can tell 
you firsthand that here in the state, it wasn't a supply and 
demand issue. The log yards were full, and so there was a very 
high supply from the contractors that provide those solid log 
products to manufacturers. And then, obviously, demand was sky 
high. So it was not a simple supply and demand issue. Money 
literally just did not trickle down to the supply chain.
    So we have been hit by a double whammy, so to speak. We are 
very, very thankful for the work of our Maine delegation, 
especially Jared Golden and Senator Susan Collins, and the rest 
of our delegation, for providing the pandemic assistance for 
timber harvest, as in haulers, that was included in the omnibus 
appropriations bill that passed Congress back in December of 
2020, and finally hit the street by USDA in late July of this 
year.
    Maine has taken the lead with respect to applications in 
that program. We are nearing nearly 300 applications. So we are 
pleased to see that folks are taking advantage of it. We don't 
know yet, you know, how much they have applied for and how much 
of the $200 million is actually going to get to them.
    I will say this, the agricultural community and fishing 
community has seen nearly $30 billion of aid. The logging 
community, which has never had a handout or a hand up, so to 
speak, by the federal government is only going to get about 
$200 million nationwide. It is a pittance.
    You know, again, we are not looking for the federal 
government to bail out every contractor, but this funding is 
certainly going to help. But, you can tell by the impacts that 
I am giving you that it is not going to do a tremendous amount, 
but it is going to help those in need to get to the other side 
of this.
    So I will allow Mr. Dane to reflect nationally, but those 
are the impacts here in the State.
    Mr. DANE. Thank you, Chairman. Real quick, yeah, the--from 
my estimation to this point, the funding eligibility across our 
nation will exceed the $200 million appropriation, which is a 
testimony to the need for the funding that was out there and 
everything else.
    How did the pandemic impact the industry directly? 
Interestingly enough, Congressman Stauber's district had a mill 
announce a closure about 15 months ago directly related to the 
impacts of the drop and demand for paper products in the 
offices and schools and that type of thing and permanently 
closed that mill, as well as another mill in Wisconsin that 
permanently closed, that accounted for 20 percent of the timber 
consumption in Wisconsin alone. So it had direct and indirect 
impacts. The assistance has proven helpful.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Well, I am out of time, but I am going to 
just take a little bit of privilege. Any estimate at all on 
what the actual eligibility demand would look like if every 
logging contractor that needed help ended up getting some?
    Mr. DANE. Chairman Golden, yes, the U.S. Forest Service 
conducted a study of the financial impacts as a result of the 
pandemic and estimated just slightly over $1 billion. The 
American Loggers Council did a survey with a consultant that 
estimated a $1.8 billion negative impact directly resulting 
from the pandemic. So, yeah, those are a couple of estimates of 
the entire fiscal financial impact.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. I will certainly have another 
round of questions later.
    Mr. Hagedorn, you are recognized.
    Mr. HAGEDORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Dane, we will kind of stay with you. So listening to 
your testimony, it is clear that, as Congressman Stauber 
brought up, this forest management is very important. If we 
don't manage the forests properly, we are in big trouble on a 
number of fronts. And it seems interesting to me that a lot of 
times you get into States like California where they have a lot 
of fires and it doesn't seem to be that the forests are managed 
properly, and a lot of that is extreme environmentalists 
getting involved, either at the political level or at the 
grassroots level, and preventing people from going in there and 
basically cultivating the forest.
    I represent a farm area. I grew up on a farm. And, you 
know, forest products is just another crop. So I would have it 
over at the Agriculture Department and everything else.
    So it is kind of interesting that they don't let you go in 
and do what you need to do in order to protect the forests. And 
then when they burn down, they say, look at it, it is all 
climate change. But then according to your statistics, no, it 
is not. It is about 8 to 1 or 7 to 1, not doing proper 
management.
    So getting into it, though, you have lots of things going 
on that are cutting into your bottom line, driving up your 
costs; obviously, inflation, things of that nature, policies, 
and just bad government policies. I think there are some bad 
government policies on the horizon that might hurt your small 
businesses. We are looking at the majority party raising taxes 
again that may be making it more difficult for businesses to 
expense their items in current years and things of that nature.
    The tax reform bill that was passed under President Trump, 
I think, helped most of your Members. Would you not agree with 
that?
    Mr. DANE. Mr. Hagedorn, absolutely, I would agree with 
that. As Congressman Stauber mentioned, the margins are 
typically 1 to 3 percent. Any increase in taxes on this 
capital-intensive industry would cut into that. As marginal as 
it is, that in the industry cannot afford to absorb additional 
increases in expenses.
    Mr. HAGEDORN. You don't know of any Members that are asking 
for their taxes to be increased at this point, right?
    Mr. DANE. No, sir.
    Mr. HAGEDORN. Secondly, let's look at these big government 
items. You know, regulations at the federal level can affect 
you. Energy costs, you brought that up. And, you know, what is 
going on in the climate change arena, those things are going to 
drive up the cost of energy, make our energy less reliable. 
That can't help your bottom line.
    And then you get into some of these EPA requirements on 
your heavy equipment and trucks. And I think it was brought up 
by testimony in one of the others where you go from tier 3 to 
tier 4, and the difference might be this much, just this much 
more in trying to clean up the environment, but the cost is 
enormous to industries and driving up consumer costs.
    Can you address that a little bit?
    Mr. DANE. Well, my counterpart, Mr. Doran, did reference 
that, and he is correct. The cost of going to tier 4 has had a 
lot of unintended consequences, negative consequences, first 
and foremost, by adding tens of thousands of dollars to the 
prices of a truck alone or equipment, so that is a problem. 
Dealing with the servicing on those systems that tier 4 
requires, it brings out service technicians out that are 
driving more out to the equipment.
    So I think when you are taking all the indirect impacts, it 
would be marginal, at best, that there would be any 
environmental improvements associated with the tier 4 
equipment.
    Mr. HAGEDORN. And then you brought up a point about how 
important the trucking industry is to your industry or combined 
in many ways, and now you don't--you have a shortage of 
drivers, not enough trucks on the road at a time. My 
understanding is, at any one time in the United States, each 
day there might be a thousand big trucks on the side of the 
road because of these tier 4 requirements, and they just shut 
down and you have to get technicians out. There are no 
technicians, you know. A lot of these places are offering up 
$10,000 bonuses for technicians to start.
    One of the pieces of legislation that I have is the 
American Workforce Empowerment Act that says that if families 
have saved for college education for their kids, that they 
should be able to use that money, not just for 4-year college, 
but for technical school, certificate programs, the training 
for these types of things, you know. People are going to do the 
diagnostics on the truck and then the purchase of tools and 
equipment.
    Do you think that would be the type of legislation, 
anything to get more people in the trades and more people into 
the dirty jobs, as I think Mike Rowe refers to them?
    Mr. DANE. Mr. Hagedorn, absolutely, that is one of our 
biggest challenges. We are having a conference in Coeur 
d'Alene, Idaho, next week. One of the seminars is on workforce 
development. And my counterpart in Maine will be speaking on 
that, Mr. Doran. They developed a great program in Maine to 
enter the pipeline for workers in the timber industry.
    Mr. HAGEDORN. If we do have a second round, maybe we can 
talk with him a little bit more about that. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Next up, we will recognize Rep. Troy 
Carter from Louisiana.
    Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    My question is for Dr. Daigneault. I am interested to hear 
more about the climate solutions that forest provides. Forests 
provide important ecosystems services such as sequestering 
carbon. Forests products, by their very nature, are comprised 
of carbon and durable wood products, storing carbon for years.
    As you know, the sustainability is an issue that is very 
important to me. I would love to hear your thoughts on what can 
be done and what else is happening in the area of bolstering 
climate solutions through our forestry.
    Mr. DAIGNEAULT. Yes. Thank you, Representative Carter. So 
some sort of big solutions that are often referred to when you 
think about utilizing forests are sort of three-tiered. So one 
is keeping forests as forests, so effort that we can put into 
conserve forests but not necessarily in a pure preservation 
perspective, but to ensure that it is not converted to 
alternative uses such as, you know, strip malls and things like 
that.
    Another one is to basically improve the forest management 
on forests that are already out there. So what can we do--and a 
lot of the things that we have discussed today is what can we 
do to incentivize landowners to get into the woods more, better 
treat the land that they have, and implement different 
practices to get what we call ideal stocking levels so that 
trees basically have space and resources to grow.
    And the third one is to basically take sort of marginal 
land that might be not best utilized and figure out how to 
reforest that area, to essentially expand the footprint that we 
can.
    All three of those are proving to be very cost effective if 
you sort of compare the level of sort of incentive that you 
might have to provide to a landowner relative to, you know, 
electrifying our transportation system or putting in solar 
panels or something like that.
    The key also is the healthier that we can get our forests 
by going in and managing and sort of freeing up space and 
allowing trees to grow faster, taller, wider, is that that will 
allow us also to basically utilize a higher proportion of the 
wood into what you noted as sort of durable wood products, 
right. And so the longer--the more--so the faster we can get 
trees to grow larger, taller, straighter, healthier, the more 
that we can basically convert that into 2 by 4s, furniture, 
other things that could be basically storing that carbon for 
decades, even when it is removed from the stump, thereby also 
allowing sort of the opportunity for the next generation of 
forests to sort of grow in its place and continue to sequester 
more carbon.
    Mr. CARTER. Let me just do a followup, Doc. My time is 
going to run out. But I just want to ask one follow-up question 
that--how do working forests differ from forests under 
conservation, and do they play different roles in terms of 
sustainability and climate solutions? What is the difference 
between the two and the roles they play?
    Mr. DAIGNEAULT. Sure. So in a place like Maine, Maine, 
about 20 percent of forests are actually under some sort of 
condition of what we would consider conservation. But in Maine, 
85 percent of that forest that is under conservation is 
actually also designated as what we would call working forests. 
So they might be owned by conservation groups or they might be 
actually, you know, owned by family forest companies that 
basically want to have their land conserved in the sense that 
they don't want it to be converted to alternative uses, but 
they still want to manage that land for timber products, 
wildlife habitat, clean air, clean water. And so they might 
take a slightly different perspective than say, you know, a 
pure commercial landowner to some degree, but they are still 
managing for multiple uses of which timber is a strong part of 
it.
    So we really have to be careful when we say 
``conservation'' and not align that purely with preservation or 
not basically doing any sort of management or harvesting from 
that land. A lot of conserved forest is still what we would 
consider working forest.
    Mr. CARTER. And is there competition between the two? Is 
there a conflict there?
    Mr. DAIGNEAULT. Not necessarily. There might be that the 
landowners that have their land under conservation might have 
different objectives than what you might want to think of as a 
sort of pure commercial landowner or forestry company, but 
everyone tends to acknowledge that harvesting is part of the 
solution, right. But it is just part of one of many sort of 
suite of services that we can get from how we manage our land.
    The key is that we have to think about this from very much 
a landscape perspective and sort of commercial landowners, 
small family landowners, conservation landowners, they all can 
sort of work together to help get--sort of meet society's needs 
at large.
    Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Okay. I see my time is up. I yield. Thank 
you very much.
    Chairman GOLDEN. We will now recognize Representative Roger 
Williams from Texas 25.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 
witnesses for coming here today.
    And my first question is for Mr. Dane. As you know, 
forestry-related small businesses are crucial to providing jobs 
and revenue to our communities, and we have talked a lot about 
that today. When I talk to loggers and lumbermen back in Texas, 
I constantly hear concerns surrounding the labor shortage.
    Recently, I met with a second-generation, family-owned 
small business in your industry from my district who told me 
that they are struggling to keep up with current demand because 
of many of their workers have decided not to return to work and 
the X generations are joining in the forestry, and they are not 
doing that. So the federal government should be encouraging 
individuals to get back to the workforce rather than 
incentivizing them not to work and stay at home.
    So, Mr. Dane, can you speak more on how the labor shortage 
is affecting the small businesses that your organization 
represents? And, secondly, is there a specific policy that made 
the labor shortage worse in the last year and a half?
    Mr. DANE. Mr. Williams, thank you very much for the 
question. And I was just down in Texas a couple of months ago 
visiting with your timber industry down there. It is a great 
organization.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. It is a great State too, isn't it?
    Mr. DANE. Absolutely, sir. I have got a survey here that 
the American Loggers Council did in 2019, actually, before the 
pandemic, which references that 97 percent of those surveyed 
said it is virtually impossible to replace or add new hires to 
their operations. That is an ongoing problem that we have.
    Now, with the added--I will be honest with you. With the 
added unemployment benefits, I was talking to a logger in 
International Falls, Minnesota, that said he is going to have 
to give his guys a raise to offset the additional unemployment 
that they are receiving to entice them to come back to work. So 
it is a problem.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Competition and access to capital play a 
fundamental role in our economy, and the government must not 
impede entrepreneurship and innovation but, rather, ensure that 
American small businesses can succeed and grow without 
unnecessary government interference, and you just touched on 
that. Paying people not to work is too much of an interference.
    Burdensome regulations have real impacts on small business 
owners and the communities who depend on them. I am a small 
business owner, have been for over 50 years, and I know how 
excessive regulations can hinder growth and competition. We 
work--I am in the car business. We work on the same margins you 
do, so any movement one way or the other is tough on the 
industry. And we do not need a top-down, one-size-fits-all 
approach, but, rather, a properly regulated economy that 
creates opportunity for everybody.
    So, again, is the logging industry properly regulated, do 
you think, and do you have concerns that the new focus on the 
green policy regulations will be harmful to the competitiveness 
and profitability of your Members?
    Mr. DANE. From a regulatory perspective, I am happy to say 
that at local, State, county levels, the regulation is not 
really excessive. But when you get to the federal level, it is 
extremely burdensome. The NEPA requirements and the ESA 
requirements have been weaponized by those that want to just 
stall and litigate national forest management plans.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. So you have all the regulations you need to 
deal with right now, don't you?
    Mr. DANE. We do not need any further regulations, Mr. 
Williams.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. All right. Thank you.
    Small businesses are finally beginning to recover from 
COVID-19 pandemic, and the last thing they need is for Congress 
and President Biden to raise taxes. We have talked about that. 
Raising taxes in this time is crazy, and the infrastructure 
bills that Democrats are pushing forward and attempting to pass 
this week will raise the corporate tax rate and drive up 
inflation, making goods and services more expensive. That is 
the bottom line.
    Despite the White House claim that this will cost nothing, 
which is a complete lie in my mind, the cost will inevitably be 
passed on to individuals or businesses, and many businesses 
can't pass it on to individuals, so they have to eat it, and 
they have to let people off to pay for it. So increasing taxes 
will cause businesses to hire less people and invest less back 
in the economy.
    So, Mr. Dane, quickly, can you discuss how tax increases 
would impact the small businesses that you represent? And if 
taxes are increased and your margins remain the same, which 
probably would not be, would that mean passing the cost on to 
the consumer?
    Mr. DANE. Well, I would like to answer the last part of 
that question first. Loggers do not have the ability to pass on 
that cost to consumers. Loggers are paid based on what the 
mills determine, and as Mr. Doran referenced, dictate will be 
paid. And so it is one of the only industries in the country 
that I am aware of that you don't have the opportunity to tell 
your consumer what you are going to sell them the product for. 
They tell you what they are going to buy it for. So they don't 
have that opportunity.
    Second, these are small businesses, and some are 
corporations, so that increased corporate rate would directly 
impact these family businesses.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Stay the course. There is help 
coming.
    I yield my time back.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you.
    I will now recognize Rep. Pete Stauber from Minnesota 8.
    Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much, Mr. Dane, for appearing 
here. I am going to put you on the spot. My good friend from 
Texas just says Texas is a great State. Texas or Minnesota?
    Mr. DANE. Minnesota in the summertime.
    Mr. STAUBER. Thank you. Thank you so much for being here.
    You know, we talked about the loggers and our truckers at 
the forefront of responsible management. You know, how is the 
skyrocketing cost of fuels for transportation and energy affect 
a small logging and trucking businesses?
    And I will just share with you. I was at a logging site 
just west of Grand Rapids, you know, Rajala Timber, and they 
talked about the cost for fuel and energy to run the machines. 
How has that affected--how is it affecting the industry and the 
ability to move forward?
    Mr. DANE. I will give you a quick example, Congressman 
Stauber. You know, Scheff Logging in Marcell, Minnesota, I 
think their fuel expenses are about a million dollars a year, 
maybe 1.2, 1.3. You add 50 percent--yeah, 50 percent increase 
in fuel cost right there, you are talking a half a million 
dollars for one company alone. So it definitely is a burden to 
the industry and one that is unfortunate that has occurred in 
the last 8 months.
    Mr. STAUBER. You know, also in your testimony, Scott, you 
discussed the Trillion Trees Initiative, which is embodied in a 
bill introduced by my colleague, Representative Westerman. How 
do the reforms in that bill, such as streamlining NEPA, make it 
easier for your industry to do its job and, in turn, support 
forest health and carbon sequestration?
    Mr. DANE. Well, let's go back to the Trillion Tree 
Initiative, which is a global initiative to plant a trillion 
trees around the world to, you know, absorb more carbon. It 
makes a lot of sense. When it comes to the NEPA reforms that 
are necessary--that are critically necessary, that are 
hampering forest management at the federal level, I was at a 
meeting, and I think they were talking about at one time a NEPA 
report was about 75 pages long. Now it is 600, 700 pages long.
    I was out there in California. We took a helicopter tour of 
the aftermath of the wildfires in May. We were up there for 6 
hours. We toured 3 million acres of burned land--3 million 
acres of burned land. And when you look down and you see what 
is going on in privately owned and managed land, they are 
salvaging the timber, they are restoring the land, they are 
replanting on there. If you look at the adjacent federally 
managed timber, nothing is happening. No salvage is going on. 
No reclamation is going on. And that is all because of all the 
NEPA requirements that just are used to hamper forest 
management.
    Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Dane, if you had one request from the EPA 
for your industry, maybe two requests, what would they be? How 
can the EPA help your industry with decisions?
    Mr. DANE. Congressman Stauber, thank you for asking. I 
think that would probably be a question that the Chairman would 
also like to hear. And I know Dana Doran and myself have been 
working for 3 years, at least, with the EPA on the biofuels and 
the renewable fuel standard and feedstock eligibility.
    The EPA has misinterpreted the RFS. Their interpretation is 
contrary to all other public and private timber management 
organizations, and that is impeding the development of 
renewable fuels from forest-based feedstock. They need to 
accept those pathways that were talked about for feedstock to 
be eligible for RFS and RIN credits, and we have got hundreds 
of millions of dollars prepared to be invested in this new 
technology which, again, goes back to renewable fuels but 
forest-based.
    If we could overcome that, there would be a new plant built 
in Minnesota, your district. There would be a new plant built 
in Maine, and there is a plant being built right now in Oregon. 
It is a $330 million plant that would also benefit from the EPA 
acknowledging that their interpretation of eligible feedstock 
is incorrect.
    Mr. STAUBER. Well, thank you. In light of my short amount 
of time, I do know that Chair Golden and Ranking Member 
Hagedorn and I, we have all discussed that, and it is a 
priority, I know, for the Chair and Ranking Member, and I stand 
with them in helping with the solution.
    Scott Dane, thanks for your expert testimony. On behalf of 
all Minnesotans, and in particular northern Minnesota, thanks 
for your prior work with the ACLT. Tremendous. And your 
knowledge is really appreciated on this Committee. Thank you 
very much.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thanks for highlighting that. That was a 
really important exchange right there.
    I am going to move into a second round.
    I am going to start with Professor Daigneault. There has 
been some talk and focus on carbon markets as a way for small 
family forest owners to generate additional income out of their 
land. Do you believe that this is currently viable for small 
family forest owners? Do these carbon markets help to support 
forest ecosystems? Can they be a part of advancing climate 
mitigation solutions, but just as importantly, will they help 
or hurt forest products economies? And is the answer dependent 
on how the policy is structured or not?
    Mr. DAIGNEAULT. Right. Thank you, Representative Golden. 
Lots there to unpack.
    Thinking of just markets at large, right, carbon markets, 
they are part of the solution, but it might not be part of the 
solution for everybody. It does--it will provide sort of a 
diversified income stream to ideally promote more forest 
management, but the policies themselves has to be structured in 
a way that does that.
    A lot of sort of existing carbon markets that focus on 
forest carbon tend to penalize those who are understocked but 
have the potential to grow and basically reward a lot of those 
that are overstocked in the sense that they have a lot of 
carbon on the ground compared to maybe the average forest.
    The other thing that it does is it tends to--it is getting 
involved, particularly in carbon markets, is very time 
consuming, resource intensive, requires third-party audits and 
things like that that can make it really cost prohibitive for 
particularly the sort of small and family forest landowners. 
There are some organizations, like American Forest Foundation 
and Nature Conservancy, are working to develop programs that 
specifically target those that own, you know, less than a 
thousand acres, but they are still pretty nascent from that 
perspective.
    So, again, I think there are opportunities there, but I 
don't think it is the full solution. I think just, you know, 
saying that if we create a bunch of carbon markets and create 
some ways that people can buy, sell, and trade offsets are 
going to necessarily open up, you know, the forest to all 
these--to all this sort of management innovation, I think it is 
part of the solution. But I still think there are other aspects 
that we need to take in account, particularly that--you know, 
the duration that people have to enter into these markets, the 
sort of complexity of how some of these things work can make it 
more prohibitive than maybe, you know, what someone like myself 
teaches in theory in an economics course.
    Chairman GOLDEN. An excellent point. I appreciate that. And 
I know someone sitting next to me said we could have a whole 
hearing about that subject.
    But I wanted to ask, then, from the perspective of going 
from the classroom to on the street, Dana, maybe you could talk 
a little. I mean, I have seen that some of these programs are 
structured in ways that would probably be of concern to loggers 
and the Forest Products Council, but is there also, you know, 
something good here potentially if it means that more people 
are going to engage in forest growth? And does it give 
landowners another tool in the toolbox? What is your feedback 
on this?
    Mr. DORAN. You know, thanks for the question, Jared. And I 
have got a picture behind me of you operating a stroke 
delimber, by the way, and that is you also on the skidder. So I 
just wanted to make sure folks knew that was there and you 
actually did it.
    In terms of carbon markets, you know, I think carbon 
markets scare loggers quite a bit, because, you know, carbon 
markets generally are a reduction of the annual timber harvest 
or the annual cut, but we feel like it can be structured in a 
way that we make sure that we actually weed the forest, remove 
the low-value wood, and we can still conduct the same type of 
forest management without an impact to the contractor. But that 
is something that has to be mandated up front, and it really 
truly is a partnership between the landowner and the carbon 
market and even the logging contractor.
    As I mentioned in my testimony, you know, we created a 
third-party certification program for logging contractors 20 
years ago called the Master Logger Program. And the Master 
Logger Program is a third-party audit of the harvest. Professor 
Daigneault mentioned, the cost to the landowner, but there has 
to be a third-party audit to provide assurances and 
verification of the work one on the ground. I think, you know, 
we provide a pathway to try to mitigate that cost. And also, so 
you achieve the landowner point of view, you achieve the market 
capability, keep their land forested, because they are 
receiving a revenue forecast, and keep the contractor as part 
of that with the work that they are doing on the ground.
    So I think there is a path forward, but you have got to 
make sure that you have markets for low-value wood, whether 
that is biomass, or it is finding other markets for low-value 
wood. And then the contractors are part of that. And if we can 
develop a system like that that increases forest management, 
produces higher level products, greater markets, I think 
everybody shares in the prosperity. But that--that is a big nut 
that we have to crack.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you both.
    Do you have any follow-up questions?
    Mr. HAGEDORN. I will just ask one, if that is okay.
    So, Mr. Doran and Mr. Dane, I will kind of throw this out 
at you. Just so people understand a little bit better, I mean, 
we all experience one way or another these incredible increases 
in lumber costs. I mean, people had their houses go up $40,000 
to build, and people put off projects and everything else. But 
you say your industry doesn't really benefit from that.
    Can you explain to folks how it works and why that didn't 
trickle down to you?
    And I am just kind of curious. I mean, again, the farming 
and ag-based folks that I work with have to deal with meat 
packers, for instance, the livestock people. And they sometimes 
think that the meat packers are making a lot of money at the 
grocery stores and everything else selling their meat, but the 
farmer--it doesn't always get to the actual livestock farmer. 
Maybe that is similar here. So I would be interested in your 
response.
    Mr. DANE. Mr. Hagedorn, real quick. In my opinion, it was, 
for lack of a better word, gouging that was occurring within 
the markets because of demand. At the same time, there is an 
increase in forested land because the CRP maturing and that 
type of thing, so the supply was abundant. There was an 
increase in logging capacity with mills shutting down and 
stuff, so that infrastructure was also abundant. So the mills 
could afford to dictate, again, the price.
    I talked to a logger in Grand Rapids, Minnesota, the other 
day, and he said that the mill told him, we are not cutting 
your price; we are just paying you less. So it is a mill-
controlled market right there, and that is one of the reasons 
that the trickle down has not occurred.
    But I think my counterpart, Mr. Doran, would also have good 
information to share.
    Mr. DORAN. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Hagedorn. I appreciate the 
question, and Scott is spot on. You know, it is interesting, in 
the spring of this year, so let's say January to April, there 
were tremendous amount of reports nationally, the Wall Street 
Journal and New York Times, on the cost of lumber and kind of 
the breakdown of who was making the money. And I will tell you, 
the logging contractors, and the landowners for that matter, 
were not seeing any of the benefits. You know, we would 
communicate obviously with our Membership, but we are also 
talking to the landowner community, and there were a lot of 
folks who would talk to a logging contractor and say, oh, you 
must be getting rich right now; you have got to be able to pass 
that along. And they are just honestly saying, no, we are not, 
we are not getting any of this, and neither are you, and that 
was the bottom line.
    And it is interesting, we issued an opinion piece in one of 
our statewide newspapers back in April of this year, basically 
calling into question what was happening both here in the state 
but also nationally as to where the money was going. And, you 
know, I am not going to point the finger at one piece of this. 
There are a lot of players that are involved, you know, from 
the mills to the retailers to the wood brokers in between. I 
will tell you, there are also large cooperatives who buy 
materials on behalf of retailers. They are all involved.
    And so anywhere from retail to manufacturers, that is where 
the money was, and it wasn't just one piece of that that was 
making the money. But I will tell you, none of it was trickling 
down.
    But after we issued that opinion piece, we saw an increase 
in pricing that was paid to the contractors and to the 
landowners. So it is funny what happens sometimes when you get 
punched in the eye. There is a noticeable change that took 
place. Obviously, this summer, the commodity markets have 
changed. Lumber prices have come down in many respects. There 
has been, you know, a change in pricing. But a lot of the 
public attention has, I think, influenced where money has 
trickled and what has happened to overall pricing.
    But Mr. Dane is absolutely correct. There was gouging at a 
high level between those areas that I identified for you.
    Mr. HAGEDORN. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. It just seems 
like you are in a little bit of a precarious spot. You can't 
control your destiny in many ways. But the one thing that can 
always help you is to make sure that we have downward pressure 
on cost of production, to make sure that you can meet your 
bottom line, that whether--whatever money you are going to get 
from the mills, you can try to keep the cost of production low.
    And I will just come back to it. It is these big things 
that sometimes government can really screw up and hurt you on--
taxes, regulations, energy, trade, and equipment, in this case, 
with the way the EPA jacked up the prices and made the 
equipment less reliable. In all those instances, government has 
an opportunity to improve your bottom line or government has an 
opportunity to move you towards being out of business. And I 
want you to know, I am on the side of trying to help you build 
your bottom line, so we are going to stand for those policies. 
Thanks for your testimony.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Speaking of regulations, I think Mr. 
Stauber has a question.
    Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Chair Golden.
    I just have one additional question for Mr. Dane. You know, 
there is a lot of talk about adding endangered species to the 
list of endangered wildlife, et cetera. What does that do? You 
know, how does that affect your industry?
    I know in Congressman Golden's area, you know, the lobsters 
are having--they are having major issues, and I know in some 
parts of even Minnesota. What does that--what is the economic 
impact even prior to something being listed? What is the 
economic impact, and how does your industry look at that?
    Mr. DANE. Congressman Stauber, thank you very much. It is 
ironic that we think about this issue from a Minnesota 
perspective, and it is just one more tool that is going to be 
part of the arsenal to allow those who want to litigate forest 
management to death to utilize. And here is an example of it.
    The Canadian lynx is--kind of goes back and forth. Is it 
going to be in danger, is it not going to be endangered or 
threatened or whatever else it is. So they track Canadian lynx. 
First of all, that is just in Canada. They are not coming to 
Minnesota to mess up our timberlands. No, just kidding there. 
But they tracked them. And you know what they found out? The 
Canadian lynx traveled on logging roads. They are not stupid. 
You know, they are not going to go through the brush and 
everything else. They are going to travel on logging roads.
    So logging roads are not counterproductive to the Canadian 
lynx habitat at all. But, again, once you get something on that 
list, you can use it as a tool to interfere with forest 
management.
    Mr. STAUBER. Yeah. That is what we have heard, I have heard 
back home as well. And I think it is nationwide. And I think we 
have to really take a healthy look at that and what we need to 
do to really, I guess, stop the weaponization of the courts and 
allow your industry to do what you do well: manage forests, 
bring great jobs. You know as well as I do, in Minnesota, it is 
like a $10 billion industry statewide. It is huge. And so we 
stand ready to help, as Congressman Hagedorn stated, not only 
in Minnesota and Maine but across this great nation.
    So, with that, I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. Good question. The lobster 
industry has taken a big hit, and weaponization of the courts 
is, I think, the perfect way to put it. That is a whole other 
topic right there but one we are in the thick of in Maine.
    I wanted to ask Mr. Thibodeau. I am sure you are aware that 
there is a perception out there that burning wood for energy 
isn't the best use of forests and trees, particularly when it 
comes to carbon sequestration and climate solutions. I wanted 
to give you the opportunity to talk about how ReEnergy uses 
fuel and where it comes from and how using that wood for energy 
generation helps ensure the continued health of forest land.
    Mr. THIBODEAU. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Golden. Yeah, 
forest and mill residue that we use for generating renewable 
electricity at our facilities come from logging operations in 
mills near our power plants. The vast majority of that comes 
from within about a 75-mile radius.
    When forests and land are maintained and harvested in a 
sustainable way, the forest continues to grow, and it grows 
healthier. It continues to consume atmospheric carbons. So wood 
markets and wood utilization are essential to forest 
maintenance. Without an outlet for owners to sell their 
harvested wood, the owners are more likely to sell their land 
for other uses.
    If you think of the biomass energy industry as taking the 
leftovers or the mill residues from forest operations, the low-
value, low-grade products are critical, as many of our other 
witnesses have testified today, to promoting forest health. For 
example, creation of jobs from biomass industry as well as the 
economic output of our facilities. We recently had an economist 
study our two facilities in Maine, and they supported more than 
360 jobs and had an economic output of $95 million per year, on 
an annual basis. The Stratton facility alone, where I am 
located, purchased fuel from more than 58 Maine-based logging 
and trucking companies and more than 19 different mills in the 
State of Maine. So that is supporting that low-value market.
    So there is a perception out there that burning wood is not 
the best use of forests and trees, and I would agree with that. 
When you think about the higher value markets for lumber mills, 
furniture makers, paper, I would agree with that. However, you 
have to make sure there is a clear line there that we are not 
cutting down forests to make power. We are taking the 
leftovers, the residuals that are left behind and from mill 
residues. In order to make a 2 by 4, you have to debark that 
tree. That bark will come to a biomass energy facility such as 
ours for power production.
    Again, stressing baseload renewable power, biomass is one 
of the only, along with geothermal, that is considered baseload 
renewable power, which means, you know, we are producing power 
24/7, no matter how hot or cold it is, if it rains, if it is 
windy or not, or if the sun is shining.
    So thank you, Chairman Golden. Hopefully, that answered 
your question.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Yeah, of course. I am assuming, by the 
way, you don't have to go too far into it if you agree, that 
you are in agreement with Mr. Dane about the importance of the 
RFS for biomass.
    Mr. THIBODEAU. Yeah, absolutely. I would echo Mr. Dane's 
sentiments exactly. The RFS is something that we have been 
working with very closely through the Biomass Power Association 
and trying to activate those biomass pathways, kind of how I 
had mentioned in my testimony. It is really critical from a 
federal policy issue for the biomass industry and to address 
the interpretation of the term ``biomass'' as well.
    You know, infrastructure that supports, you know, such 
things as use of electric vehicles is very important to climate 
change. And in terms of development and continued operation of 
renewable energy projects such as ours, that renewable fuel 
standard is really critical. It will strengthen our potential 
role in the renewable fuel standard. So we hope and expect the 
biomass electricity pathway will become operational.
    Chairman GOLDEN. I know in Maine, we are really looking at 
policies that could turn our State into a bit of an energy 
island where we really can be producing, you know, and self-
sufficient on our own energy production, and biomass is 
certainly a part of that. And we see it also helping small-
scale manufacturers when they are able to, you know, generate 
onsite, which has occurred in a few places, but there are some 
tweaks that need to be made, I think, to increase that. Dana 
and I always agree: We shouldn't build a public school in Maine 
that doesn't have also some kind of biomass boiler or something 
built into it. It is public expenditures. But all of that 
depends also upon the future of having this forest resource and 
making sure that it stays healthy.
    So I guess my question is just to the professor. What types 
of policies are you looking at, either private or public, 
looking into the future to make sure that we have a healthy 
forest? I mean, do you think we are going to need to introduce 
new forest species or is it sustainable the way it is? I mean, 
what is your recommendation for the forest products industry in 
Maine?
    Mr. DAIGNEAULT. Yeah. So great question, Congressman. So 
one thing to think about is that I think we have to acknowledge 
that climate change is inevitable, right. We are already 
experiencing that, as Mr. Doran said, you know, how we have to 
harvest and what species we are seeing. It is changing, right. 
And so we have to do more to basically get that information out 
and help those on the ground who are managing, logging, et 
cetera, handle that and adapt accordingly.
    In addition, you know, with that, we do need to acknowledge 
that some species are going to grow faster than others, but at 
the same time, you know, those aren't necessarily basically the 
most desired species, per se. Coupled with that, you know, as 
we noted, we talked a little bit about carbon markets, but I 
think, again, we need to come up with ways to basically get 
people in the woods and managing from a whole suite of 
different opportunities. So that is more incentives to do 
management, more--you know, more through the USDA's NRCS and 
other things that at least are facilitating more management, 
more removal.
    That goes--couples with what Mr. Thibodeau was saying where 
we do need to basically have sort of robust markets for 
biomass, which is going to help basically get some of that 
lower grade wood out there, which is then going to increase and 
enhance the resiliency and health of our forests of what 
remains.
    In addition, I have noted that, you know, what everyone has 
talked about today is that we need to continue to find ways 
that make it, again, profitable to want to do things in the 
woods, right, and actively manage. And so I have noted at least 
that some of the sort of federal tax incentives that have been 
out there, at one point a couple years ago, they were 
considering dropping them. I think keeping those were a huge 
boost or a very important aspect for, not just the sort of 
logging and forestry community, but for climate change at 
large.
    And, lastly, I think we just--we also need to acknowledge 
that the economy is changing, people's needs are changing, and 
their uses of wood products are changing. So by continuing to 
explore other ways that we can use wood as substitutes for 
fossil-based products, you know, things that, you know, are 
more durable and sort of meet the needs, you know, the 
consumption needs, that is going to help put more value on the 
forest and in the woods that we rely on, which is then going to 
help boost a lot of these communities that, you know, have a 
long heritage and history of relying on our forest resources, 
you know, to make those communities thrive.
    We need to continue to push in that way and probably 
acknowledge that maybe, you know, pulp and paper is not going 
to be the solution for the next hundred years, but we still 
have an abundant wood basket that can provide a lot of 
resources that we can take advantage of.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you.
    I think that is as good a place as any to wrap things up 
right there.
    I want to thank all the witnesses on the panel for joining 
us today, and I want to thank all my colleagues for joining us 
and for their good questions.
    From the testimony and the exchange sought here, I think it 
is clear the great benefits of the forest products industry and 
sustainable forestry can have for the country. And we all have 
a role to play in contributing to a healthy forest, to 
mitigating climate change, and to taking care of our local 
economies, making sure they can be successful. So I believe it 
is our responsibility to support industries like those that we 
have in our forested States and communities.
    Protecting our environment doesn't have to be bad for 
business, and I think our witnesses proved today that that is 
certainly not the case in places like Maine and Minnesota and a 
lot of others. I know down south as well. Sustainable forestry 
provides positive economic and social outcomes and meets the 
needs of the present and we hope future generations as well.
    So I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance 
policies to keep our forests healthy and continue to help small 
business owners and the forest products industry.
    So I would ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 
legislative days to submit statements and supporting materials 
for the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And if there is no further business before the Committee, 
we are adjourned. Thank you all very much.
    [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                            
                            A P P E N D I X

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]