27 



Forests who are attempting to drive this process through Congress 

 before the Tongass Land Management Plan revision is complete. 



Finally. Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the Southeast 

 Conference for taking on the very difficult task of formulating a 

 consensus Tongass position for Southeast Alaska. There are many 

 people and interest groups who rely on the Tongass for their 

 livli hoods and quality of life. Meeting the needs of all people is the 

 most difficult type of balancing act and. in the final analysis, may not 

 be possible. Nevertheless, the Southeast Conference has produced a 

 policy proposal which attempts to address concerns about 

 management of the forest while maintaining a viable timber Industry. I 

 believe the Southeast Conference has produced clear and workable 

 goals and objectives for reform of the Tongass timber program. 



The Board of the Southeast Conference recently met to clarify 

 and emphasize for Congress particular points in their policy 

 statement. On February 2, 1990. the Board voted by an overwhelming 

 majority to clarify that (1) they oppose any additional wilderness in the 

 Tongass or any statutory land classification that prohibits or impacts 

 transportation and utility corridors, mining, or any other use other 

 than timber harvest; (2) they recommend that the question of "buffer 

 strips" along salmon streams and tributaries be addressed in the TLMP 

 revision and not by Congress and; (3) they urge Congress to wait for 

 the results of the TLMP revision before adopting any statutory land use 

 strategy. In addition, they voted 9-2 to amend their land proposal to 

 take into account the concerns of communities which were not 

 provided adequate input into the March, 1989 policy statement and to 

 adopt maps of areas with specific boundary lines to provide direction 

 to Congress. It is critically important that the views of Alaskans living 

 and working in the forest are reflected in any legislation mandating 

 land uses. 



Mr. Chairman, I have observed that my colleagues from the 

 western states must continually oppose national preservationist group 

 agendas for local land use in their states. Large areas of our states are 

 owned by the federal government and the relationship between the 

 federal land manager and local communities runs deep — their 

 livelihoods depend upon it. Many of my eastern colleagues will never 

 fully understand how the large federal presence affects our workers, 

 families, communities and our states in general. 



Consider what it would be like to give up control of large land 

 areas in your own states. What areas would you choose? Worse yet, 

 what If the government decided for you? I have 56 million acres of 

 the 90 million acre National Wilderness Preservation System in my 

 State. The designated wilderness in Alaska is larger than the state of 

 Idaho. One would think the Wilderness Act was written with only 

 Alaska in mind -- but it wasn't. 



