300 



could not have more representation here, but we do the best we 

 can. 



Which I guess leads one to reflect on the merits of the value of 

 TLMP, and certainly there is a difference of opinion on whether 

 the Congress of the United States should simply sit down and mark 

 up ultimately the disposition of the Tongass, rather than rely on 

 the input of the agency that Congress expects to manage the forest, 

 namely, the United States Forest Service. 



One could conclude from this hearing that there is a good deal of 

 doubt as to the capability of the Forest Service. What I find rather 

 extraordinary, however, is the fact that you expect the magic of the 

 makeup of the members of the United States Senate, who obviously 

 have little expertise in the professional forest practice management 

 concept, to do this for you. 



As a consequence, if you leave it up to members of Congress, 

 why, you are going to get a composite of opinions that are not nec- 

 essarily directed by any intimate knowledge of the facts, but rather 

 pressures from lobbyists, environmentalists, development-oriented 

 groups. 



It hardly seems to be the best method, but nevertheless certainly 

 a segment of the witnesses today have suggested that. 



Senator McClure. If the chairman would yield. 



Senator Murkowski. I would be happy to. 



Senator McClure. I am puzzled by one thing that came to my 

 attention just recently. I think you may have made reference to it 

 in your opening statement, and that is the fact that on an equal 

 timber base in the State of New York they cut much more wood for 

 fire wood in the State of New York than they do off the Tongass in 

 timber harvest, and yet the people in New York want to stop the 

 timber harvest in the Tongass. 



Senator Murkowski. That is correct. 



Senator McClure. But then it never did deter the Congress that 

 they do not know what the hell they are doing. 



Senator Murkowski. Well, I do not want to leave this group 

 without an unspoken thought, so we will continue. But from my 

 own experience around here, it would be nice to make our decisions 

 on sound scientific knowledge, and I am sure that most of the 

 members of the panel would agree with that. 



The question of the value of the TLMP which is about to come 

 down on us I think has some merit for reflection, because it is man- 

 dated under the law that there be a ten-year revision. 



The Tongass happens to be the first. I gather that the other for- 

 ests have been held up in litigation, and as a consequence even the 

 system designed by Congress cannot beat the full employment act 

 for some of the lawyers. So, as a consequence, we are left in this 

 terrible dilemma of trying to mandate by law the input of a revi- 

 sion and not getting to it. 



Yet the first one that comes in, there are differences of opinion on 

 whether it is any good before it is even proposed, and it is ques- 

 tioned before it is even done. One wonders then what the alterna- 

 tive is, and you are seeing the alternative, represented by the 

 number of Senators that have attended this hearing today, who are 

 going to be involved in the markup of this legislation, and the tre- 



