is untold because they are proud people. They have never had a 

 handout, and they are not about to begin. One young Native per- 

 son, who is a former mill worker, explained it this way: The last 

 time he checked, the City and Borough would not take ten pounds 

 of deer meat for payment of his utility bill. He needed cash. He 

 wanted a job. He just wanted to have a job so he could pay for his 

 share of the bills of living in today's world and have the self-esteem 

 accorded with that ability. He stated that he did not mean any 

 stern remarks toward his elders, but that today he lives in a cash 

 society and he needs the ability to live within its structure and he 

 did not want welfare handouts. That means jobs. The baseline un- 

 employment in the Native community is 35 percent, based on the 

 Sitka Tribe of Alaska Socio-Economic Health Survey completed in 

 1993. It has probably gone up since the mill closure. 



We have grown to have an inordinate amount of public employ- 

 ment here in Sitka, as well. As the State legislature. Congress, and 

 their respective administrations work to balance budgets, it will 

 also diminish jobs here in Sitka, as well. 



Sitka has received an extremely soft landing in the post-mill era. 

 We have received a steady flow of economic recovery moneys from 

 the State, from the Forest Service, and from congressional action, 

 up to and including the Southeast Alaska Economic Disaster Fund. 

 It has kept us moving and, thus, the real impact on Sitkans who 

 have lost their jobs has not yet been told. 



The thought of your proposal to transfer the Tongass National 

 Forest to Alaskans and asking us as Sitkans and Alaskans for our 

 thoughts and guidance brings to mind two relevant stories. 



One is about the proposed amendment in separate legislation as 

 I saw it reported in your weekly show this last week. The proposed 

 amendment would allow states to tax tribal governments for com- 

 merce on tribal lands. You fought this amendment based on the 

 constitutional rights of tribes. You argued that Congress had a con- 

 stitutional obligation to uphold the treaty rights that were about 

 to be broken by this amendment. You pointed out that the biggest 

 flaw in the amendment was that there was no public testimony al- 

 lowed on the issue, there was no tribal representative allowed to 

 provide any guidance. Democracy did not work in this case. Tribes 

 were not allowed to give testimony, so there was no public process. 

 Today, we are being allowed to give testimony on this proposed leg- 

 islation which directly impacts us, and I thank you for that. This 

 legislation that proposes to give the Tongass to Alaskans gives con- 

 trol of the future use of this land back to its people, the people that 

 live here and care about what happens to our homes, and I appre- 

 ciate that. Too often Sitkans have been affected by congressional 

 legislation wherein we have no way of making our case for what 

 is best for us, those that live here. I ran into a visitor from New 

 York right outside this very room last week. She was inquiring 

 about a local meeting regarding Tongass funds that was taking 

 place, and I explained to her about the appropriation of funds to 

 offset the disaster of the timber industry for this region. I further 

 explained the reason the business community was invited to brain- 

 storm was to provide the elected body of this community some ad- 

 ditional thoughts on how to best spend this money, this Southeast 

 Alaska Economic Disaster Fund, to help generate economic and 



