TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST 



TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1989 



U.S. Senate, 

 Subcommittee on Public Lands, 



National Parks and Forests, 

 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 



Washington, DC. 



The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in room 

 SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dale Bumpers, pre- 

 siding. 



OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DALE BUMPERS, U.S. SENATOR 



FROM ARKANSAS 



Senator Bumpers. The committee will come to order. By now, a 

 long list of superlatives have been used to describe the Tongass Na- 

 tional Forest. It has been called by every superlative in the diction- 

 ary. I had the opportunity to visit the Tongass not too long ago, 

 and I too was impressed by its beauty and abundance. 



Our Nation's largest national forest contains a diversity of natu- 

 ral resources found nowhere else in the country: centuries-old 

 trees, lush ferns, spongy mosses, alpine meadows, thousands of 

 lakes and one of the last remaining temperate rain forests in the 

 world. The Tongass also boasts a wide variety of fish and wildlife 

 species, including brown bears, deer, moose, wolves, seals, sea lions, 

 ravens, and the world's largest concentration of bald eagles and 

 grizzly bears. These resources deserve and need protection. 



But the Tongass also supplies the timber to run two local pulp 

 mills and a number of saw mills which in turn provide jobs and tax 

 dollars to Southeast Alaska. In addition to timber-related employ- 

 ment, the forest provides jobs in the fishing and tourist industries. 

 The economic well-being of Southeast Alaska is an important 

 factor in the debate regarding the Tongass and should be included 

 in any discussion of Tongass reform. 



The purpose of the hearing today is to consider two measures 

 currently pending before the subcommittee: S. 237, a bill to reform 

 the Tongass Timber Supply Fund, introduced by Senators Murkow- 

 ski and Stevens, and S. 346, the Tongass Timber Reform Act, intro- 

 duced by Senator Wirth. Both seek to reform timber management 

 practices on the Tongass, but they differ significantly in their ap- 

 proaches and the degree to which they would alter current Forest 

 Service management of the forest. 



I have not yet taken a position on either of these measures since 

 I have not had the opportunity to thoughtfully consider the com- 



(1) 



