25 



bill, because we had told the developers in this country you can 

 have it all, and in 1986 we did not allow them, those limited part- 

 nerships, to play themselves out. 



We said, they are coming to an end right now, and while I gener- 

 ally supported most of the provisions of that I thought it was terri- 

 ble the way we just cut them off right in midair, after in 1981 

 saying, it is a freebie for everybody, and they took us at our word, 

 and now we have a similar situation here. 



I am going down to Brazil the latter part of next month, as Sena- 

 tor Wirth and others have gone before me, to look at the tropical 

 rain forest. But certainly, I not only want to see it and enlighten 

 myself on the area that is called the lungs of the planet, but I also 

 want to try to help figure out some way to convince the Brazil- 

 ians — they were pretty rude to Senator Wirth. 



They said, this is fine for you, you have already cut all your 

 timber. You have already done all the things that we are just now 

 beginning to do to try to develop our country and provide a better 

 quality of life for our people. Now you are coming down here tell- 

 ing us not to cut our rain forest. 



I think they are clearing around 15, 20 million acres a year of 

 the rain forest, and if the greenhouse effect is true— and I happen 

 to believe that it is, and I think it is dangerous to assume other- 

 wise — then we have to do something, and one of the things we have 

 to do is to convince the Brazilians that the international communi- 

 ty is going to compensate them for not cutting the rain forest. 



Now, this is not totally sequential, but how do you counter the 

 argument that we are paying around $30,000 a year per job in 

 Southeast Alaska, when you just take the amount of money the 

 federal government is putting in there divided by numbers of jobs. 

 How do you answer that argument? 



I recognize that some of the money we put up there goes for 

 habitat preservation, recreation facilities and so on, but the bulk of 

 it, by far and away the bulk of it, goes for timber harvesting. How 

 do you answer that charge, senator? 



Senator Stevens. Senator, I think that is a very good question, 

 and as I pointed out in my statement, in 1988 according to the best 

 accounting that we can find from the Forest Service figures, the 

 Forest Service received almost $11 million in timber sales and 

 assets, and had operating expenses of about $12.6 million. Those op- 

 erating expenses include all of the things that you parenthetically 

 referred to: timber management, recreation, fish and wildlife im- 

 provement. 



If we were to pull out just those portions of the costs that were 

 associated with the production of timber and balance those against 

 the receipts, the federal government is getting a good return. 



The difficulty is that people do not look at that. They look at the 

 people who are cruising timber and making environmental plans 

 and looking at the fish and wildlife problems — and I support all 

 those activities, I want to hasten to add — but they say we should 

 receive enough money from the sale of timber to pay for all of the 

 activities in the Tongass. 



Let me just digress slightly in commenting on your situation in 

 Brazil. I am a co-sponsor with Senator Wirth of the bill that wants 

 to study, bring about a real study of this overall warming trend, 



