35 



I think the dialog that you had with Senator Stevens was most 

 appropriate and I think, particularly that portion addressing the 

 global warming trend, that indeed the Tongass is not part of the 

 problem but a very major part of the solution, in as much as a 

 young forest assimilates the C02 carbon dioxide; as opposed to 

 what is going on in South America, which we all are very alarmed 

 about, where the deforestation results, in consequence where you 

 do not have the regeneration that we have in the Tongass. 



Today, the committee has before it two bills which will have 

 radically different impacts on the Tongass: S.237, which was intro- 

 duced by Senator Stevens and myself, and S.346, which was intro- 

 duced by Senator Wirth and others. 



I look forward to the opportunity to compare the merits of the 

 two bills. First of all, it comes as no secret, Mr. Chairman, that I 

 oppose the legislation that has been introduced by my colleague, 

 Senator Wirth. That bill, in my opinion, is designed to seriously 

 cripple the timber industry of my state. 



It repeals section 705 of ANILCA, reneging on a compromise 

 crafted by this committee in 1980. It mandates termination of two 

 50-year timber contracts which are vital to the economy of South- 

 eastern Alaska, and it puts nearly 1.8 million acres of valuable 

 forest land off limits to multiple use management. 



I refer, Mr. Chairman, to the reality that we have approximately 

 one third of our forest in wilderness already, our commercial 

 forest. We have another third that has been set aside for fish and 

 game habitat and roughly one third that is being managed on a 

 perpetual yield basis. 



Should this measure become law, Mr. Chairman, it would reduce 

 the sustained yield of the Tongass Forest by more than half. It will 

 also abrogate contracts resulting in a potential liability to the 

 United States of hundreds of millions of dollars. 



Finally, it will require the United States to walk away from a 

 commitment made to the people of Southeastern Alaska. A com- 

 mitment that families, businesses and communities have relied 

 upon for 40 years, and whatever figure is finally determined on the 

 number of workers, obviously that is in jeopardy as well. 



The sad thing, Mr. Chairman, is that this legislation will not 

 create more jobs in other sectors of the economy in Southeastern 

 Alaska, as some might contend. Nor will it enhance deer or fish 

 populations as others might hope. What it will do is violate the bal- 

 ance crafted in ANILCA between wilderness and multiple use of 

 the forest. It will put aside a timber development program that has 

 worked since its inception, resulting in the eventual closure of the 

 only two year-round manufacturing plants in our state. 



Now, rather than resist challenge. Senator Stevens and I have 

 introduced a bill that makes an honest effort to address the criti- 

 cisms leveled against management of the Tongass. This bill goes 

 far, and is not endorsed wholeheartedly by the timber industry or 

 environmental interests, but we believe that it is a practical and 

 workable compromise. 



There are two important aspects of our proposal. The first is, it 

 does not walk away from the commitment made by the United 

 States to the people of Southeastern Alaska. Second, it does not 

 upset the basic compromise crafted in ANILCA that huge wilder- 



