39 



cance of what price wilderness? How much was that million acres 

 worth? 



Wall, we are doing away with that in this proposed legislation, 

 Mr. Chairman, yet there does not seem to be much of a reaction 

 over the merits of that, yet that was the leading argument up until 

 this time. The law that created the wilderness would also ensure 

 that this wilderness would not reduce the timber supply below the 

 Forest Service planning level and result in economic dislocation in 

 Southeastern Alaska. 



The need for legislation today, while the basic premise of Section 

 705 is sound implementation by the Forest Service, has been criti- 

 cized. Some of that criticism is justifiable. The Tongass Forest 

 spending should not be subject to annual oversight and approval by 

 Congress is the cry that we have heard from the Reader's Digest, 

 some of our colleagues, and even Sports Illustrated. 



The Tongass Timber Supply Fund was established to ensure that 

 adequate funds for the intensive management of economically mar- 

 ginal timber occurred. However, actual spending, primarily during 

 decades of low timber demand, has not always been prudent. 



Critics have demanded that the spending in the Tongass be sub- 

 ject to annual Congressional oversight and approval. That is what 

 we have done in the bill. The Forest Service should not be required 

 to prepare for harvest 4.5 billion board feet per decade is another 

 challenge. 



Well, the 4.5 billion board feet mandate was intended to provide 

 the necessary authority for managing marginal areas with dedicat- 

 ed funds. However, critics claim that it will result in wasteful 

 timber preparation when timber markets were poor and caused 

 management of the forest to favor timber production to the detri- 

 ment of other forest. 



Let me explain briefly the significance of our bill. Criticisms can 

 be addressed without backing away from the commitment made to 

 Southeastern Alaska. In the bill that Senator Stevens and I have 

 introduced, which addresses these criticisms, it eliminates both the 

 $40 million permanent appropriation and the timber supply man- 

 date, but preserves the balance between the 4.5 million acres of 

 wilderness and the minimum timber base crafted by Congress in 

 1980. 



S.237 only requires that a minimum amount of land remaining 

 in multiple use timber harvest will be managed as in all other na- 

 tional forest. We will not be different any more. 



Our bill requires that a significant area remain in full multiple 

 use management so that 4.5 billion board feet per decade could be 

 produced on a sustained yield basis if needed. 



The actual harvest levels will be determined as they are on any 

 other national forest. The amount of timber harvested will be lim- 

 ited by 1) the sustained yield capacity of the forest, which takes 

 into account protection of all multiple use, including fish and wild- 

 life habitat, and 2) the market demand for timber, and 3) the funds 

 appropriated by Congress each year for timber programs. 



Conservationists, preservationists and those concerned about the 

 deficit will be satisfied. But I really question whether the preserva- 

 tionists will because they really want it all for themselves. Preser- 

 vation groups will not be satisfied with our bill. Their goals are to 



