85 



zilians that we want to work with them so they do not tear down 

 the rain forest in the Amazon when in fact what we are doing in 

 Alaska is to tear down the last great rain forest in North America? 



Not only tearing it down, but tearing it down at taxpayers' ex- 

 pense, and tearing it down with most of the product going overseas 

 to Japan. I just think that the American taxpayers are not going to 

 stand for that and I do not see what our moral suasion is in work- 

 ing with the rest of the world if we are going to be behaving in 

 that way. 



These arguments have been made over and over again, Mr. 

 Chairman. I am glad we are having this hearing. I think it is very 

 important, and I want to just have those as a summary argument. 

 We can go back and forth on those. 



I look forward to the witnesses and thank them all very much 

 for coming such a long distance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Senator Bumpers. Thank you. Senator Burns? 



STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM 



MONTANA 



Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a short state- 

 ment that I will enter into the record, and in order to give where 

 the people in Montana are coming from. Mr. Chairman, neither of 

 these two Tongass bills directly affect the citizens of Montana. 

 However, I am concerned that what comes from these proceedings 

 does not create a precedence that will negatively affect Montana 

 interest. We, too, are a state that has a large amount of federal 

 lands. 



I believe we should continue to support the planning process 

 mandated in the Forest Management Act of 1976. I want to make 

 that point very clear. That will assure that our forests are man- 

 aged with the appropriate balance of multiple use, where the de- 

 mands of all competing interests are considered in the public proc- 

 ess. 



This will pressure Forest Service decision-makers to develop a 

 balanced, long-term utilization plan which meets the equally im- 

 portant objectives of development, recreation, and conservation. 



To this end, I am concerned that S. 346 is proposing a deviation 

 from that planning process, a problem that it purportedly is at- 

 tempting to correct in ANILCA. I will agree that the present Ton- 

 gass land allocations are not the result of FMA planning provisions 

 either, but they are not intended to be. It is the result of a difficult 

 compromise that prescribes dominant uses. 



Without the 4.5 billion board feet per decade commitment we 

 would not have the 5.5 million acres of wilderness, much of which 

 is suitable, accessible timber land. I cannot support the perceived 

 correction in the ANILCA agreement by prescribing another 1.8 

 million acres to be managed with priority to the protection of fish, 

 wildlife and watershed recreation, cultural, biological diversity or 

 old growth. 



What about using the Forest Service planning process in this 

 case? If we are to prescribe additional restrictions on the land still 

 available for timber management activities, maybe we should revis- 

 it the designation of wilderness. Should we not let the forest plan- 



