431 



Yet the long-term vieibility of those industries is seriously 

 threatened by continuation of the federally-subsidized welfare timber 

 industry. And despite massive infusions of federal dollars, timber 

 industry enployment from the Tongass has declined due to market 

 fluctuations and technological advances. 



I use the expression "welfare timber industry" advisedly. 

 Working from published Forest Service and Alaska Department of Labor 

 reports, we calculate that the amount of federal subsidy for each 

 direct timber job in the Tongass has averaged from $24,000 to $38,000 

 over the last few years, the amount depending on v*iich accounting 

 asstinptions are used in determining Forest Service timber preparation 

 losses. 



In recent years those losses have averaged 59 cents to 99 cents 

 on the dollar. Under a new accounting system implemented by the 

 Forest Service, costs like road-building are amortized over 

 unrealistically long periods — 150 to 200 years — to make the 

 deficits appear smaller. But the fact remains that in 1988 the Forest 

 Service spent approximately $42.5 million and took in only $1.2 

 million on Tongass timber sales. From 1982 to 1988, total Forest 

 Service expenditures on the Tongass amounted to $386 million, while 

 total timber receipts were only $32.4 million. 



We believe that S. 346 will begin to restore fiscal 

 accoxontability because it would repeal Section 705 of the Alaska 

 National Interest Leinds Conservation Act (ANILCA) . It would terminate 

 the unprecedented 50-year contracts with the two Southeast Alaska pulp 

 mills euid replace them with short-term, competitively bid timber 

 sales. 



