350 



In either case, the dependent coimnunlties lose the jobs provided by the 



primary manufacturing facilities. It follows that I am for retaining the 



Section 705 compromise and keeping those jobs and keeping them in our 

 Southeast Alaska communities. 



A word needs to be said about the 23 non-logging areas proposed 

 in your bill. All of the non-logging areas that could be set aside were 

 set aside in Section 703 of ANILCA. The addition of these areas to your 

 bill makes the timber industry appear to be correct in its charge that 

 your bill is really a wilderness Trojan horse. Senator, we do not need 

 more wilderness. We have that in abundance and are smart enough to keep 

 it, even without your help. We need to maintain our jobs and community. 



In conclusion, while I believe that Section 705 can, and should 

 be made to work better, I am totally opposed to passing the Wirth bill 

 because we want these jobs to remain in our communities. Passing the 

 Wirth bill may benefit those advocating more wilderness, but it could 

 devastate us. We are depending upon Congress to keep its word for the 

 benefit of the great majority of our citizens. 



In this regard, why not let the TLMP revision process run its 

 course? The draft is anticipated in December 1989. It deals with all the 

 key issues raised by your bill and it reports but treats them in a 

 thoughtful and more objective way. People have participated in this 

 process and have a right to have their participation count. Passage of 

 this legislation which would prematurely come out in favor of one side of 

 the debate would make TLMP meaningless. 



Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. 



Written Testimony 

 April 25, 1988 

 Paqe 9 



