377 



the forest. In addition, many affected Alaskans and smaller com- 

 munities in the region believe that their interests were ignored in 

 ANILCA. Many Alaskans share the view that it is time to address 

 these problems. Once again Congress is being asked to legislate the 

 future of Southeast Alaska. 



I have opposed legislative changes to the Tongass provisions of 

 ANILCA in both this and the previous Congress because we need a 

 stable legal regulatory regime. I have also been informed that 191 

 administrative remedies exist which could correct many of the 

 problems. It is clear to me, however, that Congress intends to 

 change the current law with or without a compromise involving af- 

 fected Alaskans. Unfortunately, neither S. 346 nor S. 237 achieves 

 a compromise acceptable to the majority of Southeast Alaskans. 

 For this reason, I cannot support either bill. Until such a compro- 

 mise is reached, the conflict will continue and Congress will be 

 asked to revisit Tongass legislation again in the future. I would 

 like to put this issue behind us for good. 



During the past few months, a committee of courageous local 

 mayors and city council members have hammered out a compro- 

 mise proposal for Tongass legislation which recognizes the underly- 

 ing interests of Southeast Alaska communities. While neither per- 

 fect nor unanimously supported, this unprecedented Southeast Con- 

 ference compromise comes closer to satisfying the concerns of a 

 majority of affected Alaskans than any other alternative. For this 

 reason, I support key elements of this compromise and urge you to 

 seriously consider their merits. 



The key elements of the compromise include the following: 



The Secretary of Agriculture would have the discretion to offer 

 for sale up to 4.5 billion board feet of saw timber per decade, sub- 

 ject to annual appropriations, his estimate of annual market 

 demand for wood products from the forest, sustained yield capacity 

 of the forest and protection of other resources and uses of the 

 forest as determined through the planning process. The forest plan- 

 ning process would not be constrained by any Congressionally man- 

 dated timber supply requirement. 



This approach would allow the Secretary to use the planning 

 process and the 10-year plan to determine how much timber would 

 be made available during the course of the decade. 



As those who were close to the Southeast Conference process are 

 aware, a number of amendments were considered which would 

 have eliminated the Secretary's discretion to set the harvest level 

 in the 10-year plan. These amendments were not approved by the 

 Southeast Conference. The small communities and non-timber 

 users have made it very clear that no compromise is possible unless 

 the Secretary of Agriculture has this discretion. 



It should be noted that the proposal of the Southeast Conference 

 does not require the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce the 10-year 

 figure. The language merely gives him the discretion to set this 

 figure based on his professional judgment and dictates of applicable 

 Federal law. 



Adequate funds should be appropriated each year to ensure a 

 program of intensive forest management in addition to normal ap- 

 propriations. Up to $15 million should be provided annually for 

 this intensive management program. Up to 20 percent of this 



