385 



the Tongass National Forest for the specific purpose of allowing 

 the people in Southeast Alaska to create a timber industry in order 

 to assist their economy. It is in fact a subsidized industry in direct 

 and indirect ways. I do not think there is any reason to pretend 

 that it is not, that many, many people in Southeast Alaska over 

 the years have come to rely on the fact that the Federal Govern- 

 ment did put into effect a policy, actions were taken, plants were 

 built, jobs were created in reliance on that Federal policy which, by 

 the way, is not unprecedented. The Federal Government has in 

 many other contexts created situations which amounted to subsi- 

 dies for jobs in one area or another. 



We believed in 1980 and we continue to believe today that it 

 would be unfair to suddenly change the rules of the game in a way 

 that would substantially impact the citizens of this area who had 

 come to rely on that policy over time. We believe that it would be 

 more fair to make the types of compromises in this legislation that 

 are reflected by the Southeast Conference proposal. We recognize 

 that the Tongass is, in fact, treated differently than other forests, 

 but there is an historic context for that treatment. And we think 

 that if changes are going to be made, they should be made with a 

 sense of understanding that there are real people here that are 

 going to be directly affected if there is a radical, sudden change in 

 that policy. 



Senator Wirth. Let me, if I might, Governor, pursue that just a 

 little bit. I appreciate the history and I understand that. I mean, 

 we have had many subsidized industries over the years, subsidized 

 by the Federal Government. The Federal Government, however, 

 from time to time decides that it has learned from its mistakes and 

 makes a change if the evidence suggests that changes ought to be 

 made. So, the question that we then have is has the subsidy pro- 

 gram worked, has it in fact saved jobs since ANILCA passed? For 

 example, has the number of jobs decreased, stabilized, or increased? 

 Has ANILCA, passed in 1980, encouraged competition or has the 

 market become less competitive? It has in the timber industry. And 

 has ANILCA been productive in terms of encouraging other eco- 

 nomic programs or, as some suggested yesterday, has the excessive 

 emphasis on timber discouraged other industry, such as the fishing 

 industry? 



Those are the kinds of balances and trade-off questions that we 

 are going to have to ask and will be asked between now and the 

 time that we get to the floor. Some of my colleagues are going to 

 have questions as well, but that is my point of comment. I realize 

 the subsidy program was set up. Has it worked? 



Governor Cowper. Well, in the first place, we believe that the 

 questions that you mentioned are legitimate, and we believe many 

 of them have been addressed in the context of this compromise sug- 

 gestion. I suppose it would be difficult to say with any confidence 

 whether the 1980 legislation has worked or to what extent it has 

 worked, being that the current conditions of the timber markets in 

 Alaska are a lot better than they were in those days. Much of it 

 depends on has there been an increased demand in Asia for timber 

 and timber products. Certainly it has depended on the relatively 

 weak dollar in Asia, which means that our products can be put on 

 the market for much less than was the case previously. It means 



