392 



other way around. I looked at that and it appeared to me that the 

 only effect of that language was to preserve historic reference 

 point; otherwise it is effectively doing away with what was previ- 

 ously a floor and is now a ceiling. I think that was the purpose of 

 the Southeast Conference addressing the issue in that way. 



Senator Wirth. Then the logical question would be why would 

 we bother to include it at all? We do not include any of the forest 

 plans in legislation related to national forests, and it has been in- 

 terpreted by the Forest Service as one of the driving elements. You 

 know and I know what happens with an executive agency. They 

 look at this and they see the number and they say, "Ah-ha, if I just 

 pick that 4.5 that allows me to avoid making a lot of other tough 

 choices that I might otherwise have to make." Maybe I am getting 

 a little cynical in my old age. I deal with a lot of executive agen- 

 cies, but I have watched a lot of that in operation. 



Governor Cowper. I would expect that the Forest Service prob- 

 ably would see that, probably would recognize that the legislation 

 having been changed in this way v/as probably reflective of a sig- 

 nificant shift in Congressional views towards his decision, but I 

 would not presume to speak for the Forest Service. Sometimes I do 

 not speak for my own agency, but if I were working for the Forest 

 Service, I would view it as a complete change in the whole issue. 



Senator Wirth. I have one other set of questions related to 

 boundaries. Would either of my colleagues want to pursue this? 



Senator Murkow^ski. If I can paraphrase, for my colleagues, 

 sometimes what you see is what you want to see; and I think if we 

 reflect on 4.5 with a great deal of concern, we should look at what 

 we have done for the last decade, which is about or a little over 3.7. 

 So, to my friend from Colorado, we have had the ability theoretical- 

 ly under the existing legislation to come up to 4.5 in the last 10 

 years, and we have not done it. I think it is important for my 

 friend from Colorado to understand why we were at 3.7. The reali- 

 ties of the free market have simply dictated that we could not 

 market any more timber than we marketed, and there are other 

 considerations that go into it. 



Another thing that I think we have had a difficult time commu- 

 nicating is the fact that this so-called Federal assistance, and I am 

 not going to use the word "subsidy," of $40 million was not some- 

 thing that was just given. It was in return for the 1.7 million acres 

 taken out of the commercial forest land of Southeast Alaska and 

 put in wilderness. 



So, one can make the case very easily, what price wilderness? We 

 have taken away the subsidy and so it may be a conversation in 

 this hearing, if it indeed is interpreted by some of you as subsidy. I 

 do not think it is but nevertheless it has gone into legislation. 



The ability to put up to 4.5, which is in the Southeast Conference 

 recommendation and in our language, simply means that that is a 

 target, subject to the ability to sustain a level of employment in 

 Sitka and Ketchikan and other communities of Southeast Alaska 

 to provide stability. It did not allow in excess of that. It provides 

 for people to plan, educate their families, know that they are going 

 to have a job. 



If you want to take that away from them, why that is within the 

 authority of the United States Government. So, we can renegotiate 



