[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 87 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1084-E1085]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT TIMBER CONTRACT EXTENSION ACT

                                 ______


                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 13, 1996

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a bill to 
extend by 15 years the only remaining long-term contract for timber on 
the Tongass National Forest. The extension was requested by the both 
Houses of the Alaska State Legislature. It is supported by Alaska's 
Governor. Democrats and Republicans in Alaska are behind the 15 year 
extension.
  Some may remember that there were two long-term timber contracts when 
this House last passed the Tongass Timber Reform Act. There should be 
two contracts, but at the urging of environmental extremists, the 
Clinton administration breached one and canceled it in 1994.
  This bill is not the ultimate answer to the problems of the Tongass, 
problems with which this body has dealt too often.
  Many may know that I introduced a bill last year that could give 
power and control over the Tongass to the State of Alaska, but the bill 
I introduce today is no substitute for H.R. 2413. Ultimately, the 
Federal political process, Federal bureaucrats, and Federal actions are 
no way to guide the management of treasures like the Tongass.
  Indeed, the fact that I even need to introduce a bill to again 
attempt a Federal solution for the Tongass--just 5 years after the last 
Federal legislative solution--is evidence that the State of Alaska by 
its laws and policies should own and manage the Tongass.
  I want to be clear. This bill has nothing to do with expanding 
clearcutting on the Tongass. The only lands subject to harvesting are 
those left in the timber base after the past wilderness withdrawals 
form past acts of Congress. This has nothing to do with the public 
financing of environmental improvements. The company will finance the 
improvements itself based on the extended contract. This contract 
extension is corporate workfare with a fair return to the taxpayers.
  The bill I introduce today is needed because the 1990 Tongass Timber 
Reform Act, which was passed and signed over my objection, has failed. 
It failed because 42 percent of the timber economy that was not 
supposed to diminish after the 1990 act is gone from the Tongass. The 
remainder of the timber economy--at one time over 4,000 strong--is just 
hanging on.
  With its command and control approach to Federal land management 
decisions, Washington, DC, has failed Alaskans and those in other 
States. It has failed because the promise of the land base to support 
timber has been eroded by administrative action, laws, and lawsuits. 
The latest administrative proposal is to withdraw an additional 600,000 
acres from the land available for timber harvesting. That means more 
land withdrawn by that single administrative action than has been 
harvested in the Tongass since 1909. There have been so many failures 
by the Federal Government regarding laws and decisions on the Tongass 
and the 75,000 people who live there are tired of it.
  One of the most grave Federal failures resulted from the unilateral 
timber contract modifications--over the objections of contract 
holders--ordered by the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act. While there is 
a deep history attached to the long-term contracts in the Tongass, 
overnight the Federal Government just changed the contract at its whim. 
It was not because of any environmental or ecological reason. It was 
with arrogance and the design to stop the very small amount of timber 
harvesting in the largest national forest.
  That was one of several decisions forced onto the Federal Forest 
Service and is a primary reason that the Alaska Pulp Corp. wanted to 
begin retooling its facility in Sitka. After they began doing so, their 
long-term contract was canceled under orders from the Department. It 
was a blatantly political decision and will end up costing the Federal 
Government millions of dollars.

[[Page E1085]]

  The other long-term contract holder, the Ketchikan Pulp Corp. now 
barely survives with the unfair changes unilaterally inserted into its 
contract by the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act. The company has about 8 
years remaining on its contract, but is facing several business 
options. The company has indicated a willingness to invest substantial 
resources--upwards of $200 million--to install environmental 
improvements to the plant and make it more energy efficient. Amortizing 
that investment requires a 15-year extension to their existing 
contract.
  The 15-year extension is the first feature of my bill. The remaining 
parts of the bill attempt to improve the fairness of the contract 
provisions that were unilaterally changed under the 1990 Tongass Timber 
Reform Act. One provision requires a harvest plan which details the 
volume of timber and its location. Another provision requires normal 
independent appraisals and competitive rates for timber. Another 
provision concerns proportionality of harvests and includes a new 
criteria--acreage--by which proportionality is measured. Other 
provisions remove the termination clause and specifically allow 
conversion or replacement of the pulp mill with a similar facility. A 
final provision says that future modifications of the contract must be 
by mutual agreement.
  I remind critics of logging on the Tongass that this bill has nothing 
to do with changing wilderness or LUD II designations. This bill has 
nothing to do with removing stream buffer protection. This bill has 
nothing to do with restoring the Tongass timber supply fund. This bill 
has nothing to do with any other part of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. 
Some may wish it did change those parts of the unfair law, but it does 
not.
  This bill concerns fairness. It concerns restoring a viable long-term 
contract and extending its term. Before passage of the 1990 Tongass 
Timber Reform Act, nearly every environmental interest emphasized that 
timber harvesting and timber employment would not be affected if the 
Tongass law was reformed. I regret to say that those who made the 
representations have forgotten that they promised peace in the valley. 
The bill I introduce today does the least possible to address one issue 
that might make peace in the valley.
  The timber economy has faltered in the Tongass. Not because it is 
inefficient, but because the law agreed to by powers in Washington, DC, 
doomed the timber economy. Passage of this bill means hope to those in 
Ketchikan and throughout Southeast. It means hope because an extended, 
viable timber contract will result in a clearer chlorine-free mill with 
improved energy efficiency. It means hope because it means jobs. Jobs 
and a cleaner environment means a good future for the timber resource 
industry in the Tongass.

  An additional point is worth mentioning. There were allegations of 
timber theft by the company holding the long-term contract on the 
Tongass. My staff checked this report. They were told by the FBI that 
there is no planned or existing investigation of the company for timber 
theft. Nothing, according to the FBI after having visited the Tongass, 
has prompted the Bureau to even initiate a preliminary or full-fledged 
investigation of criminal timber.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House Agriculture 
Committee to advance this piece of legislation.

                          ____________________