Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/06/1997 01:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 24 - NO ALASKA CHRISTMAS TREE FOR FED. CAPITOL The next order of business to come before the House Resources Standing Committee was HJR 24, Relating to challenging the environmental and economic integrity of Alaska timber as Christmas decor for the United States Capitol. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON called on Representative Bill Williams, sponsor of HJR 24, to present the resolution. Number 0265 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS read the following sponsor statement into the record: "House Joint Resolution 24 was introduced in response to the Clinton Administration's proposal to harvest trees from the Tongass National Forest for the purpose of decorating the nation's capital during the 1998 Christmas season. "Under normal circumstances this proposal would be met with open arms and be considered an honor by the people who live and work in the Forest. However, these are not normal circumstances. Federal policy decisions, the inability of the Forest Service to get timber volume out, and litigation has led to mill closures, widespread job loss and economic depression, not to mention the associated negative socio-economic impacts. "I consider the proposal a direct insult to the people of Southeast Alaska. These are people who are prohibited from making an honest living in the woods, yet are asked to harvest Christmas trees, send them back east AND fund the project. At a time when we need every single dollar we have to try and rebuild our economy it is incredible that the Federal Government would ask us to fund such a project. "We need to send a strong message to Washington that says we do not agree with their actions regarding the Tongass National Forest. The human cost of `saving the Tongass' has been too high. We do not agree with their taking of trees for decorative purposes while the jobless citizens of Southeast Alaska try to scrape enough money together to save their homes and dreams. I urge you to support House Joint Resolution 24." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON explained Representative Williams also had an amendment to the resolution. He asked him to explain it to the committee members. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS moved that Amendment 1 be adopted. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS explained that Amendment 1 made the resolution more clear by adding figures to it. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated Amendment 1 made it current with the recent action taken by the Forest Service and the Ketchikan Pulp Mill. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS further explained that he hoped the resolution would allow for media coverage in Alaska and the rest of the country so that it would be understood what was happening in the Tongass National Forest. The forest for the past six to eight years had been managed by political science. "What we would like to do is to be able to manage the Tongass in the right manner with regular science." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked the committee members if there was any objection to the motion to adopt Amendment 1? There was no objection, Amendment 1 was so adopted. Number 0486 WAYNE NICOLLS was the first person to testify in Juneau. He was here testifying on behalf of himself today. He apologized to Representative Williams if his remarks appeared contradictory to him because he had never opposed him before. But, he did want to present a clear picture of the Christmas Tree Project. This resolution was poor timing given the circumstances of the Tongass National Forest. Many knew that the Tongass could produce several times more than whatever the level would come out of the Tongass plan. "It's tragic to have the job loss and to have the productivity that's potentially lost and the potential for a thriving and a growing forest products industry instead of having it shut down." MR. NICOLLS further explained that before political correctness it was called the Capital Christmas Tree and more appropriately it was called the people's tree. It was started and sustained by the people's forest service to supply the people's tree from the people's forest. The honor and the privilege of supplying the tree required years of effort and determination, of which, none was political. Therefore, he hoped that the legislature would speak for the people. Since the beginning, tax payer's money had only been used sparingly for a small part of salaries and expenses. The employees contributed many unpaid hours. It was mostly supported by volunteers and donations. Mr. Nicolls had a vested interest in the program because he was part of the group that started the program. In 1996, the project tried to get a tree to commemorate the silver anniversary of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Sealaska, the centennial of the Bonanza Creek discovery, and the eve of the 90th anniversary of the Tongass National Forest. The effort was lost to the state of Utah because of the golden spike significance and the state's centennial. MR. NICOLLS further stated that the nomination and selection for the capital tree was a deliberate, long-term and highly competitive process. It was similar on a grand scale for shopping for the perfect Christmas tree with his wife. The honors and privileges that it brought to the people were significant. The final selection was made by the nation's arborist, who was responsible for even the temporary flora in the nation's capital. Several communities usually participated. The Petersburg Chamber pledged in 1995 the transportation funds, if the tree was selected from Alaska. Furthermore, as many as 60 smaller trees went along for various Washington D.C. locations, such as, the Supreme Court building; none went to the White House. The tree in the White House was the winner among the Christmas tree growers in the Lower Forty-Eight. It was not connected with the capital trees. If there was the opportunity again, it was a chance to showcase Alaska, its forests, its productive potentials, and the results of its productive management. For example, the best specimen would probably come from a second growth area providing a positive message. MR. NICOLLS wished the committee members well in their decision. "I hope that our message does get through that we're being put upon." Number 0824 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained under different circumstances he would agree 100 percent with the testimony from Mr. Nicolls. However, he found that the results of the executive order were repugnant. The resolution probably would not do any good, but neither would sending the trees. "We have an administration in Washington that really doesn't care about Alaska. They have shown that. They don't care about small states. They're willing to just about sell out anybody that has only a 3 or a 4 congressional delegation and cater to those environmentally oriented states back East that have 30 to 50 electoral votes." He supported the resolution. Number 0907 MR. NICOLLS replied he was happy to be retired from the forest service so that he could unabashedly agree with Representative Green's statements. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN wondered, for the record, if Mr. Nicolls was not retired would he not have said that. MR. NICOLLS responded he probably would have said it anyway. Number 0941 JIM CAPLAN, Deputy Regional Forester for Natural Resources, United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, was the next person to testify in Juneau. He explained he was here to answer any questions about the process. He had handled the program for three years at the Washington D.C. end of the pipeline. He declared, if the people of Southeast Alaska did not want this type of activity to go on, it would not go on. It was that simple. The tree was not due in Washington D.C. until 1998, therefore, another tree from another forest could be substituted. Number 0992 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Caplan who paid for the transportation of the trees? MR. CAPLAN replied it was paid for by voluntary contributions from the communities and cooperators. For instance, Silver Bay Logging offered to aerial lift the trees as a contribution. He cited Mac Trucks and Harley Davidson as companies that had participated and contributed as well. Sometimes the communities were able to raise a great bit of money but a lot of times it was a combination of contributors. Number 1045 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Caplan if he had received any reactions from the Southeast communities? Number 1056 MR. CAPLAN replied some communities were very upset and others were supportive. The program was not intended to create conflict between communities or within communities. However, it had been difficult to decide if there was any community consensus. Number 1085 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Caplan what was his job? MR. CAPLAN replied he was the Deputy Regional Forester for Natural Resources here in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated, "So, you're not retired?" MR. CAPLAN replied he was not retired and did not plan to be real soon, but after today it could happen. Number 1106 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES replied she was not so sure that it would happen to him because he did a fine job with the party line. The federal administration would not have any reason to retire him early. MR. CAPLAN replied he appreciated the remarks of Representative Barnes. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES further stated that the people of Alaska would very much like to have a tree from Alaska displayed in the United States capital. However, she also believed that Washington D.C. needed to understand that a tree was significant to Alaska for many reasons. The city of Kotzebue used to have one tree that was stolen. And, for years the people of Kotzebue tended to that tree. The people of Southeast lived off of the forest and when their livelihood was shut down the way it had been, it meant that some children would not be able to eat. "And, so if the only protest that they have is to say: `Well we would very much like you to have our tree,' we can't in good faith do that because you've put our people out of work. Thus, they can't feed their families, or cloth their children, or do the things that they need to do." Number 1195 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated that he would find great pleasure if the national media picked up on this issue. He also hoped that the other areas that were solicited would not provide a tree sending a greater message from the people living and working in the forest that they had enough of the "war on the West." "With all due respect, Sir, I hope they won't find a tree for Washington." Number 1237 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated, for the record, that he had known Mr. Caplan for a number of years and he did not know anybody more honorable, professional, or more caring and concerned about Alaska; so, he would like to see him keep his job. MR. CAPLAN replied "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it." Number 1255 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested to Mr. Caplan, if he really wanted to find out what the people in the affected communities thought, to pass out a contribution hat in Wrangell and Ketchikan to help pay for the transportation of the trees out East. "I'm afraid that they would be a little less civil than we are being here." Number 1307 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE replied that the tree in Kotzebue was a national forest complete with a white picket fence around it. Furthermore, as a kid he grew up hearing about the White House and the big deal about the Christmas tree and he wondered if Alaska would ever get that. "I never thought we had trees because I figured the Tlingit were the first ones across the land bridge, they clear-cutted and made canoes out of all of them and left the rest of us stranded." REPRESENTATIVE JOULE further stated that he always had hoped that Alaska would have the distinct honor of placing a Christmas tree in the nations capital. But, it was a little frustrating to be put into this kind of light; and in any other circumstances it would be an honor. Maybe, if there was another place in Alaska that could do this, it could be considered. However, with the situation as it was, he would support the resolution even though it seemed in some ways mean spirited. The point needed to be made, however, and this was one way to do it. Number 1459 JACK E. PHELPS, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association, Inc., was the next person to testify in Juneau. He appreciated the resolution and the comments today made by a few of the members of the committee. It was important for the committee members to recognize that the process began by the Forest Service in 1993 which was the year that Alaska lost the Sitka pulp mill. At that time no one believed that the state would loose the Wrangell mill and the Ketchikan pulp mill as well. Therefore, this was an unfortunate and ironic turn of events since at one time there was community support. "It's unfortunate that larch doesn't grow in Southeast Alaska because larch was a conifer that loses its needles in the winter and maybe it would be really appropriate for us to send a larch back there to decorate the nations capital." It would be symbolic of what had happened to the industry - death. Under the current administration, we were back to pre-Magna Charta England - the king's forest rather than the people's forest as Mr. Nicolls stated earlier. That was the problem throughout the public land states in the western half of the United States. "We are being told we cannot encroach on the king's forest." The Alaska State Legislature should be applauded for trying to make a statement with this resolution. He urged its speedy passage from both sides of the aisle. Number 1641 JED WHITTAKER was the next person to testify in Juneau. He objected to the "politicalization" of Christmas. He explained Christmas was a time for giving, a time that brought out the best of everyone, and a time for sharing to become the best that one could be as a human. He understood and shared the outrage of Representative Williams of the injustice of the Clinton Administration's actions on the Tongass. However, the resolution did not show the best that Alaskans could be to the rest of the nation by politicizing Christmas. Representative Williams was well intended, however, he did not think that this was a proper course of action. It was an abuse of public monies to even discuss something like this. "I was listening to you all give various platitudes and jokes and whatnot. And, I would have to remind you that this is a public hearing and you're supposed to be hearing from the public. You have much opportunity to deliberate about your very important decision about objecting to Christmas trees after the public hearing." In conclusion, Christmas was not about politics and Christmas trees were not about politics. It was a time to put politics to rest. "I would hope that you can find it in your heart to do what is best for both Alaska and the nation." Number 1821 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked Co-Chair Hudson if the letter from John Conley, Member, Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly, could be added to the record? There was no objection, it was so added to the committee file. Number 1854 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES moved and asked unanimous consent that HJR 24, as amended, move from the committee with the attached zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. There was no objection, CSHJR 24(RES) was so moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|