Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2505, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just considered.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of any time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2505 is legislation I introduced on behalf of the Alaska Federation of Natives, the statewide organization which serves the interests of the over 90,000 Natives in the State of Alaska. The bill addresses issues of importance to several ANCSA native corporations. I want to thank the Calista Native Corp., the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Department of the Interior and Committee staff for their efforts to resolve many of the difficult issues in this bill. The bill before the House has been amended to reflect this agreement. The bill, as amended, contains several provisions, I will briefly explain few: Considerable time has been spent resolving the Calista land exchange issue. Thanks to all parties involved for their commitment to move forward on this important provision. The Calista region in Alaska is one of the poorest and most socially troubled areas in the Nation. This land exchange was authorized to provide Calista with a means of economic self-sufficiency, consistent with the purpose of ANCSA. Under ANCSA, the Secretary of the Interior and Calista were to determine a mutually agreeable value for Calista's lands and interests which are to be exchanged, subject to a maximum per acre value. However, to date, the two parties have been unable to arrive at a mutually agreeable value. The committee feels that the Secretary's appraisals did not comply with previous legislative directives and, as a result, significantly underestimated the value of Calista's lands and interests. Section 5 of this bill would eliminate this impasse by establishing a value for Calista's lands, as Congress has had to do in numerous other instances since 1976. In doing so, Congress is simply providing the figure which Calista and the Secretary of the Interior were unable to determine. There are costs associated with this provision and we have no formal offset for those costs contained in H.R. 2505. However, we have worked with Chairman Kasich and the Budget Commission to also consider the Resources Committee bill to sell the Nation's helium reserves that will more than offset the costs of this bill. Another provision would make revenues derived by the Native regional corporations from the sale of sand, rock, and gravel exempt from the revenue-sharing provisions of ANCSA. This provision would codify an agreement that was reached between the ANCSA regional corporations in June 1980--after many years of litigation. Another provision would extend automatic land bank protections to land trades between Alaska Native organizations and Federal or State governments. Mr. Speaker, all of those provisions have been discussed at length between the majority and minority. The bill was reported by the Resources Committee on a voice vote and I am happy to bring to the floor yet another consensus bill. I believe this is an excellent ANCSA amendments package and urge my colleagues support. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record. Addendum to the Calista Conveyance and Relinquishment Document, September 15, 1996 1. Purpose: The purpose of this Addendum is to provide for the addition of certain surface and subsurface estate lands owned by The Kuskokwim Corporation, NIMA Corporation and the Calista Corporation to those lands to be available for exchange with the United States pursuant to Section 8126 of

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2505) to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to make certain clarifications to the land bank protection provisions, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. May I suggest one thing. Let the House participate. Let this Congress participate in this process. This is the people's house. Let the people have the decision to make. That is crucially important, to continue the process. That is all this bill does. For those that are afraid of letting this Congress participate, you should not be in Congress. It is that simple. What is wrong with us being involved? Why should we let the executive branch and the U.N. make decisions about my private property rights? I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]. (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono]. (Mr. BONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. May again I remind that he who protests too loudly, what is wrong with the Congress, the house of the people, having a say? There is nothing wrong. I urge the people that are watching this debate to consider the people's involvement. There is nothing in this bill that repeals any existing heritage sites or biosphere sites. I am suggesting respectfully, all I am asking these people to understand, let the Congress play a role in making these designations. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, someone who would protest so loudly must have something to hide. All we have tried to do in this legislation is let the people and the Congress have a say. That is all we are trying to suggest in this legislation. So when one gives a presentation as radical as that was, something must be wrong. They must be trying to cover up what can and has happened. We had a hearing on this, Mr. Speaker. We had a hearing. We had 10 witnesses all testify in favor of the bill but one. That is this administration. We had no participation from the other side. Not one showed up to listen to those private citizens, those landholders that have been abused by previous administrations and this administration because of the biospheres and heritage areas. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, he who protests too loud and tries to protect those trying to take away our rights may have something to hide. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just like to say I hope the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. I want the people on record, being recorded they are against the people of the United States being involved in land decisions. They do not let the executive branch be involved in deciding what type of property should be taken off and what private property should be infringed upon. I want to have that vote. I want to see who has the guts to vote against the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to your attention a terrible injustice. The victims of this injustice are hardworking, taxpaying American citizens who are being deprived of basic rights guaranteed to each citizen under the Constitution. Those rights are the right to due process of law and the right to equal protection of the law. Due process guarantees that when the Government might cause us harm, we should have a right to be heard. Equal protection requires equal treatment before the law. If the Clinton administration has it's ways, our citizens will be gagged and denied the right to be heard when they want to complain about what their Government is doing to them under the guise of protecting endangered or threatened species. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case filed by two ranchers in Oregon asserting that Secretary Babbitt violated the Endangered Species Act [ESA] when he tried to reduce the amount of water available to those ranchers for their cattle and crops. They alleged that he disobeyed several requirements of the ESA that would have protected their economic interests. However, they never got their day in court. Mr. Babbitt's lawyers asked the judge to throw out their claim without a hearing. His lawyers claim that people are not protected by the Endangered Species Act so they have no right to complain when the Secretary violates the act and therefore, takes away their ability to support themselves. The lawyers argued that people's economic, social or recreational concerns are not within the ``zone of interest'' of the ESA and therefore, they cannot sue to have the Court decide if the Secretary had violated the law. The judge threw the ranchers out of court, but they appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Once again. Secretary Babbitt's attorneys argued that the ranchers could not sue to have the Secretary's actions reviewed by the court, because they have no protections under the ESA. This is called the zone of interest test. The ninth circuit in Bennett v. Plent, 63 F. 3d 915 (1995) agreed with Secretary Babbitt's lawyers and once again threw these ranchers out of court ruling that they were not within ESA's zone of interest. The ranchers have now appealed to the Supreme Court. However, Secretary Babbitt's attorneys are now worried about the political consequences of having everyday people denied access to judicial review of Secretary Babbitt's decisions, so they have quit arguing that these ranchers are not protected by the ESA. Instead, they are still arguing that these ranchers should not be allowed to sue but are basing their arguments on other legal technicalities, such as claiming that the ranchers sued the wrong Government agency within Secretary Babbitt's vast Department. At the Supreme Court level the case is known as Bennett versus Spear. If the Supreme Court decides the case the way the lawyers have asked them to, it will leave the zone of interest test in place in all courts within the ninth circuit's jurisdiction. This means that people living in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Nevada, Arizona, and Montana will not be able to sue under the ESA to have a court review illegal actions by Secretary Babbitt. Since the courts in other areas of the country are not bound by the Ninth Circuit Court's decision, citizens in those areas will not have to pass the zone of interest test to have access to the courts. However, if the Supreme Court agrees with the ninth circuits decision, this zone of interest test will become the law of the land and will have broad legal implications, not just for the interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, but for a variety of other environmental statutes as well. Putting it in layman's language--Secretary Babbitt's lawyers have opened the door of the courthouse to the environmental lawyers, given them millions of dollars of taxpayers money to pay for their lawsuits, and invited them to keep coming back. This has spawned a cottage industry for so-called environmentalists. Although the Federal Government subsidizes hundreds of environmentalist's lawsuits, they have slammed the door of the courthouse to average citizens just trying to protect themselves from abuses by Secretary Babbitt's Department. I have attached a list of cases filed under the ESA and the attorney's fees received by the lawyers in each of these cases. This list was supplied to the Committee on Resources by the Department of Justice. To say this is unfair is a gross understatement. It is unfair in the extreme and in addition, it is resulting in unreasonable and unbalanced public policy. It is no secret that Federal judges are playing a key role in implementing the Endangered Species Act. When Secretary Babbitt adopts new rules, he is required by law to receive public comment from any member of the public. When Federal judges interpret the law, they can exclude the general public and allow only a limited viewpoint to be heard. It is no wonder that we end up with judge-made law that is so unbalanced and unreasonable in so many cases. Not all judges would turn away those citizens who wish to sue to protect their economic, social, or recreational interest. Judge Rosenbaum of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota had this to say when the lawyers representing the Clinton administration asked him to dismiss a suit filed by a group of snowmobilers. He scolded the Government because they could not identify a single person who would have been qualified to complain about the Government's overprotection of endangered species. Judge Rosenbaum said ``the Court is unwilling to adopt the view that the Fish and Wildlife Service is unrestrained if it cloaks any of its acts in the laudable robe of endangered and threatened species protection. This is a form of totalitarian virtue--a concept for which no precedent has been advanced and which is foreign to the rule of law.'' He apparently does not agree with the Secretary Babbitt's view that under the law the Federal Government can never go too far in protecting endangered species. In briefs to the Supreme Court the Government says that no one can sue them if they go too far under the ESA. According to the Secretary Babbitt's lawyers, if the Government violates the constitutional and legal rights of citizens, if it fails to follow the requirements in the Endangered Species Act designed to protect citizens right's, there is no citizen who can sue to stop such Government overreaching. That is an incredible statement by our Justice Department lawyers sworn to uphold our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. I agree with Judge Rosenbaum that allowing only professional environmentalists to use the ESA to further their agenda, whatever that agenda may be, is foreign to the principles of fairness and due process that we hold so dear. We need to let citizens who are directly impacted by the ESA into the courthouse so that the courts can hear all the facts, all the evidence, and let the truth guide their decisions. When only one side is allowed to present the facts, the truth becomes the victim of injustice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suit Attorney fees Case name number District paid ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt... 95-601 Colorado........................ $1,000.00 2. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt... 95-382 Colorado........................ 8,000.00 3. Restore: The North Woods v. Babbitt........ 95-37 New Hampshire................... 5,400.00 4. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt... 95-1815 Colorado........................ 3,500.00 5. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt... 95-816 Colorado........................ 500.00 6. The Bay Institute of San Francisco, et al. 94-0265 California, East................ 5,000.00 v. Babbitt. 7. National Audubon Society v. Babbitt, et al. 94-0105 California, South............... 7,540.61 8. Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc., Alliance 94-0246 District of Columbia............ 4,500.00 for the Wild Rockies, Inc., et al. v. Babbitt. 9. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. 94-717 Colorado........................ 4,200.00 Morgenweck.. 10. Environmental Defense Center v. Babbitt... 94-0743 California, Central............. 4,074.75 11.. Biodiversity Legal Foundation, et al. v. 94-1086 Colorado........................ 1,408.19 Babbitt. 12. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt.. 94-0920 District of Columbia............ 5,000.00 13. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt.. 94-0920 District of Columbia............ 3,815.00 14. Greater Gila Biodiversity Project v. USFWS 94-0288 Arizona......................... 2,048.91 15. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, 94-0696 Arizona......................... 1,665.00 et al. v. USFWS. 16. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, 94-0739 Arizona......................... 1,000.00 et al. v. USFWS. 17. Environmental Defense Center v. Babbitt... 94-0788 California, Central............. 3,815.00 18. Oregon Natural Resources Council v. 94-666 Oregon.......................... 4,000.00 Babbitt. 19. Mountain Lion Fountain v. Babbitt......... 94-1165 California, East................ 6,500.00 20. Dr. Robin Silver, et al. v. Babbitt....... 94-0337 Arizona......................... 4,000.00 21. Dr. Robin Silver, et al. v. Babbitt....... 94-0337 Arizona......................... 102,418.86 22. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity 94-1034 Arizona......................... 5,145.00 v. Babbitt. 23. The Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. 94-02441 District of Columbia............ 4,000.00 Babbitt. 24. Idaho Conservation League v. Babbitt...... 94-0351 Idaho........................... 5,000,00 25. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to 94-6339 Oregon.......................... 10,500.00 Pesticides v. Babbitt. 26. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity 94-1946 Arizona......................... 1,971.01 v. Babbitt. 27. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity 94-2036 Arizona......................... 40,000.00 v. Babbitt. 28. Native Plant Society of Oregon v. U.S. DOI 93-180 Oregon.......................... 13,046.19 29. National Audubon Society et al. v. Babbitt 93-1152 District of Columbia............ 22,500.00 et al... 30. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game v. National 93-1603 Oregon.......................... 8,405.06 Marine Fisheries Service. 31. Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Dept. 93-293 Oregon.......................... 16,200.00 of Commerce. 32. Clemmys Karmorata v. USFWS................ 93-6135 Oregon.......................... 2,522.30 33. Environmental Defense Center v. Bruce 93-1847 California, Central............. 4,700.00 Babbitt. 34. Environmental Defense Center v. Bruce 93-1848 California, Central............. 4,700.00 Babbitt. 35. Environmental Defense Center v. Babbitt... 93-3379 California, Central............. 4,300.00 36. Desert Tortoise, et al. v. Lujan.......... 93-0114 California, North............... 69,000.00 37. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bruce 93-2376 Colorado........................ 8,500.00 Babbitt. 38. Greater Yellowstone Coalition, et al. v. 93-1495 District of Columbia............ 32,750.00 F. Dale Robertson (Chief, USFWS). 39. Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. 93-0301 California, North............... 262,096.76 v. Bruce Babbitt, Sec. DOI. 40. Sierra Club, et al. v. Bruce Babbitt, et 93-1717 California, South............... 11,368.76 al.. 41. Greater Gila Biodiversity Project v. USFWS 93-1913 Arizona......................... 11,000.00 42. Sierra Club, et al. v. David Garber, et 93-069 Montana......................... 55,000.00 al.. 43. Bay Institute of San Francisco v. Lujan... 92-2132 California, East................ 60,000.00 44. Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas.......... 92-1322 Oregon.......................... 165,000.00 45. Colorado Wildlife Federation v. Turner.... 92-884 Colorado........................ 31,351.90 46. Colorado Wildlife Federation v. Turner.... 92-884 Colorado........................ 5,000.00 47. Environmental Defense Center v. Lujan..... 92-6082 California, Central............. 7,500.00 48. Idaho Conservation League v. Manuel Lujan, 92-0260 Idaho........................... 21,166.00 et al.. 49. Canadian Lynx, Greater Ecosystem Alliance 21-1269 Washington, West................ 2,000.00 v. Lujan. 50. Canadian Lynx, Greater Ecosystem Alliance 92-1269 Washington, West................ 9,500.00 v. Lujan. 51. Friends of Walker Creek Wetlands v. Dept. 92-1626 Oregon.......................... 12,000.00 of the Interior. 52. Idaho Conservation League, et al. v. Lujan 92-0406 Idaho........................... 8,000.00 53. Fund for Animals v. Manuel Lujan, et al... 92-800 District of Columbia............ 67,500.00 54. National Audubon Society v. Lujan......... 92-209 California, South............... 7,348.75 55. Wendell Wood, et al. v. Manuel Lujan, et 91-6496 Oregon.......................... 14,547.05 al.. 56. Wendell Wood, et al. v. Manuel Lujan, et 91-6496 Oregon.......................... 550.00 al.. 57. California Native Plant Society v. Manuel 91-0038 California, East................ 16,678.25 Lujan, Jr.. 58. Earth Island Institute, et al. v. Manuel 91-6015 Oregon.......................... 32,338.70 Lujan, Jr.. 59. The Fund for Animals ein., et al. v. 91-2201 District of Columbia............ 36,000.00 Turner. 60. West Snowy Plover v. Lujan................ 91-1421 Washington, West................ 7,710.92 61. Edward Wilkinson Mudd Jr. v. William 91-1392 Alabama, North.................. 39,000.00 Reilly, Admin., EPA. 62. Hawaiian Crow v. Manuel Lujan............. 91-00191 Hawaii.......................... 195,000.00 63. Sierra Club v. Lujan...................... 91-069 Texas, West..................... 666,666.67 64. Sierra Club v. Lujan...................... 91-069 Texas, West..................... 666,666.67 65. Sierra Club v. Lujan...................... 91-069 Texas, West..................... 666,666,66 66. Sierra Club v. Lujan...................... 91-069 Texas, West..................... 1,550,000,00 67. Marbled Murrelet, et al. v. Manuel Lujan.. 91-522 Washington, West................ 43,519.49 68. Marbled Murrelet, et al. v. Manuel Lujan.. 91-522 Washington, West................ 17,589.98 69. Dioxin/Organichlorine Center and Columbia 91-1442 Washington, West................ 61,500.00 River United v. Dana Rasmussen. 70. Colorado Envtl. Coalition v. J. Turner.... 91-1765 Colorado........................ 5,168.40 71. Florida Key Deer, et al. v. Robert H. 90-10037 Florida, South.................. 130,000.00 Morris. 72. Conservation Council for Hawaii, et al. v. 89-00953 Hawaii.......................... 44,635.25 Manuel Lujan and John F. Turner. 73. National Wildlife Federation, et al. v. 89-2089 District of Columbia............ 42,500.00 Robert Mosbacher, Sec. of Commerce. 74. Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund v. Manuel 89-1140 District of Columbia............ 9,000.00 Lujan, Jr., Sec. of Interior, et al.. 75. Sierra Club, et al. v. James A. Baker, et 89-3005 District of Columbia............ 18,583.72 al. 76. Resources Limited Inc., et al. v. F. Dale 89-41 Montana......................... 90,000.00 Robertson, et al.. 47,000.00 77. Environmental Defense Fund v. Lujan....... 89-2034 District of Columbia............ 2,237.50 78. Silver Rice Rat, et al. v. Manuel Lujan... 89-3409 District of Columbia............ 19,500.00 79. Northern Spotted Owl, et al. v. Donald 88-573 Washington, West................ 56,718.00 Hodel, et al.. 80. World Wildlife Fund v. Donald P. Hodel, et 88-573 .............................. 56,000.00 al.. 81. Sierra Club and League for Coastal 86-1942 California, South............... 44,774.16 Protection v. John Marsh, et al.. 82. Greenpeace v. Baldrige.................... 86-0129 Hawaii.......................... 88,794.01 83. Sierra Club, et al. v. Richard Lyng....... 85-69 Texas, East..................... 149,647.50 84. Natural Resources Defense Council v. 85-1214 California, East................ 518.000.00 Donald Hodel (Kesterson). 85. Natural Resources Defense Council v. 85-1214 California, East................ 57.000.00 Donald Hodel (Kesterson). 86. Natl. Wildlife Foundation, et al. v. 79-1851 District of Columbia............ 20,000.00 Endangered Species Committee, et al.. 87. Defenders of Wildlife v. Thomas........... Strychnine Minnesota....................... 122,500.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 1996. It has been nearly 80 years since the Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act [MBTA]. Since that time, there have been numerous congressional hearings and the establishment of a distinguished Law Enforcement Advisory Commission. What there has not been is any meaningful effort to revise or update this law. In my judgment, it is time to carefully review this statute and its accompanying regulations, and to change those provisions which are unfairly penalizing many law-abiding citizens. While this reform is long overdue, my bill will in no way undermine the fundamental goal of protecting migratory bird resources. Before explaining this legislation, I would like to provide my colleagues with some background on this issue. In 1918, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which implemented the 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds between Canada and the United States. This Convention has now been expanded to include Mexico and Russia. The Convention and the act are designed to protect and manage migratory birds as well as regulate the taking of that renewable resource. As part of appropriate regulation and management, certain restrictions have been imposed over the years on the taking of migratory birds by hunters. Many of these prohibitions were recommended by sportsmen who felt that certain restrictions were necessary to protect and manage migratory bird populations. Those regulations have clearly had a positive impact and have helped to maintain viable migratory bird populations, despite the loss of natural habitat due to agricultural expansion and industrial development. Since the passage of the act and the development of the regulatory scheme, various legal issues have been raised and most have been resolved. However, one restriction regarding the taking of migratory birds which have generated more controversy than any other is the restriction that prohibits hunting migratory birds ``by the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area''. This controversy has not been satisfactorily resolved. This prohibition has been at issue for two reasons. First, by case law in the Federal courts, a doctrine has developed where the actual guilt or innocence of an individual hunting migratory birds on a baited field is not an issue. If it is determined that bait is present, and the hunter is there, he is guilty under the doctrine of strict liability, regardless of whether there was knowledge or intent. Courts have ruled that it is not relevant that the hunter did not know or could not have reasonably known bait was present. Understandably, there has been much concern over the injustice of this doctrine. A second point of controversy is the related issue of the zone of influence that such bait has in actually luring or attracting migratory birds to a hunting site. Currently, the courts have developed the zone of influence concept in which limitation is defined by whether such bait could act as an effective lure or attraction and without regard for any other factors that may have influenced the migratory bird. Again, a number of hunters have been unfairly prosecuted by the blanket application of this doctrine. Under the current regulations, grains scattered as a result of agricultural pursuits are not considered bait as the term is used. The courts and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement, however, disagree on what constitutes normal agricultural planting or harvesting or the result of bona fide agricultural operations or procedures. Through hearings, the Congress has addressed various aspects of the baiting issue on many occasions during the last three decades. The baiting issue has also been addressed by a Fish and Wildlife Service appointed Law Advisory Commission. Sadly, absolutely nothing has resulted from these examinations and the problems still persist. On May 15, 1996, a hearing was held before the House Resources Committee, which I chair, to review the problems associated with the MBTA regulations, their enforcement, and the case law that has resulted from judicial rulings. It was abundantly clear from this, and previous hearings, that the time has come for the Congress to substantively address the problem through comprehensive legislation. From a historical review, it is obvious that the problems have not, and will not, be corrected either administratively or by future judicial rulings. Therefore, the Congress has an obligation to present rational and concise solutions to correct the injustices that now exist. It is also important that guidance be provided to law enforcement officials who are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law and the accompanying regulations. It must be underscored that sportsmen, law enforcement officials and, indeed, Members of Congress all share the fundamental intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that our migratory bird resources must be protected from overexploitation. As mentioned above, many of the regulations restricting the methods and manner of taking migratory birds were suggested by sportsmen. Sportsmen have historically demonstrated that they are dedicated to the wise use of renewable wildlife resources through reasoned management and enforcement of appropriate regulations. Over the years, various prohibitions on the manner and methods of taking migratory birds have been embodied in regulations. Many of these prohibitions are decades old and have the support of all persons concerned with protecting migratory birds. Consequently, it would be prudent to put these regulations in a statute where all restrictions are contained in a single document. The Secretary of the Interior annually makes certain findings regarding bag limits, duration of seasons, and other findings. The proposed legislation does not restrict or alter that duty nor does it prohibit additional regulation of migratory bird hunting, including hunting methods. However, this proposed legislation does embody all of the current regulations promulgated over the years and contained in the Code of Federal Regulations. Second, the fundamental purpose of the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 1996 is to address the baiting issue. Under section 3 of the proposed legislation, no person may take migratory birds by the aid of bait, or on or over bait, where that person knew or should have known the bait was present. The provision removes the strict liability interpretation made first by a Federal court in Kentucky in 1939, and presently followed by a majority, but not all, of Federal courts. By this amendment, uniformity in the application of the prohibition is established. As important, however, is the establishment of a standard that permits a determination of the actual guilt of the defendant. If the facts demonstrate that the hunter knew or should have known of the alleged bait, liability--which includes fines and potential incarceration--will be imposed. If by the evidence, however, the hunter could not have reasonably known that the alleged bait was present, liability would not be imposed and guilt will not be assessed. This would be a question of fact to be determined by the court based on the totality of the evidence presented. Furthermore, under section 3 of the proposed legislation, the exceptions to baiting prohibitions contained in Federal regulations have been amended to permit exemption for grains found on a hunting site as a result of normal agricultural planting and harvesting as well as normal agricultural operations and procedures. The proposed amendment maintains the intent of the current exceptions contained in the regulations but removes ambiguity and establishes guidelines for both the hunter and the law enforcement official. To determine what is a normal agricultural operation and procedure in a given region, the Fish and Wildlife Service will be required to annually publish in the Federal Register a notice for public comment defining what is a normal agricultural operation or procedure in given areas. This determination is to be made only after meaningful consultation with relevant State and Federal agencies and an opportunity for public comment. Again, the goal of this effort is to provide uniformity and clarity to landowners and hunters so that they know what is a normal agricultural operation for their respective region. In addition, the proposed legislation permits the scattering of various substances, like grains and seeds, which would now be considered bait, if it is done to feed farm animals and is a normal agricultural operation or procedure in a given area, as recognized by the Fish and Wildlife Service and published in the Federal Register. This change will clarify case law where it was determined that such an agricultural procedure was not considered an exception since it did not constitute planting or harvesting. Finally, the term bait is defined as the ``intentional'' placing of the offending grain, salt, or other feed. This concept removes from violation the accidental appearance of bait at or near the hunting venue. There have been cases where hunters have been charged under the baiting regulations for grain found on a public road obviously spilled from delivery to another site. It also removes as a violation the minimum evidence of foreign grain found in a field where it was proved to be present as the result of inadvertently being mixed in with other seed grain by the seller of the seed. Further, it removes from violation such cases where the minimal foreign grain came to be present as a result of being deposited by animals or running water. These examples are actual cases where citations were given for violations of the baiting regulations. Under the proposed legislation, the hunter would also be permitted to introduce evidence at trial as to what degree the alleged bait acted as the lure or attraction to the migratory birds in a given area. In cases where 13 kernels of corn were found in a pond in the middle of a 300- acre field planted in corn or 34 kernels of corn found in a wheat field next to a fresh water river, the bait was clearly not the reason migratory birds were in the hunting area. First, it was not intentionally placed there and, second, it could not be considered an effective lure or attraction under the factual circumstances. Again, however, these are questions of fact to be determined in a court of law. Currently, evidence of these matters is entirely excluded as irrelevant under the strict liability doctrine. In 1934, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Conservation Act as a mechanism to provide badly needed funds to purchase suitable habitat for migratory birds. Today, that need still exists and section 4 of my legislation will require that all fines and penalties collected under the MBTA will be deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. This is an essential reform and it is critical to the long-term survival of our migratory bird populations. Finally, this measure proposes that seized personal property can be returned to the owner by way of a bond or other surety, prior to trial, at the discretion of the court. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the proposed Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act is to provide clear guidance to landowners, hunters, law enforcement officials, and the courts on what the restrictions are on the taking of migratory birds. The conflict within the Federal judicial system and the inconsistent application of enforcement within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be resolved. The proposed legislation accomplishes that objective without, in any manner, weakening the intent of current restrictions on the method and manner of taking migratory birds; nor do the proposed provisions weaken protection of the resource. Finally, the proposed legislation does not alter or restrict the Secretary of the Interior's ability to promulgate annual regulations nor inhibit the issuance of further restrictions on the taking of migratory birds. While there may be only a few legislative days left in this session, I am introducing this legislation to stimulate debate on this issue. I would welcome the input and recommendations of all interested parties. I intend to reintroduce this measure early in the new Congress. Let me be clear The intent of this proposal is to provide clarity for both the hunter and the law enforcement community without undermining the protection of our precious migratory bird resources. I urge my colleagues to carefully examine the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 1996.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, today the House is considering the Senate amendments to H.R. 3060, the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996. This bill brings U.S. law in line with the international agreement covering Antarctic environmental protection. The bill was referred to the House Resources Committee which I chair. In an effort to cooperate with the Science Committee, the Resources Committee agreed to let the measure be considered by the full House without amending the bill. In the Senate, my Alaska colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, added an important amendment which I support. The Stevens amendment requires that the National Science Foundation provide Congress with a Polar Research and Policy Study by March 1, 1997. It will provide Congress with a status report on the implementation of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy; a comparison of Federal Arctic and Antarctic research efforts; and an assessment of what needs to be done to implement the Arctic Research Commission's recommendations for Arctic research. The Antarctic environment is, of course, very important and I am pleased that we are acting on this bill to improve our understanding of that continent and its surrounding waters. However, the Arctic also faces many difficult resource management issues. These issues include how to fairly manage wildlife to meet the needs of native people in the Arctic, and how to deal with the massive pollution problems created by Soviet industrial and military use of Arctic land and water. The study called for in this bill will give us the information we need to properly allocate Federal logistical and financial resources in order to make sure that the Arctic and those that live there get a fair share of Federal research dollars. I am glad that the House is acting to clear this bill today, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 3487, the National Marine Sanctuaries Preservation Act. This bill was introduced by Jim Saxton, chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. H.R. 3487 reauthorizes the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and makes minor improvements to the National Marine Sanctuaries Program. The National Marine Sanctuaries Program oversees 14 National Marine Sanctuaries and is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. H.R. 3487 will ensure ongoing protection and management for certain marine areas that are environmentally or historically significant. This bill also renames the Stellwagon Bank National Marine Sanctuary as the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagon Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Gerry has long been a leading proponent in the House of the protection of the marine environment--most prominently when he served as chairman of the former Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Now that Gerry is leaving after 24 years of service, I believe this is a fitting tribute. I would like to commend subcommittee chairman Saxton for his leadership on the issue of marine sanctuaries, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on this measure. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3579, a bill to transfer the property known as Ranch A to the State of Wyoming, was introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Cubin on June 5, 1996. Ranch A consists of a lodge, a barn, and associated buildings and includes approximately 680 acres. The property is located in Crook County, WY, which is within Sand Creek Canyon and includes the headwaters of Sand Creek. The Fish and Wildlife Service acquired the Ranch A property in 1963, but has had little, to no, oversight of the property since 1986. The Wyoming Department of Game and Fish currently manages the majority of the Ranch A property and, up until 1995, raised trout and transplanted the trout to waters around the State of Wyoming. Currently, there is limited game bird hunting, and a select area of Sand Creek is open to fishing. In addition, the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology has been using the facilities for educational purposes. H.R. 3579 is similar to measures the House of Representatives has approved to transfer certain Federal fish hatcheries to non-Federal control, and it contains the standard language requiring that the property revert to the Federal Government, if it is used for something other than the authorized purposes, which in this case include fish and wildlife management and educational endeavors. I urge my colleagues to support this non-controversial piece of legislation and I compliment our distinguished colleague, Barbara Cubin, for her effective leadership on behalf of her Wyoming constituents.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer legislation which will authorize a study to assist in the implementation of the recommendation of the Joint Federal/State Commission on Policies and Programs affecting Alaska Natives. This legislation is needed to address the social and economic crisis status of Alaska Natives. In 1990, President Bush signed Public Law 101-379 which created a public commission funded jointly by Federal and State appropriations to complete a comprehensive study on the social and economic conditions of Alaska Natives and the effectiveness of programs and policies of the United States and the State of Alaska which provide services to the Alaska Native communities. This was in response to the 1989 report ``Report on the Status of Alaska Natives: A Call for Action'' published in cooperation by the Alaska Federation of Natives and the University of Alaska's Institute for Social and Economic Research. A 14-member commission was formed, half of whom were appointed by the President of the United States and the remainder of whom were appointed by the Governor of the State of Alaska. The primary focus of the study was to provide an in-depth analysis, with specific recommendations to Congress, the President of the United States, the Alaska Legislature, the Governor of the State of Alaska, and the Native community on the social and economic conditions of Alaska Natives. The commission completed 2 years of research, public hearings, and task force discussions, and submitted its report to the Congress, the President of the United States, the Alaska Legislature, and the Governor of Alaska in May 1994. Volume one of a three-volume report provides an overview and summary of 22 months of hearings, research, and deliberations. ``Native Self- Reliance,'' ``Native Self-Determination,'' and the ``Integrity of Alaska Native Cultures'' are the central fundamentals of the first volume. It also provides the historical causes of Native personal and cultural breakdowns. Also include in this first volume are statistics on Native social/cultural, judicial/correctional, economic, educational, physical/behavioral health problems. Finally, 34 main policy recommendations--plus an additional 76 recommendations--was submitted to the United States, and State of Alaska, the Alaska Native community and the general public. Volume two provides a narrative text, data, and recommendations of five separate studies of Native problems conducted by the Commission's task forces: ``Alaska Native Physical Health,'' ``Social/Cultural Issues and the Alcohol Crisis,'' ``Economic Issues and Rural Development; Alaska Native Education,'' and ``Self-Governance & Self- Determination.'' The final volume provides a full narrative text, data, and recommendations of two separate studies of Native public policy issues conducted by the Commission: ``Alaska Native Subsistence,'' and ``Alaska Native Tribal Government.'' The Committee on Resources held a joint oversight hearing with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to accept testimony on the Alaska Native Commission report dated May 1994 from the Alaska Native Community, the Governor of the State of Alaska, industry representatives and from the administration. Their testimony focused on recommendations provided by the Commission report on how to address the extremely volatile social and economic conditions of Alaska Natives. This legislation is the outcome of the testimony accepted by all entities in the first step of addressing the crisis status of the Alaska Natives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the issues of the Tongass National Forest have been before the Congress for some time. Many of us were here in 1990 for the Tongass Timber Reform Act, which set aside 1 million acres of wilderness and unilaterally modified the two long-term timber contracts. Some of us remember the Alaska Lands Act of 1980, which set aside about 5 million acres of Tongass wilderness. But no current member was here for the first act of Congress specific to the Tongass--the Tongass Timber Act of 1947, which authorized the sale of timber from the Tongass for the purpose of local employment. At a time when debate over the Tongass becomes every day more contentious and confused it may be worthwhile to look back to that act. This history is relevant because the problems the 1947 act worked to solve are being recreated today by a handful of extremists. The 1947 act was the culmination of a quarter-century-long effort to develop a stable, year-round industry in southeast Alaska. Before Congress authorized the sale of timber, thereby inducing the pulp companies to invest in Alaska, there was not much of an economy in southeast. Fishing was poor, tourism was nonexistent and the gold mines had been closed during the war. The population was small and transient--it was a hard place to raise a family. Congress decided, and President Truman agreed, that the sale of timber through long-term contracts would improve the situation, stabilize the economy of southeast Alaska and serve the interests of Alaska and the United States. The contracts were in the interest of Alaska because they fostered a prosperous and stable economy. They were in the interest of the United States because Tongass forest products helped supply the post-war housing boom in the United States and were instrumental in the reconstruction of Japan. The contracts were necessary for defense purposes as well--Alaska had proven vulnerable in World War II and needed a stable population to secure the territory. All of these benefits were recognized in the House report that accompanied the 1947 Tongass Timber Act: A large-scale development of the timber resources in southeastern Alaska, involving the establishment of important business enterprises and the employment of many persons for extensive operations on a year-round basis, is essential to the maintenance of a prosperous and stable economy in the Territory. Heretofore, Alaska has been handicapped by the seasonal nature of the principal industrial activities conducted within the area. A timber program of the sort mentioned by the Secretary of the Interior would be of great benefit in assisting the people of Alaska to progress from the present dependence upon seasonal business operations. Moreover, such a development within the Territory would be of great value to the Nation as a whole, both from the standpoint of making available to the National economy valuable and sorely needed products from the great forests in southeastern Alaska and from the standpoint of promoting national defense through increasing the population and industrial capacity of Alaska as our ``Northern Rampart.'' House Committee on Agriculture, Report No. 873, July 10, 1947. The Tongass timber industry was essential to those ends in 1947 and it remains so today. We still need a year-round economy in southeast Alaska. We still need a domestic supply of forest products to meet national and international demand. We still need a stable population base in Alaska for our national security. What is more, the only viable domestic timber supply comes from the Federal Tongass forest. Please keep this history in mind the next time the Tongass issue comes before Congress.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I usually agree with my esteemed colleague from Massachusetts on fishery issues. He and I have worked together for 24 years and rarely do we disagree on the issues of fisheries. I must oppose his amendment, though, because the Gilchrest bill implements the Panama Declaration, as discussed in general debate, which locks into place binding conservation management measures for dolphin and other marine life. This bill is supported, as has been said before, by five environmental organizations, the American Tunaboat Owners, the National Fisheries Institute, the Seafarers' International Union, the California Federation of Labor, the United Industrial Workers, the American Sportfishing Association, and the Clinton administration, although that gives me some reservation. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2823 recognizes the international voluntary compliance with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission's dolphin conservation program, which has been in place for the past 4 years. This bill incorporates provisions into U.S. law to continue the international cooperation and compliance. Over the last couple of months, Mr. Gilchrest has worked to address the concerns of the opponents to H.R. 2823. However, the definition of dolphin-safe has kept the two sides from reaching an agreement. The amendment being offered by Mr. Studds was offered at subcommittee markup by Congressman Farr and was defeated. The Studds-Miller amendment will keep the current dolphin-safe definition which will continue to outlaw the use of fishing practices with the lowest bycatch, despite technological breakthroughs which have reduced dolphin mortality by 97 percent. The proponents of this amendment will tell you that by keeping the current dolphin-safe definition, it will protect dolphins. However, the Studds-Miller amendment will not end the encirclement of dolphins by foreign fishermen in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Since the adoption of the embargo in 1992, the number of dolphin sets has not decreased. Approximately 50 percent of sets by foreign fleets are on dolphin schools despite the embargo. The Studds-Miller amendment also promotes fishing practices which have a high bycatch of juvenile tuna, billfish, sea turtles and sharks. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2823 promotes conservation and management measures based on science. It does not promote the protection of one species over the needs of other marine species. This legislation protects dolphins and other marine life. The Studds-Miller amendment, on the other hand, will jeopardize the progress made in reducing dolphin mortalities in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and do nothing to protect other marine life. Finally, the amendment will negate all of the international cooperation and compliance envisioned in the Panama Declaration. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to vote against the Studds-Miller amendment. I think it will actually cut this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3546, the Walhalla National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act, introduced by our colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham. This noncontroversial bill is nearly identical to measures the House of Representatives has approved to transfer certain Federal fish hatcheries to non-Federal control. This hatchery, which consists of about 78 acres, is currently being operated by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources under a long-term agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This hatchery was 1 of 11 identified by the Clinton administration for transfer to the States in fiscal year 1996 because it is no longer an essential component of the Fish and Wildlife Service's nationwide stocking program. Based on testimony the subcommittee received, however, it is clear that Walhalla is extremely important to the State of South Carolina because it is the only public source for brown trout, there is no reasonable alternative for stocking the State's waters, and, without these fish, there is no viable sport fishing for trout. There are 45,800 trout anglers in the State of South Carolina and this activity produces an annual economic impact of over $12 million. This bill contains language that stipulates the property will be returned to the Federal Government if it is used for something other than the authorized purposes. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation and compliment Lindsey Graham for his outstanding leadership in this matter.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3557, the Marion National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act, introduced by our colleague from Alabama, Earl Hilliard. The legislation will transfer the 300 acres that comprise the Marion Hatchery to the State of Alabama. This facility has been effectively operated by the Alabama Game and Fish Division for over 20 years and during that time it has produced thousands of bluegills, channel catfish, largemouth bass, striped bass, and hybrid striped bass fingerlings. These fish are used to stock over 500,000 acres of public waters in the State of Alabama and they are available to over 530,000 licensed sport anglers. In addition, the Marion Fish Hatchery has provided over 1.3 million gulf striped bass fry to 3 Federal and 2 neighboring State hatcheries and over 270,000 gulf striped bass fingerlings to support Federal and State programs in the State of Florida. Finally, the State of Alabama has spent over $2 million on facility improvements and renovations at the Marion National Fish Hatchery since it assumed operational control. The Alabama Game and Fish Division has stated that ``the Division will continue to utilize the facility for the production of fish to enhance the freshwaters of Alabama and the thousands of people who enjoy fishing these waters.'' I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation which has been endorsed by both the Clinton administration and the Governor of the State of Alabama, the Honorable Fob James, Jr.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3287, the Crawford National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act, introduced by our colleague from Nebraska, Bill Barrett. This measure is somewhat different from other fish hatchery transfer bills in that it will convey about 6 acres of Federal lands not to the State, but to the city of Crawford, NE. For nearly 62 years, this hatchery was used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Nebraska State Game and Park Commission to produce millions of bluegill, channel catfish, largemouth bass, various species of trout, and their eggs. Unfortunately, in 1991, the Crawford National Fish Hatchery was severely damaged from flooding of the White River. The facilities were closed, no repairs were made, the buildings have not been maintained, and there is no likelihood that either the Federal or the State Government will reopen this hatchery in the future. Furthermore, the hatchery is located in the middle of the city park. While the local community has spent a substantial amount of money to rebuild its park facilities, these efforts have been undermined by this unwanted, rapidly deteriorating, and increasingly dangerous fish hatchery. H.R. 3287 will convey the hatchery property to the city of Crawford, which has made a commitment to restore and use certain buildings for various recreational activities. In addition, the bill contains the standard reversionary clause that requires the city of Crawford to return this property to the Federal Government, if it is used for anything other than the authorized purposes. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation and compliment Bill Barrett for his outstanding leadership in this matter.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to an eye-opening article that appeared in the July issue of Resource Review. It details the extent of the ongoing spruce beetle infestation in southcentral Alaska and reports that beetle activity increased 40 percent last year. Over 32,433 acres are infested in the Chugach National Forest alone, with mortality exceeding 60 percent in some stands. The current total for all of southcentral Alaska is a new record--892,831 acres of dead and dying trees. This is not a record we should be proud of. The infested areas of southcentral Alaska are now far too large to permit wildfires to burn naturally. With so much dead wood lying on the forest floor a fire could burn hot enough to sterilize the soil and threaten the health of some of Alaska's priceless salmon stocks. Such a fire is a disaster waiting to happen. Unfortunately, waiting for disasters instead of preventing them seems to be the preferred policy of the current Secretary of Agriculture. Every day the beetle infests more and more timber while those entrusted with our National Forests do less and less about it. Rather than taking necessary action under existing law, the Secretary of Agriculture has put up roadblocks every step of the way. He recently directed managers on the Chugach National Forest to cancel the few salvage operations they had planned. Some of these sales, it was reported to me, were in the planning process for years. Canceling them may be sound politics but it is irresponsible forestry. Playing politics with National Forests is playing with fire--I do not want to see Alaskans get burned. Even without major fires Alaskans are suffering the effects of the beetle infestation: property values are declining as the insect spreads from Federal to private lands; the visitor industry is losing business as once beautiful viewsheds turn brown and decay; and local residents are forced to sit by and watch their favorite recreation and hunting areas become wastelands. All this as Washington bureaucrats bicker and pass the buck. Through responsible application of salvage logging the spreading sickness in southcentral Alaska can be cured, averting the risk of fire and creating jobs and a healthy forest to pass on to our children. I encourage my colleagues to read the article, the text of which follows my remarks, and hope that it will inspire them to join me in supporting sound forest management under the emergency timber salvage law as well as other long-term initiatives promoting forest health. Beetle Activity Spreads, 892,831 Acres Infested in One Year While Alaskans continue to debate the merits of cutting dead, beetle-killed timber across private and public lands in Southcentral Alaska, spruce beetle activity increased 40 percent in 1995 over the devastating levels detected the previous year. Approximately 892,831 acres of on-going and newly infested areas were detected last year, the highest level of activity on record. The most extensive areas of beetle infestations are in Southcentral Alaska (683,281) acres) and the Cooper River basin (170,767 acres). More than 25 million spruce trees have been infested. The Forest Service's 1995 Forest Health Management Report revealed that beetle activity in the Chugach National Forest doubled in 1995 to more than 32,433 acres. It noted that beetle activity is increasing throughout the Turnagain Arm area, including Girdwood, Twenty Mile, Ingram Creek, Sixmile River drainage and Hope. The Forest Service also noted the beetle infestation is intense throughout many areas of the Kenai Peninsula, including Kachemak Bay. From Tustumena Lake to Homer, beetle activity is extreme. More than 400,000 acres of spruce are infested with many stands having more than 60% mortality. A significant increase in beetle-killed timber was found on the west side of Cook Inlet and the infestation more than doubled in the Anchorage Bowl where more than 8,000 acres of spruce were hit. Areas in Anchorage with the heaviest activity are Hillside, Fire Island, Kincaid Park, and the Eagle River and Eklutna River drainages. With a dry, warm summer at hand, foresters believe severe outbreaks of beetle activity will continue throughout the summer. While there is ongoing debate on the fire danger posed by standing, beetle-killed timber compared to green timber, foresters agree that fire danger over the long term is heightened considerably once the dead trees fall over on top of each other and fill the floor of the forest. Three salvage logging proposals have been proposed for the Chugach National Forest to harvest beetle-killed timber, but the Forest Service--in the face of intense pressure from environmental groups--has scrapped one plan, severely reduced the scope of another and is considering new public comment on a third. Under the salvage law passed by Congress last year, the Forest Service had initially identified about 1,300 acres of 12,000 heavily-infested forested acres in the Sixmile area for logging. That proposal has now been reduced to a mere 182 acres--2% of the infested trees in the Sixmile area. A logging plan for the heavily-infested Seattle Creek drainage has been discarded, but the Forest Service is reviewing public comments for a third proposal in the Resurrection and Palmer Creek valleys near Hope. Environmentalists are not satisfied with the Forest Service decision to scale back logging plans and have admitted they won't be happy until ALL logging plans are dropped. The Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE) has formed the Forest Defense Network to whip up public opposition against logging and influencing public policy. In a recent mass mailing, ACE noted the Forest Defense Network is kicking into high gear with a door-to-door campaign. Media campaigns are being developed and demonstrations are being planned among other events and programs. ACE is asking Alaskans to join its network, write letters, participate in direct actions and ``help stop senseless logging.'' The Campaign has generated scores of letters to the Anchorage Daily News and the Forest Service in opposition to logging. ACE has asked its members to host letter writing parties targeting not only the Anchorage Daily News, but newspapers outside Alaska, including the Los Angles Times. The cover of the ACE mailer featured a picture of a clearcut with the superimposed headline, ``It's Time To Clearcut Our Kenai Peninsula: Do You Agree or Disagree?'' The mailer was filled with emotion and left readers with the impression that a healthy and green forest was being clearcut at alarming rates by the worst polluters in the entire Pacific Northwest. Absent from the mailer was the fact that logging is occurring in areas heavily infested by the spruce bark beetle and that the infestation is transforming Kenai Peninsula viewsheds into grave-yards of brown dead or dying trees. Forests concede logging cannot stop the infestation, but emphasize that a combined program of harvesting and reforestation can restore forest health much faster than if no action is taken. Forest scientist explain that new harvesting programs utilizing modern forest management initiatives to protect wildlife and fisheries is a reforestation program that will lead to a young, healthy and vigorous-growing forest. Since most of Southcentral Alaska is now a fire suppression area, they say logging would take out the dead trees, as opposed to nature's way--fire. If no logging is allowed, many timber stands on the Kenai may revert to grasslands. With its varied patterns of land ownership, the Kenia Peninsula is a great ecological, long-term experiment in forest management. While extensive logging is occurring near Homer on State and private land, very little cutting is taking place on the much larger expanses of the Peninsula. Only a fraction of the beetle infested spruce will be cut on the Chugach while no commercial logging will occur on the Kenia National Wildlife Refuge and Kenai Fjords National Park, Foresters will be watching the different rates of regrowth, company areas actively managed for logging and reforestation with those forests left to stand as gray ghosts.