Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring the attention of my colleagues to a guest opinion that appeared in the June issue of Resource Review. It is by Jake Adams, an Inupiat Eskimo who is both a whaling captain and president of the Arctic Slope Regional Corp. He makes the important point that Alaskans are the best stewards of Alaska lands and resources, not the political leaders and activists who live here in Washington, DC. The text of his opinion follows my remarks. Just as Eskimo self-regulation under the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission has succeeded in protecting both the Bowhead Whale and the communities that depend on the whale for subsistence, I believe that the resources of the Tongass National Forest will be best managed by the State of Alaska, as I propose in H.R. 2413. Time and time again Alaskans have proven their ability to manage their resources responsibly, an accomplishment, as Mr. Adams points out, that Washington, DC, cannot claim. I hope that my colleagues will read the wise words of Mr. Adams. [From the Resource Review, June 1996] Alaska--A Place That Works (By Jacob Adams) Compared to the rest of the nation, Alaskans enjoy a relatively untouched, pristine environment. This fact has led some people who have mismanaged their own environment and communities to view Alaska as a public museum; a place they want to control and preserve, untouched and suspended in time. This, of course, does not work well for those of us who live in Alaska, have families to support, communities to nurture and shareholders' economic interests to protect and advance. Yet, many Alaskans often find that they are forced to be major actors in contentious national debates over the use of public lands and resources and, in some cases, even their own private lands and resources. It is a shame that many political leaders and activists who live and work in the middle of the poverty, crime and hopelessness of Washington, D.C.,--a city that does not work--are determined to second-guess so much of what we Alaskans do and aspire for. Alaska, after all, is a place that works. We educate our children. We meet our people's needs. We protect our fish and wildlife. We believe in the work ethic. And we take care of our poor and disadvantaged. Profit is not a dirty word in Alaska. Free enterprise works here. It is part of a proud American tradition that produces income, jobs and tax revenue. It improves the quality of people's lives. But, it can also be a hard task master. Those of us who live on the North Slope have seen some successes and a fair share of failures. One success story that continues today is the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). In the late 1970s, the International Whaling Commission, elements of the federal government and animal rights activists pushed hard to terminate my people's traditional subsistence hunts for the Bowhead Whale. We fought those efforts. We proposed a system of Eskimo ``self- regulation'' through AEWC. Who better to protect the species and regulate the hunt than the people whose subsistence and culture is at stake? We were successful. Today, the whales, our people and our culture are thriving. And we did it by ourselves. Self- regulation by the parties who stand to lose or gain is a concept which should be used more by the state and federal governments. But, we have also seen some failures. ASRC and its shareholders--working with the State, RDC, Arctic Power and our Congressional Delegation, have tried very hard since 1987 to open the small, oil rich Coastal Plain area of ANWR to oil and gas leasing. We own 92,160 acres of Coastal Plain land in the huge 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But we are denied the benefits of our resources. We are prohibited by federal law from producing and using oil or natural gas on our privately-owned lands in ANWR at the village of Kaktovik. Instead, the federal government's action means that we must import fuel oil to heat village homes and generate electricity. Yet, Kaktovik sits on the nation's best prospect for major new oil and gas reserves. We have been fighting this issue for nine years. We may have to fight for nine or ten more. Lifting the Alaska oil export ban took 22 years. We will continue to push to open the Coastal Plain because it is the right thing to do. Alaskans are the best stewards of our land, our environment and our fish and wildlife resources. We should be major participants in discussions about our future. We do not need the failed landlords of Washington to dictate their policies of failure to us and our children. My people have seen ups and we have seen downs. But we do not dwell on short-term reverses or disappointments. In the long run, rational thought and the laws of economics will prevail. The fundamental changes taking place in Russia, our neighbors to the west, were not conceivable ten years ago. Alaskans need to have staying power. We are in this for the long run. Jacob Adams is the President of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, a member of the North Slope Borough Assembly and a whaling captain in Barrow. Jake also serves on the Board of Directors for RDC.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1899) entitled the ``Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area Act,'' and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have worked with many people in my life, and one thing about Mollie Beattie, she and I had our differences at one of our hearings, and she came to my office the day after the hearing and apologized to me for not having all her information correct and saying, in fact, that will never happen again, Congressman. And I have always respected her from that moment on, and we had this working relationship. The only thing I can suggest is it is just unknown in this town for many, many years. I just wish that other Federal agency heads that are appointed would understand one thing: This is a legislative branch and executive branch, and the ability to achieve goals is what we should be seeking. I cannot say that for everyone else that works in the Department of the Interior, but I could say it for her, and I said it prior to her demise, in fact, while she was still in office I spoke to her on occasion in my State, which was not too popular, I know, with this administration. But the truth of the matter, she always was there in a straightforward position, presented her view as she saw it without being arrogant or without being abrasive and was always being honest, and to me that meant a great deal.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House today will consider S. 1899. This bill honors the dedicated service of the late Mollie Beattie, former Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This bill designates an 8-million-acre wilderness area in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as the Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area. That is in my State, it is an area that is just above my home. I feel fortunate to have been one of the few people who had the opportunity to work with Mollie on both a personal and professional basis. While she left this world much too soon, she truly achieved a lifetime worth of accomplishments. Her dedication to upgrading the Fish and Wildlife Service resulted in a much more efficient and responsible agency. Her rational approach to her job led to many bipartisan accomplishments. She was able to bring all sides of an issue to the table in order to reach commonsense agreements. Because of this, she was respected by all of those who knew and worked with her. While Mollie and I often differed on legislative issues, we were able to work closely together because she was a person of the utmost integrity and professionalism. I respected the fact that when she took a position on an issue it was because she truly believed it was the right thing to do. She was a straight shooter who earned the respect of all of us in Congress. Mollie was the one person directly responsible for upgrading the Fish and Wildlife Service. She instilled a public service attitude among her employees and brought a more compassionate approach to her agency because she personally believed that the needs of people were important in the administration of Federal regulations. Mollie is also to be commended for the positive approach she brought to Government. She was the least adversarial and least confrontational Director I have ever worked with during my 24 years in Congress. Because of this, she was able to accomplish a lot of bipartisan goals when others would have failed. I believe her legacy will be one of the most unwavering commitments to preserve and protect the animals, birds, and fish of our Nation. Her compassionate devotion to this cause will not be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, may I suggest one thing? She did go to Alaska, she visited Alaska, worked with Alaskans. She did know the area which I am speaking of. It is difficult for me to have this area, but no better person could be nominated to have the name the Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area in the Arctic Wildlife Range. I am very acquainted with the area. I myself have traveled the area, trapped the area, hunted the area, mined in the area, worked in the area, and she did know the beauty and grandeur of the area, so at this time I am very pleased to say that this is a good piece of legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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 on the two bills just passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] for his kind words. This is an ability here to work together, and I can assure the gentleman we will be watching this very closely to make sure what we have stated on the floor today. The gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] has done an excellent job, and of course the ranking member has also done the job. I would suggest respectfully that this is long overdue in the energy field. It does in fact, as has been mentioned before, create $36 or $37 million for the Federal Government and $9 million for the State. And may I suggest one thing. It is a level playing field with the IRS. I want to suggest one thing I do agree with. If there is bad accounting on the oil company's side, we will be watching this very closely. But equally if there is bad accounting on the Interior side, we will be watching that very closely. So no one should be to blame. We should solve this problem, and that is what we are trying to do with this legislation. I would suggest though, Mr. Speaker, that we have a letter from a bipartisan group of Governors, including my Governor, Tony Knowles, and Gov. Pete Wilson, Gov. Philip Batt, Gov. Bill Graves, Gov. Marc Raciot, Gov. Benjamin Nelson, Gov. Gary Johnson, Gov. Edward Schafer, Gov. Frank Keating, Gov. George Bush, Gov. Michael Leavitt, and Gov. Jim Geringer supporting this. And, by the way, it says: ``This legislation provides the best opportunities for Federal and State cooperation and partnerships in natural resources policy that has ever emerged from this Congress.'' So I want to suggest this is strongly supported by Governors and should be supported, and I do welcome the support from the gentleman from Hawaii. This ability, as he mentioned, to govern, is by doing the art of possible, by coming to a solution, and I do support this legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer alternative legislation with the ranking minority member of the Resources Committee, Mr. George Miller, and Mr. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, to the Indian Child Welfare Act [ICWA]. In May of this year, the House narrowly passed H.R. 3286, which contained amendments to the ICWA. Tribal representatives opposed title III of that bill and have worked with Congresswoman Pryce to reach an agreement on alternative legislation to ICWA. I want to thank Congresswoman Pryce for her efforts to reach a compromise on ICWA. I want to also thank all the tribes for their efforts and important input on legislation which has an affect on Indian families and Alaska Native and American Indian children. After the May vote, tribal representatives met in Tulsa, OK, to reach a consensus to address the concerns expressed by the authors of title III of H.R. 3286. This legislation provides for notice to tribes for voluntary adoptions, terminations of parental rights, and foster care proceedings. It provides for time lines for tribal intervention in voluntary cases and provides criminal sanctions to discourage fraudulent practices in Indian adoptions. Additionally, it clarifies the limits on withdrawal of parental consent to adoptions. The proposal provides for open adoptions in States where State law prohibits them and clarifies tribal courts authority to declare children wards of the tribal court. In addition, it states that attorneys and public and private agencies have a duty to inform Indian parents of their rights under ICWA, and provides for tribal membership certification in adoptions. These reforms resolve the ambiguities in current law which resulted in needless litigation, and have disrupted Indian adoption placements without reducing this country's commitment to protect native American families and promote the best interest of native children. Mr. Speaker, all of the provisions contained in this bill have been tentatively embraced by the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, Jane Gorman, the attorney for the Rost family, and the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, the proponents of title III of H.R. 3286. I know that they and others are sincere in their concern about litigation which has delayed a few adoptions. But ICWA is not the problem. The Rost case is a sad and tragic case. But it was caused by an attorney who tried to cover up the natural parent's tribal membership and purposefully avoided checking with the grandparents and extended family of the children to see if the family was available to adopt these children. The sad part is that this attorney did not violate the law, but he inflicted untold sorrow on the Rosts, the grandparents of the children, and ultimately on the children themselves. This proposed legislation will impose criminal sanctions on attorneys who violate ICWA requirements in the adoption of a native child. In closing, I believe we have acceptable legislation which will protect the interests of adoptive parents, native extended families, and most importantly, Alaska Native and American Indian children.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation which will require the specific approval of Congress before any area within the United States is subject to an international land use nomination, classification, or designation. International land use designations such as World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves and some other international land use designations can affect the use and market value of non-Federal lands adjacent to or intermixed with Federal lands. Legislation is needed to require the specific approval of Congress before any area within the United States is made subject to an international land use restriction. The rights of non-Federal landowners need to be protected if these international reserves are created. This legislation asserts the power of Congress under article IV, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution over management and use of lands belonging to the United States; protects State sovereignty from diminishment as a result of Federal actions creating lands with international designations; ensures that no U.S. citizen suffers any diminishment or loss of individual rights as a result of Federal actions creating lands with international designations; protects private interests in real property from diminishment as a result of Federal actions creating lands with international designations; and provides a process under which the United States may when desirable designate lands for inclusion under certain international agreements. Many Americans may be surprised by the expanse of our Nation's territory which is subject to various special international restrictions, most of which have evolved over the last 25 years. The most extensive international land use designations are UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Programs and World Heritage Sites. These international land designations have largely been created with minimal, if any, congressional input or oversight or public input. They are usually promoted as a type honorary title which will provide additional publicity resulting in increased tourist visits and a corresponding increase in economic benefits. Promoters at UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites say these programs are voluntary and nonbinding. However, in becoming a party to agreements underlying international land use designations, the host government explicitly promises to undertake certain actions to protect these areas and limit or prohibit certain land uses. Honoring one of these agreements could force the Federal Government to choose between regulating surrounding non-Federal land uses to conform to the designated international use of breaking a pledge to other nations. Federal regulatory actions could prohibit certain uses of non-Federal lands outside the boundary of the international designation, thereby causing a significant negative impact on the value of non-Federal property and on the local and regional economy. This legislation would compel the Congress to consider the implications of an international designation and protect non-Federal lands before the designation is made.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today which would rename an existing portion of wilderness in the Brooks Range of Alaska's Arctic Wildlife Refuge the ``Mollie Beattie Alaska Wilderness.'' Mollie Beattie, until recently the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, combined advocacy in her role as the chief steward of America's Federal programs for fish and wildlife with a compassionate belief that people were an inseparable part of the natural environment. Mollie held a special place in her heart for the Brooks Range wilderness area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, America's largest. This legislation provides for the naming of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness established in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act--Public Law 96-487--in her honor. As Mollie's knowledge of Alaska grew, so did her love for our unique areas and for the special people who choose to call Alaska home. I hope that her willingness to try to understand my State better will encourage others to grow in the same way.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this Istook amendment. Since I have been chairman of the Committee on Resources, not a single Member of Congress has introduced a single bill on this subject. What is more, I cannot remember a single bill that has ever been introduced on this subject in the years I have served in the body. That is 24 years. Since I have been chairman, we have never had a single hearing on this subject. No witnesses have offered any testimony on this subject. No Indian tribe has been given the opportunity to testify. No State has been given the opportunity to testify. In fact, Indian law experts, and I know a lot of them, have raised constitutional questions about this amendment, yet none of them had an opportunity to testify. This is not the way to do legislation. In short, the Members of this House are being asked to vote on an extremely important change in Federal policy without any advice from anybody. The change in Federal policy is just about as big as you can get. We are talking about granting a taxation jurisdiction over dependent sovereign nations to the States and even to counties. That is something this Congress, we argued this a few weeks ago in the adoption process, this is a congressional responsiblity. We have never done this in 250 years. Indian tribes are now and always have been a creation of this Nation, dependent sovereign nations. May I suggest, our Founding Fathers recognized these tribes as separate and distinct nations. They entered into treaties with them pursuant to that recognition and created our Constitution so as to continue that recognition throughout the life of our Nation. States have never specifically been granted taxing jurisdiction over Indian tribes. For Congress to take this gigantic step would be a significant and extreme change in the government-to-government relationship which currently exists, through treaties, in many instances, between the Federal Government and each federally recognized Indian tribe. The surprise enactment of the Istook language, as far as I am concerned, is a direct violation of this Nation's trust responsibility, I want to stress that, constitutional responsibility to the Indian tribes of this Nation. It is a violation of the right of self-government of these tribes. Most Indian tribes exist because of treaties entered into between the United States Government and each tribe. These treaties guarantee the rights of the tribes of self-government which, according to numerous judicial decisions rendered over the years, includes the right of each tribe to regulate and tax or not tax commercial activity on Indian lands. The Istook language represents a major change in this longstanding Federal position. Very frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we ought to uphold our obligation, our commitment. Let us not have any more broken promises. No more trail of tears. No more going back on our word. No more use of the forked tongue.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First, let us understand it is being offered primarily for window dressing for the President of the United States because this was objected to by the environmental community saying this was an awful rip-off to the taxpayers. Let us just think for a moment what this does. This amendment would halt all of President Clinton option 9 sales relief by the rescission law. Now keep this in mind: Even President Clinton sales would be halted. This is what he signed off in the Northwest. He agreed to this. I believe the author of the amendment agreed to it. It would halt all salvage sales and force expensive, time-consuming reprocessing of dead tree sales. This means sales that should have happened, that timber will rot and burn, rot and burn, and some would say this is natural. Well, I just want to ask my colleagues how many of them have ever gone to a forest fire or fought a forest fire. Alaska has just gone through two big ones, primarily because most of the timber burned that should have been harvested because it was dead. And that is going to happen all over the United States of America wherever there is national forest. The forest health is in jeopardy because we have a philosophy today that trees will live forever. The idea that 350-year-old ponderosa pine would be healthy is ridiculous. If we cut that tree down, we find it is rotten at least 85 feet into the tree, at least 3 feet across. It is a dying, dead tree. But there will be a new tree if that tree is to be removed in a sound, environmental way. If we let it burn, it will not. Let it burn twice, which it can, there will be no growth for a period of years. In fact there will be about 40 to 50 percent, if this amendment is adopted, of what remaining sales we have left in national forests will be lost. On top of that, this probably will be litigated, costing the taxpayer money and actually eliminating what chance these small communities have to survive. Now, we heard a lot about the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] yesterday and his small farmers, his small ranchers because of the murelette. Small mills in the northwest, mills that have been harvesting these timber trees, these salvage trees, will be stopped dead in their tracks. No timber means more mills will be closed in Washington, Oregon, and California. Jobs. American people will be put out of work. Already now, and think about this, 239 mills employing thousands of Americans have been closed in Washington, Oregon, and California since 1989, a period of 7 years. We have lost an industry. We are importing our fiber today. We have lost an industry, and the jobs are important to this Nation. But more than that, the taxpayer will pay. We talked yesterday about subsidized roads. We talked the other day about subsidized timber harvesting. We talked about the taxpayer paying. Well, think about it a moment. Already we put thousands, approximately over 100,000, jobs, related taxpaying jobs, out of business because of actions of this Congress, this administration, and those interest groups that decide logging is not part of our society. A renewable resource is no longer to be utilized as it is used around the world. It will also expose this government to millions of dollars in contract breach claims for timber harvested during the last 3 months of the period during the salvage law in effect. This salvage law will expire December 1996. That is only 6 months away. All we are asking in reality is to implement the act as it was placed in the last session, let it be fulfilled, review it as that time, and if we can show that the salvage act itself has provided jobs, it has increased the health of the forests, we can then address it. But now to politically offer an amendment to make the President look well and good in the environmental community I think is uncalled for. What has happened with the concept of sound scientific information about the timber? And I have talked to the forest industry scientists and will tell my colleagues today that right now the private timberland, not the Federal timberland, one-third of the land mass is producing two-thirds of our fiber today because it is managed appropriately. The national forest is not being managed. We are allowing that forest to decay, to rot, to fall and, in fact, to burn, and that is not called for.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for introducing this amendment. I am still very frustrated that one person's name was used over and over and over again. What happened to the five landowners, the little ones, 125 acres, 151 acres, 527 acres? There are no trees on those lands. Contrary to what the gentleman from Washington says, there is in fact with the Fish and Wildlife, you cannot do anything on that land if they designate it might disturb the murrelet. The murrelet is not endangered. It is not endangered, I say to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]. It is all over the area. But the Fish and Wildlife says it is endangered. So we bow and we scrape to the Federal Government, the almighty Federal Government. Yet these people, this lady in the wheelchair, these people on this little ranch with their kids, they are browbeaten by this Government saying you must meet our requirements. With what? Has the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] ever been on a farm? No. Does he know anything about farming? No.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman knows how these people live, and he wants them to go get a lawyer, and draw up this plan and we have got the big Federal Government, the Fish and Wildlife, telling you what to do, that ``if you don't do it you're going to jail and you're going to get fined.'' That is our Government today. We wonder why we have got the Freemen or the militants. We wonder why, in fact, we have got unrest in this country. Mr. Chairman, it is because our Government, in fact, has got out of hand and out of line with the Endangered Species Act, and I am glad to hear the gentleman supports the Endangered Species Act, 35,000 people were put out of work in his area. In California and Oregon alone, 181 mills closed down. For what? For a species not endangered--because the Fish and Wildlife Service says it is endangered. I write a bill that says it must have biological substantial evidence it is endangered, and I am criticized for that. Do you know how to get a specie on the endangered list today? Any one of you can file a petition, as they did in Alaska. That is all you have to do. Then the agency says, we must study it. It the meantime, by the way, you are going to lose your job. This is just how ridiculous the Endangered Species Act is today. Mr. Chairman, I think it is ridiculous that this amendment is even proposed when this gentleman has families to protect, and he talks about one person. What about the families? I do not care if it is one family or one acre. When this Government is wrong, it is wrong. What happened to the gentleman's liberalism? What happened to his protecting the masses? What happened to ``We have to think about the people''? All he thinks about now is the Government and how right they are. I am telling you they are wrong in this case, dead wrong. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment, and I support the gentleman from California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, I had an opportunity, I wrote a good bill with the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] to solve this problem. But anybody who thinks the Endangered Species Act works, I would suggest he start reading it and seeing where this Government has gone out of whack, when they tell a woman she cannot take and raise grain on her ranch because there is a kangaroo rat. She stopped raising grain. The rats left because there was nothing to eat. It burned and burned the houses down in all the area. This is the act that Members support. I am terribly disappointed to support an Endangered Species Act that does not protect the species, does not take and protect the private landowners, in fact, allows this Government to run amok. I am saying, let us change it. That is what I am saying.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I would not ask that that be done, but I would suggest to the gentleman, and I do respect the gentleman in the well, to be very careful when he questions another Member on the floor of the House and show him due respect. He is a Member of this House. He is supporting those small people.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. My point of order is when does one ask to have the words taken down, especially when the question comes to a fellow member of this committee that asks and presents an amendment and someone questions the integrity, such as, ``He found Mr. Riggs and now he can go ahead and steal from the public.''

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rarely do this, but I have heard some very serious charges made from the gentleman in the well that relates to nothing about this bill. Of course in taking a question, the gentleman offered the amendment, in fact the intent of the amendment-- --

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have asked a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am listening to some comments. I am about ready to take----

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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. 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.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of my colleagues to a very special event that is taking place, the 25th Anniversary of the Close Up Foundation. As many of you know, the Close Up Foundation is the largest civic education organization in the country. It has not always been that way, when Close Up started 25 years ago their first program included 25 participants from 14 States. Today, Close Up brings approximately 25,000 participants annually to Washington, DC, on their various programs. They have participants from all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Pacific Island territories. These achievements are of themselves enough to make an organization and those who have supported it very proud; however, it does not stop there. Close Up has remained true to its mission over these 25 years. Their focus has been on efforts to be all inclusive and reach students who are underserved, either because of their economic, cultural, or geographic isolation. I am personally familiar with the difference Close Up has made to those who are geographically isolated. Since 1979, more than 9,200 Alaska students and educators have participated in Close Up's programs. In 1987, Close Up began an effort to focus on including Alaska Native students in the Washington, D.C. High School Program. Since that time, approximately 685 Alaska Native students have taken part in the Close Up program. These students, from every corner of Alaska including our most remote villages, come to Washington and mix with their peers both from within Alaska and throughout the United States. While they are here, they are able to contribute to as well as learn from the diverse population of Close Up's student participants. By including Alaska Native students, young people, who rarely, if ever, have been outside of their villages, get the opportunity to expand their civic literacy as well as learn about the rest of the country and its citizens. We, in Alaska, are very proud of the input all of our Alaskan students bring to their peers from the rest of the country. The contribution made by Alaska's students and educators takes many shapes, including returning to Alaska to become involved in and to organize Close Up local programs. These local programs provide civic education opportunities for all members of the community not just those students who were lucky enough to get to Washington, DC, to benefit from the Close Up experience. In this way, the Close Up message of informed, responsible citizenship is multiplied many times over to the great benefit of my State and the country. In this time of distrust and cynicism, Close Up's program works to break down suspicion and to show high school students that government is relevant to their lives and important to them as citizens. With the recent disturbing results of a study of peoples' public opinion of Congress and the Government, we, as elected officials, should make it our goal to raise student interest in government because the future of this Nation depends on their civic involvement. As we all know, Close Up's message of civic involvement is directed toward all students, not just the academic elite or the affluent. The federally funded Ellender Fellowship Program, along with Close Up generated fellowship funds, has made the Close Up civic learning opportunity a reality for students who would not otherwise be able to afford a trip to Washington, DC. In Alaska, students from families with limited means face an additional hurdle of very high travel costs. The Ellender fellowships help to level the playing field and provide civic educational opportunities to many students who might otherwise be overlooked or left behind. Mr. Speaker, I have been a longtime supporter of the Close Up Foundation, and I am delighted to be able to send my heartiest congratulations to them on the celebration of their 25th anniversary. The congratulations are for a job well done, and one I hope will continue for another 25 years.