Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2000, as amended, the bill just passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, what is the next vote before the body?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. By whom, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees is unjustified and just boggles my mind. The motion in effect says the House of Representatives does not believe that helicopter landings in the millions of acres of wilderness areas of Alaska should be permitted. It says that if you're elderly, infirm, or unable to walk, you can't use the aid of a helicopter to see public wilderness areas. These areas should be open to everyone, not just rugged backcountry hikers. The provision inserted by Alaska's Senators simply clarifies what we thought helicopter operators should have the right to do: land where they have traditionally landed before such areas were designated as wilderness. It must be remembered that Alaska has over 50 million acres of wilderness. This is an area half the size of California. If the Federal Government enacted legislation restricting aircraft flight over an area this size in any other State, there would be an outcry. There has been an outcry in Alaska. The land management agencies will not recognize the historical use of such aircraft in areas where they clearly operated prior to the passage of ANILCA or the Wilderness Act. The Wilderness Act and ANILCA provide that helicopters can land in wilderness areas. Here is what section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act says, ``Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable.'' I don't know about anyone else, but ``aircraft'' means airplanes and helicopters. This is crystal clear, but ANILCA reinforced this further when it allowed valid existing access rights to continue. This is a fair and balanced approach in public lands policy because it doesn't take away rights and privileges that were enjoyed long before Congress designated wilderness in my State. The problem addressed by the Senate provision is that land management agencies will not even recognize the historical use of helicopters--or any other aircraft like hot air balloons--in areas where they clearly operated prior to wilderness designation. For example, the U.S. Forest Service recently concluded a major record of decision in which it completely prohibited helicopter access to all wilderness areas in the national forests in southeast Alaska. By doing so, it completely ignored the historical record by which helicopters had operated in these areas for over 40 years. Further, it made this decision even though the preferred alternative of an EIS done by the Forest Service specifically allowed for landings in wilderness areas, pursuant to written law. This was a political decision made in Washington and didn't reflect the record of the NEPA process which carefully analyzed the potential wilderness areas. Let me describe the silliness of the situation. In these areas it is perfectly legal to land a plane on a river sand bar, or a grassy area, or even on a glacier on skis, but in the same area you cannot land a helicopter or hot air balloon. Think about it--bureaucrats in Washington decided a fixed-wing airplane which needs hundreds of feet to land will have a worse impact than a helicopter or a hot air balloon, which can land on an area less than 15 feet by 15 feet. In fact, a helicopter has less impact than a fixed-wing aircraft on the environment in many cases. My colleagues considering the motion to instruct conferees need to evaluate these facts when they vote. But I want them to think of one more thing. Helicopters now land in the wilderness--but only when it serves the interest of the government or special interests. Let me give some examples. Helicopters are regularly used to assist mountain climbers in trouble on Denali (also called Mt. McKinley). In fact, the Park Service has a special high-altitude helicopter on stand-by to help them. Another example is when the Park Service quickly issued a special permit for the Chairman of FERC to use a helicopter to land in a wilderness area of Glacier Bay National Park to inspect the area for a potential hydro site. Federal agencies use helicopters in support of wilderness management. This is reasonable, but it has no less impact than the relatively few helicopter landings by non-federal operators. The message here is--if you're a government official, enjoy helicopters in the wilderness. If you're a taxpayer--forget it. In their minds, people in wilderness areas are bad--unless you're a government employee. This motion is wrong, unfair, and misguided, and I strongly urge its defeat.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3903 authorizes a conditional land exchange between the State of Alaska and the United States. The purpose of the exchange is to enable the construction and operation of a small, 800 kilowatt hydroelectric project for the community of Gustavus, which is located in Southeast Alaska on the edge of Glacier Bay National Park. If feasible, the project would also provide low-cost, clean power to the National Park Service. The committee held a hearing on H.R. 3903 on June 10, 1998. By a voice vote, the bill was ordered reported, with an amendment, on July 22. This legislation completes several years of negotiation with the Gustavus Electric Company, the State of Alaska, the National Park Service, and local environmental groups. I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the work of the Committee on Commerce in expediting House consideration of H.R. 3903. The need from the bill arises from Gustavus's reliance on diesel generation for its power, which presents air emission considerations, high energy costs, and risks of fuel spills during shipment. To avoid the drawbacks of using diesel fuel, Gustavus Electric Company studied alternative power sources. Hydroelectricity generating at a nearby area called Falls Creek was identified as the city's best option. I believe it also make sense for the National Park Service, too, because the agency relies on a separate set of diesel generations there. The problem with constructing a hydro-facility is that Falls Creek, the proposed site, is currently located inside the boundary of designated wilderness of Glacier Bay National Park, where such a project is not allowed. To solve this problem, H.R. 3903 authorizes a land exchange that will put the site in State ownership, redraw the park and wilderness boundary, and enable the United States to acquire lands of equal value in Alaska. When this land exchange was originally proposed, there was concern expressed by the administration and some Alaskans over the potential environmental impact of a hydro project in Glacier Bay National Park. I have never understood why anyone would object to hydropower when the alternative is to continue burning diesel fuel at a national park. Regardless, these concerns have been put to rest. In the interest of moving forward, I agreed to make the land exchange conditional on a determination by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that a hydro facility will have no adverse impact on the Park. In other words, there will be no land exchange, and therefore, no project, if FERC finds there will be any harm. The bill under consideration today has a minor amendment to the reported bill. The amendment strikes section 4(d) of the reported bill. This action is technical in nature only. Mr. Speaker, at this time I include for the Record correspondence relative to this bill. House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC, September 8, 1998. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, House Committee on Resources, Washington, DC. Dear Don: On July 22, 1998 the Committee on Resources ordered reported H.R. 3903, the Glacier Bay National Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 1998. H.R. 3903, as ordered reported by the Committee on Resources, details the role of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (``FERC'') and Gustavus Electric Company in a land exchange between the United States and the State of Alaska. As you know, the Committee on Commerce was granted an additional referral upon its introduction pursuant to the Committee's jurisdiction over the generation and marketing of power under Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Because of the importance of this matter, I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before the House in an expeditous manner. I also understand that you have agreed to address this Committee's concern over section 4(d) of the bill as ordered reported in a manager's amendment to be offered on the Floor. Therefore, with that understanding, I will waive consideration of the bill by the Commerce Committee. By agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, the Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 3903. In addition, the Commerce Committee reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I would seek your commitment to support any request by the Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 3903 or related legislation. I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of the Committee's report on H.R. 3903 and as part of the record during consideration of this bill by the House. Sincerely, Tom Bliley, Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3903) to provide for an exchange of lands near Gustavus, Alaska, 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 within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3903, the bill just passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2863, a bill I introduced to reform the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). I have been joined in this effort by a number of our colleagues including John Dingell, John Tanner, Cliff Stearns, Curt Weldon, and Collin Peterson. It has been 80 years since Congress enacted this law to conserve migratory birds. During this time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued many regulations dealing with the harvest of migratory birds. The vast majority of these regulations were proposed by the hunting community. The only exception has been the regulations dealing with hunting in a field that is ``baited'' to unfairly attract migratory game birds. Congress has never passed a law that says--this is baiting and this practice is illegal. In fact, it is not illegal to ``bait'' a field or to feed migratory birds. It is strictly prohibited, however, to hunt in such an area. Over the years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has modified its baiting regulations 17 times. In addition, the Service and many Federal courts impose strict liability on those accused of hunting migratory birds over bait. What this means is that if a hunter is there and the bait is there, they are guilty. Regrettably, whether to cite someone for violating the MBTA is a subjective decision. Conviction under this act is a Federal criminal offense, and penalties may include up to a $5,000 fine and six months imprisonment. Under strict liability, if you are hunting in a field that an agent determines is baited, whether you know it or not, you are guilty. There is no defense and any evidence you may have to support your position is irrelevant. It does not matter whether there was a ton of grain or three kernels, whether this feed served as an attraction to migratory birds, or even how far the ``bait'' is from the hunting site. This interpretation--if you were there, you are guilty--is fundamentally wrong. It violates one of our most basic constitutional protections that a person is innocent until proven guilty. As a result of strict liability, thousands of law-abiding citizens have stopped hunting migratory game birds because they do not want to risk being convicted of a Federal crime for shooting a snow goose or a duck over a pond that may contain a handful of corn. Sadly, there are Fish and Wildlife Service agents who believe that all hunters are criminals and that it is their duty to cite them, even when they know the hunter is unaware of any baiting problem. In fact, we had testimony before my committee where a former agent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that, and I quote: ``Have I ever charged someone for hunting over bait that I truly believed they did not know the area was baited? And I would say yes. I have in my career. I have probably charged people for hunting over bait that truly did not know.'' I had hoped that the Fish and Wildlife Service would administratively fix its baiting regulations. I was anxious to see them try and on March 25th, for the first time in 25 years, the Service did issue a proposed rule containing some modifications. While the Service deserves credit for redefining certain terms and allowing greater State input into what constitutes a normal agricultural activity, I am deeply disappointed that they have chosen to retain the strict liability standard. This is a terrible mistake and a complete reversal of their earlier support for this change. At our full committee markup, I offered an amendment that limited the scope of the bill to the two issues that can only be resolved through the legislative process. The first is to replace strict liability with the ``knows or reasonably should know'' legal standard. This is not a new or radical idea. In fact, this standard was first articulated for migratory birds in 1978 in the Federal 5th Circuit Court's decision known as United States v. Delahoussaye. In this case, the Court found that: At a minimum, the bait must have been so situated that its presence could have been reasonably ascertained by a hunter wishing to check the area of his activity. For the past 20 years, this standards has worked effectively in the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas where migratory birds are hunted in great numbers. In fact, between 1984 and 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued 2,318 citations in these three States using the ``known or should have known'' legal standard. The Service obtained guilty pleas or payments of fines in 2,042 cases, which is a conviction rate of over 88 percent. As these statistics clearly show, the Delahoussaye decision has been effectively used to protect migratory birds. No migratory bird population has been put at risk, there have been numerous convictions and it is, therefore, not surprising that the Service has never attempted to overturn or challenge the Delahoussaye decision. While this legislation will allow a person to offer a defense in their baiting case, if the preponderance of evidence so demonstrates, a defendant will be found guilty. This standard is far less stringent than the ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' which is used in all other criminal cases. I received a letter from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources that states: Some opponents of your bill object on the basis that law enforcement officers will have to work harder to make good baiting cases. In my opinion, in a free society like ours, ease of enforcement should not be a standard that is applied when evaluating a law. Rather, we should seek to enact common sense laws that treat sportsmen fairly and protect our precious natural resources first and foremost. I believe your amended bill meets all of these criteria. The elimination of strict liability under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is strongly supported by a diverse group of conservation organizations including the California Waterfowl Association, the Grant National Waterfowl Association, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. In addition, it was supported by the Fish and Wildlife Service's Ad Hoc Committee on Baiting that included representatives from each of the Flyway Councils, Ducks Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation, and the Wildlife Management Institute. My bill also improves current law by making it unlawful to place or direct the placement of bait. This will allow the Service to cite those commercial operators who intentionally bait a field without the knowledge of the hunter. Mr. Chairman, if you believe that every American is innocent until proven guilty and that a person should be entitled to offer evidence in their defense, then you should vote for this legislation. It is the right thing to do and the ``knows or reasonably should know'' legal standard will be effectively applied throughout this nation. There is no rationale, justification or defense for the strict liability doctrine for migratory birds. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 2863.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the Neotropical Migratory Bird Habitat Enhancement Act. This important conservation measure is modeled after the highly successful programs that Congress created to assist African and Asian elephants, rhinoceroses, and tigers. In fact, I am hopeful that later this week the President will sign into law my bill, H.R. 39, to extend the African Elephant Conservation Act. This legislation is very similar to the African Elephant Conservation Act, and I am confident that this small investment of Federal funds will provide the lifeline that neotropical migratory birds need to survive in the wild. Neotropical birds, like bluebirds, robins, orioles, and goldfinches, travel across international borders and depend upon thousands of miles of suitable habitat. In fact, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, neotropical migratory birds typically spend five months of the year at Caribbean/Latin American wintering sites, four months in North American breeding areas, and three months traveling to these sites during spring and autumn migrations. Sadly, there are 90 North American bird species that are listed as either threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and an additional 124 birds that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified on its list of Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern. In North America, an estimated 70 percent of prairie birds are declining. The Government of Mexico lists approximately 390 bird species as endangered, threatened, vulnerable, or rare. What is lacking, however, is a strategic plan for bird conservation, money for on-the-ground projects, public awareness, and any real coordination among the various nations where neotropical migratory birds reside. While the full extent of the problems facing neotropical migratory birds is unclear, there is no debate over the fact that both bird populations and critical habitat declined significantly in the 1990's. We must act now before more of these species become endangered or extinct. This bill will contribute to the recovery and conservation of migratory birds, without violating private property rights. There are 60 million adult Americans who enjoy watching and feeding birds at their homes. In fact, these activities generate some $20 billion in economic activity each year. In addition, healthy bird populations are an invaluable asset for farmers and timber interests. By consuming detrimental insects, these birds prevent the loss of millions of dollars each year. Under the terms of this legislation, an individual or an organization would be able to submit a project proposal to the Secretary of the Interior. While the bill does not limit the type of projects, I would expect that efforts to determine the condition of neotropical migratory bird habitat, implement new or improved conservation plans, undertake population studies, educate the public, and reduce the destruction of essential habitat would be forthcoming. Since these birds migrate between the Caribbean, Latin America, and North America, comprehensive plans must be developed. It does little good if we are successful in conserving suitable habitat in only a portion of their range. I am confident that a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund would provide much-needed support for projects designed to conserve critical habitat for declining migratory bird species in an innovative and cost-effective way. I urge my colleagues to support the Neotropical Migratory Bird Habitat Enhancement Act.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are considering H.R. 3460, a noncontroversial bill that will renew the Governing International Fishery Agreement with the Republic of Latvia, and reauthorize the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995 and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 until September 30, 2001. H.R. 3460 was introduced by Jim Saxton, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans on March 12, 1998. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act delineates the involvement of the United States in NAFO, which is responsible for managing and conserving fishing resources from North Carolina to Baffin Bay, Canada. The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act is the implementing legislation for the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and international treaty for the conservation and management of highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Mediterranean. In addition, language from H.R. 3498, the Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management Act, has been incorporated within this bill. The Dungeness crab language will allow the States of Washington, Oregon, and California to continue to jointly manage the Dungness crab fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone adjacent to their States. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has unanimously voted to urge Congress to extend the interim management authority that was granted to the States by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. This bill specifically states that if the Pacific Council, at any time, determines there is a need for and approves a Federal fishery management plan for this fishery, then the authority given to the States would be terminated. This legislation is time-sensitive because the temporary authority given to the States will soon expire and Members should vote for this innovative conservation and management measure. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 3460.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this motion is an attempt to obstruct an effort to redress some of the most abject poverty and living conditions of people living in rural Alaska. The motion makes no sense whatsoever, unless proponents are contending the federal government has no role to play in fostering public works projects and iniatives to improve the life of our rural areas. Many communities in Alaska, most of which are Native villages, do not have public works projects such as those taken for granted by most communities in other states. The proposed commission will complement Alaska's ongoing work to alleviate the nearly Third World conditions brought on by the absence of basic infrastructure, such as modern water and sewage treatment or safe and environmentally sound bulk fuel storage. Because of the magnitude of the problem--unsafe water, lack of modern sewage treatment, infant mortality, alcoholism, suicide, lack of job opportunity--a commission chartered by Congress will advance efforts to grant a shimmer of hope to those who know only hopelessness in these rural areas. Let me offer just one example of why the Denali Commission is necessary. Forty percent of rural Alaska lacks flush toilets. Residents of these areas literally haul raw human waste in honeybuckets and dump them in a community lagoon sometimes leading to outbreaks of viral minengitis. Americans should not be living in these conditions in this day and age. These problems have not been ignored by any stretch of the imagination: Congress and the State of Alaska have been cooperating for several years to devote resources to correcting these problems. However, these efforts have the effect of a ``scattershot'' approach to solving a $1 billion problem. The Denali Commission is a single entity that can bring a unified direction and approach needed for some of the poorest areas of the country. There has been a lot of talk on the Floor about how generous the government has been to Alaska. In fact, it has not been very generous. Many of the funds Alaska receives are in defense programs, which serve a national as opposed to parochial purpose. It must also be recalled that when Alaska was made a statehood, it had to forego the benefit of reclamation projects such as those found in the lower 48. In addition, the federal government owns and controls two-thirds of Alaska's lands, but has awfully slow to show rural Alaskans any benefit this had brought them. For these reasons, the Denali Commission is justified, necessary, and vital to the well-being of Alaska's rural people.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Endangered Species Consolidation Act which is a very simple, good government bill. This bill will reduce the number of federal agencies with direct responsibility for implementing and enforcing the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act was originally enacted in 1973 to provide a federal program to insure that our plant and wildlife resources were protected from extinction. The Endangered Species Act or ESA as it is more commonly called, divides responsibility for its implementation and enforcement between two different federal agencies in two separate federal Departments. The Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior is the primary federal agency with responsibility for enforcing the law. The 1997 budget for direct endangered species enforcement within the Fish and Wildlife Service is approximately $80 million. The Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for listing and developing rules to protect all land based endangered or threatened species and all fresh water fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce has responsibility to implement and enforce the Endangered Species Act when it involves fish in the oceans or which migrate to the oceans, as well as marine mammals and sea turtles. Their annual buget is approximately $20 million. The Fish and Wildlife Service has approximately 800 employees assigned to protect endangered species, while the National Marine Fisheries Service has approximately 270 employees assigned to protect endangered species. With the listing of various species of salmon which can migrate hundreds of miles inland to spawn, the jurisdictional reach of the National Marine Fisheries Service now overlaps that of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Many companies and individuals are being required to obtain permits for land based activities from both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for the same activities because of the presence of species that are under the regulation of both agencies. In addition, federal agencies that impact endangered species must conduct consultations with both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service in many cases. For example, a timber company in Washington with land adjacent to a stream where salmon migrate and with spotted owl habitat will have to obtain a permit from both agencies to conduct its business. Having two agencies with overlapping responsibility is a waste of taxpayer funding and takes away resources that can be spent directly on species recovery. This bill would simply transfer authority for enforcement of the Endangered Species Act to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Marine Fisheries Service would continue to regulate all other fishing activities and fisheries management, as well as continuing to protect all marine mammals. Under the ESA, all federal agencies are required to use their resources and authorities to protect endangered species. Whenever the actions of any federal agencies are likely to impact an endangered speices, that federal agency is required to enter into a consultation with the federal agency that has primary responsibility for endangered species--The Fish and Wildlife Service, except when the species is one under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. In that case, the agency must consult with NMFS. This duplication of effort and overlapping of responsibility has become very burdensome, expensive, and time consuming, not just for private citizens but for federal agencies as well. It is time for us to consolidate the ESA functions of these two agencies into one primary agency. This means that when the NMFS will conduct an activity that affects an endangered species, such as issuing fishing permits, it will also be required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service, to insure that its activities do not harm those species. This bill will save time and money for everyone involved in protecting endangered species and most of all will give the taxpayers the most and best conservation for our taxpayer dollars.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, as I have said, I have left the Tongass, as the gentleman from Washington will say, out of this bill. We have reached an agreement on our side with those people that do not like road purchases of credit, et cetera, et cetera. We reached that agreement, so that is not in the bill. That has been agreed to. Now the gentleman from California's amendment comes along and very frankly breaches that agreement. So I want to say, in all respects, if you open this box the agreement is off as far as the future in the conference.

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

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, some things never change. This Tongass fight has been going on for a long time. In all regards to my good friend, the ex-chairman of the committee, I can remember in 1989 that the gentleman from California worked very hard to solve the Tongass problem. We very frankly thought we had solved it. In 1990, 400 million board feet were being cut. I was told by the gentleman from California that the mills would still run, there would be plenty of timber. In fact he quoted, if I may quote, Wilderness designation for the 23 areas would reduce the scheduled Tongass timber harvest of 450 million board feet annually by 49 million board feet. The impact of new wilderness on the scheduled timber base of 1.75 million acres is a loss of 238,000 acres. The remaining 1.5 million acres of land scheduled for harvest is capable of producing over 400 million board feet of timber per year. Because of the Forest Service and this administration, a lot of inactivities and the continued taking away of lands, we are now down to very frankly 267 million board feet maybe if the Forest Service sells any. And, by the way, the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) after 1990, we have no more saw mills, pulp mills left in the State. That is why there is no demand. We are trying to develop three or four small mills. Very frankly that is what we are trying to do. We need roads in the area if we are to have any timber. You cannot get timber unless you have roads. Even the President agreed with this. Even the Forest Service agreed with this, that there has to be roads to get the timber out. What the Miller amendment does very frankly is to make sure there is no new timber cut in the Tongass. Otherwise there will be no more timber industry. I will be very frank with the gentleman from California that if he would say that is what he wanted to do in 1980 or 1990, I might have said, ``Okay, that is the way the game is played,'' but not to tell me we are going to have plenty of timber. The other thing I might remind people that he killed 4,600 jobs in my southeast area. There is no forestry. There are a lot of forest rangers but no forestry being done. Actually I believe a zero cut in the Tongass is the goal. It was mentioned about roads in the Tongass. To just give my colleagues an idea, Mr. Chairman, we do not know how many roads will be built in the new areas to get timber out. We have no idea. But I will tell my colleagues that in West Virginia, the Tongass is the same size, 17 million acres. West Virginia has 35,110 miles of road, and it is still called a rural State. Thank God for Senator Byrd. They have 35,110 miles of road and in the Tongass we have 2,000 miles of road. If you want to drive to Juneau, you cannot, the capital. If you want to drive to Petersburg, you cannot. If you want to drive to Sitka, you cannot. If you want to drive to Wrangell or any other place, you cannot, because we have no roads. There are 35,110 miles of road in West Virginia, the same size as the Tongass, and we have 2,000 miles of road. But what we are trying to do here is preserve what little remaining timber industry we have. If we were to adopt the Miller amendment, if we were to adopt it, we would say no more timber shall be harvested in Tongass. If that is the intent of Mr. Miller, I would suggest he offer that amendment, that he says there will be no more timber period ever harvested out of that area. Then we go back to 1990 where he said there would be approximately 400 million board feet still available after we set this aside for a wilderness area in the Tongass. I am going to ask my colleagues just to consider this for a moment. In all due respect to my good friend, my ranking member, he does not want any timber harvesting left in the Tongass forest. I argue that we reached this agreement in 1990, we signed off on it with the environmental community. CEAC said in fact there will be peace in the valley. No longer any need to debate, this is behind us, let us go forth and do what is correct. Let us progress in more positive things. Yet here tonight at this late hour, we have a gentleman who it was involved in 1986, in 1989, in 1990, in three different Tongass bills. And we have it before us tonight. I urge the defeat of this amendment. It is not only mischievous, I am going to suggest respectfully, it is an attempt to kill the forest industry.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, that was not both mills and the gentleman from California knows that. Do not say that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That was done by the administration. That was done by the Forest Service rightfully due. I am saying that was rightfully done. We had a TLUMP process. We were told it followed the TLUMP. That is the planning program. We were told that. We have followed that. We are going to follow it if everything goes forth.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Because there is no more timber.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that again. This issue I thought had been put to bed. The good Senator, bless his heart, never does sleep. But to be frank, I would suggest to the gentleman from California, if he wants to open up the Tongass, and he has his amendment adopted, he will really have an opportunity. And I will tell him, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) will tell him, he does not want to go through this. So I was trying to do something correct for many times, dead serious, not to have the Tongass mentioned in the bill at all, so there would not be a door open for my good senior Senator who is very persevering.