have special representatives from the State on the committee, we intend to give them every opportunity to present testimony to educate us on the issues as they see them.

We will plan to take testimony either with or without the Seiberling committee in the State of Alaska and here. The important thing is to set some kind of a time frame on resolution.

I do agree that if we do exactly nothing in light of the huge volume of testimony that has been accumulated by the other committee, that we are going to have a very difficult time getting a proper sequential referral of H.R. 39 to the committee.

So I think we are going to have to reorient some of our time frame priorities. We are going to have to move ahead and when we have an analysis of the issues as presented by both majority and minority staff and a suggestion of witnesses, we will go over that as a subcommittee.

We could augment that any way we want. We can reschedule the time frame. The Chair is perfectly flexible in this regard to hear any and all that want to express themselves on this subject matter. If it is possible, we might even have some folks in California that think they know what is best for the country vis-a-vis the State of Alaska. Mr. Young.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I don't know whether you said I was going to go first or Mr. Cutler was going to go first.

In your statement, of course, the comment of being carved up is exactly true. There is little understanding and little desire to understand, nor really any knowledge. This is a battle of approximately four butchers trying to decide which one is going to end up with the biggest piece of ham. I really believe that they don't have the interest of the Nation as a whole at stake.

Your comment as far as a provincial point of view from my side of the story, yes, it is provincial as far as the State lands go. If you study some of the proposals, including Mr. Dingell's and Mr. Udall's, it ignores the rights of the State of Alaska and the rights of the people. Those are the people I represent. Other than that I don't think I am provincial.

What we are supposed to do in this committee and the Interior Committee with their 800 witnesses-and let me assure you, of the 800 witnesses, 750 of them were on operational alert directly from the chairman of one of the committees and a staff member who claimed to be the father of the D-2 land issue. They presented the same story over and over again with little knowledge or understanding.

I happen to be one who believes in research beyond those who have special interests. The desire of the people of the United States today does not extend beyond that vocal group. I urge this committee as we take testimony that we do consider going to Alaska, do consider alternatives and consider the effect upon the American people as a whole. This is not a conservation measure that is being presented here in H.R. 39. It is a preservation issue, to preserve and set aside for the future with no understanding or recognition of the people of Alaska nor the people of the United States, led by approximately 7 environmental groups with less than a total enrollment of 700,000 people.

I am saying, Mr. Chairman, that I am a spokesman for the State of Alaska and the people of Alaska should have a strong voice in this, although we only have 400,000 people.

I have never seen the day that might was right. If that is the premise that this Congress works under, then I think we ought to not call it a democracy nor a legislative body that rules supposedly taking into consideration each individual. You are going to hear from me in this committee as the Interior Committee has heard in the past and you will hear from me continually on what I think is right.

Although you may disagree with me, let's not be locked into the position that all the D-2 proposals are provincial. I think I can make this committee understand what the Alaska delegation is trying to do. We are united, the Governors, the Senators and the Congressmen, in a position and we speak for the Alaskan people. If we ignore that, then all of you sitting in this room from each district no longer represent those districts.

The four butchers have no interests other than their own selfperpetuation. That is what I am objecting to in this committee. That is not my testimony. That is simply an opening statement.

Mr. LEGGETT. Well, that is an appetizer. Certainly the Chair did not mean to indicate any view on this overall view by the use of the verb "carve." I could have used a number of longer adjectives that would have spelled out a large part of the same thing.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Cutler is going to go first, may I ask where the film came from and who was the originator of the film?

Mr. LEGGETT. John, do you want to join us up here in a prominent position? You don't want to sit on that side.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Thanks very much. But first I want to find out when Mr. Young wants to meet with Mr. Udall.

Mr. YOUNG. As soon as he is available. We will do it right now. Mr. LEGGETT. That means Mr. Young will not be testifying at this point. We wish you well in your efforts.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you. I will try to be back. I appreciate the invitation.

Mr. LEGGETT. We just indicated we will have to meld our schedule on the Alaskan matters with the other committee that has jurisdiction. Mr. SEIBERLING. I appreciate very much the courtesy and extension of cooperation you have extended. In particular, I appreciate the fact that you are permitting our staff to be here. When you get to the staff questioning, if your staff are allowed to ask questions, I would appreciate your allowing our staff to ask questions also.

Mr. LEGGETT. Certainly.

Harry can sit even closer to the table than he is. He can fully participate in cross-examination of all the witnesses.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you so much.

Mr. LEGGETT. Senator Stevens is not here and Mr. Young is leaving for the present. We do have Secretary Cutler here.

It is very nice to have you here, Mr. Secretary. You are representing the Department of Agriculture on this important subject matter. You have views and we would hope that you would fully and completely express those views at this point.

STATEMENT OF HON. M. RUPERT CUTLER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONSERVATION, RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY BERNARD A. COSTER, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Like most of the folks in the audience here, a few moments ago I was deeply moved by the film we saw. I would like to assure you that the Department of Agriculture is dedicated to preserving that beauty on any lands assigned to it for management.

I will highlight our prepared statement.

Mr. LEGGETT. You may proceed.

Mr. CUTLER. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 6564, H.R. 5605 and H.R. 1652 because these bills have impact on the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture.

H.R. 6564, as I think the map being presented to the committee will dramatize, would establish three new national forests in Alaska. In addition, it will add some half million acres to the existing Chugach National Forest and designate four rivers within the national forests to be designated as wild and scenic rivers to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture.

H.R. 1652 would establish some 68 million acres of national wildlife refuges in Alaska, including transferring over 2.5 million acres of the existing Chugach National Forest and 600.000 acres of the Tongass National Forest to wildlife refuge status. Three of the refuges proposed in H.R. 1652 overlap areas proposed as new national forests in H.R. 6564.

H.R. 5605 would designate Admiralty Island, located within the Tongass National Forest, as a national preserve under the administration of the Secretary of the Interior.

Section 17 (d) (2) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to recommend to Congress the suitability of public lands in Alaska "for addition to or creation as units of the National Park, Forest, Wildlife Refuge, and Wild and Scenic River Systems."

With passage of the act in 1971, the Forest Service established an Alaska Planning Team to study these public lands for potential new national forests. From the outset, the Forest Service Planning Team recognized that many areas were best suited for national park or wildlife refuge status, and it excluded these areas from its studies.

In 1972, based on the team's study, the Department of Agriculture recommended to the Secretary of the Interior that some 42 million acres of land identified as suitable for multiple use-sustained yield management, including wilderness, be added to the National Forest System.

The Secretary of the Interior reviewed the Forest Service studies. along with studies by Interior Department agencies, the Alaska Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission and others. He subsequently recommended that 83.5 million acres of national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and wild and scenic rivers be designated by Congress, including three new national forests, totaling 18.3 million acres, and additional of 500,000 acres to the existing Chugach National Forest.

Since that proposal was made, the Forest Service has been prepar ing a series of preliminary area rubes setting forth amory prOSTAIL direction for broad areas of Auses which would melade TO ADDS 1 the proposed new national forests. The Forest Service Las recently completed such a guide for the Copper Rover-Frames are wik would serve as the bass for subsequent land mang be the area. This area guide tales xasdenox of widemes vi other resources use valnes. I would be pleased to make this gradatie to the subcommittee as an example of our comprehensive land manie ment planning process.

While there may be need for modification of the 1975 Interior proposal, we continue to believe it represents a firm base both for begin ning congressional deliberations of the 1-2 hands issue and for antring at a recommendation by this siministrate on 14 proposals. By that I mean that this proposal rather than H.R. 37, sa good place to start.

We will be cooperating with the Department of the Interior and other concerned agencies in arriving at an Administration recommendation on D-2 lands. As part of that process I plan to spend some time in Alaska this summer to become better acquainted with the major proposals that need to be considered. Until our review is complated this fall, it is premature for me to indicate a position on specifie proposals.

However, as we look at Alaska and recognize the vast acreages involved, it seems essential to me to retain the option of managing some lands for a combination of resource values through multiple usesustained yield management. Moreover, whatever the designations ultimately decided upon. Alaska's public lands must be managed in a particularly sensitive way that recognizes the environmental, social, and economic concerns of all our citizens.

While we are not prepared to offer a firm Department recommendation of these bills, we do want to point out some concerns we have with H.R. 1652 and H.R. 5605.

First, H.R. 1652 would establish a Gulf of Alaska National Wildlife Refuge which would largely be created from National Forest System lands. The establishment of this refuge would result in the transfer of some 2.5 million acres or over half of the Chugach National Forest and over 600.000 acres of the Tongass National Forest to wildlife refuge status.

This Department is unaware of any studies which indicate a need to transfer these lands out of the National Forest System to achieve wildlife habitat management objectives. These lands are currently being managed by the Forest Service on a multiple use-sustained yield basis to perpetuate their significant fisheries and wildlife resources. In managing the wildlife resources of these lands, there is a high degree of cooperation between the Forest Service and the Alaska Fish and Game Department. Through a longstanding cooperative agreement, a number of special cooperative fish and wildlife improvement projects have been accomplished on the Chugach and Tongass National Forests.

For example, Prince William Sound-the national forest area most affected by H.R. 1652-contains an important salmon fishery. Due to the uplifting of the land caused by the 1964 earthquake, salmon

spawning grounds were decimated. Through the cooperative efforts of the Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, a massive stream rehabilitation project was launched, which helped mitigate the loss of the area's commercial salmon fishery.

In addition, the Forest Service has established several prime waterfowl management areas within these national forests in cooperation with the State and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

We would also point out that there are several proposed wilderness study areas within those portions of the Chugach and Tongass National Forests affected by H.R. 1652, as well as significant wildlife, recreation, timber, mineral, oil, and gas resources.

If the Gulf of Alaska Refuge were created as proposed in H.R. 1652, all that would remain of the Chugach National Forest would be two widely separated and isolated segments, which, of course, would be difficult to administer efficiently. In our view this proposal goes beyond the purpose of section 17 (d) (2) of the Settlement Act which called for recommendations on "undesignated" Federal lands.

Second, under H.R. 1652, establishment of refuges would precede the right of Natives to select lands to which they are entitled. By limiting the village corporations to one township within the refuges established under H.R. 1652, the bill would prevent several Native villages in the Chugach and Southeast Alaska Regions from satisfying their entitlement under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This would interrupt the land selection process that has been underway since passage of the act and a major amendment to the Settlement Act would be required.

Under H.R. 5605, Admiralty Island would be established as a national preserve and designated as wilderness under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. This area has also been proposed as wilderness under another bill, H.R. 39, which has been referred to the Interior Committee.

Admiralty Island is one of the larger islands in southeast Alaska. It is approximately 100 miles long and slightly over 30 miles wide, and contains approximately 1,147,600 acres. All but 2,400 acres of Admiralty Island are national forest lands; however, three Native corporations have land selection rights totaling up to 69,120 acres.

As part of the Tongass National Forest, Admiralty Island is included in a comprehensive land management planning process now underway. The Tongass land management plan will designate land areas on the Tongass National Forest for various uses or combinations such as wilderness, dispersed recreation and wildlife management.

The development of the plan is an interdisciplinary effort involving the Forest Service, the State of Alaska, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Native groups, community leaders, and other citizen groups. The Tongass land management planning effort seeks to resolve land use issues and include extensive public involvement. An area guide for the Tongass National Forest has been completed and the draft environmental statement for the plan is scheduled for release in December 1978.

I also want to point out that we plan to develop an expedited procedure for review of roadless and undeveloped areas of the national forests in the Lower 48 States and Alaska. As part of this expedited review we will be reviewing possible wilderness resources of and alter