Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply strike the provision of the bill that would grant an easement through the Chugach National Forest to the Chugach Alaska Corporation. Under a 1982 settlement, the corporation has a right to access its lands which are surrounded by the Chugach National Forest. However, under the agreement, access is to be granted through a negotiation with the Forest Service and any easement providing access is to be conditioned on environmental review and on public comment. The rider, which is the subject of this amendment, would effectively override all of that process. Instead it would give the corporation the right to choose the easement and would exempt its decision from environmental review or public comment. Moreover, the grant itself would be unusual. The easement would be 250 feet wide, 10 times the width of a usual access road, and the easement would be permanent and irrevocable. This easement would be granted over public lands; in other words, our lands, the lands of the public, all the people of the country. No private landowner would agree to such an arrangement, and we who are the custodians of this land for the public should not agree to it either. We do not want to deny the corporation legitimate access to its lands. It is entitled to that. But the corporation has been negotiating with the Forest Service. Its president, in fact, testified before our committee earlier this year that the negotiations were proceeding amicably. The corporation and the Forest Service signed a memorandum of understanding in March that is supposed to produce an agreement later this year. The date is in fact December 11. The corporation did not say that the Forest Service had been difficult or uncooperative in negotiations. But the corporation apparently wants to circumvent environmental laws and reviews that could just delay the process for a few months. It apparently wants a better deal than the Forest Service is likely to propose. Who would not leap at a chance for such a special deal? But that does not mean that this Congress ought to approve it. Some people may think we have no interest in the land up there, or that our constituents have no interest in it. Why not just give it away? However, this section of the Chugach is an unusual section. The law requires the Forest Service to manage this area for conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitat, the only such place in the Forest Service where this language pertains. The proposed easement would lie in or near the Copper River Delta, said to be the richest habitat for waterfowl and shore birds in the Western Hemisphere and the site of the most prolific sporting ground for salmon that we have. That is why so many organizations oppose this rider. Like myself, they are not saying that we should cut off access. They are saying that we should take time, be careful, and follow the usual process and the reviews the corporation has agreed to. That is all I am asking. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that we are in no way suggesting that this road providing access into this land should not be built. It is quite clear the corporation has the right to that access. That access should be granted. But it should be granted just as any other access would be granted. It should be granted in accordance with the law. We should not, as this present bill provides, override NEPA, override the Clean Water Act, override all existing Federal legislation in order to give a special grant under these special extraordinary circumstances. Let us build this road. Let us provide this access under the provisions that are going forward. Negotiations are proceeding just as they ought to, just as they would proceed in any other case, and they will lead to a fruitful conclusion. In other words, an agreement will be made and a road will be constructed. But it ought not to be constructed by fiat from the Congress. It ought not to be done in any way that is extraordinary or special, and that is what is called for under the present language. Let us build this road, but let us honor the process as we are doing so, and once it is done let us make sure that we have done it right. With this rider in this appropriations bill, this inappropriate rider, this bill is certain to be vetoed. If we approach this in the right and proper and just way, then we can get both the bill and the road built.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HINCHEY. The easement process was begun in 1982.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. Is it not true, though, that the easement was not granted in 1971? In fact, the land area was set up for the tribe in 1971.

Mr. HINCHEY. It was for the corporation. For the corporation in 1971.

Mr. HINCHEY. Since then, the corporation has broken off negotiations on the easement on a number of occasions. And since then they have sold the coal rights on their property to a South Korean corporation. So it is only now, or only recently that they have addressed the Forest Service, once again, only in the last year, to acquire access into this particular piece of property. So I just want to make that clear; that several administrations have gone by during this process, but that there has not been a consistent attempt to establish this right-of-way either since 1971 or since 1982. That process has only been very recent.

Mr. HINCHEY. If you read the first phrase, though, it says, ``Notwithstanding any provision of law.'' Do not forget the read the first phrase. The introductory clause in this case is critically important.

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I am sorry to hear that.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the words be taken down. I ask the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. HINCHEY. Immoral and corrupt.

Mr. HINCHEY. Will the gentleman repeat the question?

Mr. HINCHEY. While I was asking the gentleman to yield, I believe that he used the words immoral and corrupt, and I am concerned about what context he used those words in and to whom they were referring.

Mr. HINCHEY. To whom was the gentleman referring, then?

Mr. HINCHEY. Is the gentleman suggesting that an amendment that I wrote is immoral and corrupt?

Mr. HINCHEY. I think the gentleman used the word corrupt.

Mr. HINCHEY. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate it.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a few words in support of the amendment which would place $2 million in the Urban Recreation and Recovery Program. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has done something very good here, and I think the House recognizes there is no one among us who is more expert about this particular program, the value of it, the efficacy of the work that is done through this program and the need to put money into it. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has identified a source of funding which is not going to hurt anyone. The $2 million out of this $80 million from the Northern Mariana fund is money which is not being used. There is no likelihood this money is going to be matched by the Northern Marianas at any time in the near future. This is a very good program, and we really need to be funding it. There is a great deal of willingness on the part of many Members of the House, it seems, to spend money on prisons, but not as much willingness to spend money on parks; not as much willingness to spend money on prevention, rather than waiting until after the problem has arisen before we deal with it. That, I think, is a very serious mistake. There has been a recent study that was done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that said that if young people, high school age, are going to get into trouble, they are going to do so in those hours right after school lets out, the hours between 3 and 7 o'clock or so in the evening. One of the reasons people in those situations get into trouble is because there is nothing for them to do when school lets out. There are millions of young people in urban areas and in rural areas alike across this country that have no access to recreational facilities after school is out. By spending a few dollars on recreational programs, we can avoid the need to spend a great deal of money later on the construction of prisons and for other purposes in the criminal justice system. We know very clearly that if young people have access to recreational programs, if young people can hook up with a mentor, some older person that can establish a relationship with them, that their life is much less likely to take a bad turn and they are much more likely to develop into good, sound, solid citizens. Money spent on these recreational programs, money spent for these parks, is money well spent, and we are well advised to adopt this amendment. It is a good, sound, solid amendment, a good use for this funding. I urge all Members to get behind this amendment and support this expenditure of $2 million for our Urban Recovery and Parks Program. It is a very good purpose, a very good idea.