Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which was successfully included in the House fiscal year 2007 Interior appropriations bill, prohibits the funds to be used by the Bureau of Land Management to change their existing placer mining plans of operations with regard to environmental mitigation in Alaska. Alaska is one of the very few places left in the United States where placer mining is being still conducted. Unfortunately, unelected bureaucrats have targeted these small mom-and-pop, usually retired people, family miners from attaining unattainable regulations under the falsehood of protecting the environment. Mr. Chairman, this is a sound piece of legislation that should be accepted by this committee and this body to make sure those people elected participate in mining on lands that are old. This is a mining area that has been mining for the last 100 years, yet the BLM has decided they are going to take these little miners and put them out of business. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of my amendment. It is very simple. It protects the smaller people of America. Let them do what they wish to do. Letting them have an activity after they retire I think is actually important. As I said before, it was adopted before. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I, again, urge passage of the amendment, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work. This is a mom-and-pop operation. If I thought it was going to do anything wrong--it has been mined for 100 years. They came in, they had a guy in a wheelchair, and they made him walk to his mine because you couldn't use a mechanized vehicle. Now, that is not good personnel. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank both Chairman Simpson and Chairman Frelinghuysen for their work on this legislation, but I would like to engage in this colloquy about the Denali Commission in Alaska. My proposal would have restored funding for the Denali Commission to its fiscal year 2017 level to continue the great work that it does to support the constituents of the rural areas of Alaska. My proposal would also restore the 2017 funding levels for the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, and the Northern Border Regional Commission. The Denali Commission started in 1998 with Senator Stevens as an independent Federal agency designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska. With the creation of the Denali Commission, Congress acknowledged the need for increased interagency cooperation and a focus on Alaska's remote communities. The Denali Commission operates in the most geographically diverse and challenging area in America, twice the size of Texas. In fact, this area would encompass both the Delta Regional Authority and the Appalachian Regional Commission. I continue to believe the Denali Commission is a model of efficient and innovative government. The Commission has also improved the living conditions of rural areas of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Simpson has done the best he can, and you cannot believe all the programs that the Denali Commission provides for the State of Alaska and my constituents. I would appreciate Mr. Simpson looking at maybe a future time that we could fund it at the level that we were in 2017. Mr. Chairman, I do urge Mr. Simpson, as the chairman, to understand how important the Denali Commission is to Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that Mr. Simpson just mentioned it was eliminated by the administration, and he did restore some of the money. I am just requesting that, if he gets any more money, we would look for it in the Denali Commission so that the work it has done is well rewarded. Mr. Chairman, I thank both the chairmen for the work they have done establishing the Denali Commission in past years, and let's go forth.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that should have been settled a long time ago. In 2009, this Congress passed a land exchange piece of legislation, very similar to this, and we made one mistake. We did put into it the ability to have the Fish and Wildlife Service make recommendations. Even then, the recommendations were on a positive side. The last administration decided, under the Secretary of the Interior, not to build an 11-mile road to save my constituents, the Aleut people from King Cove, in favor of a goose, and the people who live in King Cove weren't really considered. Now, this is a road that is 11 miles long that goes not through the Izembek Refuge, but through some of the areas, mostly just along the edge. And the argument you will hear is that they will disturb the geese. You will hear it disturbs the eelgrass that the geese and the loons live on. The road will bother them. It is ironic; the refuge itself, which this refuge is not a new area, it has been inhabited by man, frankly, in the last generation, and they built about 70 miles of road to supply a military base called Cold Bay, which is the airport we are trying to seek this road to connect it with King Cove. They actually take tourists that arrive in Cold Bay and take the bus and go out the same road, not the one we want to build, but a road right next to the so-called lagoon and the eelgrass for the tourists. And for some reason, tourists don't bother geese. That is what I can't quite understand. But it is all right for them to do that, but not allow the people of King Cove to save their lives. Since the refusal to build this road, 19 people, my constituents, Aleut people from King Cove, have died because they could not be evacuated to the airport so you could fly them out. Now, some people will say, well, they have got an airport. Yes, 1,600 feet, winds are blowing 90 miles an hour, you try to get off. Or put yourselves on a boat and go across in 30-foot waves. And you will hear, well, we built them and they got a hovercraft. They never wanted it. They knew it wouldn't work. The Clinton administration said, oh, this is our solution and it is better than a road that would disturb the geese, so they accepted the use of it, and it did fail. The hovercraft does not work, yet we will have an amendment later on, the area that did not ask for it is going to be requested to pay the money back. I didn't hear anybody, by the way, say, because a levee failed and we put money into it, they had to pay the money back. So let's really consider what we are talking about here. We are talking about 11 miles, single lane, gravel-covered road to provide access to Cold Bay for people in the community who do not have access to a hospital, which is 600 miles away in Anchorage. We had one lady evacuated at a cost of $250,000 by the Coast Guard. The helicopter crashed, and she lost her life. We had two other elders that went across with a crab boat. They had to put the people into a crab pot because there was no way to get to this airport. So, Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting to my fellow colleagues, let's do what is right. This does no harm to the refuge. It, in fact, saves lives, gives them an opportunity to take and experience the medical care that all the rest of us have. Let's do the right thing today. Let's not be caught into special interests that say it is going to hurt the refuge. I know many even got phone calls: Oh, this is going to be terrible. The truth of the matter is it is not terrible. It is the right thing to do. So I am asking my colleagues, let's vote ``yes'' on this bill. Let's vote ``no'' on the amendments. Let's do what is right today in the House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is mischievous and trying to defeat what we are trying to do today. The amendment is wholly unnecessary to mitigate impacts of migratory birds in Izembek Refuge. Again, the single-lane noncommercial 11 miles has no affect upon the wildlife, the waterfowl, of any kind. It would allow, again, the Secretary, or one of the other Secretaries of a lesser part, like Fish and Wildlife Service, to delay the project. It is an effort, again, to delay the project. We didn't expect--by the way, when we say there are 70,000 or more public comments, there was less than 100 from Alaska. These are outside comments. This whole idea of public comments sometimes doesn't make sense when they are nowhere near the Izembek Refuge or this road. Sometimes I think we get caught in this idea that, oh, we have got all of these public comments against something or for something, let's look at where they are from. This amendment, again, as I say, is mischievous. It is trying to kill the project. It should not be done. It is being pushed by the environmental community, again, to kill this project. As I mentioned in my opening statement, you probably got some phone calls. Frankly, they don't know what they are talking about. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, which is an attempt, again, to stop this road. Let's build this road for the people of King Cove. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time. I made a mistake and I said ``yield,'' when I should have said ``reserve.''

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak on this again. I stress the fact that the Federal Government is going to receive 43,000 acres for additional wilderness in exchange for 42 acres. I mean, I don't know how many deals you can ever work that you get that kind of deal. This is a great thing for the refuge. It is the right thing for the refuge. Again, as we go about this bipartisan legislation, we expected in 2009 to have this road built. That is why we are back here. It is not the first time. For 40 years this community has been trying to get this road built. We thought that we had it in 2009, but because of the administrations that were unfavorable to it, and the slowness of the report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and then having Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell say, ``No, there are other alternatives,'' when they did not work. So I am suggesting, respectfully, that, again, this amendment is trying to kill the bill. It is not trying to provide a solution to anything. Respectfully, I would say this again: vote against this amendment. Let's defeat this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, may I just inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who is the chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again, may I suggest we talk about this legislation. We thought 9 years ago or 8 years ago that we would have this road built. There is no Federal money involved in it. It is a road that needs to be done, and if we reinstate this language, what will happen is there will be a time where the road again will be studied and won't be built. For forty years, they have waited and lost lives, and we are talking about letting the Federal Government get involved again. Mr. Chairman, I am saying this is the time to build the road. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, in order to fully ensure that this emergency route will not be slowed down by unnecessary regulatory delays, my amendment makes minor changes to section 7 to conform to the text of H.R. 218 with the Senate text of S. 101. Section 7 of the underlying bill waives the NEPA process because the NEPA process had already been completed in 2014 under Secretary Jewell. An environmental impact statement has already been published. Secretary Jewell ignored the public health and safety aspects that killed people because we don't have a road. There is no reason to make the people of King Cove go through the time-consuming and expensive process again when it was done so recently. The people of King Cove have fought for this road for 40 years. People have literally died, again, because of the lack of this road to Cold Bay which has a 6,000-foot airstrip. Mr. Chairman, again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again, Mr. Chairman, let's not wait again for 40 years or 9 years or 10 years. This has already been done by the study. The impact statement has already been done. The NEPA process has already been done. It has been done recently, and this is not a cheap effort for a small community. So I am suggesting, respectfully, this amendment be adopted so we can build a road. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would penalize the State of Alaska for a Clinton administration decision by making them pay back grant money for the costly and often unreliable emergency hovercraft system. Residents of King Cove never wanted this system and only agreed to the compromise when it became clear the Clinton administration would oppose any effort to authorize the construction of this lifesaving road. After years of working in good faith to make the solution work, King Cove had to abandon the system due to exorbitant cost and, frankly, mechanical failures on the craft. It was very expensive to run. Very frankly, the amendment attempts reparation but it targets the wrong group. The amendment puts a price tag on the safety of King Cove residents who have sought more reliable access to medical care for decades. Congress does not require Louisiana to pay the Federal Government for the failed levees in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina before building new ones and should not be charging the residents of King Cove for constructing this road. By the way, furthermore, the amendment seeks repayment from the State of Alaska that did not receive money; however, the grant money is for temporary emergency relief efforts which were largely awarded to the local governments. Mr. Chairman, again, I think this amendment is a punitive amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who is the chairman of the committee. Mr. Bishop of Utah. Mr. Chairman, as we close on this particular amendment, let me say I would never consider this amendment uppity. I would consider it cute and a gotcha amendment because the reality is, unlike what has been alluded to, the community did not want this hovercraft. They wanted what was promised them in the bill, which was an 11-mile road to connect to the rest of the road. It was forced upon them by the Clinton administration that said: This is it; take it or leave it. They tried to make it work. The bottom line is the system didn't work. But the Clinton administration here, 6,000 miles away, forced on to local residents who knew they would have a problem something that did not work, and they quit doing it simply because they could not afford to maintain that hovercraft. The hovercraft is for sale; but no one needs a hovercraft. That is why this community now is stuck with the decision that we made 6,000 miles away because we know what is right for King Cove, Alaska, instead of allowing them to have some kind of control over their own lives. What Mr. Young said is accurate. When the levees broke along the Mississippi and the Missouri, we didn't go to those States to insist on it. When there are wildfires that take place in the West, including the gentleman from Arizona's home State, we don't go back to Arizona and force them to pay for all of it. This is simply an amendment that is cute, and it is a gotcha amendment. But it is also wrong. It was also pointed out the grants went to the community. The community is not being required under this amendment to pay it back, it is the State, which simply means the amendment is also poorly written if it ever was indeed supposed to be a sincere amendment. This is one of those things that we don't need to go through. The options are very clear. We have gone through the process. Vote against this particular amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Vote ``yes'' on the bill and ``no'' on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I listened to people on the other side. This is a good rule. I want to compliment the Rules Committee. It is crucially important to recognize that this is an issue that means lives: 19 people have died out of that community of King Cove-- mothers, children, husbands, brothers, uncles, and aunts--because they didn't have a road. We passed legislation similar to this in 2009 that granted a land exchange--and was a massive land exchange--of 43,000 acres for 260 acres from the State of Alaska to construct this road. I think that is a fair exchange for an 11-mile road--single lane, gravel covered--just so they have access to save lives. Those who speak against it have never experienced the wind that howls through that area when you try to land a plane or take off, you have a sick person with you, and you crash. Or go across the bay when waves are 30 feet high, and the evacuation of those ill people to an area that is only 11 miles away on an unfinished road and they die. Human beings, Alaskan constituents, that have medical aid only 600 miles away and stopped by 11 miles that is not allowed because supposedly there is a better way. And there is no better way than a road in the weather condition I am speaking of. When you think about it, I often listen to the other side of the aisle in voting against something like this, yet they will defend the right to save certain animals, but they don't want to save human life. That is wrong. This is a good project. It should be built. I am hoping this body recognizes that lives are important and recognize the fact that this road doesn't disturb any of the wildlife. It is ironic that they will say it is going to disturb the geese that live off of eelgrass. The closest road that comes to this one bay is 11 miles away--11 miles. And the same area as this wildlife range has miles of road in it already, miles of road already in place. One of those roads already in place goes right by the lagoon where the tourists go watch the geese. Now, why can't a tourist go by an area and watch the geese and it doesn't disturb them, but if someone is sick, dying, in a bus, ambulance, car, or truck, that is going to disturb the geese? This is a nonsense argument by environmental communities around this Nation that want to put a stop to anything that benefits mankind and save the wildlife, say from New York or San Francisco, and don't know what they are talking about. My job is to protect my people. This is not going to cost the taxpayers a nickel. This is going to be a project that is well done, and it will not disturb the wildlife they are so-called trying to protect. So I ask my colleagues on this floor to think about humanity. Think about that person, be it your mother, your daughter, your son, your aunt, your uncle, your brother, and you would want to see them die because they are trying to protect a goose? Shame on you. Shame on those who vote against this bill, saying: This is more important--I live in New York or California. This goose is more important than human life. I think it is time we use a little sense in this body, a little understanding. Let's build this road. Let's pass this bill.