Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again may I stress the importance of this legislation and the amendment which I offer to the original amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. This is an interpretation which was disputed between the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and myself and from the administration and what they requested. We still believe we did what we should have done in the original bill, or the substitute which I offered, but there is a disputing of definitions. We now believe that we have an opportunity with my amendment to take and resolve that dispute between the gentleman from California, myself, and the administration. I have had the commitment of the gentleman from California that he is going to support this legislation if my amendment is adopted. Now, the total package will be voted on. And I have also had indications that the Senate would work appropriately with this legislation and the administration would sign this legislation if it gets out of this House in this form. If this does not occur, that means that we would have to go back to conference; but I am confident that if we went to conference, I have the support of the ranking member and other members involved whereby we can in fact solve this problem and get the community input as necessary. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, there has been much said about the preservation of this forest. One of the biggest fears I have and have always had is the burning of our forests today and the lack of management. Fires are natural, yes. We have not been involved with Smokey the Bear, but we have put out fires for many, many years. The volatility of these acres now is about 100 barrels of gasoline per acre in some of our forests. Some of the most magnificent trees today are threatened because of the lack of fire control or fire suppression or, in fact, the continued growth and undergrowth that makes it impossible to put a fire out, and it kills the soil when it burns. So we talk about the future generations walking through the forests. There will be no forests to walk through if we do not have the proper management. Yes, we can leave some trees aside. We can leave the old growth where it is in some places. We can also take and have the management thinning in the appropriate classification. But we must have what I call the appropriate management, and who better can do that than those in the area in which it lives? I think it is so crucially important that we continue to try this pilot project. I want to stress again and again, pilot project, five-year project, all environmental laws, all registrations now. But it allows the taking of timber. It allows the proper fire suppression. So I urge the adoption of my amendment. I think it is crucially important that we have the opportunity to continue this. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], on the legislation itself and not necessarily directed to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to Members that there is a little confusion going on right now, but there has been some discussion in trying to reach an agreement with the administration. I have letters from the administration saying that they basically support the implication of this legislation, from Mr. Glickman, the Department of Environmental Quality. What we have been trying to do for the last hour is to work out some mutual agreement where I personally believe that we can, in fact, send this bill to the Senate and have the Senate take it up without any amendments and send it to the President. Now, there may be some that may not agree with what has been done on both sides, but it is my belief it is the best way to try to solve these problems. Because I am a realist, and I recognize there are those that oppose this bill, especially the national environmental community, I understand that and I understand that there are those in the Senate who have the power, because their rules put holds on bills and nothing occurs, I think it is very important to get this pilot project on its way to become a law. I have worked with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for the last hour, and we have been saying things to one another and discussing this, what we can accomplish. I am resentful of the administration, because I just got their letters about 10 minutes, 15 minutes ago. I think this is inappropriate on the part of the administration when this is their brainchild, when they thought this would be the way to go. We have done everything possible to make this work. It is my belief, the way that this has been made up, that we have an opportunity now to really solve what was in my substitute but was a definition that appeases not only the administration but the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and others that are involved. Now, I will not say that we did not have the votes. I believe we had the votes to pass it in the House big time, and I understand that, but there is also a chance in the way this works, if we want to get this program in place, on time, working for the people, the Quincy Library Group and the people in that arena, we must try to solve the problems here on the floor of the House to give them that opportunity. If these amendments destroy the intent of the bill and if it does not work, then we can always review it. We can come back and find out what is happening. But it is an attempt to make sure that we have a fledgling duckling turn into a beautiful swan. It is an opportunity to make this work. I know there is some question about what we are doing here, and I apologize to those people, but this is the way this program works. This is a democracy. This is a legislative process, putting a package together that becomes a reality. So with that, I would like to thank the gentleman from California and those involved. I would like to suggest respectfully, for those that are unaware of what we are doing, that this is really, I think, our opportunity to fulfill not only an obligation, although we can win on this floor, but we can go forward and have an opportunity on the Senate side and get this to the President of the United States and make sure that these local people are heard and done correctly. If it does not work, we can come back and revisit it again. I do believe it will work.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. No, there is not.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is correct. The bill does not exempt the project from any environmental law and it explicitly references the spotted owl guidelines.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, it would.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Bob Smith, the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, my good friend.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 858 is a good bill. It helps working people, it helps the environment, it saves the forest, and it helps wildlife. It certainly is not everything that I hoped for in terms of timber supply, and I will be the first one to say that again. But it is what the people in northern California want, and in northern California the people are directly affected, and I say all the people, and they deserve congressional help. This is a pilot project. The bill is just as simple, just like the Quincy Library Group agreement. It directs the Forest Service to implement a science-based fire protection and forest health plan for three national forests in northern California. There are two cornerstones of the bill. Thinning, taking the volatility out of the forest, and fuelbreak work outside of roadless areas; and, second, a requirement to build fuelbreaks on 40,000 to 60,000 acres per year in roaded areas. This means thinning smaller trees, leaving larger trees, and generally improving the habitat and the condition of forests. I want to stress again, everyone wins with this bill: Local environmental groups, timber workers, again the wildlife, school children, and communities throughout the region. That is why this bill has the support of heavy duty environmentalists like the Friends of Plumas Wilderness and the Plumas Audubon Society. These groups have sued to stop nearly every timber sale in northern California, but they support this bill. Six labor organizations, like the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and the United Paperworkers, also support the bill. The California Farm Bureau, the Society of American Foresters, Governor Pete Wilson, State assembly members, California county education offices, county boards of supervisors all support the bill. I could go on and on with a list of those who support the legislation. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I did not think I would see the day when the staunchest people in the environmental movement, their timber company foes, the union work force, and government officials would actually agree on the timber issues in their own backyard. That day came almost 1,500 days ago in the public library in Quincy, CA, when neighbors from all walks of life actually agreed on a forest health, land allocation, and economic stability plan. But the plan has not been implemented now for 4 years. People have tried. The Quincy Group is still trying. That is why we are here on the floor with this bill that directs the implementation of their plan. It is a sad day, Mr. Chairman, that this Forest Service under this administration cannot do what we are directing them to do today in this plan. The management of our forests under this administration is deplorable. It is, in fact, a crime and a sin in what they have done to our forests, because there is no management. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], and I have been very, very reasonable in this bill, reasonable to the point that I am wondering whether we have made too many accommodations as I said when I spoke on the rule. It is really not what I would like. But again I want to stress it is up to the Congress to start listening to the people of America, especially those directly affected by actions of this Congress. We have gone through 27 drafts of this bill between the 104th Congress and today. That bothers me to some extent because we are going to hear later on, ``We weren't told, we weren't notified, we weren't asked, we didn't participate.'' Twenty-seven different drafts were worked on. No less than 50 modifications that the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] shepherded through her subcommittee and then through the full committee. My substitute has 16 changes plus 11 new subsections or paragraphs. Each address one or more of the concerns about the bill. When national environmentalists complained that the bill might allow some timber harvesting in spotted owl habitat, the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] removed two entire pages of the bill that gave rise to the concern. When some said the Quincy bill did not protect water and riparian areas, the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] offered an amendment that ensured that riparian areas would be protected with the same standards in the President's Northwest Forest Plan. Recently, riparian restoration was raised. On page 4 of my substitute, the issue is addressed with an incentive-based, cost- effective way to restore riparian areas. Some complained that the Quincy Library Group plan has never been the subject of an environmental impact statement. If Members would look on page 9 of my substitute, we require an environmental impact statement. The library group and I drafted it together. The same environmental leaders in northern California who have sued to block hundreds of timber sales sat with the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] and myself to write language giving the Quincy plan an environmental impact statement. A member of my committee said the Quincy plan would not even get a public hearing or other procedural safeguards. People are important. So in my substitute I included an assurance that there would be a 45-day public comment period. Others said we were trying to exempt the bill from the National Environmental Policy Act. That was never true, but we included the environmental impact statement requirements and we included a subsection (m) which states, ``Nothing herein exempts this pilot project from any Federal environmental law.'' I do not think we could be any more clear than we want to follow the environmental laws. Some said they were unsure whether the bill was consistent with the California Spotted Owl process. I am certain it is, but my substitute says that the California Owl Guidelines and any final owl guidelines will apply. Frankly, this is an exercise in reasonableness on the part of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the other members of the Committee on Resources and Members off the committee that support the bill. The gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] has been very helpful on the environmental impact statement portion. With all these changes, it is no wonder so many groups support the Herger bill. Only the groups on the very fringe oppose the bill and they have no rational basis to do so. We tried to get them to the table, but they refused. There are groups that will never be satisfied. That is the way they make their living. Frankly I do not understand their thinking because I thought they were environmentalists. I know from his past statements that the Secretary of Agriculture supports the Quincy plan. I asked him 6 weeks ago to assist us in crafting any changes to accommodate his concerns, but I have not heard back from him. We have been very bipartisan and bicameral in our approach. I also asked the junior Senator from California for her suggestions, and we have accommodated the concerns that she raised. I urge Members to support my substitute and, by the way, reject the Miller substitute because as I mentioned in debate on the rule, his does not protect the riparian part of my bill. He in fact invades the roadless areas. As I said, I never thought I would see the day when I would be out-environmentaling the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], but I am doing this in my substitute. Again, I say to those who might have some questions, listen to the people of America. Listen to those that are directly affected. Yes, this is a national forest, but there are people that live in, around, and with the national forest that every day they wake up, they are faced with a problem of mismanagement under this administration. It is time that this Congress listen to those people and let us try this pilot project. What is the fear of trying a pilot project when we are failing today? Let us see if this works. If it works, it will be an example and a molding of how we can for the first time in many, many years address the forest as a total entity, not as something far away, or from Roswell, NM. That is how they are managing it today, a bunch of aliens who have no concept about the potential of the fire damage, no concept of the homes that are lost, and the destruction not only of the forest but of the wildlife. If Members do not believe me, read the newspapers today, tomorrow, and the day after. What do they say about every Western State of the fires that are occurring? Because of the lack of management. This bill takes care of that problem and recognizes the need and necessity of cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak on the rule, but I do support this rule. There is a need for this quasi-modified rule to make sure we expedite this process. But I cannot stand by and listen to my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] make the statements he has made, because we have worked on this legislation for four years. As I told the chairman of the Committee on Rules the other day, I think they have gone too far as far as this negotiation process. But this is an attempt to listen to the local people, and we have done that. In fact, the Friends of the Plumas Wilderness Society, who have filed 15 lawsuits, 15 lawsuits to stop every logging operation in this area, now support my substitute. I have a whole list of other people that support this legislation, and not the industry itself but the community that lives there. And, yes, this forest is endangered, not from logging but because of fire and mismanagement by the U.S. Forest Service. It has finally dawned on people, we cannot manage this from Washington, D.C. This is a national asset, but we cannot manage it from those people who live here in Washington, D.C. or even the Congress that live outside. We ought to start listening to the people. This is what we are doing in this legislation. For the first time, we are bringing all parties together, not just this Congress but the parties that live there, the environmental community. And may I just clear one up thing. There are no clear-cuts under my substitute at all, and no tree over 31 inches can be cut under my substitute, 31 inches in diameter. By the way, the substitute of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], keep in mind now he says he is doing what the Administration wants, and I am shocked. Because under my substitute, we protect the roadless areas. We protect those areas. And under the substitute of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], he does not protect the wilderness areas. Then we have the environmental impact statements. This is one thing I cannot quite understand about this administration and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. My substitute gives one EIS and four smaller EIS statements. Take a look at page 8 or 10 of my substitute. Right there is a total of 5 environmental impact statements. Under the Miller substitute, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] offers one environmental impact statement. One, that is all he offers. I never thought I would see the day the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] was out-environmentaling the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. That shocks me to death. We keep talking about riparian restoration. The Miller substitute removes my provision of more funding for riparian rights, riparian recovery in this bill. May I suggest, we took the exact language from the administration, the exact language Jack Ward Thomas proposed. That is the language we used, the language the administration supports, so I do not know what the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is talking about. We have communicated with the administration. We have communicated with the environmental community. We communicated with the industry itself. We communicated with the local people. We sat down with the Quincy Library Group and put together a good piece of legislation. And may I close by saying, yes, our national forests are in terrible, deplorable shape, not because they were logged, but because this administration and, yes, other administrations decided that every area could live naturally. That may have been so many, many years ago. But look at the fires. I ask my colleagues to read the papers on fires that are occurring in California today and the fires that occur all the way around the Northwest, in Idaho, Utah, yes, even Alaska. Look at the volatility of those fires and the destruction that occurs. What happens after the fire, the soil is basically dead for our trees. Every science that talks to us about our forests tells us we must start managing the forests, we must start looking at all alternatives, and this is what this bill does. It is a good, sound environmental bill. Remember, I remind you, the local environmentalists support this legislation. Yes, the national environmentalists oppose it. You know why? Because they lose their control, and this is what this is all about, control. The environmental so-called community around Washington, DC, it knows nothing about the environment. Let us start listening to the local people. Let us start listening to those that live there. Let us start saving our forests and our wildlife and the heritage we should leave to future generations.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Striped Bass Conservation Act Amendments, and I compliment the author of the bill, Jim Saxton, for his continued efforts to move this legislation. The Atlantic coast stock of striped bass are found in waters from North Carolina to Maine. They are highly migratory but move primarily along the coast within the 3-mile zone, which is subject to State fishery management. While striped bass populations have fluctuated dramatically in the past, the population suffered a drastic decline in the 1970's. Striped bass harvests plummeted from 15 million pounds in 1973 to 3.5 million pounds in 1983. In response to this serious problem, Congress approved an emergency striped bass study and the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984. This law requires all affected coastal States to implement management measures to conserve and protect Atlantic striped bass stocks. After 15 years of careful management, the striped bass population has fully recovered to pre-decline levels. This is a major fishery management success. H.R. 1658 will ensure that this remarkable recovery is not compromised in the days ahead. As reported by the Resources Committee, this legislation reauthorizes the study provisions of the Striped Bass Act and related laws, makes technical changes to increase consistency with other fishery conservation laws, and encourages greater public participation in the writing of management plans. Mr. Speaker, I hope more of our fishery management efforts prove to be this successful in the future. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1658.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer legislation on amendments to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to make certain clarifications to the land bank protection provisions, and for other purposes. Last year, the House passed H.R. 2505, however, the U.S. Senate did not consider this legislation in the 104th Congress. This legislation is identical to H.R. 2505 from the 104th Congress. The Alaska Federation of Natives, the State of Alaska, the administration and members and staff of the Committee on Resources have spent the last year and a half to reach a consensus with noncontroversial provisions. For example, the bill would amend ANCSA to correct an inconsistency in current Federal law by allowing Regional Corporations to elect to acquire oil, gas, and coal estates reserved to the Federal Government beneath Native allotments surrounded or adjacent to subsurface lands conveyed to the Corporations pursuant to section 12 (a) of (b) of ANCSA. Another provision would extend the exemption period from estate and gift tax for stock through its period of inalienability. This bill would also amend ANILCA to extend the automatic land protections to land trades between village corporations, intraregional corporation land trades and Native Corporation land trades with the Federal or State governments. Mr. Speaker, I offer this bill at this time to begin the process of reviewing each of these important provisions and others which affect Alaskans. I welcome comments on this important bill to ensure that we pass a noncontroversial bill at a later date.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 437 reauthorizes and amends the National Sea Grant College Program Act of 1966. This bill was introduced by Jim Saxton, and a number of Members, like me, who believe that this has been an effective Federal program. Sea Grant was established in 1966 in order to improve our Nation's marine resource conservation efforts, to manage those resources more effectively, and to enhance their proper use. The program is patterned after the highly successful Land Grant College Program, which is familiar to many of our noncoastal Members. For over 30 years, Sea Grant has successfully achieved its goals through a unique combination of research grants, marine advisory services, and education. Alaska's Sea Grant Program has improved our understanding of commercial fish stocks, the factors affecting the size and health of those stock, and the best economic uses for fishery resources. Using this information, we have developed effective management regimes, and we continue to create more jobs with fewer long-term impacts to our fisheries. Alaska Sea Grant also supports a comprehensive Marine Advisory Service, which has provided industry training programs on topics ranging from marine safety and seafood technology, to business management for fishermen and shoreside support facilities. Through proper training, we ensure that our industries, businesses, and individuals who depend on productive fisheries can continue to do their jobs effectively. Ron Dearborn, who does an excellent job as Director of the Alaska Sea Grant College Program, is serving as president of the Sea Grant Association this year. Sea Grant is a perfect example of the type of program that we should support. The program produces tangible results and, most importantly, it maximizes immediate and long-range returns by matching Federal investments with State and private funds. Unfortunately, during the last Congress, the Resources and Science Committees were unable to reach an agreement on reauthorization legislation. I am pleased that this year those disagreements have been resolved, and we are able to bring this compromise text to the floor. This bill is the product of 3 years of hard work and dedication. Mr. Chairman, it is important that we reauthorize Sea Grant this year, and I compliment Mr. Saxton for his efforts. This program is important to the State of Alaska, our coastal communities, and every American. Therefore, I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 437.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to authorize and direct a land exchange which will greatly benefit the town of Sitka, AK. This bill has several components to the exchange. First, it will ensure that an important water system now currently under an easement will be conveyed to the city of Sitka in order to provide its residents with an assured water supply into the future. This exchange will also provide for a spectacular inholding on Admiralty Island National Monument to be added to the monument. Admiralty Island is considered to be an area holding outstanding conservation values within the American conservation system. The land exchange authorized in the bill I am sponsoring will ensure that this private inholding is included in the monument and in the wilderness. The final component of the exchange will be the extinguishment of a reversionary interest on land owned at Sitka by the Alaska Pulp Corp. The corporation also owns the valuable inholding at Admiralty Island and the lands which the city of Sitka wishes to have conveyed to it. In return for the extinguishment of the reversionary interest, the corporation will convey the inholding to the monument and the water system lands to the city. This exchange is supported by the city and borough of Sitka, and the city administrator has requested me to sponsor this legislation and expedite the exchange. This exchange is truly in the best interests of all involved. The U.S. Government even comes out ahead on value. Recent appraisals for the various lands and interests exchanged show that the Admiralty Island land is valued at more than the reversionary interest which will be exchanged. As a condition of my legislation, the corporation is required to waive its right to any compensation for this difference in value. In summary, as a result of this exchange the Admiralty Island Monument land ownership pattern will be consolidated, the city of Sitka will receive valuable lands in fee ownership on which parts of its water system are located, and the corporation will be free of a problematic reversionary interest in its property. As a bonus, the Federal Government realizes a net benefit in the value of the exchange. This is a sound deal in the best interests of all parties. It is my hope that this legislation can pass this body and the Congress in the near future.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will yield, the enactment of H.R. 1420 should not impact these rights-of-way. As the gentleman has noted, rights-of-way on refuges are granted by the Fish and Wildlife Service under provisions of the existing National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, provisions which are not amended by this bill. That act requires the Service to first determine that the proposed right-of-way is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. This bill utilizes the same definitions of compatibility that the Service has used administratively for many years. Its enactment will create no higher standard for rights-of-way than exist at present. We are changing the process by which decisions are made, not the standard which is used to make them. The Fish and Wildlife Service accompanies rights-of-way permits with terms and conditions necessary to ensure that the right-of-way remains compatible. What would be examined under the 10-year review required by this bill is the compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit, not the existence of the right-of-way. The Fish and Wildlife Service does this now. The only change would be in the process by which the review is conducted. There would be no adverse impacts on electrical or other rights-of-way through this review.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

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