Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in my opening statement I forgot to mention that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and myself have worked many, many years on refuge legislation. We watched the support for refuges grow in this country because we wanted to leave a legacy of hunting and fishing, the heritage of this country, to our young people. We were able to do that through our actions in the past and this is just an attempt to make sure that continues. I urge a strong aye vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman is absolutely correct.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes]. (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1420) to amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to improve the management of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, as the chief sponsor of this legislation, I am pleased that the House is now considering H.R. 1420, a bill that will modernize the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. When I began this effort over 2 years ago, my goal was to enact an organic law that would ensure a bright future for our Nation's 92 million-acre refuge system. Our objectives also included creation of a statutory shield to ensure that hunting and fishing and other forms of wildlife dependent recreation could continue within the system and to facilitate those traditional activities, where compatible, with conservation. In my judgment, this legislation will accomplish these goals. H.R. 1420 is the product of many long hours of thoughtful negotiations between the Department of the Interior, and I want to stress that, between the Department of the Interior, the original cosponsor of the bill, the staff of the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, and those representing the hunting, conservation, and environmental communities. In particular, I want to compliment Secretary Bruce Babbitt for his personal commitment to this effort and for hosting these discussions. This process could well serve as a model to resolve other legislative differences. I would also like to thank my good friend, I just noticed he was on the floor, I do not know where he went, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who was the father of the refuges. He worked very hard with me over the years developing these refuges and the refuge system itself. Without his leadership, I doubt if this could have taken place. And again I want to thank the staff for participating because they worked very hard. But H.R. 1420 is not a perfect bill. It is not everything I wanted. I want to stress it is a compromise that has been endorsed by the Clinton administration and with such diverse groups as the Izaak Walton League, the National Rifle Association, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Safari Club International, Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, and the Wildlife Management Institute. I want to stress that these people support this legislation. The major components of this new bill are that it statutorily defines the term ``compatible use.'' While the refuge manager will retain the power to determine what is compatible, this language should provide the necessary guidance to make the proper decision. It defines the term ``wildlife dependent recreation'' to mean hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation and expressly recognizes these as priority uses of the system. This bill neither mandates nor prohibits such nonwildlife-dependent activities such as grazing, jet skiing, or oil and gas development. The bill will establish for the first time a mission for our Nation's 509 wildlife refuges. This statement stipulates that the mission of the system is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, the restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. When administering the system, it is the policy of the United States that compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the system and will be given priority consideration in refuge planning and management. In addition, the Secretary is directed to ensure that opportunities are provided for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities within the refuge system. Finally, Congress finds that these activities, including hunting and fishing, have been and are expected to be generally compatible with the mission of the system and purposes of the refuges. The legislation contains an important requirement that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service make a determination, prior to land acquisition, whether existing wildlife-dependent uses may continue during the implementation of a management plan. By so doing, the citizens will know up front whether their favorite fishing and hunting spots will remain open and, if they are unhappy with the decision, they can lobby their congressman prior to the acquisition of the proposed refuge land. H.R. 1420 requires the completion of a conservation plan for each of the 509 refuges within 15 years of the date of enactment. We should know what kind of natural or wildlife resources exist on these refuges. Finally, this bill contains language that ensures that the act will not affect Federal, State, or local water rights and will not affect the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The key fundamental change between this legislation and H.R. 511 is the deletion of the six systemwide purposes. Under this compromise measure, the hierarchical structure will be the conservation mission of the system, the purposes of each individual refuge unit, compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses, and then nonwildlife-dependent activities. While States will retain primacy over the management of fish and wildlife, the mission of the refuge system will be satisfied and individuals will have an opportunity to enjoy compatible wildlife- dependent recreation. After all, it is the American people who have helped to pay for the acquisition of the 92 million acres of Federal refuge lands with their hard-earned tax dollars. In the final analysis, this is a sound piece of conservation legislation that is true to the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt and reaffirms the vision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1420, and again I want to thank all my colleagues that were involved directly in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], for yielding me this time and for working so hard. I do believe I had something to do with this working on a compromise between the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill], and of course the chairman of the committee itself. I strongly support H.R. 908, but I want to talk about the ninth circuit itself. It is an empire. A lot of people do not understand this. It covers a land mass the size of Western Europe, including nine States and two territories. It serves over 15 million people, more than our largest city, larger than New York or Los Angeles. It is a monstrous responsibility, and it is a court that is overburdened at this time. If I can say another thing about Alaska. Sometimes I think one of the reasons it is overburdened is they take cases that mean very little. We have a highway that we would like to extend 2\1/2\ miles, that everybody agrees with in the State of Alaska, including the State itself and all those people in the small community, with a railroad that goes through a tunnel at this time. And because the trustees of Alaska filed a suit, the ninth circuit decided to hold up construction for 6 months. Now, this is an example of a court being out of touch with the people of America and the people they represent. Not judicially. They had to review. So I suggest one thing. I would like to split the court. This bill does not do that. I am the extreme. I think the court should be split at this time so it serves the people as a whole, not to guard massive cities. But I cannot do this. So this bill right now is a compromise to set up the commission to establish what I think they will find out, that I am correct, that the court should be split. It is the right thing, and I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the sportsmen's bill of rights. When this bill becomes law, it will encourage Federal land managing agencies to allow hunting and fishing on the lands they manage. It requires these agencies to take into consideration the impact that their policies and management practices will have on hunting and fishing. Another important feature of this bill clarifies that State government holds the primary management authority over wildlife resources unless the Federal managing agency can show specific statutory authority that requires otherwise. This legislation is needed to ensure that Americans who enjoy the outdoors can utilize our public lands. There have been too many instances where Federal agencies have closed lands to hunting and fishing with little to no explanation to the sportsmen's community. The sportsmen's bill of rights will help keep these lands open as long as sportsman's use does not interfere with the primary use of the land. This bill is very important to the people of the State of Alaska. The Federal Government controls over 242 million acres in our State, which makes up 66 percent of Alaska's total land area. To put it into perspective, the Federal lands in Alaska add up to over twice the total area of the entire State of California. This bill helps the Federal agencies keep these public lands open to use of our sportsmen and I urge its swift passage.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 408, and I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] especially for working on this piece of legislation. If we really, truly believe in conservation and believe in saving the dolphins, and I have probably been in this argument and the discussion longer than anybody on this floor, this is a piece of legislation that must pass. It is our belief, after studying the results of scientists and other people that contributed testimony to the committee, that it is not just the dolphins we are talking about in the sea, we are talking about other species now that will be caught if we do not sign this agreement with the other countries participating. It is the right thing to do, because there are more than just dolphins there. Yes, they make movies about them; yes, they are pretty; and yes, they swim well; and yes, the seas are attractive because they are there, but the truth of the matter is there is a lot of other life there that must be protected and this is what we are trying to do with this legislation. The State Department does support it, the administration does support it, which gave me great reservation when I found this out, but what we are trying to do with the help of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] is to try to protect the total mass in the sea to make sure that there are those species left that are still under jeopardy. So I am voting ``yes'' on this legislation. I am going to suggest that if we want to save the dolphins we are talking about, if we want to lower the mortality rate, if we want to protect these other species, then we must vote ``yes'' on this legislation. This is good legislation and it is long overdue. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 408, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, introduced by Congressman Gilchrest. This legislation implements the Panama Declaration, an internationally negotiated agreement for the protection of dolphins and other marine species in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. This agreement, which was developed by 12 nations and several environmental organizations, will prove the framework for the lasting protection of all marine life affected by the yellowfin tuna fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. As strange as this may sound, this legislation, which I support, is also supported by the Clinton administration, Greenpeace, the National Wildlife Federation, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, the Center for Marine Conservation, the American Tunaboat Owners Coalition, the Seafarers' International Union, the Sportfishing Association of California, and the National Fisheries Institute. That combination alone should make everyone here vote for the bill. As most of you are aware, the protection of dolphin populations in this fishery has been a goal of the Marine Mammal Protection Act for over two decades. We heard from numerous witnesses during the hearings held during the last two Congresses that the unilateral embargo provisions and the dolphin-safe labeling requirements have not changed the nature of the fishery. In fact, the number of sets on dolphins has remained fairly stable for years. The La Jolla program, on the other hand, has been very successful in promoting more efficient operations and a real reduction in dolphin mortality. However, this program is voluntary. Through the Panama Declaration and this legislation, we how have an opportunity to get real international cooperation in maintaining low dolphin mortality for the entire fishery. Current law has encouraged the practices of fishing on logs or schools of tuna. Both of these fishing methods have created new problems by magnifying the bycatch of other marine species such as sea turtles, billfish, juvenile tunas, and sharks. Obviously, we need to address the problem of dolphin mortality, but this should be accompanied by a realization that we also need to address other bycatch problems as well. The Gilchrest bill does just that. H.R. 408 will allow international cooperation, will provide international compliance and enforcement, will cap dolphin mortality, and will provide the mechanism for reducing other bycatch in the fishery. We appear to have a rather big disagreement over the method of achieving these objectives. Both sides are attempting to protect dolphins. Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach an agreement which addresses some Members' concerns about the dolphin safe label and still allows us to move forward to implement the international agreement known as the Panama Declaration. This disagreement is unfortunate. However, I believe that the international cooperation embodied in the Panama Declaration and the provisions to move fishermen away from destructive fishing practices in the Gilchrest bill are the right thing to do. I urge all Members to support the Gilchrest bill and the international cooperation embodied in the Panama Declaration. Mr. Chairman, since coming to Congress, I have been involved with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Over the years, I have worked hard to improve the law and we were successful in enacting a number of positive changes in 1994. One of those provisions gave the Secretary of the Interior the authority to issue permits to Americans to import legally taken polar bear trophies from Canada, both before and after 1994. Our intent in passing this provision was clear: we wanted to make it easier for hunters to import polar bear trophies into the United States as long as that activity did not adversely affect Canadian polar bear populations. There are about 13,120 polar bears in the Northwest Territories of Canada. According to scientific experts, this population is growing by about 3 to 5 percent each year. Since the annual quota for sport hunting was 132 animals in 1996, this harvest rate is having little, if any, effect on any of Canada's polar bear populations. What this activity is doing, however, is providing thousands of dollars to Canada's Inuits allowing them to maintain their cultural heritage. While some people may disagree with the interpretation which allows sport hunting to be included in subsistence quotas, at the same time I doubt any of these people have been up to the Northwest Territories. Sport hunters are taking the part of the animal which is useless to the Canadian Inuit. The gall bladder and any other organ which could be traded illegally is destroyed, but the meat, bones, and all that is valuable to the Inuit remains in the villages. On July 17, 1995, 15 months after enactment of the 1994 amendments, the Department of the Interior issued a proposed rule allowing all pre- 1994 polar bear trophies to enter the United States. This was the correct interpretation of the 1994 amendments. On February 18, 1997, after years of delay, the Department of the Interior issued its final rule. The final rule removed the grandfather provision. While no rationale explanation was provided, it is clear that in a mad rush to avoid litigation, the Department has ignored both the scientific data and the congressional intent contained in the 1994 MMPA amendments. Since the regulations did not follow congressional intent, we are now forced to pass legislation requiring the Secretary to issue permits to allow the importation of polar bear trophies taken prior to the enactment of the 1994 amendments. These trophies are dead and will not adversely affect Canadian polar bear populations. On the contrary, the importation of these trophies will help to conserve Russian and Alaskan polar bear populations. The Fish and Wildlife Service's importation fee, which is $1,000, is earmarked to go toward conservation and research of these polar bear populations. We have to remember that these dead bears can no longer influence the stability of Canadian polar bear populations. These trophies have been sitting in warehouses for many years. The polar bear populations will benefit more if we allow the Secretary to issue an import permit and use the $1,000 fee for conservation and research. The Fish and Wildlife Service has stated to my staff that a new rulemaking process, which is required under section 103 of the act, shall not be necessary to implement this language which authorizes the Secretary to issue import permits for pre-1994 trophies to applicants providing the appropriate documentation. The Service has indicated that a Federal Register notice will be published stating how this new language fits into the final rule published on February 18, 1997. The Service will have to update the final rule to include this new language, but this process will not delay the Secretary from issuing permits to applicants immediately after the 30 day public comment period has ended. This amendment should not be controversial, since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Marine Mammal Commission, and the ranking Democrat of the committee do not object this provision. I urge Members to support my efforts to correct the Fish and Wildlife Service's incorrect interpretation of the 1994 Marine Mammal Protection Act. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, May 15, 1997. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, House Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: During the hearing held last week on the Fish and Wildlife Service's final regulations on import of polar bear trophies from Canada, the Service and the Marine Mammal Commission testified about the reasons why the plain language of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994 required the Service to apply all of the substantive criteria of Section 104(c)(5) to the import of all polar bear trophies, regardless of when they were taken. The testimony also described the scientific basis for our determinations that five of Canada's polar bear populations meet the criteria of the Act, as well as new efforts now underway to develop a further proposal that will include two more populations, based on new information received from Canada too late to be included in the first round of determinations. The Service concluded that, based on the current statutory language and available scientific data, it lacked the authority to allow the import of polar bear trophies taken on or before April 30, 1994, from the remaining populations until they meet all of the criteria of the Act. During the hearing there also was discussion concerning the position of the Administration regarding potential new legislation which would explicitly exempt bears which are already dead and held in storage in Canada from the four criteria contained in Section 104(c)(5) of the Act. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Administration would have no objection to such legislation, provided it is limited to an exemption for polar bear trophies legally taken in Canada on or before April 30, 1994, and that no other exemptions from the provisions of the Act are added. Enclosed with this letter is recommended language, developed in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission, that would include an explicit exemption from the requirements of Sections 101, 102, and 104(C)(5)(I) through (iv) of the Act for all trophies taken on or before April 30, 1994, provided the permit applicant can show evidence that the trophy was legally taken in Canada. In implementing this exemption, the Service would require from applicants a valid Canadian CITES export permit for trophies taken after July 1, 1975 (the date CITES entered into force in Canada), because the issuance of such a permit by the Canadian CITES Management Authority automatically certifies that the specimen was legally acquired. For trophies taken prior to July 1975, in addition to the required CITES pre-convention certificate, the Service would ask for a copy of a Canadian hunting license or other documentation to prove that the specimen was legally taken. With this documentation, there would be no adverse conservation consequences from allowing the import of polar bears taken on or before April 30, 1994, some of which have been in storage in Canada for more than twenty years. This language would also not affect the authority of the Service to require that all polar bear trophies be imported through a designated port (unless prior arrangements are made for import of a full mount through a non-designated port) with sufficient prior notice so that Service personnel may be present to inspect the shipment and apply a tag to the trophy. This is important to ensure that there is no stimulation of illegal import or subsequent illegal trade within the United States in polar bear parts. This language would also retain the Service's authority to collect a $1,000 fee for each polar bear trophy to be imported. The additional fees generated from imports of trophies from areas not currently eligible for import under existing law and regulations would provide substantially increased benefits for polar bear conservation. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that it has no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely,

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 303 of the bill under clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. This section applies a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy of waiving certain aspects of the Endangered Species Act to the repair of flood facilities in certain Federal disaster areas. Under the existing ESA, the President may waive certain aspects of the law for rebuilding facilities after a disaster. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife policy is the Presidential ESA waiver for 43 counties in California. Section 303 extends this policy nationwide, thus broadening the existing Presidential ESA waiver. The waiver of existing law has been construed to mean a provision changing existing law under precedents of the House: Deschler chapter 26, sections 24.5, 34.14 and 34.15. In addition, the amendment alters existing waiver authority of the President under the current ESA by limiting his authority to 2 years; under current law, this waiver is unlimited. Imposing a restriction on the authority of the President is also a provision changing existing law under the precedents of the House because it restricts executive discretion to such a degree as to constitute a change in policy rather than a matter of administrative detail. Deschler chapter 26, sections 64-79. The language was reported from the Committee on Appropriations on Thursday, April 28, 1997. Therefore, this is a provision changing the existing law, which, as reported in the general appropriation bill, is in violation of clause 2, Rule XXI. I ask the Chair to sustain my point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is H.R. 478, the Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act of 1997. The Committee on Resources reported the bill to the House on April 10 by 29 votes, including 6 Democratic votes. As my colleagues know, in the last Congress I made the reauthorization and reform of the Endangered Species Act a top priority of my committee. I am one of the few Members, in fact probably the second Member of this whole body, who voted for the Endangered Species Act in 1973. I have supported the goals of the Endangered Species Act throughout my 25 years in Congress. However, as an early supporter I can tell my colleagues that today, 24 years later, I am sorely disappointed in the way that this law, with its good goal, has been abused by environmentalists, both in and out of our Government, who use this law not to protect wildlife and endangered species, but to control the use of lands. I believe the professional environmentalists have taken an extreme position on this bill, favoring beetles and their habitat over the protection of human life, property, and environment. May I stress that in California, the big flood break that started there is because we were trying to mitigate where the Corps of Engineers said it had to be fixed, an area that had beetle habitat. And after 6 years they finally said: Yes, you can repair. After $10 million, we can repair the levee next summer. Guess what? The levee broke, as the Corps said it would break. Right here, right here is the statement, 6 years later the levee did break. We lost three lives and millions of dollars of damage done to private property and the agricultural base of California. Guess what? We even lost the elderberry bush. So what did we accomplish? Nothing. Now, I am going to suggest to my colleagues that H.R. 478 by the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] is a solution to a problem. All it does is give us the authority to in fact maintain levees, maintain levees. My colleagues will hear later on today about an amendment that says great things but does nothing. In fact, it makes it worse than it is right now. So I am asking all of my colleagues in this room to keep in mind my position. First, the process, the committee process, and second, do we truly cherish human life, do we cherish the property, and should we put up roadblocks under an agency with a law that cherishes beetles over human life? We lost the elderberry bush, we lost lives, in fact, we lost great amounts of tax dollars. The amendment later on to be offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] says yes, we can repair the levee after the break or we can repair the levee or work on it if it is in imminent danger right now. No one defines who spells that out. Nor in fact will it give us an opportunity to maintain a levee prior to. I come from an area in California, originally born there, and I went through four floods. I am going to suggest respectfully, for those that say that this bill is gutting the Endangered Species Act, I ask my colleagues, did they vote for the Endangered Species Act? No. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] did not vote for it; the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] did not vote for it; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] did not vote for it. I did. I went through the hearing process. I knew what was intended. What we are trying to do is fix a small part of the Endangered Species Act and make it more logical and it can be applied to the protection of human life and property that must be protected. That is our responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and very frankly a big ``yes'' vote on H.R. 478.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the so-called Boehlert amendment, here, let me go through something. It fails to protect human life and the environment. It is too little too late. It allows only emergency repairs when disaster has already occurred or is threatening. By the way, it protects Federal employees from the ESA penalties for impacting habitat, but keeps the penalties for local officials. It ties their hands. They cannot maintain these levees. By the way, it is only temporary. I want the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] to hear this, it is only temporary. It is only temporary. It is only temporary until 1998. It retains unfunded mandates on States and local governments, and frankly, would continue further delay through encouraging litigation. This is a charade of amendments. This is an amendment that does nothing. In fact, I do not know why the gentleman is even offering it. It does nothing, absolutely zero. May I remind the gentleman, it says, ``This paragraph shall not apply after December 31, 1998.'' That says you only have time to repair the existing breaks, the ones that broke. I am not really worried about the ones that broke, and I feel sorry for the people, but I want to prevent those breaks and the dollars we have wasted. May I stress, $10 million was used to mitigate. They finally agreed last week to repair the levee. It was supposed to cost $3 million, now $13 million. The levee breaks, which we were told it was going to break, and we lose the lives, we lose the property, and guess what, we lost the habitat. We lost the habitat. We ought to be proud of what the ESA has been able to do. Mr. Chairman, this amendment guts the so-called Herger-Pombo bill. I think that is really what they are trying to do is gut it. They are trying to put a charade out and trying to protect a few people who might be directly affected by supposedly not supporting the Pombo- Herger bill, but in reality, it does nothing. It, in fact, is worse, because it takes the California doctrine and applies it to the rest of the Nation. As I have told people before, if they want California's problems and the bureaucracy, then vote for the Boehlert amendment. Mr. Chairman, I suggest respectfully, if Members want to solve a problem, then they will vote for the Herger-Pombo bill. They will make this bill a reality. They will make this bill save lives, save property. By the way, I heard somebody today say we have to change the way man is living. We have to give more room to let the water go out and meander like it did back in the year 1600. Think about that a moment. That means the whole city of Houston is gone. Some people might like that. It means the whole city of New Orleans will be gone. I would not like that. It means probably Sacramento would be gone, too, period, and flooded out. I am sure the gentleman from California would not like that. Probably, I might suggest respectfully, if we want to follow this theory of the so-called environmental groups who are supporting Boehlert, we all ought to be drowned. Think about that a moment. I will admit, I lived on a levee. I was born on the Sacramento River. I looked out on that river every morning when I got up. I watched it flood. Yes, we could not dredge. I admit that now. Then we did. I will tell the Members something; those levees were built way back during the Gold Rush days. We rebuilt them. It has given California one of the finest standards of living in the world. It has protected people and property, and it is a system that does work. We can talk about the thousands and thousands and thousands of acres and feet of water that go down and are wasted and going into the ocean, and by the way, I want the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to hear that. We had a drought in California a few years ago, does the gentleman remember that? We had no water. Now they have water clear up to their elbows. I am suggesting respectfully if they want to take and have the Endangered Species Act, stop repairing those levees, then, very frankly, they can vote for the Boehlert amendment. We can forget lives, we can forget property, we can forget those people that live all around this great Nation of ours near water flow. I know some of us would like to have more wetlands. I know how they can create wetlands. They can flood Sacramento, the city of Sacramento, the capital, by the way; they can flood every major city, and they will have wetlands. I do not believe in that. I think it is important we allow this tool to be available for the local people, that this tool be available for the Federal people, so we can in fact solve the problems of the flood. It is wrong not to maintain these levees. Some people say they did not cause the flood. We have documentation with the Corps of Engineers where they did say this area will break if it is not addressed, and it did break. So do not tell me that these areas did not create floods. I will say, every break, by the way, is not caused by the Endangered Species Act, but we can have both. We can have the Endangered Species Act and we can have the people.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, we can have the endangered species protected and the people protected. I want to keep stressing that. We have heard people talk about my wanting to repeal the Endangered Species Act. I never attempted to repeal the Endangered Species Act. I had 17 hearings with the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], and we had hundreds of witnesses testify before us that the system is not working, and I want to fix it. I want to protect the endangered species, but I want to also have man's involvement in the protection of the endangered species. I do not want to join the SSS's club. I don't want to belong to that club. Some Members want to shoot, shut up, and shovel. I do not want anything to do with that. What I want is protecting the species, and the act today is not working. I asked the gentleman from California and this administration, Mr. Babbitt and Katie McKinney and the President, to come down and give me some suggestions. They did not do that last year. They sat quietly and beat our brains out because we tried to improve the act. They said we tried to repeal it. We did not do that. We tried to improve it, and it should be improved.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, only if it is in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife, and they agree to it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If it is a federally controlled levee. If it is a district, such as in the Sutter Basin, if that is under district control then Fish and Wildlife can only give them the authority, and they do not have that authority. That is what happened out in the Yuba County area. They would never give them the right to do that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, we cannot say there will never be another flood, I will not say that, but it is ridiculous to allow a flood because we were supposedly protecting the habitat of the elderberry beatle, which they have never seen, by the way. This is the greatest thing in the world. They were protecting the habitat, the elderberry bush, when the levee went out. Guess what, this took the elderberry bush. So what have we accomplished, besides losing 3 lives and millions of dollars? Why cannot we take those few dollars we have left in the Treasury and address that problem? Mr. Chairman, I am just suggesting what we have to do is vote down the Boehlert amendment. Very frankly, it is ill-conceived. It is an attempt to gut the bill. I understand where the gentleman is coming from. But the bill as written by the gentlemen from California, Mr. Wally Herger and Mr. Pombo, as it came out of the committee is a bill that will solve the problem.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I object.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I just want to refute what the ranking member said. We did not repeal the Endangered Species Act, nor did we attempt to. We tried to rewrite it without any help from the minority at all, and this administration has been asked many times, and they sit on their fat never mind. No, I am not yielding any time. The gentleman said we repealed; we did not. We tried to do what is right.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of H.R. 39, I rise in strong support of this important conservation legislation to reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Fund. I am pleased that I have been joined in this effort by Speaker Newt Gingrich and our colleague from California, Duke Cunningham. For the past 9 years, this fund has been the only continuous source of new money for elephant conservation efforts. While the act authorizes up to $5 million per year, in reality the Congress has annually appropriated less than $900,000 to save and conserve this flagship species of the African Continent. This money has been used to finance some 50 conservation projects in 17 range states throughout Africa. These projects have been sponsored by a diverse group of conservation organizations including the African Wildlife Foundation, Safari Club International, Southern Africa Wildlife Trust, and the World Wildlife Fund. These funds have been used to purchase antipoaching equipment for wildlife rangers, to establish a database on elephants, to develop effective conservation plans, to undertake various elephant population surveys, and to move elephants from certain drought regions. While the world community has been successful in halting the widespread slaughter of this magnificent animal, the fight to save the African elephant is far from over. It is essential that we extend the Secretary of the Interior's authority to allocate money for the African elephant beyond its statutory deadline, and that is the goal of H.R. 39. In fact, my bill would reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Fund until September 30, 2002. Last month, the subcommittee conducted a hearing on H.R. 39. Testimony was obtained from witnesses representing the administration, the Humane Society of the United States, Safari Club International, and the World Wildlife Fund. There was unanimous support for this bill, and the administration's representative accurately stated that ``this is not a hand out, but a helping hand.'' This is a sound piece of legislation, and this small investment will help to ensure that our largest land mammal, the African elephant, does not disappear from this planet. It will also allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund a number of additional elephant conservation projects in the future. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this important conservation measure.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 8, the Coral Reef Protection Resolution of 1997. Interestingly enough, Alaska has the distinction of being the northernmost point in the Pacific which supports coral growth. A variety of corals live in the Gulf of Alaska, along the Aleutian chain, and in the Bering Sea. However, due to cold water temperatures, these corals are unable to create extensive reef structures. House Concurrent Resolution 8 is noncontroversial and has broad bipartisan support. It deserves favorable consideration in both Chambers of Congress, and I urge you to vote ``aye'' on this important measure.