Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2909, the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Eminent Domain Prevention Act, prevents the Fish and Wildlife Service from purchasing land for inclusion in the Conte Refuge without the consent of the owner. I served with Silvio Conte for nearly 20 years, and I know that he cared deeply about the protection of migratory bird habitat and the creation of this refuge. This bill will further both of those goals by increasing public support for this refuge. Local residents want to see important habitat protected, but some fear the Federal Government's sometimes heavy-handed land acquisition policies. This bill allows the Service to preserve important habitat, but also protects property owners from overzealous bureaucrats. The protections in this bill will enhance the public's support of the refuge since surrounding property owners will know that their property cannot be taken without their consent. H.R. 2909 would allow condemnations for the purposes of settling title issues and determining price as long as the property owner consents to such actions. There is precedent for this bill. In 1988, Congress enacted a law, Public Law 98-548, which established a Federal wildlife refuge in Louisiana and stipulated that the Fish and Wildlife Service could only obtain lands for inclusion in this refuge from willing sellers. Furthermore, in the testimony of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2909, the administration witness stated that ``since 1989, the Fish and Wildlife Service has not used condemnation without the consent of the owner, and does not intend to use if for this unique refuge''. The testimony went on to say that ``no condemnation is planned for any aspect of this project.'' Putting the force of law behind this policy will clearly enhance public support for this refuge. This bill is widely supported by environmental and conservation groups in New Hampshire, including the Appalachian Mountain Club, the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. I commend Congressman Bass for introducing this measure, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on this important property rights bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on May 15, 1996 the House Resources Committee held an oversight hearing on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's baiting regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. One of our witnesses was George Reiger of Locustville, VA who is the conservation editor of Field and Stream. An avid reader of his monthly column, I was honored to hear this man with outstanding conservation and private property rights credentials give one of the more blunt and informative statements ever made before a congressional committee. George Reiger and I both remember the day when Federal wildlife law enforcement agents and policies were more practical and less confrontational. Mr. Reiger's testimony stated, ``I've seen Federal law enforcement agents increasingly pursue policies that have done little or nothing to increase the flocks, but which have succeeded in driving many ordinarily law-abiding hunters from the field, including landowners who once invested considerable assets in migratory bird management, but who are now no longer willing for fear of violating a law no one understands.'' I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Reiger's testimony to learn about problems associated with the current baiting regulations and possible ways to improve this situation. Testimony by George Reiger, Conservation Editor of Field & Stream, at the Congressional Hearing on Migratory Bird Baiting Regulations, May 15, 1996 My name is George Reiger. I've been conservation editor of Field & Stream for 22 years. During that time, I've watched languid leadership in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service improvise management policies that brought most migratory birds, and ducks in particular, to historic population lows. At the same time, I've seen Federal law enforcement agents increasingly pursue policies that have done little or nothing to increase the flocks, but which have succeeded in driving many ordinarily law-abiding hunters from the field, including landowners who once invested considerable assets in migratory bird management, but who are now no longer willing for fear of violating a law no one understands. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act gives the Federal Government the right to tell sportsmen when they can hunt migratory birds and how many per day or season they can shoot, but not the time of day, gauge of shotgun or other, what are normally considered, ethical options. Such matters should be for sportsmen's clubs and personal conscience to determine. Unfortunately, we live in a legalistic society, and lawyers have little faith in the power of personal conscience. As a result, and beginning in the 1920s, we've created a spectrum of moralistic rules to regulate migratory bird hunters which have little, if any, value for scientific management of the birds. The most arbitrary and capricious of these rules concern baiting. Incredibly, the Fish and Wildlife Service is now considering expanding these rules to include [quote] ``the manipulation of native vegetation in wetland habitats'' [end quote]. Thus, pasture owners in the Southeast who have been burning hydric soil areas for more than 130 years to attract snipe for hunting may shortly be prosecuted for doing so under federal law. Likewise, duck hunters in the West who cut cattails and bulrush in order to open up holes in the marsh and to provide themselves with material for making blinds could be charged with baiting. Although career opportunism undoubtedly underlies some abuses by federal law enforcement agents, I'm willing to give most agents the benefit of the doubt by assuming their excessive zeal is a function of their having watched the Fish and Wildlife Service underwrite the collapse of continental duck populations in the 1980s and now claim that only partially recovered stocks are so fully recovered that we can shoot them at daily rates exceeding those we had even in the 1950s, when we really had ducks. One result has been a no-warning law enforcement policy. Agents stake out allegedly baited ponds and fields and then wait until the maximum number of ducks or doves are killed before beginning to write summonses. Shouldn't the agents themselves be liable for prosecution when they have the authority to stop illegal shooting but do nothing until the worse-case scenarios are acted out? Since many of the people cited for baiting are hunting as guests and are not even aware of the subtle difference between ``feeding,'' which is legal, and ``baiting,'' which is illegal, they often give up hunting, and the conservation dollars they once generated through their purchase of hunting licenses, bird stamps and excise taxes on firearms and ammunition is lost to wildlife management. Adding insult to injury, the reputation of hunters gets another kick in the head every time a sensational headline about a ``baiting bust'' hits the evening news. That's why I recommend that Congress replace the deadend policies of the Fish and Wildlife Service with a requirement that federal agents must notify landowners of properties managed for wildlife in advance of the hunting season when there is some question of baiting. To prevent these federal agents from shutting down properties willy-nilly, they must work with and have the approval to post a property off-limits to hunters by a state conservation officer. If bait is merely dumped out after the season begins, state or federal agents will continue to have the right to cite such obvious violations. This prevention-oriented approach would have several positive results: First, the policy constitutes genuine conservation; SWAT team and commando tactics do not. With few, if any, innocent bystanders caught up in stings, the hunting tradition will be better served and its wellspring of conservation dollars better preserved. Second, by avoiding confrontation and headlines, federal agents would recover some measure of the respect they've lost among many sportsmen. Third, a policy of prevention will ultimately result in fewer baiting violations, because the states will develop a clearer interpretation of the rules than federal agents, many of whom feel they have no need to maintain good relations with local citizens. For too many decades, hunters have been haunted by baiting regulations in which they've borne a burden of strict liability. It's long past time, both for the sake of hunting as well as for the birds themselves, to make diplomacy the number one priority of wardens and to shift the burden of proof and intent back to the government where it belongs. Thank you.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring the attention of my colleagues to a new study. The study details the effect of modern logging techniques under the State of Alaska's Forest Practices Act on fish streams throughout Alaska. This is a significant study. It shows that Alaska can handle forest management to protect fish and fish streams. It shows that logging under State standards does not have an adverse impact on fish habitat and stream conditions. It shows that logging on State and private land in Alaska is compatible with fisheries protection. The study is one more reason why Alaskans should be given a chance to elect to own and manage the Tongass National Forest, which is what my bill, H.R. 2413, proposes. If Alaskan policies and rules are achieving these results, the State ownership of the Tongass will more than protect fish streams when timber harvesting is involved. And Washington, DC policies and programs can stay where they originate-- inside the Washington, DC beltway. The study was conducted by an Alaska Native corporation, Sealaska, on land managed under State law. Alaska State law requires 66-foot or 100- foot no timber harvest buffer zones around fish streams. What distinguishes this study from many others is that it relies on actual stream surveys taken over a 3-year period, 1992-94, in timber harvest areas and unlogged areas. The group conducting the study actually went out and collected real data, something that our Federal researchers in the Forest Service should note. Stream health was analyzed in 10 basins and the conclusion was that the changes comparing logged and unlogged basins was not discernible. Where disturbances have occurred, they have not resulted in fish stream productivity. The article from this month's Resource Review that discusses the study follows my remarks. What this teaches is that States can effectively manage resources within their boarders. In my view Alaskans should be given the chance to manage the Tongass and other States or local governments should be given lands within their boarders. Management decisions and policies made by the people and closest to the people--outside of the influence of Washington, DC--are the best management decisions and policies. Multi-year Study Concludes Alaska's Forest Practices Act Protects Fish, Stream Habitat A recent multi-year study has concluded that modern logging operations adhering to the guidelines of the Alaska Forest Practices Act (FPA) do not have an adverse impact on fish habitat and stream channel conditions. Prepared by Pentec Environmental for Sealaska Corporation and the Alaska Forest Association, the report evaluates the effectiveness of the FPA in protecting fish habitat and channel conditions. The report consolidates the findings of 1992, 1993 and 1994 monitoring studies and is part of a continuing investigation that will provide information on FPA effectiveness in both the short and long term. The FPA specifies best management practices (BMP) for loggers to follow in preventing significant adverse effects from timber harvest activities on habitat and water quality. In 1992, Pentec was contracted to develop and implement a monitoring program to collect data on fish habitat and channel conditions from streams in forested lands of coastal Alaska. The objectives of the monitoring program were to determine whether fish habitat conditions have changed as a result of forest practices and whether habitat quality has been significantly affected by timber operations. From 1992 and 1994, stream surveys were conducted in selected timber management areas of Southeast Alaska, the Kenai Peninsula and Afognak Island. Stream basins with varying levels of timber harvest were surveyed during each year, and annual surveys were repeated on several streams. The results of the Pentec study are based on three years of data that was collected within one of seven years following initiation of timber harvest activities. The data was collected from over 27 miles of streams in 10 different basins. The report finds the only change that is certain is the increase in large woody debris (LWD) from the riparian buffer in some logged streams as a result of blowdown. The increased LWD is not expected to have a negative effect on fish habitat because the channel changes are local and the amount of stream length affected in small. The study found that other habitat conditions have changed in stream reaches of both logged and unlogged basins, but the magnitude and direction of these changes are not discernible at this time. The monitoring results suggest no large habitat disturbances have occurred to date and that any disturbances that may have occurred are relatively subtle. None of the changes have occurred at a level large enough to affect fish productivity.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I yield half of my time to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, this amendment is of great seriousness to this body. I hope all of my colleagues pay attention to the words that will be spoken today. I will be the first one to say that the presentation by Congresswoman Pryce and the presentation by Congressman Solomon is from their hearts, and I will say they are very sincere attempts to undo what I believe is a trust authority of this Congress to the American Indian tribes. I want to stress that. Only the Congress has a right to decide who is an American Indian or what is a tribe, and no other legal entity or judicial body has that authority, and that is our trust responsibility. What the amendment that has been put in this bill through the rules, which was in fact unanimously with one dissenting vote eliminated in my committee, does is take away that trust responsibility of this Congress to the American Indians. Again, we are breaking a commitment and a promise to the American Indian people. Keep that in mind. We were told, and Members held up their hand and swore to uphold the Constitution, and this is breaking the constitutional law, so keep that in mind. But more than that, I helped pass ICWA, the Indian Child Welfare Act. In all the years, in 15 years, there have been 40 cases such as Ms. Pryce's and Mr. Solomon's, and I will agree they are atrocious cases. But we have tried and we were working and we will continue to work to solve this problem legislatively. There is a large tribal meeting in the first of June and we told them, ``You better come up with a solution.'' If they do not, I will write the bill that will take care of these problems. And those lawyers have been very dishonest, and they have caused most of these problems. We asked Mr. Solomon and Ms. Pryce to wait until the middle of June, until we have found out what would be the results of those meetings. They chose not to do so. I respect that belief on their side, but I say to my colleagues in all sincerity, what we are attempting to do here today is right, it is constitutional, it is correct and it should give us the time. I am asking this body to do the responsible thing and in fact uphold the Constitution. I am asking my colleagues to think about this for a moment and think about, yes, the 40 cases, yes, I will concede. But think of why this act was put in place to begin with. We have 40 cases. What about the 50,000 American Indians that were farmed out and adopted out to families outside their tribes, without any consent of the mother or father or the family or grandpas or uncles or aunts? And that occurred. In fact it was more than 50,000. It was more like a half a million since 1900. And we are talking about 40 cases. Yes, they are bad cases, they are atrocious cases. But I am saying to my colleagues, what they are attempting to do in this bill, and if they do not adopt my amendment today to strike that provision and give us the opportunity, they are in fact breaking our trust responsibility to the American Indian. I do not think my colleagues want that on their chest. In fact, if they do, and, yes, the emotionalism is there, I have seen the cases, I have talked to these people, but I am going to suggest to them if they do that, they have shirked our duty to the responsibility that we are charged with. All I ask is give us the time, let us work and let us solve the problem, and we can do it. If they continue this effort today in this bill and this amendment is not adopted, they in fact have gone back on an act that has worked well. It has kept families together, children with their relatives, children with their mothers, children with their aunts and uncles and not farmed out to places far away from those tribes. So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is the right thing to do. It is the best thing to do, and it is our responsibility. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of that. As an old river boat captain, I have never been on a sandbar yet. I know how to read the water. I know how fast the current is, and I know where I am going. Just help me out and we will get there together.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want to suggest respectfully that whatever happens, the gentleman will be in on the conference. It is my intention to see that the Presidio bill becomes a reality, but I cannot say that we will not add a few more straws to this wagonload that I hope the gentleman might see the wisdom of accepting, and where we disagree, I am confident that with the Senate side, we may not reach that point where they will be added, but I cannot say what will and will not be added to this wagonload, and it is a wagonload. Most of those parts of hay have already been voted on in this House. There are a couple on the Senate side that were not, but have great interest to House Members on this side, and we have been reviewing each one of those that have been added. There may be a couple of others that we would like to solve a problem with on this side which I am sure the gentleman will support. Some he may not be too happy with. But we are going to talk about that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I will say that I have been one that knows just about how much hay a team of mules can pull. I am not going to say that we are not going to add a little bit to what the mules are pulling now.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1296) to provide for the administration of certain Presidio properties at minimal cost to the Federal taxpayer, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, only to publicly financed housing.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, first let me say I do support the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. The Indian housing problems in this Nation are severe. This is a good amendment and I will be supporting it. Mr. Chairman, I'm offering an amendment to the amendment by Mr. Hayworth, to correct a problem relating to the application of the Davis-Bacon Act to construction of Indian housing. As written, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona contains language that would effectively prohibit application of the Davis-Bacon Act to construction of Indian housing. I think this is wrong. My amendment changes the language to ensure that the Davis-Bacon Act applies to the construction of 12 or more units of Indian housing. My amendment will make the gentleman's amendment more consistent with current law, in which the Davis-Bacon Act applies to certain federally subsidized construction contracts. I realize there is a larger debate concerning Davis-Bacon at issue. However, this is not the place to debate our views on Davis-Bacon, which I happen to support strongly. Consideration of Davis-Bacon reform or repeal should be considered separately and on its own merits. It should not be modified or repealed in a piecemeal fashion through legislation like this. I strongly support our effort to give more control and flexibility in operating affordable housing projects to Indians. However, this is not the place to address Davis-Bacon. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment, and I stress again, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona, if my amendment is adopted, is a good piece of legislation and I urge its passage.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a perfecting amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona. When would be the appropriate time to offer that amendment?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the Chair.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I will agree with the gentleman. But that can be rectified by taking away the authority of the State court making the decision who is an Indian, who is not an Indian. That is the objection I have most of all.