Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3286 is intended to promote family values, avoid prolonged unnecessary litigation in adoptions and to get away from race-based tests in child placement decisions. I support families, but title III of the bill is antiIndian family legislation and fails to accomplish all three of these goals. When the Resources Committee considered H.R. 3286, it voted on a bipartisan basis to strike title III of the bill because it fails to put an end to prolonged litigation over Indian child adoptions, will create new impediments to protect abused and neglected Indian children, and raises constitutional issues. The Indian Child Welfare Act [ICWA] was enacted in 1978 to address a long-standing problem unique to Indian children. At the time, at least 25 percent of all Indian children were either in foster homes, adoptive homes, or boarding schools. Private and public welfare agencies were removing Indian children from their homes at unprecedented rates. And in many cases, where removal was warranted, agencies were ignoring available homes in Native communities. Many of these Indian children have grandparents, aunts and uncles who are willing and able to provide good homes, but were denied placement because they didn't know the children were in need of placement. As a result, Indian children were being removed from their tribal communities in a process the Chairman of the Select Committee on Indian Affairs called cultural genocide. In my own region of interior Alaska, 80 percent of all Athabascan Indian children removed from their homes were placed in nonrelative/ nonNative placements. Generally, the children came from remote villages and were placed in strange urban settings. While that rate has dropped to 40 percent today, still half of the children who were being removed from their tribal communities had been placed in homes outside the familiar environment of their villages and extended families. It is difficult for me to explain the shock these children experience when they are uprooted from their villages and families and thrust into these unfamiliar surroundings. These children already suffer the heartache of separation from their families, and the difficulties which cause that breakup. ICWA remedies this situation and my message is that ICWA works to keep families together, and that is something that is worth saving. I hear the concerns of the bill's sponsor over prolonged litigation which ties up some adoptions. But ICWA is not the problem. Many of you have heard of the Rost case. It is a tragic case. But it was caused by an attorney who tried to cover up the natural parents' tribal membership and purposefully avoided checking with the grandparents and extended family of the children to see if the family was available to adopt these children. The attorney in this case is now being sued for malpractice by the natural parents, the adoptive parents, and the Tribe. Unfortunately he inflicted untold sorrow on the Rosts, the grandparents of the children, and, ultimately, on the children themselves, as their fate remains in the courts. Title III will actually compound the litigation problem. The proposed amendments would exempt from ICWA protection Indian children whose parents do not have social, cultural, and political ties to their tribe. This will have two disastrous affects. First, State courts will now have to hold hearings on whether an Indian child's parents have social, cultural or political ties to their tribe. The only people to benefit from this will be attorneys as they haggle over conflicting facts, trying to apply a vague subjective test, while the children languish in limbo. Second, the amendments don't just apply to adoptions. ICWA is not the Indian Child Adoption Act; it also applies to custody proceedings for child abuse and neglect cases. Under ICWA, tribes often intervene in these cases to protect abused and neglected Indian children. For example, the tribes in my region of Alaska intervened in New York to seek the return of an Indian child under ICWA. His mother was a heroin addict who died of AIDS, and the child was later abused in foster care. Today, that child is living with his extended family in a Yukon River village, far from the ravages of social decay which took his mother's life. In another case, an interior Yukon River village intervened in North Carolina to rescue a young girl who was adopted out to a family who sexually abused her, drove her into a mental hospital and then tried to adopt her baby to repeat the cycle. In a third case, another interior Athabascan tribe intervened in a Nevada case involving a 7-month old baby, who was physically abused by its drug-addicted non- Native mother. The baby languished in a Nevada receiving home with 20 other infants until the father's tribe was able to return the baby to Alaska. today, the child is with tribally licensed nonNative foster parents, who are specially trained to deal with drug-affected children, and live near the extended family's village. The rescue of these children could not occur without ICWA, and under the proposed title III could not occur again, because in each case, the parents of the children had severed their ties to the tribes. In each case, however, the only hope that these children had for rescue was their tribe. I am sure that, if enacted, title III will ultimately make one or more Indian children available for adoption. However, far more abused and neglected Indian children will needlessly languish in foster care, or worse yet, not receive needed child protection services while State courts determine whether ICWA will apply and protect an innocent abused or neglected child. This may be unintended harm, but it is harm all the same. Finally, title III raises constitutional problems which were addressed in the original ICWA. In 1977, the Justice Department commented that early drafts of ICWA employed race-based tests for Indian status. Courts have generally held that distinctions based solely on race are constitutionally impermissible. However, courts have also held that distinctions based on tribal membership are based on the sovereign political status of Indian tribes who enjoy a government to government relationship with the Federal and State governments. The distinctions within ICWA are constitutionally permissible to the extent that they rely upon tribal membership or the eligibility for tribal membership. Distinctions which rely solely upon Indian descent and social and cultural ties to an Indian community are constitutionally suspect as a racially based test. Title III employs this latter category of tests, and may be constitutionally defective and are inconsistent with the other portions of the bill. Finally, title III of H.R. 3286 is one more example of the Federal Government imposing its arbitrary will on our families without taking any input or advise from the people most directly affected by the decision. This bill is a response to lawyers and lobbyists from the adoption industry which have caused the problem. I have heard from countless tribes in the last 2 weeks, and not a single one has supported this measure. And neither does the Attorney General of the State of Nevada. We should listen to their message. Therefore, I ask the Members of the House to support my amendment to strike title III. Title III may be well intended, but it will hurt children the rest of this bill is trying to help.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I understand that. The gentleman should keep in mind, although I will admit there have been mistakes by ICWA, this goes far beyond, as I have talked to the gentleman and the other Members, it goes far beyond just ICWA. This goes into the concept of the constitutionality of our responsibility to the American Indian tribes, and it is our responsibility. When you transfer it to the State courts to make the decisions, then I think, very frankly, you have gone too far. I suggested that to you. I will argue that case tomorrow before the amendment because what you have done is exceed ICWA. It gets into the whole concept of sovereignty and the constitutional role of the Congress to the American Indian tribes. If you would strike that provision out of the bill, I would be much more sympathetic to what you are trying to do.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to extend the demonstration program for direct billing for Medicare, Medicaid, and other third-party payors to September 30, 1998. Section 405 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act established a demonstration program to authorize up to four tribally-operated Indian Health Service [IHS] hospitals or clinics to test methods for direct billing for and receipt of payment for heath services provided to Medicare- and Medicaid-eligible patients. This program was established to determine whether these collections could be increased through direct involvement of the tribal health provider as compared with the current practice which required such billings and collections to be channeled through the IHS. Currently, there are four tribal health care providers participating in this demonstration project, the Bristol Bay Area Health Corp. of Dillingham, AK; the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium of Sitka, AK; the Mississippi, Choctaw Health Center of Philadelphia, MI, and the Choctaw Tribe of Oklahoma of Durant, OK. All participants have unanimously expressed success and satisfaction with the demonstration program and report that dramatically increased collections for Medicare and Medicaid services, thereby providing additional revenues for Indian health programs at these facilities; significant reduction in the turn- around time between billing and receipt of payment; and increased efficiency by being able to track down their own billings and collections and thereby act quickly to resolve questions and problems. The IHS is required to monitor participation and receive quarterly reports from the four participants. The law also requires the IHS to report to Congress on the demonstration program on September 30, 1996, the end of fiscal year 1996. This report is to evaluate whether the objective have been fulfilled, and whether direct billing should be allowed for other tribal providers who operate an entire IHS facility. All four participants seek to extend the demonstration program authority for 2 more years to give Congress time to review the report IHS must submit on September 30, 1996, and determine the future of the program. Without the extension, the four participants would have to close down their direct billing-collection departments and return to the old system of IHS-managed collections. This would mean the dismantling of highly specialized administrative staff and would have an immediate negative impact on revenue collection. This is a technical amendment to extend the program in 2 more years so that the existing participants can continue their direct billing collection efforts while the required report from the IHS is reviewed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to voice my strong opposition to the conference report for the Terrorism Prevention Act. I did not support the House bill as my voting record indicates and I did not intend to cast my support for the conference report. I strongly feel this legislation is a knee-jerk reaction to a most heinous crime. This body has passed enough legislation in previous years to catch and punish criminals who commit these atrocious acts against humanity. Unfortunately, I cannot change my vote but I do wish to make it clear that I opposed the conference report for the Terrorism Prevention Act.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, instead of going through all the sections, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from California mentioned the fact that there was a statement from the administration opposing my bill. I am amazed. I cannot believe that, because four of the things that they are opposing my bill on, two of them were their language. One was on establishing an unneeded exemption process to facilitate expanded military use of refuge lands, despite no showing that military needs are not currently being accommodated. That is their language. The other one is calling into question the validity of existing reserved water rights. We did not even talk about water rights. Then we have two of them that they are objecting to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is going to solve in his amendment, and we agreed to accept that amendment. Of course, the one thing that bothers me the most is that they are opposed to hunting. They are also opposed to fishing. By Executive order the President says, no, I am all for this, but it is by Executive order. What we are trying to do is revive and establish what refuges were set up for and by whom and who supports them. All the refuges that I have served under in 24 years were created with the full support of the fishermen and the hunters and the recreation users. Now we are having managers say, no, you cannot fish in Arkansas, because we believe that the way you fish is wrong so fishing is closed. This is by a manager. I talked to Mollie Beattie. She says I cannot override the manager's position. Then we have a case in Oklahoma where a manager, this refuge was created for migratory waterfowl and they managed it for migratory waterfowl by planting crops that would be something for the geese and the ducks as they flew down the byway to eat. The manager said, no, this is not natural. We will not plant this food so they can eat. And around the refuge the farmers were still farming so all the ducks and geese went to the farms outside the refuge so there is no longer any birds in the refuge. This is all documented. But now the same manager says, oh, by the way, fishing is prohibited on this refuge because it might interfere with the waterfowl. Wait a minute. Where are the waterfowl? Off the refuge because they stopped growing feed. So the fishermen are terribly upset. The hunters are upset. The birds are upset. And the refuge has no support. And when the people stop supporting refuges, there will be no more refuges, nor the existence will not be funded. I am asking for passage of this legislation so that the sportsmen of America, the little child that has a cane pole, the person in the wheelchair that goes out on the dock and tries to catch a fish has an opportunity to do so and not letting one person arbitrarily say, no, you cannot do it because I do not think it is compatible. All this bill does is set a criteria and allows uses, as long as they are compatible, to take place. And it takes away the discretion of a manager to arbitrarily impose his philosophy upon a refuge that was created for other reasons. If he decides to try to do that, he has to justify and prove that it is not compatible. If it endangers the public, yes; if it endangers a species, yes; if it in fact does some harm, he has that latitude. But if there is not a reason, then he cannot disallow it. So this is what this bill is all about. It is unfortunate that this administration for some reason is against the American sportsmen. They do not support the American sportsmen and do not let anyone say they do just because the President goes on to an area to shoot 1 duck, and by the way he missed 42. He might be called a conservationist. Do not let the American sportsmen be fooled by this position. What they want is to eliminate what the original refuges were set up for, the purposes of them. And in fact, they do not recognize the danger of not having the support by those people. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, as the author of H.R. 1675, I am pleased that the House is considering this important legislation, which would be the first comprehensive reform of our refuge law since the enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. I am also grateful that the author of that historic law, Congressman John Dingell, and a number of other distinguished Members including the cochairman of the House Sportsmen's Caucus, Pete Geren, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, Jim Saxton, have joined with me in this bipartisan effort. Their contributions and input into this legislation have been invaluable. Our Nation's Wildlife Refuge System, which was created by President Theodore Roosevelt more than 90 years ago, provides both essential habitat for hundreds of species and recreational opportunities for millions of Americans. At present, the system is comprised of 508 refuges, which are located in all 50 States and the 5 U.S. Territories. These units, which cover some 91 million acres of Federal lands, range in size from the smallest of less than 1 acre to the largest, the 19.3- million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Regrettably, in recent years the public's confidence in our refuge system has been shaken by arbitrary decisions made by refuge managers; the diversion of funds to other higher profile issues; the elimination of all existing uses on newly acquired lands; lawsuits designed to prohibit certain secondary uses on a refuge; and the lack of either a vision or a comprehensive plan on how our refuge system will be managed in the future. H.R. 1675 is the product of several years of hard work, countless meetings with various interest groups, and extended negotiations with the Departments of Interior and Defense. The bill was the subject of an extensive public hearing and was favorably reported by voice vote by both the subcommittee and the full Resources Committee, with only 5 Members filing dissenting views. This legislation is a modest, proactive conservation measure that has been carefully refined to address most of the concerns raised by the Clinton administration. While I will later discuss the substitute proposal in detail, it is time we had a statutory list of purposes; a definition of what is a compatible use; allow existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses to continue on new refuge lands unless they are found to be incompatible; a conservation plan for each refuge; and clarification that fishing and hunting should be permitted unless a finding is made that these activities are inconsistent with sound fish and wildlife management, the purpose of the refuge, or public safety. Furthermore, it will strengthen the management of the refuge system and it implements a better, more uniform system-wide planning and compatibility review process. This had been a goal of the environmental community for some time. While H.R. 1675 does not attempt to solve all of the problems facing our refuges, it will ensure that the system is effectively managed, that essential habitats are protected, and that the American people have an opportunity to fully utilize those Federal lands that are paid for with their tax dollars, their entrance fees, and from purchases of duck stamps. This is a sound piece of legislation. It is supported by many groups, including the American Sportfishing Association, the California Waterfowl Association, the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen, the National Rifle Association, and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. This bill will ensure that our refuge system has the support of the American people into the 21st century. Finally, a word of caution. I know there are Members who would like to see H.R. 1675 become a vehicle to solve a whole range of problems in individual units, including mosquito abatement, public health, and additions or deletions of land from existing refuges. While these changes may have merit, I would hope they would not be offered to this measure but instead the sponsors would allow the Resources Committee to fully review them. Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time I intend to engage in a colloquy with the co-author of this bill, John Dingell, on the issues of open until closed refuge lands and water rights. I am confident that this clarification and the substitute will remove most, if not all, of the confusion about the scope of this measure. It will also restore the fundamental goals of H.R. 1675, which are to conserve, manage, and recover wildlife and to ensure that Americans have an opportunity to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. I urge the adoption of H.R. 1675. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, 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. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert amendment and compliment the gentleman in his effort. Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] for two basic reasons. You talk about a willing seller-willing buyer. A willing buyer, yes, but not always the seller. There have been cases where Fish and Wildlife has gone into an area and drawn a refuge around different landholders in long, spidery ways, surrounding them, and then declaring the area around these private landholders as a refuge, and they are inside the refuge, being then an inholder. Then what happens, the land value decreases dramatically from anybody else, because they are under certain restrictions because it is called a buffer zone. So what would occur under the gentleman's thoughts here would be in reality an agency willing to go in and get 499 acres around an area, and the willing seller would only have one buyer. Any time you have one buyer, and that buyer being the U.S. Government, and one owner being put in that kind of spot, it has a devastating effect on that one owner. We have seen that occur not just with this administration, but other administrations also. So this is not partisan. We are trying to avoid that. We are allowing them to get a certain amount of acreage in an emergency case. But every other time they have got to come back to this Congress to authorize, for us to say it is the right thing to do, and not be put into the position of making the landowners subvergent to the Federal Government.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] on this amendment. It is long overdue. The administration supports this amendment. It is something we should have in the tools to make sure that what happened last October, November, December should not occur again because the agency said it could not be done legally. This amendment takes care of that problem. I strongly support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have carefully reviewed the amendment offered by our distinguished colleague from Arkansas [Blanche Lambert Lincoln]. I intend to support this amendment and I compliment our colleague for the many months of hard work she has spent perfecting this language. Under the terms of this amendment, a State would be able to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of allowing State employees to operate units of our Federal Wildlife Refuge System should, in the unlikely event, a Government budgetary shutdown occur in the future. These employees will have to receive adequate safety training, be knowledgeable about the terrain of the particular refuge unit, and adhere to all appropriate Federal regulations. While it is unclear whether these agreements will ever be necessary, it is an innovative approach and it provides the kind of legislative fail-safe that the Secretary should have administratively used last winter to save our States thousands of dollars of lost hunting revenues. Finally, I am pleased that this language has been expanded to include not only hunting but also fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental education. There are millions of Americans who regularly enjoy these forms of wildlife-dependent recreation, and this amendment will help to ensure that our Nation's refuge doors remain open in the years ahead. It is my understanding that the administration has no objection to this System-wide solution and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Lincoln amendment.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer the question and provide clarification of this issue to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, the gentleman from Michigan is correct. This provision is intended to maintain the status quo with regard to existing reserved water rights in the system, and to clarify that reserved water rights previously created at the time of withdrawal of these lands for refuge purposes will not be expanded nor restricted, diminished, or eliminated due to the passage of H.R. 1675. As a result, refuge reserved water rights will remain exactly in the same position as they are today if H.R. 1675 becomes law.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again, the gentleman from Michigan is absolutely correct. The exclusion of reserved water rights in the definition section of H.R. 1675 is intended to impose a limitation on the geographic boundaries of individual refuges and is not intended to override the disclaimer protecting existing water rights in section 8(a) of this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This provision in section 5, like the rest of H.R. 1675, is intended to recognize long-established Federal-State relationships. States have traditional primacy regarding the allocation of water resources, and this merely directs the Secretary to use appropriate State forums in those cases where water is to be acquired for refuge units. This section should not be construed to otherwise alter or diminish the interests of the Federal Government as it pertains to ownership of or management authority for the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, this provision is intended to address a longstanding concern about a policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service where new refuge lands are ``closed until opened.'' Accordingly, all preexisting uses are terminated when land is acquired by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This has created conflict at many refuges where sportsmen accustomed to using these lands suddenly find them closed for an unpredictable amount of time. The purpose of this paragraph, which inserts new language in section 4(d)(3)(b)(x) of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, is to create the presumption that when the Fish and Wildlife Service brings new lands into the System, compatible wildlife recreation activities ought to be allowed to continue unless the Secretary makes a determination before the acquisition that such activities are not compatible with the purposes of the System.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. No, it is not. This provision applies only to wildlife-dependent use of a refuge. This includes fishing, hunting, wildlife observation and environmental education.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, the bill states very clearly that only wildlife-dependent uses are permitted to continue only on lands added after the date of enactment of this bill. Wildlife-dependent recreation is expected to occur on existing refuge lands if the Secretary determines that the activities meet three requirements: first, they are consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management; second, they are compatible with the purposes of the System; and third, they are consistent with public safety.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Once again, the gentleman is correct. Refuge lands may be closed for any one of three reasons specified in the bill thereby providing the Secretary with appreciable discretion. In essence, we are creating a rebuttable presumption that wildlife- dependent recreation is compatible unless it is contrary to one of these principles. This approach is conceptually the same as articulated by Secretary Babbitt to the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus in September 1994.