Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. But they do not want to protect the species. They have not protected the species.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Before the listing.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, if I can, the gentleman has to understand one thing. We had a case in my great State of Alaska where there was a petition filed by two students from New Mexico saying that the archipelago wolf possibly could live in this forest and, by even filing the petition, 535,000 acres were put off limits for any man's activities until they can study if the archipelago wolf was, in fact, a reality.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Because he had to do it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Got to be one of those SSS's.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I would have to pay a $3,000 fine. Would I have to declare it with the Fish and Wildlife Department?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today, the introduction of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act will, for the first time in nearly a century of U.S. administration, provide a congressionally recognized framework for the inhabitants of Puerto Rico to freely express their wishes regarding the options for full self-government. I want to acknowledge the insightful leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich in working with the committee to formulate a process to advance the United States-Puerto Rico relationship toward a conclusive one of full self-government. A number of Members have been supportive and instrumental in the development of the legislation, including Elton Gallegly, chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources, Ben Gilman, chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and Dan Burton, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere who cochaired with Mr. Gallegly the October 17, 1995, joint hearing on the 1993 Puerto Rico status plebiscite. There also has been substantial input from Members on the other side of the aisle. This matter of tremendous importance to the United States and the nearly 4 million United States citizens in Puerto Rico can only be resolved by adhering to constitutionally and internationally based principles and standards for full self-government. While many may misconstrue this legislation to be designed to benefit one local Puerto Rico political party over another, it is, in fact, a serious bipartisan effort to enact into law a pragmatic process with the long-term objective of resolving the Puerto Rico status dilemma. The legislation divides the process into three manageable stages which follow historical precedent set by the Congress in providing for final political statuses of territories and trust territories during this century. The first step in the process is the initial decision stage in which voters are asked which fundamental relationship they prefer with the United States--one of separate sovereignty leading to independence or free association or under United States sovereignty leading to statehood. The second and final steps are the transition and implementation stages which follow the historical patterns of enabling and admission acts for territories becoming States and similar measures for insular areas becoming separate sovereigns. If this self-determination process does not result in voter approval of one of the rcognized options for full self-government, then by democratic choice of the voters--instead of by Federal mandate--the status quo will continue and Puerto Rico will remain a locally self- governing unincorporated territory under congressional administration. Under the U.S. Constitution and applicable principles of international law, the three recognized options for full self- government are independence, separate sovereignty in free association with the United States, and full integration into the United States leading to statehood. In order for Congress to determine how to respond to the aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico regarding a permanent, future political status in a manner which promotes and preserves the U.S. long-term national interest, we need to address the status question based on clearly defined principles and standards. This is precisely what the bill does. Locally conducted plebiscites have been inconclusive, and were unduly influenced by vested interests exploiting the status quo. It is time for the U.S. Congress to meet its responsibility under the Constitution to provide for a self-determination procedure in which the U.S. national interest in resolving the status issue is taken into account, rather than allowing the issue to be dominated by local political rivalries and interference from those who thrive opportunistically on the present territorial status. The United States also has a right of self-determination and this process requires action by both the United States and Puerto Rico in order to advance toward a full self- government relationship. After 400 years of colonial rule by Spain ended in 1898, it should not have taken another 100 years of American administration for the U.S. Congress to define the options for full and permanent self- government. The United States-Puerto Rico Status Act permits full self- government to be realized in Puerto Rico in definitive steps, with a smooth transition to whatever form of full self-government the people choose: independence, separate sovereignty in free association with the United States, or statehood. There is an important event which took place recently which is relevant to the introduction of this legislation. On February 29, 1996, I joined three other House committee and subcommittee chairmen from the Committees on Resources and International Relations in responding to Concurrent Resolution 62 of the Puerto Rico Legislature. In the Concurrent Resolution the legislature asks the 104th Congress to respond to the results of the November 14, 1993, status plebiscite in Puerto Rico, wherein the Commonwealth ballot proposition received a plurality of 48.6 percent votes cast, and to indicate the next steps in resolving Puerto Rico's political status. After extensive research, oversight, and a joint hearing, a substantial record was developed enabling a concise response to Concurrent Resolution 62. Following is the text of the response to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of the Puerto Rico Legislature: House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, February 29, 1996. Hon. Roberto Rexach-Benitez, President of the Senate. Hon. Zaida Hernandez-Torres, Speaker of the House of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Dear Mr. Rexach-Benitez and Ms. Hernandez-Torres: The Committee on Resources and the Committee on International Relations are working cooperatively to establish an official record which we believe will enable to House to address the subject-matter of Concurrent Resolution 62, adopted by the Legislature of Puerto Rico on December 14, 1994. While the specific measures addressing Puerto Rico's status which the 104th Congress will consider are still being developed, we believe the history of the self-determination process in Puerto Rico, as well as the record of the Joint Hearing conducted on October 17, 1995 by the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs and the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, lead to the following conclusions with respect to the plebiscite conducted in Pertro Rico on November 14, 1993: 1. The plebiscite was conducted under local law by local authorities, and the voting process appears to have been orderly and consistent with recognized standards for lawful and democratic elections. This locally organized self- determination process was undertaken within the authority of the constitutional government of Puerto Rico, and is consistent with the right of the people of Puerto Rico freely to express their wishes regarding their political status and the form of government under which they live. The United States recognizes the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination, including the right to approve any permanent political status which will be established upon termination of the current unincorporated territory status. Congress will take cognizance of the 1993 plebiscite results in determining future Federal policy toward Puerto Rico. 2. The content of each of the three status options on the ballot was determined by the three major political parties in Puerto Rico identified with those options, respectively. The U.S. Congress did not adopt a formal position as to the feasibility of any of the options prior to presentation to the voters. Consequently, the results of the vote necessarily must be viewed as a an expression of the preferences of those who voted as between the proposals and advocacy of the three major political parties for the status option espoused by each such party. 3. None of the status options presented on the ballot received a majority of the votes cast. While the commonwealth option on the ballot received a plurality of votes, this result is difficult to interpret because that option contained proposals to profoundly change rather than continue the current Commonwealth of Puerto Rico government structure. Certain elements of the commonwealth option, including permanent union with the United States and guaranteed U.S. citizenship, can only be achieved through full integration into the U.S. leading to statehood. Other elements of the commonwealth option on the ballot, including a government-to- government bilateral pact which cannot be altered, either are not possible or could only be partially accomplished through treaty arrangements based on separate sovereignty. While the statehood and independence options are more clearly defined, neither of these options can be fully understood on the merits, unless viewed in the context of clear Congressional policy regarding the terms under which either option could be implemented if approved in a future plebiscite recognized by the federal government. Thus, there is a need for Congress to define the real options for change and the true legal and political nature of the status quo, so that the people can know what the actual choices will be in the future. 4. Although there is a history of confusion and ambiguity on the part of some in the U.S. and Puerto Rico regarding the legal and political nature of the current ``commonwealth'' local government structure and territorial status, it is incontrovertible that Puerto Rico's present status is that of an unincorporated territory subject in all respects to the authority of the United States Congress under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As such, the current status does not provide guaranteed permanent union or guaranteed citizenship to the inhabitants of the territory of Puerto Rico, nor does the current status provide the basis for recognition of a separate Puerto Rican sovereignty or a binding government-to- government status pact. 5. In light of the foregoing, the results the November 14, 1993 vote indicates that it is the preference of those who cast ballots to change the present impermanent status in favor of a permanent political status based on full self- government. The only options for a permanent and fully self- governing status are: (1) separate sovereignty and full national independence, (2) separate sovereignty in free association with the United States; (3) full integration into the United States political system ending unincorporated territory status and leading to statehood. 6. Because each ballot option in the 1993 plebiscite addressed citizenship, we want to clarify this issue. First, under separate sovereignty Puerto Ricans will have their own nationality and citizenship. The U.S. political status, nationality, and citizenship provided by Congress under statutes implementing the Treaty of Paris during the unincorporated territory period will be replaced by the new Puerto Rican nationhood and citizenship status that comes with separate sovereignty. To prevent hardship or unfairness in individual cases, the U.S. Congress may determine the requirements for eligible persons to continue U.S. nationality and citizenship, or be naturalized, and this will be governed by U.S. law, not Puerto Rican law. If the voters freely choose separate sovereignty, only those born in Puerto Rico who have acquired U.S. citizenship on some other legal basis outside the scope of the Treaty of Paris citizenship statutes enacted by Congress during the territorial period will not be affected. Thus, the automatic combined Puerto Rican and U.S. citizenship described under the definition of independence on the 1993 plebiscite ballot was a proposal which is misleading and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of separate nationality and non-interference by two sovereign countries in each other's internal affairs, which includes regulation of citizenship. Under statehood, guaranteed equal U.S. citizenship status will become a permanent right. Under the present Commonwealth of Puerto Rico government structure, the current limited U.S. citizenship status and rights will be continued under Federal law enacted under the Territorial Clause and the Treaty of Paris, protected to the extent of partial application of the U.S. Constitution during the period in which Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory. 7. The alternative to full integration into the United States or a status based on separate sovereignty is continuation of the current unincorporated territory status. In that event, the present status quo, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico structure for local self- government, presumably could continue for some period of time, until Congress in its discretion otherwise determines the permanent disposition of the territory of Puerto Rico and the status of its inhabitants through the exercise of its authority under the Territorial Clause and the provisions of the Treaty of Paris. Congress may consider proposals regarding changes in the current local government structure, including those set forth in the ``Definition of Commonwealth'' on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. However, in our view serious consideration of proposals for equal treatment for residents of Puerto Rico under Federal programs will not be provided unless there is an end to certain exemptions from federal tax laws and other non-taxation in Puerto Rico, so that individuals and corporations in Puerto Rico have the same responsibilities and obligations in this regard as the states. Since the ``commonwealth'' option on the 1993 plebiscite ballot called for ``fiscal autonomy,'' which is understood to mean, among other things, continuation of the current exemptions from federal taxation for the territory, this constitutes another major political, legal and economic obstacle to implementing the changes in Federal law and policy required to fulfill the terms of the ``Definition of Commonwealth.'' 8. In addition, it is important to recognize that the existing Commonwealth of Puerto Rico structure for local self-government, and any other measures which Congress may approve while Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory, are not unalterable in a sense that is constitutionally binding upon a future Congress. Any provision, agreement or pact to the contrary is legally unenforceable. Thus, the current Federal laws and policies applicable to Puerto Rico are not unalterable, nor can they be made unalterable, and the current status of the inhabitants is not irrevocable, as proposed under the ``commonwealth'' option on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. Congress will continue to respect the principle of self- determination in its exercise of Territorial Clause powers, but that authority must be exercised within the framework of the U.S. Constitution and in a manner deemed by Congress to best serve the U.S. national interest. In our view, promoting the goal of full self-government for the people of Puerto Rico, rather than remaining in a separate and unequal status, is in the best interests of the United States. This is particularly true due to the large population of Puerto Rico, the approach of a new century in which a protracted status debate will interfere with Puerto Rico's economic and social development, and the domestic and international interest in determining a path to full self-government for all territories with a colonial history before the end of this century. 9. The record of the October 17, 1995 hearing referred to above makes it clear that the realities regarding constitutional, legal and political obstacles to implementing the changes required to fulfill the core elements of the ``commonwealth'' option on the ballot were not made clear and understandable in the public discussion and political debate leading up to the vote. Consequently, Congress must determine what steps the Federal government should take in order to help move the self-determination process to the next stage, so that the political status aspirations of the people can be ascertained through a truly informed vote in which the wishes of the people are freely expressed within a framework approved by Congress. Only through such a process will Congress then have a clear basis for determining and resolving the question of Puerto Rico's future political status in a manner consistent with the national interest. Ultimately, Congress alone can determine Federal policy with respect to self-government and self-determination for the residents of Puerto Rico. It will not be possible for the local government or the people to advance further in the self-determination process until the U.S. Congress meets its moral and governmental responsibility to clarify Federal requirements regarding termination of the present unincorporated territory status of Puerto Rico in favor of one of the options for full self-government. The results of the locally administered 1993 vote are useful in this regard, but in our view are not definitive beyond what has been stated above. The question of Puerto Rico's political status remains open and unresolved. Sincerely, Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources. Elton Gallegly, Chairman, Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs. Ben Gilman, Chairman, Committee on International Relations. Dan Burton, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, may I again go back to what I said happened in the Tongass. We froze the amount of timber to cut. We know, in fact, that it is 90 percent a wilderness. These are facts, my friends, facts, not fiction. In fact, we know that only 10 percent, and only 10 percent, over 100 years would be cut. We know that there are 42 percent of my people out of work in southeast Alaska today because of action of this body, and we heard a lot about it is a shame that the President vetoed this. Then we talked about the people's hardships and the people that are out of work. What about the people that are blue collar workers? Have I heard anybody on this floor defend them, other than myself and a few of my colleagues? I heard a gentleman a while ago say, we are going to hold our faces blue until we get our way. I would rather be blue than red. I am going to suggest respectfully that this veto is wrong. The President shut down these parks; the President shut down the monuments. There is a letter today in the Washington Post about the police were on hand at the parks. Where were they before? They are issuing tickets to people, taxpayers. Where were they before? This administration and this Secretary of Interior are using this for a political gambit. This is what this is all about. We did our job. We sent a bill to the President that the President could have signed and should have signed. By the way, we heard a lot about the American natives. The American natives want to stand on their own, they want to manage their own affairs, they want to be able to decide their own destiny. They do not want to continue with handouts as the minority has been doing over these years to make them subservient. They want to be their own people. The best way, they have said to me, is we will take our cuts as long as everybody else does too. But this President has kept those moneys away from those people. It is time that this Congress overrides this President, and you have that responsibility too. Make no mistake about it. Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations veto was politics, pure poll-driven politics. If you read the President's veto message and compare it to the White House press release, they are identical. Was the President trying to seriously communicate with the Congress or was this just a public relations exercise? I have never seen anything like it. The President vetoed this bill with a press release, threw thousands of workers out of work right before the holiday, and then blamed the Congress. Shame on you, Mr. President. This is a slap in the face of Chairman Regula and Chairman Livingston. They sent a balanced bill to the White House that was sensitive to every concern raised by the President's staff. This veto message also insults my constituents who live and work in the Tongass National Forest. It singled out a carefully drafted provision that would bring stability to my constituents who live and work in the Tongass. The Tongass provision did 2 things: First, froze the amount of timber that could be harvested over 100 years at 1.7 million acres and, second, allowed the Forest Service to convert timber sales from one purchaser to another. It did nothing more and nothing less. The fact is, every issue raised by the Clinton administration was addressed in the bill. The administration said it wanted the ability to use good science, so we allowed them to use sound scientific data under Chairman Regula's bill. The administration said it did not want a permanent ban on habitat conservation areas, so Chairman Regula's bill removed the ban at their request. After the bill passed the Congress, the President's staff had to find an excuse for him to veto it. The Environmental Mecca, the Tongass National Forest, served as excuse No. 1. The veto message/press release makes it sound like the whole 17- million-acre forest would be clear-cut tomorrow if the bill became law. The fact is only 10 percent of the forest will ever be harvested during a 100-year period. The other 90 percent is off limits in wilderness status or not available for harvest. It seems to me that your advisors told you about the wrong Tongass provision, Mr. President. The reality for my constituents is that 42 percent of the timber employees in the Tongass are out of work. Timber is part of a well- rounded Alaskan economy. We have enough preservation in the Tongass to protect the resources and environment. We need some stability, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to override this poll-driven veto.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to sit here and listen to the rhetoric that comes out from that side of the aisle, the outright mistruths very nearly close to the mistruths have been spoken by the President of the United States. When I hear people talk about the Tongass, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], and, no, I will not yield. I listened to that tirade a while ago, and I will not yield. The Tongass does in fact--the provision of this bill froze the amount of timber that could be harvested. It froze it to 1.7 million acres. . . .

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, there are no truths in----

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman has to prove that he is telling the truth, and he is not. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the words.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, it is rare that I apologize when I know I am speaking from my heart. It is rare that I ask this House to listen to a gentleman's understanding as he sees the issue. It is rare that I have to apologize when other gentlemen do not take the opportunity to read the facts on an issue. The gentleman and I have discussed this for many, many years, and he and I know we differ. He knows my emotionalism on this. He knows I have lost over 42 percent of my working people in this area. He knows that I am a gentleman that would never impugn another gentleman. The gentleman knows that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Well, then, I apologize to you personally.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, you have just seen the House uphold the President's veto, and may I say that the minority side again has shut down the parks, the refuges, the monuments. It is the President who has not acted appropriately. This is a body of two Houses and conferences, and we reached the right decision. We sent the bill to the President. He alone has shut down the parks. He alone has shut down the monuments. He alone is causing the pain, and it is time for the American public to say, Mr. President, sign the bills that Congress sends to you. For those of you on the minority side, you are no longer in the majority, you are in the minority. So let us tell the truth. Let us have the President sign these bills. We will send them to him. Mr. President, let us put the people back to work. It is your fault; it will continue to be your fault. Let us think about this country instead of the election in 1996.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 33, which will transfer the Stuttgart Fish Farming Experimental Laboratory in Arkansas from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. This Laboratory has been instrumental in the development of various techniques for the commercial production of catfish, baitfish, and other finfishes worth in excess of $600 million. Furthermore, this facility conducts extensive research on warmwater aquaculture and, since the vast majority of those who utilize Stuttgart are farmers, the Department of Agriculture is a logical home for this laboratory. Based on the testimony received, it is clear that this transfer is not controversial and is strongly supported by all of the affected parties. I, therefore, urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation and I compliment our distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Blanche Lambert Lincoln, for her leadership in this matter.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, where are the timber jobs of yesteryear? We asked where the flowers were and where the moderate Republicans are, but where are the timber jobs of yesteryear? The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] had the privilege of serving at one time as the chairman, and knows full good and well, he voted for the Tongass agreement to allow us, in fact, to have a sound economy, yet leaving over 15 million acres in southeast Alaska out of the mutiple-use timber base. Good fiction never dies, especially fiction about the Tongass Forest that is being spread on this floor today. I can hardly believe my ears. Such a distinguished gentleman saying this would destroy the last standing rain forest of the great southeast Alaska, when there are 15 million acres already off limits to logging, and he has twice voted in this Congress to do so. But we have lost 42 percent of our timber workers since the last act of this Congress on the Tongass in 1990. This bill, as I suggested to the conference and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], is not everything I would want. In fact, this Tongass issue is truly a red herring. All we are asking in this agreement is to freeze a land base of 1.7 million acres, the amount of land agreed to in 1990 that would be available for timber over a 100- year period. The amendment says that the land base can no longer be taken away. And remember, we have 15 million acres of land available for wildlife and old growth habitat today. We are talking about a very small, tiny land base for timber. Harvesting does not change, in fact, what can be harvested, does not increase at all under the provision. It does not tell the Forest Service what they can do, other than the fact it says ``You can no longer take away any of that land base that we made available in two previous acts of Congress.'' This, in fact, is further than I would have gone, but my senior Senator in fact has agreed to this. He sits on the conference. I am going to suggest, this conference report must pass. I listened to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] yesterday saying ``We can solve these problems if we just send the appropriation bills to the President.'' We are going to do that today. We will send him a bill that should be signed, a bill that does take care of the problem, a bill, in fact, that does keep a moratorium on mining, which the gentleman wishes to do. That is what he wanted. This is good legislation, but I again would like to put to rest this constant misinformation, this constant fiction about the Tongass National Forest. We are talking about 1.7 million acres available for harvest but not cut, and we are talking about 15 million acres of rain forest unavailable for logging, 15 million acres for the future generations to study those great old trees and watch them become gray and fall down. We have already done that. Let us vote for this conference report. This is good legislation. Let us support the chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 2243, to extend the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Act of 1984. This bill, introduced by our distinguished colleague from California, Frank Riggs, will build upon the successes of the past decade and continue the important work of rebuilding valuable fish and wildlife populations in the Trinity River Basin. Furthermore, the legislation will expand the membership of the Trinity River task force to include representatives from commercial, recreational, and tribal fishing interests. By broadening the membership of the task force, I am confident that the Secretary of the Interior will receive new and valuable advice on innovative ways to improve the Trinity River Basin in the future. I urge the adoption of H.R. 2243, and I compliment Frank Riggs for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents.

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 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2677) to require the Secretary of the Interior to accept from a State donations of services of State employees to perform, in a period of Government budgetary shutdown, otherwise authorized functions in any unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System, as amended.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, as I watch my California colleagues come to the floor, I do hope that they will recognize the greatest compliment we can give to Mr. Edwards is to make this short. I support H.R. 1253, introduced by the distinguished gentleman and our former colleague from California, Norm Mineta. H.R. 1253 is a simple, noncontroversial bill that renames the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge after former Congressman Don Edwards. Don Edwards served in the House of Representatives with distinction for 32 years. During that time, he was successful in convincing the Congress to authorize the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, to expand its boundaries, and to appropriate the necessary funds to acquire the more than 22,000 acres that now comprise this unit. The San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is the largest urban refuge in the United States. It contains a number of valuable wetlands, supports hundreds of thousands of shorebirds, and the refuge is visited by more than 250,000 people each year. It is appropriate to rename this refuge after Don Edwards in recognition of his work and lifelong commitment to this effort. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1253. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I can only echo what has been said about Donny Edwards. He called me Donny Young, he was Donny Edwards. In fact, I had an amendment to the bill. I was going to strike out Edwards and put ``Young'' after ``Don'' in each one of them. I am confident that would kill the bill for sure. But in reality, I would like to suggest that he was an asset to this House when he served, the time that he served with distinction. I know this area, being from California, and being much wiser in going to Alaska. I recognize the importance of this area. This is a tribute to Mr. Edwards and his support. Maybe someday after I have left this great House, they will be able to take and name the refuge after me. Just keep that in mind, my fellow colleagues. I again want to express my support for this legislation in recognition of a good friend that left here. Although he and I were not many times on the same sides of issues, he was a gentleman and indeed he brought a great deal of respect to this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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