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 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. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2243) to amend the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act of 1984, to extend for 3 years the availability of moneys for the restoration of fish and wildlife in the Trinity River, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger].

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

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. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1747.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her terrific leadership in this regard. general leave

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that the gentleman that just spoke voted twice to recommit the bill. We brought a bill to the floor, an appropriations bill that could pass, to send to the President, and then if he vetoed it, we would know really where the differences lie. But the gentleman was in the minority. He was in the minority. And this House has not done its job because the minority says they know what is best for the majority. The minority will have an opportunity this week to vote on the same bill. Hopefully, it will pass and it will go to the President and he will probably veto it. Then that is in his ballpark. But the big thing right now is, again, I want to stress that for the first time in history this Secretary, the arrogance of this individual, has taken away the rights of the American people. All this bill does is say if a State wishes to do so, in the case of a conflict between the Congress and the President of the United States, they, in fact, can offer their services to keep these areas open for the general public. Mr. Speaker, may I suggest, and correct the gentleman from California, that in 1987 the majority on that side passed, for a full year, 13 continuing resolutions for all 12 months for all 13 agencies. Do not tell me about the law. In fact, in 1974, when Mr. Carter was running around here, 1975 and 1976, in that period of time, 1978, I cannot remember all the years he has been there, each time they, in fact, passed continuing resolutions. They never met the time frame. I have heard this argument again and again about the Republican party not doing this. The Democrats have failed miserably, and in the meantime put us $6 trillion in debt.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate this legislation has to be on the floor, and I say has to be on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, last month's partial Government shutdown effectively closed the entire National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System. For the first time in the history that I can remember, in 24 years, this has occurred. In the process it locked out thousands of visitors who had paid for the parks and paid for the refuges, hundreds that had paid for the refuges, supported by the hunters, fishermen, and bird watchers seeking to enjoy our parks and refuges, by an action of the Secretary of the Interior, by in fact saying the nonessential workers had to go home so we had to shut it down. If they were nonessential then, what are they today? To prevent the closure of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona Governor Fife Symington made a commonsense proposal which would have allowed the park to operate during a shutdown with State employees. Unfortunately, the proposal was rejected by the Interior Department. So visitors from around the world and across the country who came to see the Grand Canyon were locked out. Arizona was not alone in its effort to keep Federal lands open to the public. As the gentlewoman from Arkansas will soon tell you, her State and Mississippi had an agreement with the regional director of Fish and Wildlife to operate certain refuges during the shutdown. I want to stress this, refuges are managed by the States today, under the agreement with the Department of the Interior. But this agreement was rejected by the department's lawyers in the District of Columbia under the direction of Secretary Babbitt. In a bipartisan effort to help States in an effort to keep the national parks and refuges open during the Government shutdown, I introduced H.R. 2677, the National Parks and National Wildlife System Freedom Act; this bill merely requires the Interior Department to accept, not require, but for them to accept the services of qualified State employees to operate parks and refuges during a Government shutdown. My bill is very similar to H.R. 2706, introduced by the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], which limited itself to continuing hunting programs on refuges. This bill has no budget impact, since the States would be supplying funds to operate the parks and refuges. Moreover, this bill is voluntary for the States. States do not have to do this. This is not a requirement. But when a State steps forward and says, ``Yes, we can, in the case of a shutdown,'' when the Secretary for the first time in history shut down refuges, when a State comes forward and says, ``We will because we already set the bag limit, we already set the take, we already set the season, we already set the species. We will operate these refuges.'' The bill does not address the issues of liability, which you will hear later. The State employees are stepping into the shoes of Federal employees of allowing our States who normally operate the parks and refuges, and, as a result, the standard liability rules will apply. By the way, when was the last time there was any lawsuit against the Federal Government in a refuge or a park? I hope someone will answer that. I cannot remember it, nor have I seen it; in fact, if it occurs, it does come to my mind maybe we ought to put something else on the endangered species, and that would possibly be the legal profession. We will hear from some in the minority who are concerned about the expedited process or procedures used to bring this bill to the floor today. I do have some sympathy with that. The full Committee on Resources held a 2\1/2\ hour hearing on this bill about last week with the minority members participating very actively. Because of the sense of urgency involved to get this bill to the House and Senate before a possible, and I say possible, Government shutdown in 4 days, it is imperative this bill be on the floor no later than today. As a result, no markup was held. Under the rules, we can bring the bills to the floor and allow our States to keep the parks and refuges open and require the expedited process to be used. The bill has bipartisan support. It has been endorsed by the Western Governors' Association, which passed a resolution of support. It is also supported by the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. This is a commonsense proposal to help prevent our constituents from being locked out of parks and refuges during future Government shutdowns. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, if I may say, this bill would not be necessary if this Secretary of the Interior had acted accordingly. Yes, sometimes we have shut down our monuments. Yes, we have shut down some of our parks. When a Governor steps forward and says because of the State activity because of the deadlock between the President and the Congress, let us have the opportunity, but more offensive to me is when a State now has the authority to manage fish and wildlife on a refuge to have one person, one person to say all nonessential employees go home, we are going to shut down these refuges regardless of what the State has done in the past. This legislation is voluntary. It just requires the Secretary to accept a proposal from the State official as is offered to the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have reserved the right to close, I believe, but I yield myself such time as I may consume to suggest if the gentleman had reached his point and not added all the little adjectives to it, I would have been much happier. I will not disagree with some of the things he says, but I would suggest when he brings in the other appropriations bills, brings my leadership into question, when this is a two-party street, why did the gentleman not mention the President? That is all I suggested. It means a great deal to me that we solve this problem of refuges and parks. And I hope on that side of the aisle, I hope Members understand if they vote against this bill what they are doing. It is not my fault, it may not be my colleagues' fault, but we are allowing the Secretary for the first time in history to deprive our taxpayers of the utilization of our refuges and parks, and tell me that is not political. When Secretary Babbitt will run down and campaign in every district that has a Republican, and he has done that, and I have that documented, that is politics. I am tired of politics on this floor. I want to keep the parks open and the refuges open, because that is the taxpayer's right. If my colleagues want to play politics, we will play politics. But let us leave this part of it out. This is for the parks and the refuges.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, how much time do the parties have left?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before I yield to the gentleman from Arizona, to say that we have just heard one of the most partisan presentations for a subject the gentleman knows nothing about. It is very, very disturbing to me that before this, this was a debate about refuges and parks and the ability to keep them open to the taxpayer. And it disturbs me, as I have said before, that I have been here long enough to remember before we had these television cameras. If Members want to play the television, that is fine, but we are trying to solve a problem. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I may suggest one thing. The President will have a chance to sign an appropriation bill very soon this week. If he vetoes that bill, that means that the parks will not be open. By the way, I say this, this has not happened before. Yes, in some of the monuments, and the refuges are what really concern me the most when the State manages them. This is an example of this administration, the arrogance of this administration, mismanaging the parks that the taxpayers pay for. As far as who can do it and who cannot do it, I will put up any State park against the Federal parks right now and how they are run. In fact, in California the one park that is being run right is the Redwoods State Park in California, not the National Redwood Park we made at a cost of $1.4 billion. It is poorly attended, poorly managed, poorly visited. All we are saying, though, if, in fact, this would happen again, there can be differences of opinion between the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States. But no Secretary of the Interior should deprive any taxpayer the ability to visit that which he paid for because they have decided by the will and whim of any one individual that they are going to shut it down. In fact, they shut down concessionaire stands on the Smokey Ridge over here. They shut them down when the concessionaires themselves had a binding contract. They had people come in and said, ``You will shut down.'' It was Gestapo tactics from the very get go. This bill will stop the Secretary and this administration when the State says, ``We can do it, we will do it, we will pay for it. We are liable, and we are going to keep it open for the American people.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. There you go, 270 million.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want to correct a statement. You said, 270,000?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1253) to rename the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge as the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, December 4 through December 9, 1995, the Government of Japan will host an international conference on Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] of the United Nations. This Conference will provide an excellent opportunity for international awareness and understanding of the varied economic, social, and cultural diversity of the utilization of marine resources throughout the world. Delegates representing government and nongovernmental organizations will discuss options and strategies to ensure the sustainable contribution of fisheries to the world's food security in the future. While the present food fish production throughout the world is approximately 72 million tons, it is projected that the demand for food fish will reach 105 million tons in the year 2010, when the world population reaches 7 billion. Clearly, nations must initiate measures to achieve a sustainable increase in fish production through cooperation on rational utilization measures and implementation of sound conservation programs. It is clear that those of us living at the end of the 20th century have the responsibility to provide a stable food supply system and maintain those reasonable resources for present and future generations. Living aquatic resources are renewable and can provide increased food for human consumption through responsible management and appropriate harvest and handling practices. Such a goal can be achieved if utilization of these resources is based on objective scientific and socio-economic data and principles that recognize and respect the importance of culture and traditions, guarantee the integrity of ecosystems that support living aquatic food resources, and encompass sound management measures through national, and where appropriate, multinational management programs. I commend the Government of Japan for taking the initiative in hosting this important Conference and I wish the delegates to the Conference much success in their deliberations. As chairman of the Resources Committee of the House of Representatives, I look forward to reviewing their observations, conclusions, and recommendations.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with a number of my distinguished colleagues, including Jim Hansen, Jim Saxton, Ken Calvert, and J.D. Hayworth, the National Parks and National Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act of 1995. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that our national parks and wildlife refuges are not closed in the future because of a lack of Federal funding to operate them. During this past weekend, we witnessed the sad spectacle of the Department of the Interior closing our Nation's 369 parks and 504 national wildlife refuge units. These lands, which comprise about 181 million acres, were acquired through the hard work of millions of American taxpayers, who paid for them with entrance fees, excise taxes, duck stamps, and income tax payments. It is terribly wrong to close these facilities and to deny the American people the right to enjoy their beauty, splendor, and various recreational opportunities. In the State of Arizona, Governor Fife Symington offered to operate and keep the Grand Canyon open by using the State National Guard personnel. Regrettably, the Governor's request was denied because the Department of the Interior currently lacks the legal authority to allow the States to manage these lands. The National Parks and National Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act will require the Secretary of the Interior to accept the services of State employees to operate any parks or refuge units when the Federal Government is in a period of a budgetary shutdown. Under the terms of my bill, a State would not be forced to operate any park or refuge within its geographic boundaries, but would simply be given the opportunity to offer their services, like Governor Symington. Furthermore, the term ``government budgetary shutdown'' has been narrowly defined to only cover those circumstances when there is a failure to enact a timely appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and there is a lack of temporary or continuing appropriation funds. Mr. Speaker, our national parks and wildlife refuge systems must never be closed again in the future. This legislation will ensure that if there is ever another budgetary meltdown, the American people will not be denied the chance to visit the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, Yellowstone National Park, or the Washington Monument. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of the National Parks and National Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act of 1995.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I just want to make sure the gentleman sticks to the facts.