Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] mentioned, this is a bipartisan bill. This is not the first time that he and I have addressed this issue. We want to stress that 25 million acres of land now is under military jurisdiction for training of our personnel for military purposes. What we are trying to do in this bill and with the original bill was to make sure the military recognized the extraordinary value. Most military bases are in the proximity of urban areas. They are truly the wildlife refuge areas of the urban people. They are also very valuable for those resource activities, which I think are also very valuable for the maintaining and the management of those species; that is, in fact, the wildlife itself, for fishing and hunting and recreational purposes. Mr. Speaker, under this act, with the help of the gentleman from Massachusetts, I do believe we strengthen the DOD and in fact direct them to better manage those resources available to them. The 25 million acres of land, refuge land that is under military jurisdiction today, is actually more land than we have in any other part of our natural Federal use lands in the lower 48. Therefore, I do urge the passage of this legislation. It is good legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, as the author of H.R. 1141, I am pleased that we are considering this legislation to reauthorize and improve the effectiveness of the Sikes Act. Since coming to Congress in 1973, I have led the fight to enhance and conserve the vital fish and wildlife resources that exist on our military lands. The Department of Defense [DOD] manages nearly 25 million acres at approximately 900 military bases nationwide. These lands contain a wealth of plant and animal life, they provide vital habitat for thousands of migratory waterfowl, and they are home for nearly 100 federally listed species. The Department does a superb job of training our young men and women for combat. Regrettably, they often fail to do even an adequate job of comprehensive natural resource management planning. At far too many installations, management plans have never been written, are outdated, or are largely ignored. Furthermore, when these plans do exist, all too often they are not coordinated or integrated with other military activities. While H.R. 1141 will make a number of improvements in the Sikes Act, the bill does not undermine in any way the fundamental training mission of a military base. What the bill does is expand the scope of existing conservation plans to encompass all natural resource management activities, require management plans for all appropriate installations, mandate an annual report summarizing the status of these plans, require that trained personnel be available, and ensure that DOD shall manage each installation to provide for the conservation of fish and wildlife, and to allow the multipurpose uses of those resources. In addition, the bill extends the act's authorization for the next 3 years at half of the current funding level. Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial bill that has been thoroughly considered in both the Resources and National Security Committees. I want to thank Floyd Spence, Jim Saxton, Joel Hefley, and Gerry Studds for their leadership and for joining with me in this important conservation effort. I am confident that our bill will greatly assist DOD in the management of those natural resources under their jurisdiction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 1141. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1141, the bill just considered.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the time is late, but it always amazes me where we can have people talk about they have not had an opportunity. The only real change in this whole legislative process is a change of the date at the bequest of the administration. That is all it is. The rest of it has been voted overwhelmingly by this committee. But the thing that bothers me most, I hear people say we have not had an opportunity. We have not been able to read it. That is nonsense. They have had all these months to read it. One date changed, from 1997 to 1996, and that is it, which I did not like. Because I think we have to harvest those trees that are rotting today on their stumps because they burned, again because the forests were not managed. To have someone say they are going to affect the fisheries, have you ever seen where the area has been burned and the soil has been eroded because the structure has been diluted because of fire? That is going to affect the fisheries? Nonsense, and you know that. This is an attempt to destroy by opposition to this bill the infrastructure of the logging industry, which is important to this community. This bill needs to be passed because we are salvaging something in fact that is a waste today.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, may I suggest, as the chairman of the authorizing committee, the Committee on Resources can agree with the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor]. The man has done yeoman's work on this situation of salvageable timber. One of the things that concerns me the most, Mr. Speaker: We worked long and hard to force and forge several modifications and address the concerns of the administration. We have worked with the administration. It is language that is coming from the administration and not legislative language in this bill. What we are trying to do, why anybody would oppose it, is salvage dead trees, not RARE II, 16 billion board feet of timber is rotting today, standing because it was burned last year. And yet I have people say, ``Oh, we can't harvest it because it might destroy the ecosystem.'' What we have destroyed are the jobs of the American people. The mills have been shut down, those that provide the paper for this gobbled gook that we work on here every night, for that which we use here ourselves personally, have been shut down, and the American people have been put out of work, and I have people on that side that say, ``We can't harvest a dead tree.'' We have negotiated long and hard with the chairman and the administration, trying to reach a solution by putting the people of America back to work, and we have done that, and we will continue to do it with this legislation. But beyond that is a matter of principle. Is, in fact, man part of this system? This man is a forester and understands that the renewable growth of trees--trees are a renewable resource. And to have someone to say we cannot cut down 16 billion board feet of trees, which we have not asked to do so; we asked to cut down 3 billion board feet. That is all, and yet we are looked upon by the media and by those in this body, saying we must not harvest RARE II. Nonsense. We are talking about a tree that has been burnt because the forests were not managed to begin with. We are talking about American lives and American working forests. It is time we got on. This is good legislation. I urge the passage of the legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a measure that would provide critically needed tax relief to a few Alaskan Native whaling captains who otherwise may not be able to continue their centuries-old tradition of subsistence whaling. In brief, this bill would provide a modest charitable deduction to those Native captains who organize and support traditional whaling hunt activities for their communities. The Inupiat and Siberian Yupik Eskimos living in the coastal villages of northern and western Alaska have been hunting the bowhead whale for thousands of years. The International Whaling Commission [IWC] has acknowledged that ``whaling, more than any other activity, fundamentally underlies the total lifeway of these communities.'' Today, under the regulatory eye of the IWC and the U.S. Department of Commerce, these Natives continue a sharply restricted bowhead subsistence hunt out of 10 coastal villages. Local regulation of the hunt is vested in the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission [AEWC] under a cooperative agreement with the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The entire Native whaling community participates in these hunting activities. However, Native tradition requires that the whaling captains are financially and otherwise responsible for the actual conduct of the hunt; meaning they must provide the boat, fuel, gear, weapons, ammunition, food, and special clothing for their crews. Furthermore, they must store the whale meat until it is used. Each of the approximately 35 bowhead whales landed each year provides thousands of pounds of meat and muktuk--blubber and skin--for these Native communities. Native culture dictates that a whaling captain whose crew lands a whale is responsible for feeding the community in which the captain lives. Customarily, the whale is divided and shared by all of the people in the community free of charge. In recent years, Native whaling captains have been treating their whaling expenses as a deduction against their personal Federal income tax, because they donate the whale meat to their community and because their expenses have skyrocketed due to the increased costs in complying with Federal requirements necessary to outfit a whaling crew. The IRS has refused to allow these deductions, placing an extreme financial burden on those who use personal funds to support their Native communities' traditional activities. Currently five whaling captains have appeals of these disallowances pending before the Tax Court of the IRS. The bill I am introducing today would amend section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide that the investments made by this relatively small and fixed number of subsistence Native whaling captains are fully deductible as charitable contributions against their personal Federal income tax. Such an amendment should also retroactively resolve the disallowance and assessment cases now pending within the statute of limitations. The expenses incurred by these whaling captains are for the benefit of the entire Native community. These expenses are vital contributions whose only purposes are to provide food to the community and to perpetuate the aboriginal traditions of the Native subsistence whaling culture. Each Alaskan Native subsistence whaling captain spends an average of $2,500 to $5,000 in whaling equipment and expenses in a given year. A charitable deduction for these expenses would translate into a maximum revenue impact of approximately $230,000 a year. Such a charitable deduction is justified on a number of grounds. The donations of material and provisions for the purpose of carrying out subsistence whaling, in effect, are charitable contributions to the Inupiat and Siberian Yupik communities for the purpose of supporting an activity that is of considerable cultural, religious, and subsistence importance to those Native people. In expanding the amounts claimed, a captain is donating those amounts to the community to carry out these functions. Similarly, the expenditures can be viewed as donations to the Inupiat Community of the North Slope [ICAS], to the AEWC, and to the communities' participating churches. The ICAS is a federally recognized Indian tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 984). Under the Indian Tax Status Act, donations to such an Indian tribe are tax deductible (28 U.S.C. 7871(a)(1)(A)). The AEWC is a 501(c)(3) organization. Both the ICAS and the AEWC are charged with the preservation of Native Alaskan whaling rights. Also, it is important to note the North Slope Borough of Alaska, on its own and through the AEWC, spends approximately $500,000 to $700,000 annually on bowhead whale research and other Arctic marine research programs in support of the U.S. efforts at the International Whaling Commission. This is money that otherwise would come from the Federal budget to support the U.S. representation at the IWC. Given these facts and the internationally and federally protected status of the Native [[Page E 1333]] Alaskan subsistence whale hunt, I believe expenditures for the hunt should be treated as charitable donations under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code. I ask my fellow Members to join with me in clarifying the Federal Tax Code to make this a reality for these Native whaling captains.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer a bill today which would allow for the traditional fishing of Red Fish in the Katmai National Park during the months of August to October of each year by a limited number of my Alaska Native constituency in the Bristol Bay area. This bill is the result of the work of the Bristol Bay Native Association in cooperation with the Alaska Federation of Natives. This bill would allow approximately 30 to 40 local residents who live within the boundaries of the Katmai National park to fish for Red Fish during the months of August to October of each year. The ancestors of local residents who reside within the boundaries of the Park have participated in the annual harvest of Red Fish from August to early October every year. While Katmai National Park was designated a park in the 1930's, local residents were prohibited from the taking of fish except with a rod and reel. This bill would allow the local residents to again fish for a traditional dietary fish of their region. Specifically, section one defines the Katmai National Park. Section two is the provision which would allow local residents, to, again, begin their traditional fishery of Red Fish within the Katmai National Park during the months of August through October. Finally, section three addresses the effect of title and jurisdiction of tidal and submerged lands within the Katmai National Park. Mr. Speaker, I offer this bill at this time to begin the process of reviewing each of these important provisions which affect my Native constituency. I introduced an identical bill last year, H.R. 4943, and am pleased to report that I received no opposition to the intent of that bill from any State or Federal agency or from any other group which may have an interest in this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to briefly explain my bill today.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 584, a noncontroversial bill to transfer the Fairport National Fish Hatchery to the State of Iowa. This facility is an important component of Iowa's fish hatchery system. The State has operated this hatchery with their own funds since 1973, and it is one of three warm-water facilities within the State's program. The Fairport facility fills the need for several fish, including large-mouth bass, blue gills, and channel catfish. These fish are utilized throughout the State as part of their fisheries resources program. While the Iowa Department of Natural Resources wants to modernize the upgrade this facility, they cannot justify the expense of these improvements as long as the Federal Government holds title to this property. H.R. 584 was introduced by our distinguished colleague from Iowa, Jim Leach It is strongly supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which indicated by letter that the Service has ``no present, or foreseeable need for a hatchery at this site and recognizes the importance of this facility to the fishery resources program of the State of Iowa.'' I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I compliment the gentleman from Iowa for his outstanding leadership in this matter.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 614, which was introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. This legislation would transfer the ownership of the New London Fish Hatchery facility from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the State of Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources. H.R. 614 would convey all rights, title, and interest of the United States to the State of Minnesota. This includes all property, buildings, water rights, and easements of the New London facility. It is my understanding that the hatchery has been operated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the Fish and Wildlife Service under a memorandum of agreement [MOA] since 1983. This MOA, which was extended in 1993, expires in 1998. The hatchery facility is actually located on two separate pieces of land. One is located outside the town of New London and is owned within the town of New London; the State had owned the property but transferred it to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1939. Finally, the bill stipulates that this property revert back to the Federal Government if the State of Minnesota decides it no longer wishes to operate the hatchery as a fishery resources management facility. The Fish and Wildlife Service supports this transfer and I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this measure.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce today, along with a number of our colleagues, the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995. This legislation, which is the product of many months of careful deliberation, would be the first comprehensive refuge reform bill since the enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. While that landmark statute, which was authored by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, nearly 30 years ago has served our Nation well, it is time that we update that law and, by so doing, improve the management of our Nation's wildlife refuge system. At present, the system is comprised of 504 refuges, which are located in all 50 States and the 5 U.S. Territories, totaling about 91.7 million acres. These units range in size from the smallest, the 1-acre Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, to the largest, the 19.3-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In the last decade, 81 refuges and approximately 3.6 million acres have been added to the system. While millions of Americans engage in various recreational activities each year on public lands within the system, there have been several recent developments that have caused great concern. For instance, in October of 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service settled a lawsuit filed by the National Audubon Society by agreeing to undertake a comprehensive system-wide ``compatibility'' study, to expeditiously terminate certain secondary uses, and to redirect their funds away from recreational and wildlife-dependent activities. In addition, the Clinton administration has recommended that refuge funding be sharply reduced by deferring maintenance projects and upkeep of public use facilities, including trails, observation towers, and information kiosks. This recommendation is worrisome because without proper maintenance, the service may prohibit certain uses on our refuge lands. While it is appropriate to periodically review the compatibility of certain activities, there is no statutory list of purposes for the national wildlife refuge system and no statutory definition of what constitutes a compatible use of a refuge. Without this guidance, individual wildlife managers have broad discretion to prevent or disallow recreational activities which do not materially affect the purposes of the refuge or the refuge system. In fact, earlier this week my committee held a hearing on a bill to transfer the management of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge to the State of Oklahoma. The overriding reason for H.R. 1112 was a decision by the local refuge manager to prohibit boating, camping, fishing, and picnicking in portions of the people from enjoying activities that have occurred since the refuge was created nearly 50 years ago. It is time to manage the refuge system on a nationwide basis and to make compatibility determinations based on clear statutory language and not emotion or individual bias. Another issue that has caused great concern for many Americans involves the Fish and Wildlife Service's refuge land acquisition policy. When a new refuge is created or additional acreage is added to an existing unit, all traditional activities, including fishing and hunting, are prohibited until a management plan is completed. This can take several years and, in the meantime, millions of Americans are denied the opportunity to enjoy the natural resources that exist on these lands. Finally, while the number of refuges continues to increase, there is no requirement to complete a conservation plan for each refuge. In my judgment, these plans are essential because they would identify the purposes of the refuge; the fish, wildlife, and plant populations; their habitats; any archaeological values; opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation; potential sites for administrative or visitors facilities; and ways to correct or mitigate any problems. The general public would be strongly encouraged to participate in the writing of these plans. Our Nation's wildlife refuge system must be managed more effectively in the future. This system, which was first envisioned by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, needs to have a statutory list of purposes, uniform guidelines to determine what activities are permissible, comprehensive conservation plans, and the enthusiastic support of the American people who finance this system not only with the payment of their tax dollars, but also by purchasing duck stamps and paying excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment. These are the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995. This legislation will build upon and improve current law by: making wildlife-dependent recreation, including fishing and hunting, a purpose of the refuge system; defining the term ``compatible use''; allowing historical uses to continue on newly acquired lands unless those uses are determined to be incompatible; requiring conservation plans for each refuge within 15 years; providing that fishing and hunting are permitted unless a finding is made that these activities are inconsistent with either the purpose of the refuge or public safety; and emphasizing a cooperative relationship with the States who have primacy on the management of fish and wildlife. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will restore the wildlife refuge system to the goals and intent of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. It will ensure that this system is alive and well for all our constituents in the 21st century. This measure has been endorsed by the California Waterfowl Association, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. Furthermore, the views of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Wildlife Management Institute have been sought and incorporated into this process. I would urge my colleagues to join with me, John Dingell, Jim Hansen, Bill Brewster, John Doolittle, Billy Tauzin, Pete Geren, Solomon Ortiz, Elton Gallegly, Jimmy Hayes, Ken Calvert, Blanche Lambert Lincoln, J.D. Hayworth, Frank Cremeans, Barbara Cubin, Wes Cooley, John Shadegg, and J.C. Watts in this important effort by cosponsoring the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate both the Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services and the National Bank of Alaska for being nationally recognized by the Social Compact in its 1995 Outstanding Community Investment Awards program for their partnership achievement: the rehabilitation of a historic downtown property into a mixed-use rental and retail development. ANHS and NBA were selected from over 160 applicants from across the country for their highly effective and innovative community investment strategies. The project, known as the Loussac-Sogn Limited Partnership, marked a series of firsts in Anchorage: National Bank of Alaska [NBA] was the first financial institution in Alaska to purchase historic and low- income housing tax credits, Loussac-Sogn was the first housing built downtown since 1980, and it was the first limited partnership between a nonprofit and financial institution to provide for the housing needs of low-income individuals. The shortage of affordable housing in Anchorage is critical. Significant increases in number of low- and moderate-income residents and a concurrent loss of almost 1,000 substandard housing units between 1988 and 1990 created the severe shortage. A decline in per capita income caused by a shift in the economy from oil-based jobs to service jobs also contributed to the problem. The affordable housing available in the Loussac-Sogn Single Rental Occupancy [SRO] building is helping alleviate the situation. Located in Anchorage's downtown business district, this historically significant, 42,000 square foot art moderne structure was rehabilitated and preserved according to national historic standards. The building will be placed on the National Historic Register in 1996. It includes retail businesses on the ground floor and 52 renovated and furnished single room occupancy housing units on the upper floors. Residents, very-low income adults, will stay at Loussac-Sogn as the first step in a continuum of housing provided by Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services [ANHS]. Support services, provided through a case management system, will also help the residents more successfully bridge a transitional period before finding permanent, independent housing. The project could not have been completed without NBA's leadership and participation throughout the process. They assisted with the complex acquisition of the land and building. The bank convinced the landowner that the creation of low-income housing would be within its purpose as a charitable organization, and then they negotiated with the building's owners to settle litigation so that it could sell the property to ANHS at a reasonable price. NBA also provided funds in acquisition and renovation equity and a construction loan with $1.55 million in financing through the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. The additional financing needed to complete Loussac-Sogn was obtained through taxable bond financing and grants from the local historic preservation nonprofit, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle. NBA also stepped in with needed support when ANHS assumed the role of general contractor in order to address unexpected hazardous materials abatement requirements. The Loussac-Sogn SRO is an asset and enhancement of downtown Anchorage. The residents take an active part in the community and focus on particular problems such as crime prevention. Thanks to Loussac- Sogn, businesses have learned about the positive effects of low-income housing.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations and its subcommittees be permitted to sit tomorrow while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule. It is my understanding the minority has been consulted and there is no objection to this request.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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, and include extraneous material, on H.R. 1266, the bill just passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, their land has no longer any value because the Government has decided it is wetland. If anything I have heard enough about the Government today, in the last 3 or 4 weeks, if you wonder why there is an unrest out there, and it does exist today, regardless of what our President says or what I hear from certain Members on this floor of the House, is because of the heavy-handedness and the lack of recognition of this Congress that the individual rights of a person or a select group of individuals who were given property by this Congress has to be protected, yet we do not recognize that. I am going to suggest to the gentleman from New York you have got to go out and walk in their moccasins; he ought to be able to look at their land, and say, ``We gave it to you, but we are going to take it back because I think it is wetland. For the good of the environment, we are going to protect it.'' I say to the gentleman from New York that is absolutely immoral and wrong. We have an opportunity in the original bill, as passed out of this committee as a good bill, to protect those wetlands, and those are the good wetlands that will be protected, but if, in fact, in the national interest they are that valuable, that individual shall be compensated. This amendment should be voted down, turned down overwhelmingly.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear for the record: There is no National Governors' Association support for this legislation. There has not been, and there is none today. I would like to go through what the gentleman has just stated. What is wrong with the amendment? In the amendment there is no reform to wetlands delineation criteria. That is a fact. There is no recognition of different wetland values in the processing of permits. That is a fact. There is no compensation of property owners for devaluation of the properties. I want to stress that again. The one thing that has driven this amendment process and the bill process has been this Government is under attack today imposing their thoughts and their wisdom upon the private property holders without compensation. That is not in the amendment. It, in fact, does not compensate the private property landholders at all. It, in fact, does not reform the wetlands program at all. It adds to the existing programs that exist today which become so burdensome. It has serious implications regarding Federal land use and planning regarding nonpoint sources, which reminds me, I just received a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation strongly opposing this amendment, in fact, all amendments to the bill that is truly a clean water bill; H.R. 961 creates true ecological clean water policy. And I can also suggest that is not the only one, that says this amendment that is being offered today is totally wrong. We can go all the way through this list of about 16 other different groups that are not manufacturing groups that strongly oppose this, most of them agricultural groups. The amendments were written by and for wetlands by regulatory bureaucrats. I want to stress that. This amendment was written by regulatory bureaucrats. It was not written by the gentleman from New York. It was written by this individual bureaucratic group that insists that their position is the right position. And, in fact, this amendment guts the reforms of H.R. 961 that we tried to achieve. Now, that is what is wrong with the amendment. Now, I also, if I may say, Mr. Chairman, we were notified last Thursday that if anyone wishes to debate this issue should be on the floor tonight. We were also notified it followed that any votes would be taken upon suspension of the rules. There were no votes today, because no one asked for them. I want to clear that up for the record. Let us go over that H.R. 961 really does in section 404. It represents a long overdue reform of the troubled wetlands regulatory section of the 404 program. The regulatory burdens are currently excessive, and costs in time and money too often do not result in significant environmental benefits. Title VIII, modeled after the earlier version of H.R. 1330, and by the way, 6 sponsors of that bill are now Governors [[Page H4941]] of States, 6 sponsors of the original bill 2 years ago are now Governors of States, the major reforms made by H.R. 961 include wetlands must be clarified based on relative value and to be regulated accordingly. Wetlands must have a reasonable relationship to water. No longer any 10,000-foot mountains can be considered wetlands, nor that sloping hills around Juneau can no longer be considered wetlands, and we cannot build a school. A property owner must be compensated for regulatory action that significantly devalues his property, and that is the Supreme Court decision and is what should be put into law. Property owners are allowed to appeal agency decisions. States are encouraged to share the responsibility in implementing the program. Permit requirements are routine; for routine and minor activities are eliminated. Mr. Chairman, this, as it is written, is a good bill. Now, the gentleman from New York had an opportunity in the committee to offer his amendment to the committee and was defeated overwhelmingly by a bipartisan effort because I have heard that word used here today. In fact, 13 of the 26 Democrats voted against his amendment, plus I believe, of our side, only 4 were voted on his side of the amendment. One of the weaknesses of this system is we have amendments after public hearing offered in the committee process, soundly defeated, and yet people are allowed to bring them to the floor, bring them to the floor and discuss them supposedly after they have been decided in the committee they do not have great worth or value. I am suggesting, very frankly, this is a mischievous amendment to destroy something that is very crucial to this bill. And, last, it is hard for me to keep away from it, that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York neglects to acknowledge the right of private property owners and the right of States that own land and the rights of the individual American native that acquired the lands from this Congress. He now tells those people that were given land by this body that their land is of no value, because they, the bureaucrats, have decided it is a wetland.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will yield, what is the date of the letter?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] for his work and cooperation on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Greens Creek Land Exchange Act of 1995. This act will approve a land exchange agreement between the U.S. Forest Service and Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co. (``Kennecott''). These lands surround the Greens Creek Mine, a zinc-lead-silver-gold mine, located on Admiralty Island in southeast Alaska. The land exchange agreement is the product of a nearly 10-year-long negotiation between the two parties. Under the Greens Creek Land Exchange Agreement, Kennecott receives the right to mine mineral deposits on about 7,500 acres of land, located in Admiralty Island National Monument. In return, Kennecott will: First, pay a royalty to the Federal Government on any production from these lands, and second, purchase and donate to the U.S. Forest Service 1 million dollars' worth of inholdings located within the Admiralty National Monument--an amount of land equal in value to the land received under the agreement. The royalty is based on the value received from 1 sales after deduction of shipping, smelting, and refining charges. The royalty has two tiers depending on the value of the ore. When metal prices are average or better, the royalty will be 3 percent, and at low metal prices, the royalty will be three-quarters of 1 percent. This two-tier royalty will encourage the Greens Creek Mine to continue operation in times of low metal prices. This land exchange will help promote sound economic and environmentally responsible resource development, support land consolidation in conservation system units within the Tongass National Forest, and raise revenues for the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1266 and thank George Miller for his leadership in the effort to approve this land exchange agreement. I look forward to the successful completion of the Greens Creek land exchange and hope that it will help provide new economic opportunities for those who live in southeast Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the text of the Greens Creek Land Exchange Agreement: Agreement This Agreement, by and between Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation (``KGCMC'') and The United States of America, by and through the U.S.D.A. Forest Service (``USFS''), dated , 1994. Whereas, on December 2, 1980, Congress established the Admiralty Island National Monument (the ``Monument'') by enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (``ANILCA'') (P.L. 96-487): Whereas, the Monument was established as part of the Tongass National Forest for the purpose of protecting objects of ecological, cultural, geological, historical, prehistorical and scientific interest, in particular its wildlife and supporting habitats; Whereas, Congress designated approximately nine hundred thousand acres of the Monument as wilderness under ANILCA; Whereas approximately 17,000 acres of the Monument was designated as non-wilderness to permit the development of a silver, lead, zinc and gold deposit; Whereas, KGCMC, as manager of the Greens Creek Joint Venture (``GCJV'') has developed the Greens Creek Mine (the ``Mine'') on 17 claims which were located prior to the establishment of the Monument (the ``Existing Claims''); Whereas, operation of the Greens Creek Mine, which is located approximately 15 miles from Juneau, Alaska, can produce 450,000 tons of ore per year and contribute over 265 jobs to the local economy of Southeast Alaska; Whereas, KGCMC hopes that the life of the Mine and the jobs it provides can be extended by further exploration and development of subsurface lands within the non-wilderness portion of the Monument adjacent to the Existing Claims; Whereas, such development can occur without significant adverse environmental effects by utilizing existing facilities of the mine for the most part and minimizing surface disturbance on Monument lands; Whereas, further exploration and potential development of the Mine can be accomplished without significant impact to the Monument and its purposes; Whereas, KGCMC has proposed a land exchange to acquire rights to explore and mine adjacent subsurface lands in return for conveyance to the United States, through the USFS, of important private inholdings located within the Monument and/or other Conservation System Units within the Tongass National Forest, the assignment to the United States of a royalty interest in the returns from any future development from mining the lands acquired by KGCMC through the exchange, and a restrictive covenant and future interest in the Existing Claims, Mill Site #1 (MS 2514), and other lands held by KGCMC located on Admiralty Island; Whereas, the result of such land exchange would include consolidation of Federal land ownership in the Monument Wilderness in return for the right through title to explore and mine the subsurface lands adjacent to the Mine within the existing non-wilderness area of the Monument, in an environmentally sound manner. Whereas, the accomplishment of such land exchange for the purposes of Conservation System Unit consolidation and for the purpose of permitting further exploration and development of the Greens Creek Mine is in the pubic interest under the terms of Section 1302(h) of ANILCA; and Whereas, this land exchange is being accomplished under the land exchange authority of Section 1302(h) of ANILCA: Now, therefore, the parties to this Agreement agree as follows: 1. General Description of the Exchange. The USFS agrees to exchange the mineral estate, subject to a future interest and other provisions of this Agreement, in 7500 acres, more of less, of subsurface public land (the ``Exchange Properties'') delineated on a map and description title ``KGCMC Exchange Properties'' dated March 26, 1993, designated Exhibit A of this Agreement. KGCMC agrees to exchange in return: i) title, or alternatively, funds to acquire title, to private inholdings (``Exchange Inholdings'') totalling no less than $1,000,000 in fair market value from lands located within Admiralty Island National Monument and, if necessary, other Conservation System Units within the Tongass National Forest, from a list titled ``KGCMC Exchange Inholdings'' dated November 6, 1993, designated Exhibit B hereto; ii) a royalty interest in ``Net Island Receipts'' realized from the sale of minerals that may be mined from the Exchange Properties, (excluding those minerals which are property of KGCMC by operation of extralateral rights); and iii) a restrictive covenant and future interest in the Existing Claims, Millsite #1 (MS 2514), and any other lands held by KGCMC located on Admiralty Island. The specific interests to be exchanged and terms and conditions thereto are described elsewhere in this Agreement. 2. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by both parties and approval by Act of Congress. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of enactment of Federal legislation approving this exchange. 3. Termination. In the event the exchange closing described in Section 4.A is not completed within seven years from the effective date of this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate and become null and void upon expiration of seven years from the effective date. The terms of this Agreement shall otherwise be incorporated in the conveyances completed pursuant to this Agreement. Both parties state their intent to exert reasonable best efforts to complete the exchange closing as soon as practicable in advance of seven years from the effective date. 4. Exchange Details. A. there shall be a single exchange closing. At the closing, the following conveyance shall occur: (i)(a) the United States shall receive fee title via general warranty deeds to the surface and subsurface estate of Exchange Inholdings totalling no less than $1,000,000 in fair market value, subject only to any reservations, exceptions, or conditions approved prior to closing by the USFS. Upon conveyance, each Exchange Inholding shall become Conservation System Unit having exterior boundaries within which the Inholding is located. (b) In the event that the Congress enacts legislation establishing a special fund in the Treasury for the deposit of monies to be available until expended, without further appropriation, for the acquisition by the Forest Service of lands and interests in lands within the exterior boundaries of Admiralty Island National Monument or other Conservation System Units within the Tongass National Forest, KGCMC shall, in lieu of the conveyances described in (i)(a), pay to the United States the sum of $1,100,000 at the closing, for deposit in said fund. Monies from said fund shall be available for the purchase of lands and interests in lands and related administrative costs. (ii) KGCMC shall receive title to the entire interest of the United States in the form of a patent upon completion, at KGCMC expense, of a survey meeting Bureau of Land Management standards, to the Exchange Properties, comprising the subsurface mineral estate of the lands described in Exhibit A, along with rights appurtenant to such estate identical to those provided for an ``unperfected claim'' as defined in section 504 of ANILCA (16 U.S.C. 432 note) once patent to the minerals of such claim is conveyed by the United States. Provided, the Exchange Properties conveyance shall specifically reserve the restrictive covenant and future interest in the United States as described in Section 8, and shall specifically except extralateral rights as described in Section 4.B; The Exchange Properties conveyance shall furthermore be specifically subject to: a. valid existing rights; b. the covenants described in Sections 4.C. and 4.D; c. the Net Island Receipts interest described in Section 6 and Exhibit C hereto; including but not limited to the right of USFS to enter and inspect the Exchange Properties as provided in Exhibit C hereto; d. a coextensive right of USFS to enter and inspect the Exchange Properties to monitor compliance with Sections 4.B and 4.C; The Exchange Properties conveyance shall be furthermore subject only to any other exceptions, reservations, or conditions approved prior to closing by KGCMC. B. The parties expressly agree that no extralateral rights for the Exchange Properties shall be conveyed under the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not enlarge nor diminish any extralateral rights which KGCMC may now have or in the future establish with respect to its existing claims. C. The parties expressly agree that no minerals extracted from the Exchange Properties other than hardrock and metalliferous minerals available for location and patent under the general mining laws of the United States (30 U.S.C. 21-53 et seq.) may be sold for commercial purposes. Any other mineral or mineral material on the Exchange Properties may be extracted and utilized by KGCMC in the exploration, development, mining and beneficiation process of Existing Claims and Exchange Properties for hard rock and metalliferous minerals, without payment to the United States. D. Use and occupancy by KGCMC, its successors, or assigns of the surface overlying the Exchange Properties shall be limited as follows: (1) Use and occupancy of the surface estate overlying the Exchange Properties shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable, including but not limited to consolidating facilities and operations to the maximum extent practicable with facilities and operations related to the existing Greens Creek Mine, and reclamation in accordance with applicable law and regulation. (2) There shall be no use or occupancy of the surface estate overlying the Exchange Properties until the operator, as defined in the regulations referenced herein, has applied for and received approval of a plan of operations, including reclamation, in accordance with the provisions of 36 CFR 228.80 and 36 CFR 228, Subpart A in effect on the effective date of this Agreement. (3) There shall be no use or occupancy of the surface estate overlying the Exchange Properties for purposes of open pit, hydraulic, or other surface mining, or smelting operations. (4) Neither the existence of privately owned minerals nor any provision of this Agreement shall be construed to preclude the United States and its assigns, including the general public, from occupancy or use of the surface estate overlying the Exchange Properties. The USFS shall as appropriate impose reasonable restrictions upon public occupancy and use for purposes of avoiding conflict with KGCMC operations, to protect public safety, or for other purposes. This provisions shall not be construed to alter respective tort liability, if any, between USFS and KGCMC or other entities under applicable law. E. Evidence of title to Exchange Inholdings shall be in a form acceptable to and in conformance with standards of the Attorney General of the United States. F. USFS shall bear its own attorney fees, costs of document preparation for conveyance of the Exchange Properties to KGCMC, and costs of recording documents conveying Exchange Inholdings and other property interests to the United States. KGCMC shall bear all other closing costs, including abstract of title or title insurance, transfer taxes, brokerage fees, its attorney fees and recording costs. KGCMC shall also bear the cost of survey required for issuance of patent to the Exchange Properties and any survey required by the United States to complete conveyance of any Exchange Inholdings to the United States. Provided, if USFS completes the acquisition of Exchange Inholdings pursuant to Section 4.A(i)(b), the USFS shall bear all closing costs for the Exchange Inholdings. All costs borne by KGCMC pursuant to this paragraph shall not be credited against the $1,000,000, Net Island Receipts interest, or other consideration owing to the United States under this Agreement. The provisions of Public Law No. 91-646 shall not apply to this Agreement. KGCMC shall not be construed as an agent of the United States in acquiring Exchange Inholdings or otherwise under this Agreement. G. The USFS agrees to cooperate with KGCMC in attempting to effect the transactions contemplated herein as tax free exchanges pursuant to Section 1031 of the I.R.C. (26 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.), but expressly disclaims any jurisdiction to determine or influence Internal Revenue Service determinations of the tax consequences of any transactions. 5. Valuation of Exchange Inholdings A. Attached as Exhibit B of this Agreement is a list of the properties which the USFS lists as qualified for conveyance as Exchange Inholdings. KGCMC shall be permitted to acquire and designate any such properties as Exchange Inholdings and convey or cause to be conveyed to the USFS such properties as is necessary to effect the Exchange. No particular lands are required to be conveyed, and there is no priority for these potential Exchange Inholdings except as described in Section C below. B. The fair market value of each Exchange Inholding shall be the lesser of the actual amount paid for the Inholding by KGCMC, excluding closing costs borne by KGCMC described in Section 4.E above, or the fair market value adjusted to the effective date of this Agreement, determined by an appraisal. The appraisal for each Exchange Inholding shall be completed by KGCMC at its own expense and the appraisal report provided to USFS no sooner than 1 year and no later than 60 days in advance of closing for the Inholding concerned, for review and approval. Said appraisal shall be completed according to the then current Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. In the event KGCMC is not able to acquire Exchange Inholdings totalling exactly $1,000,000 in fair market value, KGCMC shall be obligated without further consideration to convey and bear the expense of acquiring any additional Exchange Inholding required to bring the total fair market value of the Exchange Inholdings conveyed to at least $1,000,000. C. Exhibit B is divided into two parts: Part A lists lands located within Admiralty Island National Monument. Part B lists lands located within other Conservation System Units within the Tongass National Forest. KGCMC shall use reasonable efforts to acquire lands from the Part A list when available at fair market value and only acquire lands from the Part B list upon a determination by the USFS that lands from the Part A list are not available at fair market value after such reasonable efforts. KGCMC shall otherwise consult and cooperate with USFS in identifying opportunities of acquisition at fair market value of particular lands listed in Exhibit B, and use reasonable efforts to acquire such lands. 6. Net Island Receipts Royalty Interest--The Parties agree that the United States shall receive a percentage of the Net Island Receipts from mineral production from the Exchange Properties as described in Exhibit C of this Agreement. The United States shall be provided reasonable access by KGCMC to the Exchange Properties and any books, records, documents, and mineral samples, to audit the payment of the Net Island Receipts interest as provided in Exhibit C. 7. Existing Extralateral Rights--This Agreement, including the grant of the Net Island Receipts interest described in paragraph 6 and Exhibit C shall not enlarge or diminish any rights KGCMC may now have or in the future establish to minerals lying with the Exchange Properties through application of extralateral rights extending from KGCMC's Existing Claims. The Net Island Receipts interest to be granted to the United States under this agreement shall not burden, nor entitle the United States to any monies realized by KGCMC from the sale of concentrates or other mineral products from ores, the title to which belongs to KGCMC by operation of extralateral rights extending from KGCMC's existing claims and property interests. 8. Restrictive Covenant and Future Interest in the United States. A. KGCMC shall grant the United States a restrictive covenant and future interest in (i) the Existing Claims; (ii) Millsite #1 (MS 2514); and (iii) the Exchange Properties, and the right to a future interest in (iv) the ``Future Acquired Lands,'' defined as follows: any lands on Admiralty Island to which KGCMC, its successors, or assigns acquires title after the effective date of this agreement and prior to the vesting of title in the United States as defined in Section 8.B. occurs, excepting Exchange Inholdings conveyed to the United States pursuant to this Agreement. The grant shall be effected by: (1) a conveyance by deed regarding the Existing Claims and Millsite; (ii) a reservation and/or exception in the conveyance from the [[Page H4922]] United States regarding the Exchange Properties; and (iii) a contractual right to conveyance by deed upon KGCMC acquiring title, regarding the Future Acquired Lands. KGCMC shall grant the restrictive covenant and future interest and rights thereto described herein at the exchange closing. B. The terms of the restrictive covenant and future interest to be granted to the United States in Section 8.A. are as follows: (1) Restrictive Covenant: Use of the subject lands by KGCMC, its successors, and assigns shall be limited solely to bona fide good faith mineral exploration, development, and production activities, including reclamation work. This covenant shall run with the land until such time as the vesting of title to the United States occurs. (2) Future interest: Right of Reentry: The United States shall have a right to reenter and take title and possession to all right, title, and interest in the subject lands upon the following, whichever occurs earlier: (a) abandonment by KGCMC, its successors, or assigns, of all bona fide good faith mineral exploration, development, and production activities, including reclamation work, on each and all of i) the Existing Claims; ii) Millsite #1 (MS 2514); iii) the Exchange Properties; and iv) the Future Acquired Lands. Complete cessation for ten consecutive years of all bona fide good faith mineral exploration, development, and production activities, including reclamation work, on all the lands listed in i) through iv) herein, shall be conclusively deemed to constitute abandonment, without prejudice to abandonment occurring otherwise. (b) January 1, 2045; if as of December 1, 2044, KGCMC, its successors, or assigns are not engaged in bona fide good faith mineral exploration, production, or production activities, including reclamation work, on any of the lands listed in (i) through (iv) in (a) above. (c) January 1, 2095, irrespective of any ongoing activities and subject to the right of reentry occurring sooner based upon abandonment as described in (a) above. The right of reentry and all other terms herein shall not in any way relieve KGCMC, its successors, or assigns of obligations described in Section 9 [indemnity] of other obligation otherwise applicable. 9. Hazardous Waste and other Indemnity. KGCMC, Kennecott Corporation, and their successors and assigns shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the United States, its various agencies and employees, from any damage, loss, claim, fines, penalties, and costs whatsoever arising in any way and at any time from any use, occupancy or activities, past, present or future (provided said use, occupancy, or activities occur no later than the time at which title reverts to the United States), by any entity, on the Exchange Inholdings, Existing Claims, Millsite #1 (MS 2514) and other property in which a restrictive covenant and future interest is granted to the United States under this Agreement, specifically including, but not limited to: (a) those activities by which hazardous substances, hazardous materials, or wastes of any kind were generated, released, stored, used, or otherwise disposed on the described property or facility thereon, and (b) any response or natural resource damage actions conducted pursuant to any federal, state, or local environmental law, regulation, or rule, and related in any manner to said hazardous substances, hazardous materials, or wastes. 10. Disclaimer of Value Warranty. The parties expressly disclaim any warranty of value for any of the lands or interests exchanged under this Agreement. It is expressly recognized by the parties that potential revenues or proceeds from any of the lands or interests exchanged herein are purely speculative. 11. Loss or Damage Prior to Conveyance. Both parties agree not to do, or suffer others to do, any act prior to the conveyance described in this Agreement by which the value of the real property herein identified for exchange may be diminished or further encumbered. In the event any such loss or damage occurs from any cause, including acts of God, to the real property herein identified for exchange before execution of deed, the party who is grantee under this Agreement as to that property shall not be obligated to accept title to said property, and an equitable adjustment in the consideration shall be made at the option of said party. Information obtained from exploratory drilling or other acts otherwise authorized shall not be construed as diminishing or further encumbering the identified property, for purposes of this Agreement. 12. Status Quo Ante. In the event this Agreement becomes null and void prior to the completion of the exchange closing by operation of its terms or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, the parties shall return to their status and rights prior to execution of the Agreement. 13. Notices--Notices required to be delivered under this Agreement shall be delivered in writing by U.S. mail, hand delivery with return receipt, or fax with confirmation as follows:

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 and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1266) to provide for the exchange of lands within Admiralty Island National Monument, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I could only echo what the gentleman just said. There is a way we can work on many of these issues and solve the problem if we seek to do so. The gentleman from Hawaii has always been able to work with me on his issues especially in his great State. We have a great deal in common. We hope to solve some of his problems with the Hawaiian natives which we have also solved in Alaska. I do compliment him. I may suggest to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member, we ought to let the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] manage these bills more often. 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. Chairman. My amendment will revise section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act to allow the city of Anchorage which has a waiver of secondary treatment to be relieved of the 30-percent BOD removal requirement. This requirement puts a tremendous burden on the city. EPA requires the Anchorage Wastewater Utility to remove 30 percent of organic material from sewage before it can be discharged. Meeting this requirement for Anchorage has been extremely difficult because sewage inflow is very clean. In 1991, the utility was approached by 2 fish processors who wanted to discharge 5,000 pounds of fish guts into the system daily. Anchorage approved the request and it made it easier to meet the 30 percent requirement. The discharge was less clean, but the EPA requirement was satisfied. This is a perfect example of why we need cost benefit analysis in our laws. The cost for Anchorage is $180,000 per year in increased operating expenses. They will be required to spend more than $4 million within the next 2 years. All this while spending $1 million over 6 years to monitor outflows to ensure there is no negative impact from the discharge. Had their been some flexibility in the law, Anchorage could have avoided millions of unnecessary expenditures. I urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman is correct.

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