Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1492) to direct the Administrator of General Services, on behalf of the Archivist of the United States, to convey certain Federal property located in the State of Alaska to the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 1492.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the record, this is the same bill that has passed this House twice unanimously. It was over in the Senate, and they sent it back to us. It is a very simple bill that would direct the General Services Administration, on behalf of the National Archives, to convey property to Alaska, to the city of Anchorage. I am pleased that the sponsor of the House companion bill, as I mentioned before, has been passed by the House twice and has now been sent back to my senator, Senator Dan Sullivan. The National Archives has determined that it no longer needs the property and wants to sell it as part of its efforts to shrink its real estate footprint and reduce the costs to the taxpayer. The bill will require fair market value for the property based on an independent appraisal. The proceeds will be deposited into the Treasury and will be used for deficit reduction. This bill is in line with what we have been urging all Federal agencies to do--consolidate and reduce their space and sell unneeded properties. The municipality of Anchorage requested this land be made available, and the city council passed a resolution that thanks the delegation for supporting this legislation. I am very excited to get this land into the hands of the municipality of Anchorage for development purposes. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I urge its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Cora Alice ``Cam'' McCarrey Bohman for her 50th year in music instruction in the state of Alaska. I would like to recognize Cam for her dedication and contributions to music education throughout her career in Tok and Anchorage. Thousands of Alaskan youths state-wide have benefitted from Cam's work. She has served in both middle school and high school as a choir teacher, community choral director, vocal coach, music adjudicator, and music director. Cam continues to serve as the Music Coordinator for the Alaska School Activities Association. This year, Cam received the 2016 ``Alaska's Mother of Achievement'' award from the national organization, American Mothers. This award recognizes ``those outstanding women whose positive influence, talents, and community service have made a significant impact in the lives of children and families.'' Cam's alumni music students nominated her for the award. I would also like to note that in 2014, Cam received the State of Alaska Governor's award for arts advocacy. These are only two examples of Cam's many honors. Cam inspired countless students to join choir, and each school year her classes reached the all-time high of about 300 total students. Recently, students at South High School in Anchorage made a documentary titled ``Unwritten Song'' to highlight the importance of elective teachers and featured Cam's influence on generations of Alaskans. I commend Cam for her 50 years of service and know she will continue to make Alaska a better place through her excellence.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment Mr. Newhouse on introducing this amendment. These roads were built with taxpayer dollars, yet the Forest Service arbitrarily goes in and shuts those roads down so people don't have access to them. We have the same problem in our forests in Alaska: no notification, and then they will spend millions of dollars closing down a road that the public had access to. Their excuse is: well, it is our land. We don't have to worry about other people using this road now, so we will just isolate everybody from it. So I compliment the gentleman for the introduction of his amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a relatively complicated amendment in the sense that a lot of people don't have any history of the Alaska National Lands Act. My amendment prohibits the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service from issuing a final ruling that would seize authority from the State of Alaska's Alaska Fish and Game to manage fish and game on all lands. That was under ANILCA. My amendment also withdraws the existing National Park Service rule that interferes with State wildlife management authority under the National Preserve Lands of Alaska, agreed to by this Congress. The Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act, ANILCA, passed by Congress, signed into law in 1980, protects the ability of the State of Alaska to manage wildlife across the State on State, private, and Federal lands. As Alaska's lone Representative and someone who was intimately involved in the process of producing ANILCA, an agreement with my colleagues, it is my conclusion that the proposed rule set forth by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Park Service is in clear violation of Federal law. The scope of the proposed Fish and Wildlife Service rule is enormous. There are 76.8 million acres of wildlife refuges in Alaska, an amount of land about the size of four Michigans, at least two or three Virginias, and on top of that there is 20 million acres of national preserves in Alaska, a total of 100 million acres in the State of Alaska. But when that agreement was set out, we were to retain management of fish and game on all lands, and that is in the law. Very frankly, my colleagues, this is a regulatory overreach by this administration, promoted by this administration, breaking the law. Now, the Fish and Wildlife Service asserts their actions are allowed by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. However, as the original sponsor of that act, I can knowingly and affirmatively state that the Fish and Wildlife Service proposal goes beyond the original intent of my legislation that was passed by this House. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act specifically states that ANILCA takes priority over any other conflicts regarding refuge lands in the State of Alaska. I find it somewhat concerning that the Fish and Wildlife would cite a law which forbids them from taking such actions and then say the justification is because of the law. It is not. This is a special interest pressuring group that says that Fish and Wildlife will take away the States' rights. If you believe in States' rights, you will take and support this amendment that I am offering. If you believe in the Federal Government only, not the United States of America, the United States as the Federal Government, you will oppose this amendment. I am asking my colleagues to think about what is occurring here: the overreach of this Federal Government that has taken away the rights of States and is continuing to try to do it. I urge the passage of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, it always interests me when some people try to undo something that has already occurred legally. Legally, these bears were taken under license of the Canadian Government. Legally, they should have been allowed to be imported. And then, Secretary Kempthorne listed the polar bear as a threatened species. They are not endangered. In fact, we have a study now that the polar bear population has increased, not decreased. The point is, these are 41 hides that were shot legally by individual hunters under the auspices of the Canadian law with proper guiding facilities, proper taxidermy facilities, and these bears are dead. By the way, as these dead bears come to the United States, they create money to take and help conserve the rest of the live bears. If I was out buying something or it was given to me and it was declared illegal later on, I can't keep it? This is silliness. This is a good part of this bill. It rectifies something that was done legally for hunters that did their hunting legally. Now we are saying that for human purposes, for the protection of the polar bear, we are not going to allow those 41 hides to come back into the United States that were shot legally? We are not going to collect the money we used to save polar bears from these legally shot bears. This is not about the future. And by the way, Fish and Wildlife sort of likes this program. I am always amazed that somebody is going to save a species that is not endangered--in fact, is not threatened--because they are going to save dead bears from coming into the United States that were shot legally. I oppose this amendment. It is a mischievous amendment. This amendment was backed by the Humane Society. Of course they are going to support her amendment, but the fact is they were shot legally. They should be allowed to be brought back in the country, as they were shot under the Government of Canada's auspices. So let's reject this amendment. Let's stick to the facts, not emotions.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, may I remind my good friend from Michigan--and she is a dear friend and her husband is a dear friend of mine, he voted for my bill, ANILCA--it is the law. It was an agreement that the State would manage. By the way, it is against the law to shoot species of animals from a boat. This doesn't change that. It changes the management concept. It is overreach by the Federal Government. It is overreach by Fish and Wildlife. They would not be fish and wildlife managers anymore. They are becoming the preservationist group without the management ability in the State that lives there. I am not changing anything other than just the fact that the State still has authority under ANILCA. He voted for it. I am suggesting, respectfully, if you want the Federal Government to manage everything, 100 million acres that we agreed that we could manage in the ANILCA law, the State, if you want the government to take that all over, let's just give the government all the land. Let's stop having free land. You talk about being public land, the public that lives there, they want the State to manage the land. So far they have done a great job. As far as shooting bears, that is against the law in the State of Alaska. Now, why are we saying that? Because it is emotionally acceptable. So let's stick to the facts. This is a fact. Do you want the administration, the government to manage all lands or do you want to follow the law that we passed in this Congress? The law. We have a tendency here to forget what happened, this Congress. Look at the history of ANILCA. It was a compromise. A lot of it I objected to, but we passed it in this House and it was accepted by the State with the understanding that the State would manage fish and game and not the Federal Government. By the way, the Park Service in the State of Alaska, the Fish and Wildlife in the State of Alaska, in the beginning the BLM are not partners anymore. It is all run from Washington, D.C.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I always admired my friend from California, who doesn't know squat about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. That is the truth. He may have camped out in it, but he didn't camp out in the area which we would like to drill for oil, which this Congress set aside for that purpose. By the way, we did pass opening ANWR 11 times. This Congress did it. And it got stopped in the Senate every time but one. Bill Clinton, bless his heart, vetoed it. We have 18 billion barrels of oil--that is a minimum estimate--74 miles away from an existing pipeline on the coastal plain. You say, well, we don't need the oil now. I heard that in 1960. We didn't need the oil, but it went all the way up to $4.50 for gasoline at the pump. This is a reserve set aside by Scoop Jackson--a Democrat--myself, and Ted Stevens so it would be potentially there for development when Congress acts. You want to include this as a wilderness area in the bill on the behalf and behest of a group of people that really don't understand this. You say Alaska supports your amendment? In that case, I won't be back here next year. Don't applaud. Don't keep that in mind. I have been running, now, longer than anybody in this House except for one other man. Apparently, Alaska does support this ANWR provision. It is Federal oil. It is not our oil. We have infrastructure in place right now that can be used to move that oil if and when it is needed. I am glad the gentleman said only the Congress can designate this, because your Fish and Wildlife Service recommended it all be wilderness--another act of this administration. I happen to agree, very frankly, that the Congress will vote some day. And, by the way, if you want to get rid of me, take a vote to open it up, and I might retire. But until that time, I am staying here, because it is right for this Nation. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I always listen to these well- written arguments by the Sierra Club and others that like to take this Nation to its knees, which is a reality. We talk about the petroleum reserve set-aside. It was a reserve set aside for use by this Nation. And they are drilling. They are drilling today. ConocoPhillips is going in. Ironically, for some reason, the sales that were put up by this administration are not where they wanted to drill. I have an old saying--and people laugh at me when I say it: you don't hunt rabbits on a pool table just because it is green. All right. You don't drill oil if it is not there. Ironically, this administration, bless their hearts, put up sales where there was nothing there. It was like the pool table. So why would the oil company drill? They can't and will not. And I always ask them: Why don't you ask the oil companies where they would like to drill? We can't do that because someone has asked us to preserve that great area. The other area is just as pretty, but it doesn't have any oil. This is an attempt to take 18 billion barrels of oil away from the American people and an attempt by special interest groups to make sure this country cannot grow. Oil will be here forever. Let's keep it. Let's oppose this amendment. It is mischievous. It is wrong for this Nation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate a group of outstanding students from West Valley High School in Fairbanks, Alaska who participated in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program. The We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program, administered by the Center for Civic Education, complements regular school curricula by providing upper elementary, middle, and high school students with an innovative course of instruction on the history and principles of U.S. constitutional democracy. The We the People program's culminating activity is a simulated Congressional hearing in which students evaluate and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. These young constitutional experts from West Valley High School won the state competition in Alaska on December 2, 2015 and qualified for the We the People national finals competition held in Washington, D.C. The students from West Valley High School who qualified to compete at the national competition are: Alicia Alabran, Dylan Brabham, Jennifer Campbell, Mitch Wilson, Robin O'Donoghue, Ileana Casiano, Skylar Watt, Emma Wiegand, Samuel Hiltenbrand, Daniel Hornbuckle, Teddy Edquid, Colton Scribner, Teresa Wrobel, Jacqueline Lundberg, Natilly Hovda, Carl Birchard, Caleb Moretz, Jonathan Gates, Jewel Hediger, Siani Post, Amber Szmyd, Jenna Zusi-Cobb, Nicholas Kowalski, Tara Vaughn, Brinley Jarvis, Hunter Meltvedt, and Celia Richards. I would like to recognize their teacher Amy Gallaway for her dedication and contributions as one of the top civics teachers in the country. I would also like to recognize Alaska's We the People state coordinator, Maida Buckley, who has done such an outstanding job throughout the years organizing and directing the program for our state.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, given the challenges we face today with the economy and the labor force, I have watched since December 2 so much dishonesty on this floor concerning the actions on December 2 and the ability for terrorists to purchase weapons automatically. FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that every time someone buys a weapon it is run through the FBI and they are notified if someone is on the no-fly list. I am a little concerned with the other side of the aisle as they keep talking about having to protect our public when, in turn, they are taking away the Constitution of our Nation. If the FBI is sent this information, it is reviewed. If the terrorists are actually buying weapons and walking the streets, they should be arrested, but they are not. You can get on the no-fly list. I personally have been on the no-fly list. It took me 6 months to get off of it. They didn't tell me who put me on it, why I was put on it, and what it was the result from. Six months. Yes, I am an NRA board member. But to have people say that terrorists are running around buying guns is an outright lie. I will say that on the floor. It is not true. It is part of the Constitution. We should uphold the Constitution. When coming into office, I swore to uphold the Constitution. What they are talking about doing is against the Constitution. I will fight until my dying breath to make sure that we have the ability to retain the Second Amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 308) to prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian lands in Arizona until the expiration of certain gaming compacts.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This has been a good debate. Of course, I brought this bill to the floor on behalf of the mostly unanimous Arizona delegation. My role in this is that I am, in fact, the prime author of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act itself. I would suggest that what is being proposed here and the opposition to it, H.R. 308 does not affect land into trust and is a temporary halt. All this bill does is stop the opening of this casino, which they did, I believe, under the guise of dishonesty to the general public. Promises made, promises kept. When the Governor and all the tribes, including the Tohono O'odham Tribe, agreed and signed a compact not to expand gambling in the State of Arizona, as they were doing so, in signing the compact, they were in preparations to buy this land, not telling anybody, not acknowledging or thinking of another casino. At least they should have had the courage and the guts not to sign the compact. It went to the public. Promises made to the public. It would never have passed. Gambling in Arizona would not be there if they did not have this understanding there would be no expansion. Now we have a group--and don't talk about greed, et cetera. There are people in that group who are just as greedy, trying to take and establish a gambling place where they said they wouldn't do it. That was the compact. That was the understanding with the State. That was the State legislative body. Then we hear on the other side we can't vote for this because it is going to take jobs away. Away from whom? Other Natives. Other American Indians. Remember, these casinos were built on a platform, a model of how many people go in and how many people come out. That is how you make these casinos pay, and that was the understanding and the plan that all the tribes agreed to. They all signed it, and we have documentation of that. It was voted on by the general public because the general public did not want an expansion of gambling within the State of Arizona. It passed in good faith, but the faith was not that good. It was not the spirit and intent of the Indian Gaming Act at all. It broke the compact with the State and the people of the State. That is what we have to think about. There is a factor here that was not exposed during the conference and in negotiating with the State and with the tribes. It was not exposed yet. It was taking place, not in sincerity but, in fact, in dishonesty. I don't like to get involved in these tribal wars, but what is being encouraged here is wrong with that compact. The promise made by the people for the people and with the people and with the tribes, and you are asking us not to stop that. This is a good piece of legislation to make sure a dishonest act does not take place. A breaking of a promise while you are holding your hand behind your back with your fingers crossed when you have the other hand up swearing, that is what occurred. So I am asking my colleagues to listen to the Arizona delegation and the Governor. I am asking my colleagues to think about a promise made should be kept and only the Congress will make sure it is kept. 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 to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 308, the Keep the Promise Act, introduced by a bipartisan group of Members from the Arizona delegation, would preserve an Arizona voter-approved gaming compact by prohibiting any Indian casino on land acquired in trust after April 9, 2013, in the Phoenix metropolitan area. This prohibition would expire on January 1, 2027, when the current gaming compact negotiated with the Arizona Governor expires. This bill helps to resolve public promises that were supposedly made in good faith to the voters in Arizona. In 2002, the voters supported the passage of Proposition 202, which limited the number of tribally owned casinos in the State, and it granted tribes exclusive rights to operate casinos in Arizona. During the Proposition 202 campaign, a public promise was made by a coalition of 17 Arizona tribes, including the Tohono O'odham Nation, to limit casino gaming in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Unfortunately, one tribe is on the verge of breaking that commitment and more than a majority of the tribes in the State are upset. The immediate effect of the bill is to block the TO Nation from opening an off-operation casino in the Phoenix area. As I mentioned, the bill has bipartisan support, including a majority of the House delegation, the Governor of Arizona, and six of the tribes that took part in the Proposition 202 agreement. It is important to point out that it is not just Arizona tribes who support this bill. Tribes from other States are very concerned about what is happening in Arizona. They believe a dangerous precedent could be set if this legislation is not signed into law, leading to the expansion of off-reservation casinos. Today's deliberations are not about stopping one casino or gaming as a whole. The Keep the Promise Act is about protecting the integrity of the State's gaming compact, the future of gaming in Arizona, and, ultimately, the future of Indian gaming in this country. I would like to thank the gentleman, the cosponsor of this legislation, for his leadership on this bill and on this issue. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), one who has been involved in this issue for many, many years.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).