Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have not yielded. I will not yield.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am thankful for the comments of the previous speaker, and of course the ranking member. I'm disappointed in those that are offering this amendment. The supporters of this amendment and the proposer of this amendment like to believe that Chicken Little threats have been thrown about. Instead of the sky falling, it's the Earth warming, and bears are in extreme danger of extinction and we must act now. I just heard that speaker from Washington say that. Let's take care. Polar bears are not threatened; they're not endangered. The worldwide population of polar bears is around 30,000. While there may be polar bear populations feeling the effects of a warming climate, and I say ``may,'' we need to remember these species have survived past warming cycles.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This species is not at the end of its rope, contrary to those who proposed this amendment. Thirteen of the 19 polar bear populations are under the jurisdiction of Canada. Canada has one of the best management programs, using state-of-art scientific practices to manage these populations. While that should be enough, it's not the end of the oversight or management of polar bears in Canada. The United States Marine Mammal Protection Act requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to review the status of polar bear populations in Canada. After conducting their review of the service-approved, stable and healthy populations, hunters can only import trophies from those approved populations. Supporters of the amendment like to refer to the 1994 amendments of the Marine Protection Act that allowed an importation of polar bear trophies as a loophole. It was the law. These statements are far from the truth. In fact, we worked on it with a Democrat-controlled Congress. We worked on it together to improve the species in Canada because Canada asked us to do so. In 1970, many marine mammal populations faced numerous threats. The Marine Protection Act was very effective in restoring many marine mammal populations to healthy or historic levels. Unfortunately, the act does not discriminate between healthy marine mammal populations and those still in need of rebuilding. Robust populations of marine mammals are treated like they are on the verge of extinction. While the 1994 amendments did not address this issue, the Democrat- controlled Congress, specifically those enlightened members of the Merchant Marines Fisheries Committee, had the foresight to understand that the sustainable use of resources and conservation activities are not mutually exclusive. The committee developed strict requirements to ensure the protection of polar bear populations in Canada, while allowing for the importation of sport-hunted polar bear trophies. The idea of incentives to give value to natural resources was very new at the time. A similar program was developed for African communities to protect big game resources in Africa using the same incentive structure. These programs have proven their worth and are very successful. There will always be a sector of the population that believes we should not kill anything or eat anything and, in fact, we should eat grass. However, we need to keep in mind there are still areas in the world that rely on the natural resources around them and still subsist on these resources. The argument is not that polar bears need to be protected due to the effects of a warming climate. The argument is that certain groups do not like hunting, regardless of what those are saying promoted, and want it stopped. The Canadian polar bear populations are healthy and well managed. Sport-hunting activities provide important incentives and support remote Native villages and important conservation programs in Canada, the U.S., and Russia. Mr. Chairman, I suggest, respectfully, go back to the history. This saves the polar bear as is in place. This amendment will extinguish the polar bear. For those who don't know anything about the polar bear, and I suggest, respectfully, those two gentlemen that introduced this have never seen a polar bear in the wild, don't know anything about it, read it in a book. I suggest respectfully that before this was in place, in 1994, what was happening was that the Canadian natives, bless their hearts, would hunt polar bears. They would kill the sows and the cubs but not the boars. The boars would kill the cubs so they can breed the sows. Our polar bear population was going down. Because of our actions, in fact, the polar bear population increased. That is what we were trying to do. It was a true conservation method, a method of science, a method that works. Mr. Speaker, if this amendment is adopted, you can forget your polar bears in the wild. They will be extinguished. This is a bad amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I appreciate that because it's very simple to say the Tongass will be sold at fair market value to the State of Alaska. And I think that would solve our problem.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again, I just hope you understand, this is a national forest. It only has 4 percent available. A national forest that has 4 percent. And the gentleman, the ranking member, has mentioned the fact that there's no $40 million being spent. And by the way, this is on national land because the comment was made about the roads could be built by the persons that's doing the logging. That's true. But if it's built by that person, those roads are no longer available to the general public. And what has happened, we've built a network of roads on Prince Wales Island primarily that provide, for all the local communities, communications capability that tie in with the ferries. Those roads still belong to the United States, just not the State of Alaska. They're part of the United States road system. And so I'm just suggesting that these roads, if it was done by just a contractor, then that right wouldn't be there. Those roads would have to be pulled up, put to rest back to the original contour. So, again, I know who's asking you to do this. I understand it. But it's really being a little disingenuous. In fact, the roads themselves are in a different area that was on private land. This is on Federal land, not private land. And so I respectfully again ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment because it's the wrong thing to do for the State of Alaska and for the United States.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I first want to compliment the gentleman from New Jersey, and the gentleman, Mr. Chabot, of Ohio. This was sprung on me 2 years ago, and I was quite upset, and I'm still upset, but you are being gentlemen about it. I will return that favor. Last time, it was very unhappy and very ugly. But, again, I urge my colleagues to vote against this. Let's be clear about this amendment. This amendment is not about fiscal responsibility, in all due respects. It's a giveaway to the radical and environmental groups that want to treat the Tongass and all southeast Alaska as their taxpayer subsidized playground. The problem with the timber harvest program is that environmental groups have purposely driven up the costs of managing it by filing multiple, multiple frivolous lawsuits and appeals. Now that they have successfully created the problem, they're offering a solution: target a Member of Congress unfamiliar with Alaska and the Tongass, and express concern that the Tongass timber program has become uneconomical and should not be funded by the taxpayer, request that they offer an amendment, threaten Members with negative score on their annual report cards for failing to support the amendment. This is like a personal injury lawyer who sues lawyers over living, and then complains to Congress about the high cost of medical care. As long as you are talking about taxpayer dollars and fiscal conservatism, it should be noted that the lawsuits and appeals responsible for the high cost of doing business in the Tongass are all funded by the American taxpayer under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which says if you are an environmental fundraising group in the ninth circuit, you file lawsuits by piece work and get your money back for every one you file. This is the ``taxpayer waste'' we should be discussing here today, taxpayers waste. If not for the never-ending onslaught of frivolous, taxpayer-funded lawsuits and appeals, the U.S. Forest Service could be managing a timber program at a net profit. In addition to putting a Federal stamp of approval on these groups' antics, a ``yes'' vote on this amendment will cripple what's left, what's left of the several hundred Alaskan jobs. At one time, I had 15,000 jobs in my State that's been taken away. You have outsourced them. The timber industry supports the best-paying year-found jobs in southeast Alaska, or they did. Even though environmentalists have already succeeded locking up over 96 percent of the Tongass, and eliminating most of these jobs, they are now after the remaining 4 percent, the last few hundred jobs, 15,000 versus 400, and this is America? This is nothing economic. This is economic terrorism. What's worse, the American taxpayer has been paying for it. If supporters of this amendment would like to join me in restricting the frivolous timber appeals and lawsuits filed by the environmental trial lawyers against every timber sale and every road in the Tongass, we could lower the cost of timber harvest and return the profit to the taxpayer. Very frankly, I believe this amendment is a job-killing bill, supposedly protecting taxpayers, but it's about fooling them. It's about forcing my constituents out of work and removing people from the Tongass so the environmentalists have a 17 million acre taxpayer subsidized playground for themselves. I want to remind people, I have been through this in 1980. This Congress took away 16.5 million acres of Tongass. They took it all away but 10 percent. We were told there would be peace in the valley, yet same groups, same trial lawyers, same environmental groups are trying to take that last 4 percent away, 400 jobs, out the drain. Each one of you were talking about how bad the economy is in the United States, how you outsourced your jobs, you and your industrial States, and yet you are doing this to the State of Alaska, the jobs that Alaskans have. It's a disservice to this body to continue to pander to a group that knows nothing about it other than the fact they want their playground. It's the wrong thing to do to us. I know the why the two gentlemen are introducing this amendment. I understand it. But think of what you are doing to your Americans. The workers are left. Let us manage the timber. We would have had a profitable area, but asked by your supporters of this amendment have stopped our ability to manage the forest in a profitable way and driven those jobs overseas, into Canada, into South America, where they defoliated the forests. We have done a disservice to a renewable resource, a terrible disservice to a renewable resource. This Congress has not managed its force, because they want to supposedly protect the trees, and those trees are dead trees, my good friends, they are dead. They should be harvested. All I am asking is not to impose this on them so we can get that little, final 4 percent available for the Alaskan workers and for this Nation. That's not asking much. I am urging my colleagues to vote, very strongly, a no on this amendment. It's the wrong thing to do. It's the wrong thing to do for this Nation, wrong thing to do for the State of Alaska, but it's the wrong thing to do for the Americans of this great Nation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would ask the authors of this amendment if they would respond to the question. Will you respond, Mr. Chabot and Mr. Andrews? I am going to introduce legislation to allow the forest to be sold to the State of Alaska. If you are fiscally conservative, we will raise about $4.5 billion, we will pay you for it. Then we can manage it as we should manage it, because right now it's not being managed. When I introduce that bill, are you willing to get on my bill to sell that forest to the State of Alaska so we could manage it as it should be managed. Would you be willing to sponsor that bill?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, speaking to my point of order, this amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI because it will impose substantial new duties on the Secretary of Agriculture. Under Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 50, where an amendment seeks to impose on a Federal official substantial duties that are different from or in addition to those already contemplated in law, then it is considered legislative in nature and violates clause 2(c) of rule XXI. Moreover, under Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 52, even though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence or make judgments or determinations not otherwise required of them by law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI. This amendment will require the Secretary of Agriculture to make investigations and compile evidence not otherwise required under existing law, as well as make a substantive determination not required by any law applicable to his authority. See 8 Deschler's Precedents, chapter 26, section 52.38. The amendment bars planning and studying of certain roads, those used for timber harvesting by individuals or private entities in the Tongass National Forest. Roads used for other purposes and by other entities are not affected. In addition, the amendment bars the use of funds to ``construct'' such a road. Under volume 23 of the U.S. Code, section 101(a)(c), ``construction'' is defined to include reconstruction of roads. This definition is reflected in the Forest Service budget, which differentiates between construction/reconstruction of roads and maintenance of roads. This is also reflected in the road provisions affecting all roads, including those in the Tongass National Forest. I cite pages 7-36, 7-33 and 4-115, ``Road and Bridge Construction/ Reconstruction,'' of the draft proposed Tongass Forest Plan relating to roads to reflect this understanding. Therefore, this amendment will apply to not only proposed roads but also to the 3,653 miles of permanent roads already in the Tongass National Forest. Some of these roads are not currently used for timber harvesting but could be in the future. Under the National Forests Roads and Trails Act (16 U.S.C. 532-538), the U.S. Forest Service constructs forest development roads ``within and near'' national forests that ``will permit maximum economy in harvesting timber from such lands tributary to such roads and at the same time meet the requirements for protection, development and management thereof, and for the utilization of the other resources thereof.'' Under the current Forest Service Transportation Planning Handbook and the Tongass Forest Plan, the Secretary does not identify or track roads by the character of their use nor is such a determination required for reconstruction of existing roads. A road in a national forest may have multiple purposes, including recreation access, subsistence hunting access, vehicle use for emergencies, travel routes, utility maintenance or egress to Forest Service ranger stations or other structures. Moreover, a road could be used for timbering operations by multiple participants, including the Forest Service itself, the State of Alaska, local governments, mining corporations with mining permits, private contractors or Native Alaskan tribal entities. According to the Forest Service, these landowners take between 80 million and 100 million board feet of timber from their lands in a year. Some of these users would not be barred by the Chabot amendment. No current law requires the Secretary to differentiate between users of Forest Service roads. In support of this assertion, I quote from a recent letter from Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment: ``Because the Forest Service does not distinguish roads on the basis of who uses them, implementation of the proposed Chabot amendment on the Tongass National Forest would require new processes, policies and additional work to ensure that, if the Forest Service is spending funding on roads, such roads are not utilized by individuals or private entities in support of harvesting timber on Federal or nonFederal lands.'' Under the terms of the amendment, the Forest Service would have to make an initial determination that the road proposed for construction or reconstruction would not be used for impermissible uses by impermissible people. For existing roads proposed for reconstruction, this would mean first monitoring the road to see how it is used and by whom over some period of time. In addition, the Secretary would also have to monitor and enforce compliance with the limitation after the road is built or reconstructed. Enforcing this restriction would be burdensome. The Tongass National Forest, and the Nation's largest public forest, is 16.7 million acres, approximately the size of the State of West Virginia. It is comprised of scattered lands located along the mountains of Alaska's southeastern coast, and portions are remote and difficult to get to. Within the forest are approximately 128,000 acres of State, Alaska Native Corporation and private land are accessed only through the Tongass National Forest roads. According to the Forest Service, 3,653 miles of permanent miles of roads have been constructed in the Forest, and these roads are used for travel, forest management, recreation, subsistence access, remote community connections, as well as the timber harvest. Only 570 Forest Service personnel are assigned to the forest, one employee for every 45,000 acres. The majority of these employees do office work and are not out in the field, so the Secretary would have to make substantial hires and reassign these personnel to patrol roads. I cite eight Deschler's Precedents, Chapter 26, section 52.22 regarding the imposition of duty to monitor actions of recipients as transforming a limitation amendment into legislation. For those reasons, I ask you to sustain my point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise to comment on the last speaker from New York about States rights and private property rights. The taking of land is dear to me. And this Congress took 147 million acres of land in 1980 and made it into wilderness, parks and refuges. I bring that up because, of that 147, 27 of them were picked by the State. But we did it. That was private property. But I am, Mr. Chairman, dismayed by this Congress, including Members of my own party, who voted today to eliminate funding for the Denali Commission and cripple the economic life to hundreds of small and impoverished communities throughout rural Alaska. I am standing here today in the well defending the funding for the Denali Commission because the Federal Government has, time and time again, as I mentioned, limited the ability of Alaskans to provide for themselves. We have trillions of dollars' worth of resources in our State; we haven't been able to produce them. This Congress has said no to ANWR. Many of the speakers who just spoke voted no on ANWR, no to any new mining, no to more Alaskan oil and natural gas. Not letting Alaskans provide for themselves is economic terrorism by this body. We sent over 15.5 billion barrels of oil through the pipeline. At today's prices, that's equivalent to $1.1 trillion. We have trillions of dollars' worth more of energy. If the State were allowed to manage its own resources, we wouldn't need the commission. And we wouldn't be sending trillions of American dollars overseas, to countries that hate us, for the energy Americans could be producing at home. Unfortunately, energy ignorance in this body is increasing almost as fast as our dependence on foreign oil. Until Alaska is permitted to produce its own resources for themselves and for America, Alaskans will need the Denali Commission. In 1998, Congress passed the Denali Commission Act. It provides job training and other economic development services for rural communities, chiefly in troubled communities, where unemployment exceeds 50 percent. It promotes rural development by providing power generation and transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer systems, and other infrastructure needs. To give you an idea, my State of Alaska is 656,425 square miles, more than twice the size of Texas. Individual Alaskans own less than 1 percent of their land. The Federal Government owns over 60 percent. Flush toilets are just a luxury, and the Denali Commission tries to provide good sanitation to all Alaskans that do not have the ability to have potable water or remove the sewage they create. The fact is, I doubt if any of you have ever heard of a honey bucket. How many of my colleagues have communities in their districts with no water and sewer? Well, Mr. Chairman, I have several. The Denali Commission has brought these systems to many of my rural communities, but there are still over 150 areas that suffer from poor sanitation and a lack of safe drinking water. There are rural communities that are completely isolated, and my Alaskans can only get to and from their homes by boat or by small plane. There are no roads connecting these communities outside of Anchorage and Fairbanks. The Commission also works carefully to ensure these communities have telephones, a reliable supply of electricity, and in some cases, Internet access. Mr. Chairman, these are all things we in the Lower 48 take for granted, but for thousands of Alaskans they are luxuries. In 2006, the Denali Commission leveraged its funding to develop basic infrastructure in over 100 Alaska communities. It invested money towards replacing aging fuel tanks and upgrading rural power plants, while at the same time pushing for wind generation, hydro, geothermal and biomass energy projects. In addition to constructing several essential village primary care clinics, the Denali Commission funded major design initiatives for needed replacement hospitals in Nome and Barrow. It has now completed clinics in over 65 of these remote communities. The Commission also provided funding to construct housing for teachers in nine frontier communities, which is essential for recruiting and retaining teachers to the remote areas of my State. The Commission worked tirelessly each year to make sure that my Alaskans are not treated like second-class citizens. The amendment will cripple the Denali Commission's ability to provide these basic resources and cripple many rural communities that are already on crutches. Mr. Chairman, I can say this respectfully for one thing. We talk a lot about the economics of this Nation and energy. This Congress has lacked in a positive way. I am deeply disturbed that this amendment was adopted by my own party and by the opposite party. I hope you reconsider this when we go to conference. Announcement by the Acting Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Alaska is America's Energy Ace in the Hole. If our Nation truly wanted to kick our OPEC habit, we would be using our own abundant resources of all kinds, including our conventional resources in Alaska. Not only is Alaska home to North America's largest producing oil field, it is also home to more clean coal than the entire lower 48 States. With modern technology, this resource could be used to produce clean energy and transportation fuels that would last for centuries. The people of the State of Alaska also claim the largest natural gas reserves and by far the largest unconventional natural gas reserves in a form of frozen natural gas known as methane hydrates. It is also home to that small part of ANWR that holds the promise as the largest energy complex yet discovered on our continent. Between its tens of billions of barrels of oil and untold amounts of clean burning natural gas, it could help Americans and generate revenues while providing high paying jobs here at home. Unfortunately, there has been a decades-long campaign to deny America and Alaskans the benefits of this domestic energy. The consequence is that Alaska's pipeline that once sent over 2 million barrels each day of U.S. oil to American consumers now sends less than 800,000 barrels per day. America now imports the 1.2 million barrels per day that Alaska used to send to the West Coast. America now sends $84 million per day, over $30 billion per year, to foreign nations like Venezuela and nations in the Middle East who hate everything America stands for. The oil that isn't produced in Alaska also increases prices for all Americans, who can see it daily at the pump or monthly in their utility bills. Recently a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Russell Gold, traveled to the village of Shungnak, Alaska, to find out what impacts the increased cost of energy are having on the people who live there. It is rich irony, Madame Speaker, that in a State with huge energy resources people are suffering from high energy prices because their government has outlawed the production of this energy. It is reminiscent of Coleridge's lament in the Rime of the Ancient Mariner: ``Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink.'' It is shameful that it is government policy that some people should suffer from higher costs of energy because others who do not suffer believe costs are not high enough and energy is too available for Americans. I hope Members will take the time to read what may be a story coming to their neighborhoods soon, if Alaska's energy resources continue to be locked away from the American people. [From the Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2007] Running on Empty on a Road to Nowhere (By Russell Gold) Shungnak, Alaska--When Genevieve Norris was born 59 years ago in this remote Eskimo village, hunters used dog sleds to pursue caribou and moose. Wood stoves kept out the cold during the long, dark winters. Then Shungnak entered the petroleum age, and fuel was barged up the Kobuk River every summer. Noisy electrical generators arrived, which allowed lights and indoor plumbing to be installed. Soon, nearly every home had snowmobiles, fourwheelers and heaters. Now as crude-oil prices have doubled in the past couple of years, Ms. Norris and the rest of the village are being priced back out of the petroleum age. She heats her home with wood as much as possible and only occasionally buys gasoline for an outboard engine to go fishing. ``Fuel right now, I'm only purchasing if I have to,'' says Ms. Norris. Even though Shungnak is in energy-rich Alaska, home to the largest U.S. oilfield discovered in the past half century, it is at the very end of the oil-distribution system. By the time gasoline makes it here from where it is refined, it costs $8.11 a gallon, more than twice the current U.S. average. The U.S. has long enjoyed among the lowest oil prices in the industrialized world--and until recently, even in remote Alaska, fossil fuel was affordable to the majority of people. Decades of cheap energy prompted Americans to use more and more petroleum, lengthening their commutes in the lower 48 states and trading in dog sleds for snowmobiles in Alaskan villages. Today, the price of oil and all the products made from it has surged and seem likely to remain high for some time. This has raised the unsettling question: What happens to a community accustomed to cheap energy when the energy is no longer cheap? Remote villages like Shungnak have long been fragile economies with little to offer residents by way of jobs and opportunity. High fuel prices have made a bad situation worse, threatening the survival of Shungnak as well as more than a hundred other remote villages. Some of the estimated 101,000 people living in these villages have left for Alaska's large cities, creating what one former state elected official has called ``energy refugees.'' These native-Alaskan villages are among countless poorer communities across the world that have been hammered by the new century's energy-price boom. Over all, strong economies such as China and most of the U.S. have held up well despite the sting of higher fuel prices. But in poor regions, the price shock has hit hard. Thousands of Nepalese took to the streets of Katmandu last year, resulting in bloody clashes with police, to protest a 25% rise in gasoline prices. In July 2005, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund, the Yemeni government lifted gasoline subsidies and the resulting riots left 22 people dead. The government buckled and restored subsidies. In Africa, Guinea's decision to reduce gasoline subsidies over the past two years helped spark general strikes and riots that claimed at least 11 lives. The village of Shungnak was officially founded in 1899, but Eskimos have lived in the region for thousands of years traveling between summer camps and winter camps. Today, the village is a collection of 75 homes, a store, a school, a community health clinic and a city office building along a half dozen dirt streets. The foothills of the Brooks Range rise in the distance over the tundra. Petroleum didn't arrive here until the middle of the 1960s. As the crow flies, Shungnak is only 310 miles northwest from the Flint Hills Resources refinery outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. But since there are no roads to Shungnak, the journey is a complex route that stretches more than 2,000 miles, passing mountain meadows where grizzly bears graze, caribou herds sipping from glacier-fed streams and mile after mile of rugged, unpopulated coastline. Tanker Cars First, fuel from the Fairbanks refinery is loaded onto rolling tanker cars and taken south through Denali National Park, past Mount McKinley and into the Port of Anchorage. Then it's loaded onto a barge and towed through the Unimak Pass, a navigable break in the Aleutian Islands, before it heads north for Kotzebue on the coast. From there, the fuel is loaded once a year on a shallow- draft barge and pushed up the Kobuk River during a brief period when the snow melt engorges the river and makes it navigable. By the time it gets to Shungnak, it has traveled a distance equivalent to the drive from New York to Las Vegas. Last year, one of the barge companies made it up the river and delivered distillate--a blend of heating oil and diesel that powers nearly everything from generators to furnaces--to the school and electric company. The other barge company, less experienced in the region's serpentine rivers, couldn't make it up to Shungnak during the brief window of time that the river thawed. Fuel had to be flown in from Fairbanks on propeller cargo planes, raising the cost to $8.11 for a gallon of gasoline and $6.50 for a gallon of heating oil. In February, heat in the town's only two-story building, which holds the city offices, post office and tribal-council office, went out for three days because the tank ran out and no one was willing to pay to fill it up again. The temperature inside dropped to 30 degrees below zero. Many Jobless Half of Shungnak village is jobless, according to the state. Commerce Department data suggest that Alaskans living in remote villages like Shungnak already receive about 50% of their income from government programs, two and halftimes the average in the U.S. Now the situation is exacerbated because it is difficult to attract economic activity because of the high energy costs. Village leaders say their only choice is even more government aid. ``Half the village doesn't know how to go out and do a subsistence way of life . . . their lifestyle is living off the store, even though you hear them say `We're natives, we can survive,' '' says Raymond Woods, a member of the Shungnak tribal government. Some residents are leaving town. Ms. Norris's daughter moved to South Dakota and her high-school-aged son talks about leaving after he graduates. Those that remain behind are scraping along. Henry Douglas, 48, says he eats less meat and fish than he used to. Like most people here, he receives state energy assistance--credit at the tribal store. He got $1,500 in January to pay for heating oil. It lasted him through March. Afterward, he used a wood stove in the main room of the log cabin where he lives with his sister and his nephew. His younger brother, George Douglas, 39, says he's fortunate to have a job as a school-maintenance worker. The paycheck gives him the $100 required to fuel up his Polaris snowmobile. He uses it to hunt caribou and distributes the meat to three households of relatives, including his brothers. Few of his relatives can afford to hunt much anymore because of the high cost of fuel. Signs of the cost are everywhere in Shungnak. On a recent visit, there were photocopied fliers posted throughout the village with a stark reminder: May 29 is the day the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative bill collector was scheduled to be in Shungnak. The co-op, known as Avec, has seen past-due accounts soar in the past couple of years. Last year, it took out ads in local papers threatening to cut off paying customers if they allow delinquent customers to move in with them. Researchers at the University of Alaska Anchorage estimated that one-quarter of household income in remote villages last year went to paying utility bills, double the percentage in 2000. The poorest residents in remote villages spent 61% of their income on utility bills, also double the level a few years ago. Fuel bills are also swallowing the city's budget. Last November, the village's fuel and electrical bill accounted for 61% of total expenditures, according to town administrator Helen Mitchell. In response, it has cut costs. The hours for city workers were cut to six hours from eight hours a day last year. The part-time patrolman position was eliminated a couple of years ago. The result of these crushing bills is that remote villages face a slow decline. Four schools in the last two years have shut their doors when they fell below 10 students and lost most state funding. In Shungnak, school enrollment is off 7% in the past decade. A few miles down the Kobuk River, the village of Ambler has lost 29% of its school-aged population. Despite shrinking enrollment, the regional school district has been on a building boom in recent years, largely supported by state grants. That, in turn, has only increased its need for fuel. The new schools, despite better insulation, require more petroleum to operate. New School In nearby Noatak, an 18,000-square-foot school was torn down and replaced with one more than twice as large with a new air-circulating system and more lights. ``We have a very fragile economy in most of these villages already and then you add the jolt of high fuel-oil prices. It's my guess that many of these communities will not find themselves viable if fuel prices stay here,'' says Mike Black, director of community advocacy at Alaska's Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. The villages, he says, ``are begging, borrowing and stealing to get enough fuel.'' The extreme costs of fuel in rural Alaska have led to numerous energy experiments. But various efforts to reduce rural Alaska's dependence on petroleum-based energy have struggled. Petroleum is easy to store, handle and transport, says Brent Sheets, head of the federal government's Arctic Energy Office in Fairbanks. ``It is hard to beat diesel fuel,'' he says. A proposal to build a small nuclear power plant for one small town was shelved when a study concluded that the federal security requirements made the project uneconomic. Solar isn't a good fit for Alaska, because fuel demand goes up in the winter when the state gets little sunlight. The Energy Department office even looked at turbines designed to harness river energy, dodging logs and car-sized icebergs, but plans never made it past the theoretical stage. One alternative-energy success story is in Kotzebue, the hub community to the west of Shungnak on the Chukchi Sea. On the tundra outside of Kotzebue, where the only sign of life is paw prints from an Arctic fox, are 17 windmills capable of generating one megawatt of electricity. The windmills ``are a hedge against rising fuel costs,'' says Brad Reeve, a Minnesotan who came to the town 30 years ago to run the public-radio station and now heads up the electric cooperative. As the cost of bringing in diesel has grown, electricity from the windmills has looked better and better. But the windmills have a high upfront cost--they sit on special pilings with chemicals that ensure the tundra remains frozen to hold the windmills steady. And on a recent morning, as a computer in the coop's offices showed 2.8 megawatts of demand, the wind wasn't blowing. All of the electricity came from distillate-burning generators, a reminder that Kotzebue needs to keep a steady supply of oil. In Shungnak, Mr. Woods, the tribal-government official, says he expects the oil will keep on flowing. Eskimos are accustomed to adapting to extreme conditions, he says. But there is little effort being made to teach children how to hunt the old way. ``Their lifestyle now is so convenient,'' he says. Hanging out on the steps of the village store after school with friends, 11th-grader Dion Tickett says he didn't grow up learning how to hunt or take care of a team of Alaskan huskies. He grew up watching television and riding snowmobiles, something he and his friends do to pass the time. ``There's nothing to do around here,'' he says. After school let out on a recent afternoon, Mr. Woods spent $90 to fill up his Arctic Cat snowmobile to take his son out hunting. But he doesn't expect his son to need these skills. In a couple of years, when his son enters high school, Mr. Woods plans to move his family to east Texas, where he was stationed in the military. Gasoline there costs just under $3.00 a gallon.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, ten years ago, the Congress enacted a landmark law known as the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. This measure created for the first time an organic statute and a mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System. I was proud to have sponsored that legislation and pleased that President Bill Clinton signed into law October 9, 1997. National wildlife refuges are undeniably unique. They are the only Federal land system established explicitly to conserve wildlife and their habitat. They also provide protection for 260 endangered and threatened species. A great deal has happened to the refuge system during the past decade. For instance, the size of this unique system of Federal lands has increased from 93 million to 96 million acres and the number of individual refuge units has grown from 511 to 547. In fact, there is now a National Wildlife Refuge within all 50 States and the U.S. territories and they are within an hour's drive of most major cities. Four years ago, the National Wildlife Refuge System celebrated the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the first refuge at Pelican Island, FL, by President Theodore R. Roosevelt. The fundamental purpose of that designation was to protect native wildlife and that goal has not changed for the past 104 years. The unambiguous mission of the system: ``Is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.'' In preparation for the bicentennial, Congress appropriated an historic figure of nearly $300 million dollars in FY03 and FY04 for refuge operations. This was $50 million more than had ever been allocated for this essential function. Sadly, this level was not sustained and refuge operations funding was restored to pre-bicentennial figures soon after the birthday candles were extinguished and the commemorative banners were placed in storage. This appropriation level has remained stagnate for the past 4 years. While this year's budget contains added revenues for the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's request was grossly inadequate. By way of comparison, my colleagues should know that the National Park Service has 20,000 full-time employees, it manages 390 park units and the system is comprised of 85 million acres of which 52.9 million are located in my State of Alaska. By contrast, the Fish and Wildlife Service has 3,687 full-time refuge employees, it manages 547 refuges and the system is comprised of 96 million acres. In FY08, the Fish and Wildlife Service requested $394.8 million for the Refuge System, while the Park Service requested nearly five times as much, or $1.9 billion. While funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System has remained flat, uncontrollable expenses including employee costs and benefits, GSA-rental office space, fuel and energy continue to rapidly grow. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that these costs are about $40 million each year. It, therefore, does not take a certified public accountant to understand that no entity can continue to operate year-after-year without at least offsetting cost-of-living expenses. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is no exception to this rule. As a result of these declining resources, the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service instructed each of the service's regional directors to implement cost savings or ``workforce plans.'' These plans have now been prepared, submitted, and approved. The net result is that unless an additional $15 million in new funding is provided each year, the service will lose 439 full-time refuge positions by September 30, 2008. While these reductions represent 20 percent of their total refuge workforce, these vacancies are not uniform throughout the system. For example, the service will lose 28 percent of its refuge staff in Washington State, 29 percent in Idaho and Kansas, 38 percent in Indiana and a staggering 56 percent in Wyoming. Without these human resources, the 40 million people who visit at least one refuge each year will find many refuges overgrown, rapidly spreading invasive species, unstaffed refuge headquarters, an absence of law enforcement personnel, abolished environmental education programs, and significantly less opportunities to enjoy wildlife dependent recreation which includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography. Those who visit a wildlife refuge enjoy the experience because they are a haven from our fast paced lives. These wildlands inspire us and keep us connected to the natural world. The American people deserve the finest refuge system in the world and not one that is being stretched beyond its capacity. In addition to not filling vacancies, the public will find that 88 refuges are closed and an increasing number of 188 refuges throughout the country are unstaffed. In short, visitors will travel hundreds of miles to see a refuge and will find much to their frustration that the front gate is locked and no one is there to describe to them the wonders of each of unique place. Refuges are also important economic engines. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2004, refuge visitors generated nearly $1.4 billion for regional economies, they support 24,000 private sector jobs and $454 million in employment income was generated. According to the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, CARE, ``the National Wildlife Refuge System faces a crippling conservation deficit.'' The best illustration of this shortfall was described by the northeast regional director who noted that: ``In three years, 74 percent of the national wildlife refuges would be operating either `in the red' or at crisis levels: In five years, 89 percent; and in seven years, 93 percent.'' Within that region, you have the Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge in northern Virginia. according to a recent article, ``A dwindling budget, staff cuts, invasive weeds and crime are bearing down on the refuge, leaving some advocates wondering how visitor services or the health of the land the species depend on will survive''. There is no question that the refuge system is in crisis and unless additional revenues are forthcoming this problem will be exacerbated in the near future. In an effort to provide those additional revenues, I joined with some of my colleagues in urging the House Appropriations Committee to allocate $451.5 million for refuge operations and maintenance. While this is a step in the right direction, it will not solve the service's long-term funding shortfalls. We must enact legislation that addressed these funding needs and that is the fundamental goal of the measure I am proposing today. The National Wildlife Refuge System Operations Enhancement Act of 2007 has three major components. The first revenue enhancing measure is to gradually increase the price of a Federal duck stamp from its current rate of $15 to $25. On March 16, 1934, the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act was enacted. Under this law, every hunter over the age of 16 is required to purchase a duck stamp each year if they intend to hunt migratory waterfowl. The price of this stamp has been increased by Congress on seven specific occasions over the past 73 years from an initial cost of $1 in 1934 to its current level of $15 in 1991. In fact, this is now the longest period in the history of the program without an increase. Since the inception of the Duck Stamp Program, the Department of the Interior has collected nearly $750 million from the sale of duck stamps. These monies are deposited in the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and they have been used to purchase or lease over 5 million acres of land that has been incorporated within the National Wildlife Refuge System. While the number of duck stamp receipts have varied over the years, the actual number sold has declined from 2.5 million in 1971- 1972 to 1.6 million in the 2003-2004 hunting season. For the past 3 years, about $24 million annually has been deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. According to the Congressional Budget Office, an increase in the price of a duck stamp from $15 to $20 would raise about $8 million in new revenues each year and up to $14 million in new receipts with a price tag of $25. In short, this provision could provide the Fish and Wildlife Service with a long term revenue source. Under my legislation, however, the money obtained from these increases would not be designated for land acquisition but would be specifically targeted toward refuge operations. The ongoing monies raised from the $15 would continue to be allocated and spent by the Migratory Bird Commission. It is my firm belief that instead of acquiring millions of additional acres of Federal lands that we don't have the money to maintain, we would be better served by properly managing those we already own. During the previous congress, there was an effort to raise the price of a Federal duck stamp and this increase was overwhelmingly supported by the hunting and conservation community. The second provision of this bill would direct the U.S. Postal Service to issue a series of first-class postage stamps depicting various units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These stamps, known as semipostals, would be available to the general public for up to 3 years, the postal service would be permitted to recover any reasonable costs attributable to the printing, sale and distribution of the stamps and there is a sense of Congress that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not suffer any offsetting reductions in its operations account. This provision is modeled after Congressional efforts to raise money for extremely worthwhile causes like the Stamp Out Breast Cancer, the Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family Violence. These semipostal stamps have raised in excess of $65 million. While it is difficult to project what a National Wildlife Refuge System semipostal stamp would generate, I would hope that these stamps would be readily available to all Americans including the 40 million people who visit a refuge. The final provision would establish a national wildlife refuge system checkoff act. This would allow all Americans to checkoff a box on their Federal tax form indicating their desire to contribute $1 or more of their refund or $1 or more in additional payment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This new checkoff program would not create any new Federal programs and would be implemented without cost to our taxpayers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would pay all reasonable administrative costs involved in changing the tax form, establishing the trust fund, and transferring the voluntary private contributions to the service. There are currently 36 States that allow their taxpayers to check off private donations for various State or local wildlife conservation programs. The National Wildlife Refuge System is a unique network of lands that is the only Federal entity designed specifically for wildlife conservation. It is appropriate that U.S. taxpayers have an opportunity to voluntarily contribute to its effective operation in the future. I am pleased to introduce this legislation 10 years after the anniversary of the signing of the historic Refuge Organic Act and I want to thank my distinguished colleague Mike Thompson of California for joining with me in this effort. It is my hope that this measure will stimulate debate on the funding crisis facing the refuge system and that members of the 21 national conservation, hunting, and scientific organizations that comprise the Care Group including the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Audubon Society, the National Rifle Association, and the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance will endorse this approach. The options are simple: we can find new long-term funding sources or we can allow the operation of the refuge system to continue to deteriorate to the detriment of both wildlife and the 40 million people who utilize these lands. It is my hope that this Congress will move forward to correct this serious and growing problem. I urge the adoption of the National Wildlife Refuge System Operations Enhancement Act of 2007.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It was transparent, as it should be tonight.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That's hard to do. I would suggest respectfully, again, let's keep our facts straight. Every one of you in this room, maybe, six or eight people, never voted for the bill that you are talking about. But you voted for it four times. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I have voted every time to continue our process against my leadership. I was not going to say anything, but when you referred to the bridge-to-nowhere as a scandal, when you voted for it four times, most of the people in this room voted for it four times. It was always transparent. I was always proud of my earmarks. I believe in earmarks, always have, as long as they are exposed. But don't you ever call that a scandal. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to compliment Mr. McIntyre. He was very concise in his presentation about why we should act on this legislation. And Eni, I'm glad you brought up the fact that it has passed the House twice, died in the Senate. Congressman Rose came to me, and that's when I got interested in this legislation. And it's long overdue. Now, I know there will be a motion to recommit which I will not offer and will not support. But I want to remind people that motion is a motion to actually have them go through, the Lumbee, the process. And I heard much about the process. Now, I've been involved in this business now 34 years, and the process of recognition is at the will and the whim of a bureau that, in fact, supported, and the Solicitor General said, no, you have to go back to Congress, and, in fact, we will not recognize you. If you go through the process, just forget it. We've already gone through the process, in reality. In fact, we had a hearing a while back, including the assistant secretary of the BIA, and I asked him, when was the last time the process worked? When was the last tribe recognized through the process? And he stuttered and stammered, and I think he had one in the last 10 years. That's the process? And we've been waiting 51 years for this recognition, 51 years. The Congress did act, twice. The Congress set up the original act, and now we're being asked, through a motion to recommit, to use the process? And I'm saying, nonsense. Let's do what is right today. Let's recognize this tribe as they should. Let's make sure that, in fact, they can go forth. And those that oppose this, let's not kid yourself. It's not about policy. It's really about cutting the pie up. We have been told by a study, this is going to cost $400 million more. And then the other side says, no, it's to come out of the pot. This is not about the money because the money is in the formula. If we don't appropriate any more dollars, then it doesn't cost any more money. But if they're recognized, they do have a right to participate in those programs as they should, as a recognized tribe. And so I'm suggesting that this is long overdue. Again, congratulations to the chairman and to the Congressman who represents that district. And I hope he remembers that, when I have an issue on Alaska, that Members that represent the districts ought to be listened to. And I do respect that representation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time he may consume to Mr. Hayes from North Carolina.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I compliment the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rahall. As many of my colleagues know, I have long supported the efforts of the Lumbee Tribe to be federally recognized. I have had discussions with the sponsor of the bill who represents them, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre). I have studied their case for many years when I served as ranking member and chairman of the Committee on Resources. The Lumbee's quest for recognition has been going for more than 100 years, which seems to be longer than almost any other tribe currently in the recognition process. During this time, the Lumbees have been put under a microscope and subjected to intensive debate by the State of North Carolina, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Congress, historians, and other Indian tribes. In my judgment and that of the committee, this is clearly a distinct community of Indian people who meet the definition of ``tribe'' under article I, section 8 of Constitution; and the fact that more than 200 Members of this body have cosponsored H.R. 65 attests to the tribe's legitimacy. Here are some of the facts about the Lumbee tribe. It is a State- recognized tribe. It has submitted huge amounts of documentation to prove that it is an autonomous Indian community that can trace links to a historic tribe. Even the Act of 1956, which terminated the tribe, helps to prove their case. The reason for this is that, in order to be terminated by Congress, you first must be recognized. The fact that Congress had to identify the Lumbees before terminating them is a clear indication that Congress considered them to be a distinct Indian community within the meaning of the Constitution. Why else would Congress feel a need to prohibit benefits for this community if, as the opposition alleges, they were not eligible for the benefits in the first place? Ask anyone who has traveled to Robeson County, and they will report that the county is largely governed by the Lumbee people already. In one sense, this bill merely puts a Federal endorsement on the fact that an independent, self-governing tribe exists in North Carolina. But this is a tribe that still lacks the status of all the other federally recognized tribes. And in lacking the benefits, immunities and the responsibilities accorded to other tribes, the Lumbees are second-class citizens within the Indian world. This is not right. H.R. 65 corrects this historic injustice, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill as soon as possible. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for 5 minutes.

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

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