Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, it has been an interesting conversation. I will stay away from the monuments, but we will talk about that later. We did vote on them on this floor. If the gentleman did not vote for it, he was not doing his duty. I am a little disappointed that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) opposes the Nethercutt amendment. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what he says it does, it follows the law. I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) likes to follow the law. He goes to the State of Alaska and catches all my salmon. And the best thing I want to do is have the salmon reestablished on the Columbia River so he quits raiding my fish in Alaska. I mean, especially when he takes numerous amounts of those fish that I would like to take myself. I would like to suggest one thing. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what is correct, following the laws that this Congress passed. But this administration has a great tendency to not to follow the law in any way, shape, or form. This is their habit. This is their MO. They care little about this Congress. We are going to do what we think is right and forget the people of America. Now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) said it exactly right, the Columbia initiative was in fact a designation and a study on the Columbia River concerning mostly Oregon and Washington, Montana, Idaho, State River, Columbia River, etc.; and it is all being done by the agencies. And my colleagues want to have a decision that goes against the laws on the books today, a decision made by an administration that does not really follow the law? They want to include this Congress in that decision on how it will affect the local economy? They want to have a decision made now so we do not have further actions by the judicial branch? I am going to suggest, respectfully, if the Nethercutt amendment is not adopted it will end up in court and nothing will occur and no solution will be reached. So I am suggesting that the Nethercutt amendment is the right way to go. This is what should be done and will be done if we do what is right.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I was listening with great interest to the statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). But if one took all the land of all the Presidents that set aside those monuments, it equals one-third of what this President has done in the past 3 years. The original intent of the Antiquities Act was not to set aside vast areas of land; it was to set aside those that are special. I challenge anyone to show me where any of the areas this President set aside in the massive acreage that has occurred that has anything specifically special in those great borders. If it was special, that one small area should have been set aside. But this President is using this act, which was never intended to do so, to designate and to dictate the use of lands. Under the Constitution, it says only the Congress shall have that responsibility. For this Congress and that side of the aisle and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the rest of my colleagues to acquiesce to the executive branch is unconstitutional. My colleagues swore right up as I did, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Yet, we sit in this body and allow this act to be misused by this administration and say, oh, it is to protect those lands. By the way, there was no local input, no understanding what effect would occur economically, culturally, psychologically. It was decided downtown, in big Washington, D.C., who knows best for all. This is against the Constitution. He is not protecting what should be protected. He, in fact, is running this as a fiefdom and a kingdom. This Congress, to my knowledge, has never accepted any one of his monuments by the Representative from that district. If one goes back and checks Truman and Roosevelt and all those others, he did it in consultation with that Representative that was duly elected by the people. I challenge the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to show me one Congressman that supports that area as declared a monument.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. It is very unfortunate that the gentleman, who serves on my committee, raises the point of order. But I would like to suggest one thing. The Forest Service asked me for this amendment. It serves a point where the regulations do not allow the small sales for those that they believe should take place, especially blown down timber. The cost of putting up the sale and going through the competitive process would preclude most of these small operators, especially those in the environmental community that wanted this timber. For the gentleman who says he is an environmentalist, I wish he had checked with the environmentalists. Apparently he did not. I think it is very unfortunate, but this is something asked for. I will move a bill through the committee next Tuesday. The gentleman will have a chance to vote no on it, and I will beat him at that time and bring it to the floor under suspension. When that occurs, we will make this the law.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). I happen to be one of the last remaining sponsors of IGRA, and believe, in fact, that the bill has worked very well; the act has worked very well. As we know, the States have to enter into compacts with the tribes that apply for gambling activity within that State. It has worked well in almost all States of the Union and, in fact, has given the American Indian tribes an opportunity to be economically advanced and has done a very good job in doing so. Unfortunately, some of those States that have existing gambling have gotten involved in denying the tribal entities to have the right to enter into these compacts, in fact stonewalled them. As the Secretary has informed the chairman, that he is not going to issue any more regulatory actions or suggestions until the court makes that decision. So this amendment is unnecessary. I believe, in fact, it impugns upon the sovereignty of the American Indians, which we granted them. I, for one, as an author of the original bill with Mr. Mo Udall, do take homage to the fact that we are trying to undo that act and unfortunately I understand the gentleman's desires but I think it does a disservice to the American Indians and to the act itself. Now I will say that I am willing to go through the court process. I hope it does go through the process, and I think we will be found in favor of IGRA and the results will be the continuation where the Secretary can, in fact, force a State to do it, if they do not negotiate in good faith. So I do rise in strong opposition to this amendment, suggesting it is unnecessary and unwarranted at this time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 430) to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Kake Tribal Corporation, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 430 provides for a land exchange to resolve a problem faced by a town in Tongass National Forest. The Committee on Resources favorably reported S. 430 with an amendment. The bill under consideration today contains further changes to the reported bill. The purpose of S. 430 is to protect the watershed of the City of Kake, Alaska, and to maintain the value of private native lands that form this watershed. The watershed lands are owned by the Kake Tribal Corporation, an Alaska Native Corporation. Kake Tribal owns about 2,500 acres of land forming the watershed for a creek that supplies the city residents a fish hatchery with clean, fresh water. The property has valuable timber, but its location on the watershed has persuaded the corporation's board of directors not to authorize logging it, in keeping with the wishes of the city residents. Last year, the Kake Tribal Corporation filed for bankruptcy, the victim of a controversial lawsuit. As a result, the board may have to log the watershed to pay anxious creditors. Alaska strongly supports timber harvest, but only when it makes sense. While the city of Kake has made it clear that logging should not occur on the municipal watershed, the corporation finds itself in a no- win situation and may have to log the property because of the bankruptcy. S. 430, as supported by the Committee on Resources, offers a reasonable solution. The bill authorizes a land exchange, in combination with a conservation easement, to fulfill three basic purposes: protect the watershed lands from harmful development, maintain the full value of the Kake Natives' lands and interest, and enable them to generate revenues in a way that should satisfy its creditors. This bill is the product of lengthy negotiation and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking Democrat, and his staff; and I would commend all of them for their sound advice and assistance. S. 430 is a practical solution to a present problem affecting a small town in the Nation's largest national forest. I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 430.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to say one thing to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and compliment him on his statement. But this is the difference between some of our agencies' attitudes than what the City of New York has done. Because we have the same problem with beetles. We have 47,000 acres of beetles in the Kenai Peninsula that kills every tree down there and we are trying to eliminate the beetle on Federal land, eliminate the beetles and harvest that timber before it burns up our community, and the Federal Government says we cannot do that. To me, that does not make a whole lot of sense. But I compliment the people in New York for recognizing that if we do not get rid of those beetles, they will keep going and going and going and create a deforested area, which occurred in my district. So I compliment the gentleman from New York. Mr. Chairman, I do, as I mentioned before, support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues for a loud ``yes'' voice vote in accepting the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Congress of the United States. This has been 2 days of very interesting debate. Everybody had their time to speak and to offer amendments. I want to congratulate those that stood with me and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Those that oppose me, I admire their enthusiasm and hope they will see the wisdom of supporting this legislation. Before I go into my last closing statement, though, I want to thank Mike Henry, who has worked very hard on this bill for 2 years; as well as Liz Megginson, Lisa Pittman, Lloyd Jones, and all my staff on this side of the aisle; and, of course, the staff on the other side of the aisle, John Lawrence and Jeff Petrich. I would suggest respectfully that the amendment that is offered as a substitute destroys everything we have done in the last 2 days. I know the gentleman does not intend to do that, but he does that. He waits for 5 years, puts everything back with the appropriators, which I think have not done an adequate job. We have allowed this bill to go on budget. We will have the process of the budget, we will fund this program, and we will do what we should do for the future of this Nation. For those that oppose the bill on private property rights, again I will tell them that this bill improves private property rights. It helps those people; it does not hurt them. But more than that, may I suggest the bill, not the substitute, takes care of a problem that should have been taken care of beginning in 1964. The money put in the general budget are nonrenewable monies. They come from oil offshore, primarily Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama. They have carried this burden to fund programs very frankly that may have merit but not what the intent was. The intent was to protect our land, our water, and to conserve, not preserve, our wildlife. Our land is for people to enjoy. This bill will do that. This bill will heal some scars that this government created in reclamation. I believe this bill recognizes that wildlife is necessary. And for money being spent in Endangered Species, I will tell my colleagues that I have tried to amend the Endangered Species Act, and I hope to do that with the next administration, but this bill will help species from becoming endangered. This bill will establish an area of land where the American people, the future, the young ones, can go and hunt and fish, and be alone and think, to meditate, to be away from the television and the computer. This bill will, in fact, give us an opportunity to be free. Because we have gone from a rural area to an urbanized area. We have to face this. As much as I reject it, we have to face that. If we do not take and allow room for our people, we will have a society that is not stable. Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the substitute and the passage of this bill for the future generations.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, I am going to support the amendment, and the good gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). I think what we have to do is plant more trees. We also have to harvest them at the appropriate time, but there have to be more trees planted, because our forestry in the urban areas and in the rural areas is in decline because management has been very poor. I have to lecture a little bit here. There is a concept that trees last forever. They do not. We ought to recognize that, because they do the best to clean the air up. They are the one, true purifier of our air, and dead trees or old trees that have reached their maturity and have begun to die do not clear the air. I do not know how many read in the paper, we have a fire now in the Los Alamos area where there is a fire threatening our nuclear capability. We have to recognize that nature is well and good, but it is not necessarily as good as we can be in managing our forests. I have traveled to Sweden, I have traveled overseas, where they today have managed their forests over the years because they recognize the value of live trees and what they do and how they clean the air and how they help mankind live. So I am in strong support of this amendment, and I want to tell the gentleman, we will be willing to accept the amendment. And because the gentleman is running the time, I guess he will not object to his own amendment. But I do want to suggest to my colleagues that we have to look at the big picture. This is part of the big picture. As far as the delicate balance, I have to tell the gentleman from California Mr. Pombo), my good friend, we have adopted five of the amendments that have been proposed to us. We have listened to the gentleman from Ohio Mr. Regula). We accepted one of his amendments. We have taken one from the gentleman from Montana Mr. Hill), the gentleman from New York Mr. Boehlert), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). So we have adopted amendments. So this debate has been very good, because we have listened to both sides. And where the amendments really can make sense, we have accepted them. But, again, I congratulate the gentleman from Colorado Mr. Udall) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) on this amendment because I think it adds to the bill, and I hope the people of America recognize the importance of sound management, planting of new trees for the betterment of those people who live in the urban areas as well as the rural areas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was written with the cooperation of not only the staff but cooperation of the outdoors coalition. It was written and reviewed. They are supporting this, those people who directly use this. I have things in here that a lot of people would not vote for. I have trapping, hunting, fishing. Those are the things I would like to see left in this bill because it is part of wildlife rehabilitation and wildlife restoration. Again, I suggest, respectfully, the amendment as offered is so broad it defeats all the purposes that we have worked for to try to have the wildlife included in this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment, if it had been narrow, would have been somewhat easier to look at and maybe understand, but it is so broad that it concerns me, because she strikes all the definitions, including the definition of ``wildlife-associated recreation.'' In our negotiations, I worked very hard to include in that hunting and fishing to be considered as one of the recreation activities to occur on these lands. Under her amendment, by striking the definitions, it would give the Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior, the ability to define what could occur on these lands. That is why I am worried about the amendment. It is so broad, it strikes everything. This, very frankly, is not the intent. I am a hunter. I am a fisherman. I am a person who participates in the outdoors for a great many hours. Every hunting group that has any recognition at all supports this bill. The one group that does not support it is the animal rights group. There is a little contradictory work there. In fact, I am going over here in a little while to talk to the Safari Club that is actively involved in promoting this legislation. Members may not like that, but that is the fact of life, because they are the best conservation organization in existence in this world today, and I will say that without any reservation, and they are supporting this overwhelmingly. I also recognize the importance and definition of activities that can include archery ranges and things like that. If we strike all these definitions, we really go to the problem of letting, again, the Secretary of the Interior make those decisions. I think that is incorrect. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, whoever is running this mike, they better start learning how to run it. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify one thing. We believe, from the letters of the Committee on Agriculture, it was exactly the same, because we sent this bill to the committee and they worked on the committee through the exchange of letters. Now, if there is a misinterpretation, I do apologize, and I do believe the staff screwed up. But we are going to work on that part to make it work, that last provision. Now, the rest of the amendment disturbs me. This is my part of this bill, the wildlife restoration part. And what the gentleman does is eliminate the ability of Ducks, Unlimited, eliminate the ability of Safari International, the ability of those organizations that believe in wildlife restoration in participating in that program, with the gentleman's amendment. So I respectfully ask the gentleman to consider that, and let us work on that provision which, if the gentleman thinks I misled, I apologize, but I did not do it intentionally, because it came out of another committee. We will work on that provision as we go through this process. I will do that. But those other two provisions I adamantly oppose, and anybody who understands Ducks, Unlimited and Safari, they are the biggest contributors to wildlife restoration and sustainable yield of those species. I have to oppose the amendment as proposed, but I will work with the gentleman on that last provision.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 701, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It would be paragraph 1.