Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With the concurrence of the gentleman from California, we are willing to accept the amendment, because it makes great sense. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am one who supports the maintenance. I will say this, that if the appropriators had done their job, the maintenance would have occurred and should have occurred. I am a little bit concerned and I would like to ask those that oppose this bill, where would the maintenance money be for this program if we did not have CARA? Where would it be? It would not happen. There would be no maintenance. It would be the same minimal type maintenance that has existed the last 6 years, and before that in the other administration. And if we go back and check the units that were created, we will find out a large percent of those units were created without authorization by this Congress, but through the appropriating committee. Just check the record. So I ask a lot of my colleagues, where would they be when they offer these amendments. If we did not have CARA, would they have any more maintenance? I say, no, they would have the same old thing. Just keep that in mind. So I think this amendment is unnecessary. We do recognize the need in this bill. I respectfully reject the amendment. Keep this package together. Let us go forward and accomplish what we set out to do: maintain, take care of our species, take care of our urban parks, take care of our easements, take care of destroyed land, and, yes, maybe buy some land. But nowhere in this bill says there shall be land bought. Nowhere.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to suggest two things. One is, I know this county; I was raised just about 75 miles above it. It was one of the larger refinery areas that refined oil. They have lost a lot of those refineries. They have 2 major refineries left, and I will be right up front with everybody, they happen to refine Alaskan oil. That gasoline that is produced is really burned in the State of the gentlewoman that is offering this amendment. If we think gas prices are high now, we should just try driving those refineries out of that area. It does not increase the amount of money for California. It does allow monies for this area; it is heavily impacted. Like the gentleman mentioned, now that California has different areas along the coast, some of the refineries are right on the coast, this happens to be about 75 miles inland or a little further. So I want to suggest that the amendment is aimed towards the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), there is no doubt about that, but the justification I do not think merits the offering of the amendment. I believe that the area which is identified in this amendment is an area that is highly intensified by refineries and should get some of this impact money. Now, as far as California having a surplus of $3 billion, I have heard this over and over and over again, States having surpluses. Are we going to condemn the States that have surpluses because they have managed their money well? The money that comes from this bill comes from the Gulf States or for specific reasons that should be spent. I believe, very frankly, we ought to commend the States that have the surplus. I thought this was a Republican policy, to make sure those that reward themselves and work well should be rewarded, not those that do not. So I am a little bit confused by the offering of this amendment, when it would not, in fact, address the issue of an impacted area.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In respect to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), I have to keep reminding everybody that this is on-budget. We did do that. This is money that we have collected for this program that has not been spent. I frankly, as one of my biggest loves, is for fish and wildlife do not want to have them wait for 6 years. I think that is a terrible, terrible blow to this bill. If you believe in conservation, if you believe in the establishment and protecting endangered species that are endangered or will be endangered if we do not act these next 6 years, there will be a lot of areas shut down. I honestly will tell you, I think this 6 years would be a terrible detriment. I did request from the leadership prior to this bill before the budget was acted on to have this included. That was denied. They said, ``Don't worry about it. We'll make sure if the bill passes that the money will be there some way.'' If we pass this bill, which I hope we will, we will find that money. This bill will go to the Senate. The President has a plan of his own. We have a plan of ours. Eventually we will reach a solution. But to have us wait 6 years, in fact, will defeat the purpose of the whole bill. Animals will not be around. The parks that these kids need will not be there. The crime rate will rise. Lands that were destroyed by the government on Indian reservations will not be reclaimed. Farmers that want to remain farming will not be able to farm because they will not have the easement provisions. Coastal States that are losing acres of land every minute will not have any recourse. Six years from now, probably most of us will not be here, in all due respect. I will be because I am going to be chairman of another committee. But I am just suggesting that to wait 6 years is a bad precedent to be set. I urge the gentleman to consider that. Keep in mind this process is begun. Let us finish it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) the balance of my time for purposes of control.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I will close if I have to.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage) makes a lot of arguments about the designation of monuments, but this bill has nothing to do with monuments. In fact, very frankly, I do not think if this amendment was adopted, it would stop the President from designating monuments. Only on Federal lands can monuments be created, and it has to be by an edict of the President. As my colleagues know, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) introduced the bill, and we voted for that bill, and it moved out of the House and sent it over to the Senate to, in fact, keep this type of action from occurring. I supported that and voted for it. Because I think what has been done in Escalante, what was done in Alaska by Stewart Udall, those things were done incorrectly. But that was the prerogative of the President. Until we change that law, that is the only way we can address that problem. But under this bill, it does not pertain to the monument problem at all. There is no money spent out of this bill for monuments. There is no action out of this bill for monuments. In fact, this bill has nothing to do with monuments. Now, although I sympathize with the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage) and the problem of monuments, in fact, I would support it, have supported the legislation, this is not the place to try to have an amendment adopted to solve that problem. In fact, I oppose the amendment. I strongly object to the amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes of my 10 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for the purpose of control.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one clarification. The highway funds were tax dollars collected for gas used on the highways. The airport funds were dollars collected for those who use the airports and the airplanes and the fuel that was used. It was not supposed to go to the general fund anyway. This is exactly the same, because we have $13 billion that is owed to the public because we collected it. It was supposed to be spent in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and we spent it. We spent it on God knows what. All we are doing in this bill is paying back the public and land and water conservation, endangered species, historical preservation, land easements, and all the rest of things in this good bill, just doing what is correct.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, but the spending could not occur until we reach that goal. Although I think some of those are meritorious.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would just like my colleagues to look at this little diagram. This is what CARA would take out of the total budget. It is 0.002 percent. That is all it takes out of it. And this amendment would be the first time that a new criteria is set on every bill. Only CARA does it apply to. Now, the thing that bothers me is that CARA is not about new spending. There is approximately, with the help of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) $1 billion a year that has already been spent. But under this amendment, none of that money would be spent. So we would cut out. No new parks, no wildlife refuge additions, no grants to States, no assistance to landowners or endangered species. None of that would occur. So what the amendment does is eliminate, in fact, until all that criteria is met, no more spending period for the Department of Interior. And I am sure the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) would love that.

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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, now my staff say it would be the borough. And if the borough can stop the city, and my colleague knows how local governments are, I do not object to local government, but I do not want local governments to have the leg up on any one of them when the city has--and by the way, we want to build hockey rinks. The borough, I am not sure they would do that. But if they said, no, they are not going to build any hockey rinks.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again may I congratulate those that are offering these amendments. If we did not have this fragile house of cards put together, this would be very attractive because my State is owned right now 94 percent by the Federal Government. By the way, I do not think any land is being bought by the Federal Government, although there are some that do want to sell to the Federal Government. The money is not available. They are inholdings. Of course some of the inholdings very frankly do not want to sell and I am supporting them because I do not think the government ought to purchase those lands from an unwilling seller. But I do know I have those Members within some of our parks that were created by this Congress which I opposed and refuges that want to sell, and the appropriators do not appropriate the money to purchase the lands. I do not think that is fair because those people that own those inholdings do not have an opportunity to develop the lands, and they do not have the opportunity to really sell their lands, because nobody wants to buy them. I think we ought to appropriate the money and CARA would allow that. I am telling the gentleman that the amendment for my State might make sense. But as a whole I do not think we ought to be involved in setting up separate States that say that 50 percent, then there is no land that can be purchased under this bill because there are willing sellers within my State. I know other States that would like to at that time get rid of their land and the only money available is from the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, in Fairbanks we have a city and a mayor and a council, but we have the Northstar borough which the city resides in, which is part of the borough.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, just land acquisition?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, it can. That is the urban parks recreation areas.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has raised some very interesting questions. I have been in the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and part of the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and it is a gorgeous area. Not nearly as gorgeous as Alaska, but it is gorgeous. But I cannot quite yet figure out, if I am a city under the amendment of my colleague and I want to build a skating rink or a park, under the amendment, the borough could disallow that. Is that correct?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will give my friends, and I do mean they are my friends, great credit for being imaginative and making it very difficult for this chairman. This amendment does have merits. But I will say that I do believe CARA provides, very frankly, the local governments the notice. I understand his concern. The Federal Government, I think, is pretty much hamstrung on how any land will be purchased. If I am not mistaken, I think his amendment is really directed towards the purchase of land by the States. I am not sure we have the authority to tell the States how to run their business and how and what lands they should buy, that is what concerns me a great deal. And the second thing is the way I read this amendment that under this amendment, a landowner who wants to sell their land or even a conservation easement on their land to the State government or to a Federal agent is prohibited from doing so without the permission of the local government, and that is the taking; that is the taking. I always thought that my good friends were always for the private property right owner in letting him make the decision on how he should dispose of his land if he wishes to do so. I am a little bit concerned. To me, the way that the amendment is drafted, it appears that it asks us to do two things; one is to interfere with a State. I want to believe in State's rights, and I hope everybody else does, too. I do not think we ought to be telling the state what to do and how they should or should not purchase the land and how they should be notified. The second one is, as I mentioned, I am a little bit concerned about if I own a piece of land and someone came to me, let us say it was a nonprofit, which was brought up before, and told me that we would buy my land as an easement, and I would have to go and get the occurrence from the local government, and I thought the people opposing the bill were against the concept under my bill, that is, saying we were taking land. Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit confused. I do say that I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, but the way that this bill is written, I think, it does raise some very serious questions. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time