Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman can rest assured that that will be done.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will yield, yes, the gentleman has correctly stated my interpretation of these provisions.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000 is an historic bill which comes to this floor today, as the result of the efforts of a number of my colleagues on the Committee on Resources. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my ranking member, for his support and cooperation in achieving a workable compromise bill to achieve the goals that we both share: conservation of our wildlife and our resources for our children and their children. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I have not often shared the same view on issues before our committee, but on this issue we stand together to make this investment in our Nation's future. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his untiring work to keep the Members talking to each other and pushing forward to bring this bill to the floor today. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has passionately spoken on behalf of his State and district to share his concern that our Nation recognize the contribution made by coastal Louisiana to our national energy security and to the extraordinary economic growth and prosperity that we enjoy today. I also want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), our newer Member, for his work to achieve a bipartisan effort on behalf of his constituency in Louisiana. Every meeting we had with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and all the other Members, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) was there. He was there constantly with cooperation and sound advice. I, again, want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), my old friend and dear colleague. There have been many battles over many, many years. Without his wise guidance and strong leadership, this bill would not have happened. There is no other Member of the House who, over the many years, demonstrated as much dedication and commitment to conservation as the gentleman from Michigan (John Dingell). He will leave a lasting legacy to our Nation of support for wildlife opportunities and recreation. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). Although the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) may not support our bill today, he nevertheless has been helpful to maintain a thoughtful and courteous dialogue among those of us who wish to achieve our goals in a different manner. He also attended all the conferences we had together and contributed to each one. He has been a valiant and constant supporter of the rights of private property owners, and I appreciate the zeal and determination he brings to that role. He and I share the same goals when it comes to protecting the rights of our property owners. They are America's foundation. I happen to agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) that our Federal Government needs to do more to show them the respect they deserve, and I believe that CARA moves in that direction. I believe CARA actually addresses the property rights problems and also addresses the purchase of lands. I believe that CARA achieves both conservation of our resources and, remember, I keep insisting on conservation, the word ``conservation,'' not ``preservation,'' and insures the protection of the rights of our private property owners. I would not support a bill that did not protect the rights of private property owners. Now, what does CARA achieve? First, it provides the stable and lasting source of funding to achieve the conservation of our natural resources. Our coastal States are our first line of defense in protecting our environment. They are impacted by many important economic activities in our coastal waters that benefit all of us, including the production of oil and gas for our energy and security. There are many other impacts as well, including shipping, fisheries, and recreation. They are on the receiving end of much of our polluted waters flowing from inland States. They have to deal with these problems and deserve our support. As our American population grows and our economy improves, we have greater needs for recreational opportunities and for opportunities to enjoy the beauty of our country. This bill provides funds for Federal land acquisition, yes, but, quite frankly, ensures a greater role for Congress in that process and provides greater protections for property rights. In the future, Congress can ensure that our Federal policies are fairer and provide more opportunities for those areas of the country which need and want additional Federal land acquisition. As a Republican, I believe the States should have a greater say in providing recreational and conservation opportunities for our citizens. This bill sends back to our States funds for ensuring that the States can provide these opportunities. We should get our government back as close as possible to the people so that they have a direct voice in how these types of decisions are made. Let local folks decide what to do with these conservation dollars, not inside-the-Beltway bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. This bill provides direct funding for wildlife conservation. It ensures that the funds are spent on projects that directly benefit wildlife. I, for one, am concerned that too much of our wildlife conservation dollars get spent on administration, bureaucracy, and not directly on wildlife, and this bill will ensure that the money be spent on wildlife. CARA will greatly increase funds for urban parks and recreation. At a time when crime and education are the top concerns for urban areas, this bill can help fight crime and keep our kids in school by providing more supervised recreation for urban kids. Increasingly as our economy grows, we are losing our history. It is important to remember and honor our past. If we do not know our past, we will never know our future. We must provide funds to preserve and protect our historic places, while protecting the rights of property owners. We ought to have the funds to reward those who help use their property to help us keep our links to our history. CARA will accomplish that goal. Protecting open space and protecting endangered species are goals that many Americans feel are extremely important. I have been a leader in bringing about common sense and balanced solutions to these problems. Again, we cannot accomplish these goals unless we work cooperatively with private landowners who are affected by these laws. Without these funds which CARA provides, these landowners are being asked to bear those costs alone. This is unfair, and I believe it will ultimately cause the laws to fail. CARA allows us to reward landowners who want to hang on to their family farms and protect endangered species. Again, CARA is not a regulatory approach to any of these problems. It does not force anyone to to anything. In fact, we have increased protections for private property owners and provide voluntary incentives to help landowners facing some very difficult issues. CARA will not harm our economy or our Federal budgetary process. It is a good and well-thought-out bill that will bring about some very reasonable process reforms while providing a steady and reliable source of funding so that we can insure that our responsibility to provide for our future generations. May I suggest CARA will be the future legacy for the future generations of this great Nation. We will have the opportunity of our young people and those that are here today to enjoy the open spaces, and private property owners will have their land, and our fish and wildlife will be available for those that we leave behind. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on May 6-8, 2000, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will be in Washington, DC, to compete in this national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to announce that the class from West Anchorage High School from Anchorage will represent the state of Alaska in this national event. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The names of the students are Brandi Backus, Jennifer Chen, Kaithyn Clark, Karen Elano, Meghan Holtan, Marlssa Johannes, Alyson Merrill, Colin Moran, Stephanie Painter, Brandon Reiley, Neeraj Satyal, Isaac Schapira, Nathan Senner, Stephanie Shanklin, Eric Sjoden, David Street, Ryan Tans, Carisa Verdola, Robby Wayerski I would also like to recognize their teacher, Richard Goldstein, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the class. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. These hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges. The students testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges representing various regions of the country and a variety of appropriate professional fields. The students' testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the simulated congressional committee. The judges probe students for their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Columnist David Broder described the national finals as ``the place to have your faith in the younger generation restored.'' Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People . . . program has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 26.5 million students nationwide. The program provides students with a working knowledge of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles a of democratic government. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with the students and teachers and by participating in other educational activities. The class from West Anchorage High School is currently conducting research and preparing for the upcoming national competition in Washington, DC. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People . . . national finals and my staff and I look forward to greeting them when they visit Capitol Hill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following into the Record in support of H.R. 3671. Archery Manufacturers and Merchants Organization, Gainesville, FL, March 13, 2000. Hon. Don Young, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Don: We heartily support H.R. 3671, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000. We feel this measure will tighten-up the administration of these programs and we are particularly supportive of Sec. 102, Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program Grants of H.R. 3671. This will go a long way toward fulfilling the commitment made to our sport and industry when we agreed to be taxed under Pittman-Robertson some 30 years ago. We also are greatly appreciative of having had the opportunity to participate in discussions with staff leading up to the writing of H.R. 3671. There was a refreshing openness in this entire process. Sincerely, Dick Lattimer, President/CEO.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would address several matters of concern to Alaska Natives through an amendment to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). As my colleagues know, ANCSA was enacted in 1971, stimulated by the need to address Native land claims as well as the desire to clear the way for the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and thereby provide our country with access to the petroleum resources of Alaska's North Slope. As the years pass, issues arise which require amending the Act. The Resources Committee as a matter of course routinely considers such amendments and brings them before the House. Consequently, I am introducing this bill containing several such amendments to ANCSA in order to facilitate having its provisions circulated during the upcoming Congressional recess among Congress, the Administration and the State of Alaska for review and consideration. This bill has six provisions. One provision would clarify the liability for contaminated lands. The clarification of contaminated land would declare that no person acquiring interest in land under this Act shall be liable for the costs of removal or remedial action, any damages, or any third party liability arising out or as a result of any contamination on that land at the time the land was acquired under this Act. Section 3 of the bill amends the Act further to allow equal access to Alaska Native Veterans who served in the military or other armed services during the Viet Nam war. Alaska Natives have faithfully answered the call of duty when asked to serve in the armed services. In fact, American Indians and Alaska Natives generally have the highest record of answering the call to duty. Under the Native Allotment Act, Alaska Natives were allowed to apply for lands which they traditionally used as fish camps, berry picking camps or hunting camps. However, many of our Alaska Natives answered the call to duty and served in the services during the Viet Nam war and were unable to apply for their Native allotment. This provision allows them to apply for their Native allotments and would expand the dates to include the full years of the Viet Nam war. The original dates recommended by the Administration only allowed the dates January 1, 1969 to December 31, 1971. Our Alaska Native veterans should not be penalized for serving during the entire dates of the Viet Nam conflict. This provision corrects that inequity by expanding the dates to reflect all the years of the Viet Nam war--August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975. The settlement trust provision of ANCSA presently indicates that the assets placed in a settlement trust are not subject to any creditor action other than those by the creditors of the settlement trust itself. Federal law is unclear whether the beneficiary's interests in the trust can be subject to attachment, etc., by their creditors. The legislative history from the 1988 amendments specifically indicates that a ``spendthrift clause'' could be included in the trust agreement for a settlement trust, but does not specify what the scope of such a provision could be. Normally, under general trust law, a spendthrift clause operates to limit the circumstances in which creditors can reach a beneficiary's trust interest. Alaska law (A.S. 34.40.110) expressly recognizes the validity of a spendthrift clause for trusts established on or after April 2, 1997, but does not expressly authorize a spendthrift clause for trusts established prior to this date. All this uncertainty places the Trustees in a difficult legal position under present law in deciding whether to honor creditor levies against beneficiary interests in a settlement issue. Trustees are required as fiduciaries to protect the beneficiaries' rights, but are also required to honor creditor actions if those are valid under applicable law. At least one court case is now pending before the United States District Court for Alaska to determine whether the trustees of a settlement trust must honor a levy by the State of Alaska with regard to various beneficiaries' unpaid child support obligations. By contrast, since 1971 section 7(h) of ANCSA has clearly restricted most creditor actions as to Native corporation stock. Creditors are prohibited from levies and other similar actions against Settlement Common Stock, except to the extent that a court has authorized creditor action with regard to unpaid child support. Thus, child support levies are valid against Settlement Common Stock as long as a court has previously authorized such actions. The proposed provision removes the uncertainty as to levies against the beneficial interests in a settlement trust by clarifying that such levies and other creditor actions may occur in the same circumstances that such levies and actions could occur with regard to the stock in a Native corporation. Not only does this confirm the trust procedure to a procedure already known to the personnel within Native corporations (who often provide the day to day administration of the trusts), but it also follows logically because the source of the settlement trust assets was the Native corporation. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the provisions which are currently included in the legislation I am introducing today which amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, it is my understanding that several other provisions are in the process of being drafted and/or negotiated with relevant parties. If those provisions are ready to be considered at the time of committee mark-up of this bill, then I anticipate that they would be offered for inclusion in the bill at that time. Again, I am introducing this bill today to facilitate its provisions circulated and reviewed during the April recess by the Department of the Interior, the State of Alaska and Alaska Natives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do thank the gentleman from California for making my case. This is an agency that is off track. This is an agency, as I have said before, and I am not pointing fingers at any individual, that went from 2 percent to 14 percent. They spent money inappropriately. What we have to do is to gain the faith back from the sportsmen. This is different than all the instances that the gentleman talked about the GAO investigating, the planes, et cetera. This is different. Every sportsman from 1937 took their money voluntarily and contributed 11 percent of the cost of that product to go into a fund to be redistributed back to the States to keep up the projects for fishing and hunting and other activities on our lands. That is what it was for. They did that voluntarily. What we found out as this investigation went forward, we were finding out disgruntled sportsmen deciding that maybe they ought not to pay the tax, maybe we ought not to go forward with the program. What I am trying to do with this legislation is to make sure there will be no money spent on things that were spent in the past such as travel, such as alcohol, such as things that the Congress would not appropriate money for, reestablishing the strength and trust of this trust fund. In turn, as I have said before, if we adopt my amendment, they are at the same level that they said and required from me, $19 million to manage the program. We will lose, after 1 year, ten employees because they are bloated right now. The second year we will lose 10 more. That is 20 total. Then it is based upon the cost index, and they can get more if there is more need, or in fact if there is not a need they will get less. We are not gutting this program. In fact, we are encouraging the program. The sportsmen I have heard from support what we are trying to do under this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Chairman. I include the following exchange of letters for the Record. Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 3, 2000. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Young: I understand that on Thursday, March 30, 2000, the Committee on Resources reported H.R. 3671, the ``Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000.'' As approved, the bill amends the Wildlife Restoration Act and Sport Fish Restoration Act programs and makes several changes relating to the expenditures of funds arising from dedicated excise taxes on recreational sporting and fishing equipment and supplies, generally. As you know, each trust Fund in the Trust Fund Code includes specific provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means which limit purposes for which trust fund monies may be spent. Statutorily, the Committee on Ways and Means generally has limited expenditures by cross- referencing provisions of authorizing legislation. Currently, with respect to the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (the ``Aquatic Fund''), the Trust Fund Code provisions approve all expenditures out of the Aquatic Fund permitted under authorization Acts, but only as those Acts were in effect on the date of enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Further, if unauthorized expenditures are made, no further tax revenues will be deposited to the Trust Fund. Thus, an Act not referenced in the Trust Fund Code must be approved by the Committee on Ways and Means before the authorizations are funded. I now understand that you are seeking to have the bill considered by the House as early as this week. In addition, I have been informed that your Committee will seek an amendment incorporating language which I am supplying (attached) to make the necessary Trust Fund Code amendments to allow the proposed expenditures to occur. Based upon this understanding, and in order to expedite consideration of H.R. 3671, it will not be necessary for the Committee on Ways and Means to markup this legislation. This is being done with the further understanding that the Committee will be treated without prejudice as to its jurisdictional prerogatives on such or similar provisions in the future, and it should not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Ways and Means in the future. Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 3671, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be placed in the Record during consideration of the bill on the Floor. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance on this matter. With best personal regards, Bill Archer, Chairman. Attachment. Amendment to H.R. 3671, as Reported Offered By Mr. Young of Alaska Page 28, after line 24, insert the following:

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides a transition period to scale the program back slightly, making it more effective. We keep the level of current employees, 120, constant for the first year, and have a gradual reduction in the years following. If the gentleman has modified his amendment by changing the word ``first'' to ``third,'' which would allow the bill to take effect before the report is issued, then I would accept his amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again if I can get the figures from the Fish and Wildlife directly, an explanation of what it is being spent for, I am willing to adjust these figures. This is the best we can do right now. I believe it is correct. We are not cutting back on the State administrators, other than 20. Then we will ratchet it back up over 3 year's time. I think we are meeting most of those goals which the gentleman has raised in the point of order. We will go to the Senate. We will be talking.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with this microphone? I am getting a little tired of it. Whoever is running this thing had better be on the ball, because this thing never goes on on time and some of the time we cannot hear anybody, and maybe that is on purpose. But we have spent an awful lot of money on this project, brand-new, and I have been here and listening to this and it is not properly run and it deeply disturbs me.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the great leader in the House.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree with that but with the understanding the review does not stand in the way of getting this bill enacted into law. I want to make sure we go forth with the law, the review can come after the law, because I am looking at the next administration, we do not want the abuse that occurred in the past administration.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3671.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, listen to these words. They tell us why this legislation is urgently needed. ``We don't want legislation to put us in a tighter box. If another need for this money comes up in the future, we want to be able to direct money to do it,'' says the deputy director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service about this bill in the March 2000 issue of Outdoor Life. The deputy director's words were a plea for help and this bill answers that plea. Those who oversee this program still want to use wildlife and sport fish money, paid by sportsmen, to create slush accounts and fund other unauthorized needs. This bill assists the Fish and Wildlife Service in their administration of the programs by providing clear direction on what they can do when administering these wildlife and sport fish trust accounts. The bill eliminates the broad discretionary authority that supposedly gave them the permission to spend wildlife and sport fish trust accounts on things like slush funds and other unnecessary foreign travel. This bill prevents abuses and protects the trust funds. This bill does not choke the administration of the wildlife and fish trust accounts. It makes them lean, and it makes them manage the money accountably. This bill maintains the integrity of the two acts by ensuring the funds will be used for true administration by authorizing exactly what the administration funds may be spent on. This includes things like personnel, direct support costs, costs to make grants, and actual overhead costs. It will ensure that millions of excise tax dollars paid by sportsmen and women on guns, ammo, archery equipment, and fishing equipment will go to the States to improve opportunities to enjoy hunting and fishing, enhance hunting safety, providing conservation projects to improve habitat, and a variety of other wildlife and sport fishery restoration projects that benefit all Americans. The bill caps the amount of administration dollars at $10 million for both programs for true program administrative needs, plus $5 million for the multistate grant program that the Service improperly funded from administrative money. These program reforms deliver more wildlife and sport fishing restoration dollars to the States. Because of past abuses, several certification, auditing and accounting requirements are added. These requirements will ensure that the committees in the House and Senate and the public will get what we need to confirm that the wildlife and sport fish trust funds are administered cleanly and effectively. We authorize a multiple-state conservation grant program to fund wildlife and sport fish restoration properties or programs that will benefit both groups of the States. Often States wish to cooperate with conservation projects, and this program will allow them to do so; $5 million, split between wildlife and sport fish, are authorized for this purpose. With some of the savings we achieve in the bill, we authorize a firearm and bow hunter safety grant program to assist States to enhance firearm, hunting and archery education programs, and ranges and safety programs. We found a lack of accountability within the current Federal Aid program that administers the accounts. We found that Federal Aid managers lacked control over their own resources. As a result, we elevated the chief of the Federal Aid program to the level of assistant secretary. The new position is the assistant director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs, who, organizationally, reports to the director. This structure elevates one-third of the total fish and wildlife service budget and places it squarely in the director's office. The sole responsibility of the new assistant director will be the management, administration, and oversight of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs. Every Member should support this legislation. I knew that we had to press on and make these reforms rigid when I read what the deputy director of the Service said about this bill in the March 2000 issue of Outdoor Life. I urge the House to support this important legislation and ensure that the taxes paid by sportsmen and women benefit wildlife and sport fish conservation and restoration in the States. By supporting this legislation, we will prevent excise taxes, paid by our constituents and earmarked for our game and fish departments, from being improperly used and squandered by the Federal Government. It is our job to protect the sportsmen and women who pay the tax in each of our districts. Vote for this bill. Do something we should have done more around here, and that is to provide solutions to eliminate waste and fraud and abuse by the Federal Government. It just so happens doing it this time means more wildlife and more sport activity for the people in our districts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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