Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who just spoke, who is a dear friend of mine, that the landowner in Yellowstone did not request that participation in the World Heritage Program. In fact, she opposed it and unfortunately she was not listened to. In our hearings in New York, we had people that came to the committee and said that, yes, the Federal Government was trying to implement Heritage sites in their districts and they adamantly opposed it. It is happening right today in Lake Champlain. So what I am just suggesting is as much as I admire the sincerity of the gentleman, I would like to have him look at some of the records. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the Biosphere Reserve Program is operating without any congressional authority at all. Our constitutional system is designed to make our government responsible to the people; that is, the American citizens who are the ultimate sovereign authority in our system, a people who must satisfy the concerns of outsiders before they are no longer sovereign. That is why this is called the American Sovereignty Act. I respectfully request my colleagues to vote for this legislation, get us back in control under our Constitution. That is our role. That is our charge. Not to do so is neglecting our responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: Senate, State of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, May 11, 1999. Hon. Tom Coburn, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Coburn: As Chairman of the Minnesota Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Environment, I commend your efforts to defund the Man and Biosphere Program (MAB). Since one of the major opponents of your efforts is Congressman Bruce Vento of Minnesota, who represents a compact urban district with little undeveloped land, I would like to tell you about the painful experience northern Minnesota had with the MAB program in the past. During the mid-1980's the National Park Service proposed a massive Northwoods International Biosphere Reserve that included lands in my Senate district which were included without notifying me or any other local elected officials. In 1984 the state-sponsored Citizen's Committee on Voyageurs National Park took up this issue after a casual comment from the then Voyageurs National Park Superintendent Russell Berry that our area had been nominated as a biosphere reserve. At a public meeting of that committee on December 1, 1984 in Minneapolis after the nomination was made, Mr. Berry, partially explained one reason for the biosphere reserve by stating ``I'd like to be in as strong a position as possible to influence activities outside the boundaries that would adversely affect the Park in the context of things that would be detrimental to the ecosystem within the Park.'' Because the park is surrounded by thousands of acres of private property, Mr. Berry intended to use the biosphere as a means to implement land use controls on private property. Since my constituents did not want their constitutionally- guaranteed private property rights further threatened, they strongly opposed this proposal. Consequently, in 1987 the Northwoods International Biosphere Reserve nomination was withdrawn by National Park Service Director William Penn Mott. Until the MAB program is authorized by Congress and statutory protections for private property are guaranteed, I will support all efforts to defund this program. Without these protections, unelected federal bureaucrats will again use biosphere reserves as a means of implementing federal land use controls on private property. Since Mr. Vento's district is 300 miles away from the ill- fated Northwoods International Biosphere Reserve proposal, I would encourage you to listen to those who represent people who live and work in the affected area rather than those who recreate in the area on weekends. Thanks again for your efforts in defense of local control and private property. Sincerely, Senator Bob Lessard.

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

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a technical amendment which simply extends the time for grandfathering existing Biosphere Reserves by 3 years to 2003. I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly accept the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have just heard one of the greatest presentations of looney tunes I have ever heard. Very frankly, this is nothing to do with the parks. We do not invade the parks, we do not invade any of the other areas. We are trying to reestablish the congressional activity in designating land and not letting the U.N. I have to remind people the U.N. organizations are not accountable. U.N. bureaucrats are far removed from the American voters, and remember, many of the U.N. delegates that make these decisions do not believe in privately-held property. Their countries are owned by dictators or owned by governments that do not have private property, and when they make decisions, the United States, under our Constitution affecting private property rights, that is wrong. All my bill does is have the Congress get back involved in the designation of lands. If they are so heavily supported, those outside the parks, then I suggest respectfully they will be easily passed in this Congress. It does not affect any of the parks or any of the reference here or any of the Heritage Sites such as the Statue of Liberty. My bill does not affect that. All we do is put the committee, this Congress, back into the process of designating the lands.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, it is my intent to offer this amendment, which I have just done, I do think it is germane, to try to improve the amendment of Mr. Sweeney, which I do believe his amendment is clear, but the gentleman from Minnesota has raised a question. I want to make sure that this now is perfectly clear, for adverse effect only. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. These Biosphere Reserves were designated without congressional authorization and without consulting the public or State and local governments. This amendment invades the responsibility, again, of the Congress under Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution, making all laws concerning disposal or regulation of lands belonging to the United States with Congress. Under H.R. 883, existing Biosphere Reserves would have until December 31, 2003, to get authorization. They are not automatically disenfranchised. If the Colorado Biosphere Reserve had the strong local support claimed by the gentleman that offered the amendment, then there would be no problem of getting the passage of this legislation in this Congress. If I am still chairman of that committee, I will commit to the gentleman that I will support it if his people want to have it in that district. If they do not, it would not occur.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 883, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, asserts the power of Congress on the Constitution over the lands belonging to the United States, and this is all this bill does. So that everyone understands, the concern here is the Congress and, therefore, the people. They are left out of the domestic process to designate World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves. This bill requires the participation, as the Constitution so states, that the Member of the Congress and the citizens of this Nation are in the process. Many, many Americans from all over, sections of our country, have called my office, I am sure they have called my colleagues also, to say they are concerned about the lack of congressional oversight over UNESCO international land reserves in the U.S. and to express support for this bill. Within the last 25 years, 83 sites in the United States have been designated as Biosphere Reserves, World Heritage Sites or Ramsar Sites, all with virtually no congressional oversight and no congressional hearings. The public and local governments have not be consulted. The World Heritage and Ramsar programs are based on a treaty. H.R. 883 does not end U.S. participation in the World Heritage or Ramsar Sites. We have domestic laws implementing these programs, and H.R. 883 proposes to change these domestic laws so that Congress must approve the sites. The Biosphere Reserve Program is not authorized by even a single U.S. law or any international treaty. That is wrong. Executive Branch appointees, whatever their political party, cannot and should not do things that the law does not authorize, and I ask my colleagues, what is unreasonable about Congress insisting that no land be designated for inclusion in these international land use programs without clear and direct approval of the Congress? What is unreasonable about having local citizens and public officials participate in decisions on designated land near their homes for inclusion in an international preserve? If the boundaries of a national park are forced to change, even by a small adjustment, Congress must approve the change. However, a 15.4 million acre South Appalachian Biosphere Reserve encompassing parts of six States stretching from northeast Alabama to southwest Virginia was created by unelected bureaucrats, bypassing the Congress, and this is unconstitutional and it is wrong. We need to reemphasize the congressional duty to keep international commitments from abridging traditional constitutional constraints. Otherwise the boundaries between our owners' lands and others or even between the government's land and private property are too easily and often ignored. H.R. 883 will also prevent attempts by the Executive Branch to use international land designation to bypass the Congress in making land decisions and protect our domestic land use decision-making process from unnecessary international interference. We are going to hear a lot today from the other side and those that oppose it about this bill being driven by the fear of black helicopters and catering to suspicions and conspiracy theories of extremists. We will also hear a lot about the effectiveness and importance of the wonderful programs. We are also going to be told that these programs are honorary and have no effect on the use, management or disposition of public lands. However, the World Heritage Centre says otherwise. The director of the World Heritage Centre told the Interior Department in a letter: ``Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention obligates the State Party to protect, conserve, present and transmit to future generations World Heritage Sites for which they are responsible. This obligation extends beyond the boundary of the site and Article 5(A) recommends the State Parties integrate the protection of sites into comprehensive planning programmes. Thus, if proposed developments will damage the integrity of the Yellowstone National Park, the State Party has a responsibility to act beyond the National Park boundary.'' Going beyond what Congress has set aside, I submit this decision as a responsibility of Congress, not some U.N. committee of unelected bureaucrats. The public and local governments are almost never consulted about creating World Heritage Sites, the Ramsar Sites and Biosphere Reserves. Although proponents of these programs always keep saying the designations are made at the request of local communities, designation efforts are almost always driven by Federal agencies, usually the National Park Service. The Committee on Resources has not found one example where one of these designations was requested by a broad-based cross-section of either the public or local officials. On the contrary, these programs usually face strong local opposition. In my State the Alaska State Legislature passed a resolution supporting H.R. 883, and I will urge my colleagues to listen to the debate, make their decision, but remember their constitutional duty, and that is to make us the designees of lands use. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 883.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to correct one of the oldest and most controversial mistakes ever made in the naming of one of America's foremost natural geologic features, which is in the State of Alaska. I refer to Denali, which the federal government persistently and unjustly names Mount McKinley. Denali is North America's tallest mountain, rising to 20,320 feet in the heart of the Alaska Range. Its vertical rise measured from its lowlands to the summit is greater than that of Mt. Everest, in effect making it the tallest mountain in the world. Denali is also one of the nation's most beautiful natural features and a fitting symbol of the largest state and most prolific and responsible developer of natural resources. Alaskans and visitors alike marvel at its stunning beauty and dominant presence on the landscape, and the massif has come to represent both Alaska's proud heritage and bright future. On a clear day, one can see the giant peak looming on the horizon 140 miles away to the south in Alaska's largest city of Anchorage. It is no wonder that Athabascan Native people have always called the peak ``Denali,'' which means the High One. Through the State's history the peak has been known as ``Denali'' until it was discovered by a prospector who took it upon himself to name the mountain after President William McKinley. Rather than call the mountain what the Alaskan people had called it for hundreds if not thousands of years, one person arbitrarily changed the face of maps everywhere . . . everywhere except Alaska, that is. In 1975 the Alaska Legislature formally named it Denali, and the mountain is known by that name within Alaska to this day. Differences between state and federal names of geographic features are rare, and in this care the anomaly deserves amending. To this end, the State approached the federal Board of Geographic Names with the proposal to require the use of Denali in all maps nationwide; the Board was prepared to act favorably. However, the Board's hands were subsequently tied by the intervention of one Member from Ohio. One Member from Ohio continuously introduces legislation to block the name change. By its own policy, the Board refuses to act on a name change of a geographic feature when there is pending legislation concerning it, even if the measure is never considered. Thus, one single Representative can block a name-change within a State sought by the State's duly elected representatives. Whatever happened to the principle of federalism? Far from memorializing a president in an appropriate manner, the name Mt. McKinley is now the source of confusion for millions of visitors to Denali National Park, the correctly named park hosting the mountain with the misfit moniker. Congress in 1980 dispelled this confusion half-way by redesignating the former Mt. McKinley National Park as Denali National Park and Preserve. Consistency dictates we use the name Denali for the mountain at the heart of the park. I have nothing against naming a natural landmark after a U.S. President; it is an appropriate and honorable way to memorialize this nation's Presidents. However, William McKinley's deepest roots were in the State of Ohio, which is why he's known as the Idol of Ohio. I respectfully suggest the gentleman from the State of Ohio re- designate a federal forest or similar landmark of his district after President McKinley if he wishes to honor this great president's memory. I am more than willing to assist him in this task. My bill formally redesignates Mount McKinley as Denali, and requires the Interior Department to reflect this correction in all maps, references, and products put out by the United States government. This bill is not symbolic. It will be moved and receive its due consideration in this Congress. Congress should end a long-running, 26 year controversy and name the mountain after what the people of the State of Alaska want it to be called: Denali.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to protect one of the crown jewels of our national wildlife refuge system, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. On Wednesday, February 3, 1999 I chaired a hearing of the Committee on Resources on the impacts of the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota airport expansion on this premier national wildlife refuge. This refuge is home to a broad range of wildlife species which deserve every bit as much protection as do the species that live in other national refuges. Species living in this refuge include threatened bald eagles, 35 mammal species, 23 reptile and amphibian species, and 97 species of birds including Tundra Swans migrating all the way from Alaska. The displacement of these species could throw nature's delicate balance into a tail spin. If we allow the destruction of this refuge and these species, it could send a shockwave through the entire ecosystem and impact every species in its footprint--a devastating biological echo. The new runway expansion will cause so much noise and disturbance to visitors that most of the facilities under the path of the runway will have to be relocated. In fact, the refuge will be so impacted by the noise, that the FAA has agreed to pay the Fish and Wildlife Service over $26 million to compensate them for the ``taking'' of their property by virtue of the noise and the impact on visitors to the refuge. This payment, however, will not mitigate or reduce the harm to endangered species, migratory birds, or fish living in the refuge. This payment is intended to allow the refuge to build additional buildings, relocate visitors facilities, build a new parking lot, and additional roads. Yet, even with this level of disturbance, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the FAA found that the wildlife would not be disturbed so much that the airport expansion should be stopped. They also found no impact on the threatened bald eagle and no need for the protections of the Endangered Species Act in this case. They found that the wildlife in the refuge would adjust to the noise. They found that there is a little scientific evidence that wildlife will be seriously harmed by over 5,000 takeoffs and landings per month at less than 2,000 feet above these important migratory bird breeding, feeding and resting areas. In fact, over 2,000 flights will be at less than 500 feet above ground level. Yet the Fish and Wildlife Service has not required one dollar to be spent to protect the wildlife living in this refuge. An environmental impact statement was prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. However, this environmental impact statement makes little effort to address the impacts on endangered and threatened species in the refuge. Therefore, my view is that the EIS should be redone before this project is allowed to proceed. I know that wildlife and humans can coexist. In the coastal plain of Alaska, oil production and caribou have coexisted and the caribou population has increased. I have a picture in my office that illustrates that point beautifully. It shows a large herd of caribou peacefully resting and grazing in the shadow of a large oil drilling rig right on Alaska's north slope. Yet some Members of Congress, including some who have agreed to allow this airport expansion in Minnesota, have introduced legislation that would preclude most human activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by designating that area as a permanent wilderness. I guess they believe that wildlife in Alaska can't adjust to human activities . . . but wildlife in Minnesota can. I want to make it clear that I support our refuges. I sponsored the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act in 1997, which is now the law of the land. I want refuges to be places where wildlife can thrive and I want them accessible to the public. I support adequate funding so that our refuges can be open to the public. I agree that refuges and wildlife should not be used to stop needed projects and development in nearby communities. Let's protect the very little habitat for wildlife in these highly developed areas of the east. This is truly a last refuge for many of these species. Unlike Alaska, which has preserved over 130 million acres for protecting the environment, the highly congested and developed areas around Minneapolis-St. Paul simply cannot afford to lose the little amount of wild spaces left. The United States, as a world leader in preserving lands of significant and symbolic value, cannot let this sort of degradation occur to its land or wildlife. We have only one chance to save the beauty of this natural landscape, the crown jewel of America's wildlife refuges, for generations of younger Americans. Once it is gone, it is gone forever, nature can never truly recover from such adverse actions visited upon its fabric, an attack upon the scope and breadth of life that, for now, call this place-- home. For this reason, I am introducing this legislation to protect the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4. Today I rise in support of H.R. 4, ``A bill to declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense.'' Let's face the fact that the ballistic missile threat is not, I repeat, is not decreasing, it's here now and growing. The deployment of a national missile defense system is necessary for protection from rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran. Alaska is still on the front line, as it was during the cold war, but today's threat is from the increase of important military technology, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and ballistic missiles. In recent years, ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction technologies have increased at an alarming rate. In fact, rogue states such as North Korea and Iran have arsenals which are growing by the day. Alaska is within the sites of these rogue nations. Residents of Alaska are concerned about the fact that there is no protection from the threat of a ballistic missile attack. The Alaska state legislature recently passed a resolution calling on the President and Congress to provide for the common defense of our nation and the deployment of a national missile defense system. We not only owe it to Alaskans to protect them from the threat of a ballistic missile attack, but to the entire United States. Today, we can deliver on a policy that will move the defense of our nation forward. I urge your support of H.R. 4. Mr. Speaker I include for the Record a copy of the Alaska House Joint Resolution. House Joint Resolution No. 8 in the Legislature of the State of Alaska A resolution relating to a national ballistic missile defense system. Be it resolved by the legislature of the State of Alaska: Whereas the collapse of the Soviet Union has rendered obsolete the treaty constraints and diplomatic understandings that limited the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems during the Cold War; and Whereas the world has consequently witnessed during this decade an unprecedented proliferation of sophisticated military technology, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and ballistic missiles; and Whereas the United States has recognized that it currently has no means of protecting all of its citizens from attack by these new threats and has initiated a program to develop and deploy a national ballistic missile defense system; and Whereas four locations in the state are currently being considered as sites for deployment of the intercept vehicles for this system; and Whereas each of these locations provides the unmatched military value of a strategic location from which Americans living in all 50 states can be defended as required by the United States Constitution; and Whereas, throughout Alaska's history as a territory and a state, Alaska's citizens have been unwavering in their support of a strong national defense while warmly welcoming the men and women of our armed forces stationed here; Be it resolved, That the Twenty-First Alaska State Legislature calls upon the President, as Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, to provide for the common defense of our nation by selecting an Alaska site for the deployment of the national ballistic missile defense system. Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Bill Clinton, President of the United States; the Honorable Floyd D. Spence, Chair, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable John Warner, Chair, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate; and to the Honorable Ted Stevens and the Honorable Frank Murkowski, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Tauzin, Congressman Pombo and I, joined by more than 20 cosponsors, are introducing the Landowners Equal Treatment Act of 1999. The purpose of this bill is to insure that private property owners are compensated when their land must be used by the federal government as habitat for endangered or threatened species. The United States Constitution in the 5th Amendment states ``nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' The Supreme Court has said that the right to be compensated for the taking of private property for a public use is a fundamental constitutional right on the same level as the right to free speech and free exercise of religion. There are some in our country who no longer revere or respect the rights of private property owners. Their view is that using land for wildlife habitat is more important than protecting the right to own and control the use of private property. However, the purpose of our bill of rights is prevent the current whims of the majority from infringing on the rights of each individual in our country to certain liberties and freedoms guaranteed in our constitution. One of the most important of these is the full rights of ownership of private property, which includes the right to use and enjoy the fruits of ownership of property. Over the last several years, bills have been introduced to insure that property owners are protected by requiring compensation when property is taken, to insure that property owners have the right to bring suit to protect their own property rights, and to make property rights lawsuits less cumbersome. Certainly, landowners can file suit for compensation under the Constitution, but as you know these lawsuits are so expensive, time consuming and difficult, that ordinary citizens lose their land or their right to compensation because they cannot afford these lawsuits. Yet, the Clinton administration, has consistently opposed any and all efforts to protect private property rights. However, the Clinton administration has vigorously sought compensation for impacts on government lands when other public agencies must make use of them. This bill guarantees that private landowners, who enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights, receive equal treatment with government agencies, which do not have the protections of the Bill of Rights. On February 4, 1999 I chaired a hearing on the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. During the course of that hearing, we learned of a Federal Aviation Admininstration statute and regulation, that allowed the Fish and Wildlife Service to receive ``compensation'' for the lost ``use'' of refuge lands due to off-site impacts from aircraft overflights. The law requires the Secretary of Transportation to avoid or minimize impacts on public lands when approving construction of federal transportation projects. The Clinton administration is interpreting this law and rule to require that the Transportation Department first avoid impacts, then minimize impacts and if that can't be done to compensate for the impacts. This resulted in the Fish and Wildlife Service receiving an agreement for compensation of more than $26 million to be paid from revenues of the local airport through charges on airport users. The way that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the FAA interpret whether they are ``using'' public lands that requires the payment of compensation is through a definition of ``constructive use''. According to the FAA ``A `constructive use' can occur when proximity effects, such as noise, adversely affect the normal activity or aesthetic value of an eligible Section 4(f) property--even though there may be no direct physical effect involving construction of transportation facilities. A ``constructive use'' can occur where there is no physical presence or invasion of the property, but where the landowner's use is so limited by the imposition of the use by the public for habitat, that for all practical purposes the landowner can no longer use his own lands. Examples of this have occurred on an all too frequent basis. Our committee has heard testimony that the federal government has prevented homebuilders from constructing on their property because it is habitat for marsh rabbits, mice and rats. Farmers have been prevented from farming because of the presence of rats and fairy shrimp. Ranchers are being told to halt cattle grazing because of the presence of rare plants or birds. Schools have been halted due to the use of local lands because it is habitat for pygmy owls. And private timber owners are being told to put timber lands off limits to further uses because of the presence of owls, marbled murrelets, and salmon. The Clinton administration would argue that it is not a taking of property if only a small part of the property is put aside for habitat because the landowner still has other property they can use. However, in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, the airport noise only affected a small part of the property and yet the full compensation was paid for the impact on the portion of the property that was affected. Landowners ought to receive the same treatment and the same right to be compensated for the use of their property whether it affects the entire parcel or only a portion of the parcel. The bill that we introduce today will insure that private property owners are compensated on the same basis as the Fish and Wildlife Service. It only deals with the requirement of the Endangered Species Act that habitat of species be protected, even when that habitat is someone's private property. It would require the same sequencing as is currently applied to public lands--first avoid using private property for public use, if that is not possible, then minimize the impacts and if that is not possible mitigate through compensation. The bill defines what a public use is in the same manner that the FAA has defined it to include a ``constructive use''. It then lists the types of actions under the ESA that would be within the definition of use or constructive use. These are actions that result in the land being used as habitat by the government to the detriment of the property owner. The landowner would be compensated for any portion of land taken. The fact is that this bill will help not only private property owners but also our nation's endangered plants and animals. The right way to protect endangered species is through cooperative and voluntary efforts of private property owners. Most private property owners are delighted to provide a home to the nation's wildlife when the rights of the private property owner are respected. However, when the federal government forces landowners through coercion or threats of prosecution to set aside valuable land for nonuse because it is habitat, landowners will have no incentive to protect habitat for wildlife. Protecting private property rights is the right thing to do for people and wildlife.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate and honor two outstanding Alaskan students who have achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in their community. Frank Cyra-Korsgaard and Esther Perman, both of Anchorage, have just been named one of my state's top honorees in The 1999 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Mr. Cyra-Korsgaard is being recognized for his organization of ``Run for the Books'' which provided reading materials for homeless teens at Covenant House Alaska. Frank worked with Covenant House, identified adult mentors, solicited sponsors such as Barnes and Noble bookstore, promoted the event and organized the logistics. Eighty-two people ran in the event, including the Mayor of Anchorage and another 40 contributed, resulting in donations of more than 200 books and $3,600. Frank has been invited to speak about community service at a national education conference and wants to host another run next year. Ms. Perman is being recognized for her organization of replacing the ``Rocket'', a much loved piece of equipment that had been removed from a local playground because it failed to meet safety regulations. Esther learned that the city was going to update the playground, but spend most of the allocated funds on a new parking lot. She was appalled and began to rally the support of other kids and adults. Esther conducted a survey of the city's young people and presented the results, along with the request for a new Rocket, at a city council meeting. Over the course of many meetings, Esther convinced the council to overturn its original plan and spend more money updating the playground and less on the parking lot. The council also agreed to work with the kids in town to design a new Rocket. In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it's vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contributions these young citizens made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Mr. Cyra-Korsgaard and Ms. Perman are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, along with identical legislation being introduced in the Senate by Senators Murkowski and Stevens, to allow commercial and subsistence fishing to continue in Glacier Bay National Park. In 1978, the National Park Service made a determination that commercial fishing activities were incompatible with National Park Service resources and would be permitted only when specifically authorized by law. Because of this broad determination, the National Park Service developed a rule outlawing commercial and subsistence fishing within the waters of Glacier Bay National Park in 1997. This broad determination by the National Park Service ignores the fact that commercial fishing has taken place in the waters of Glacier Bay even before the National Park Service took control of the Bay in 1925. Alaskan Natives have fished in this Bay since the 1700's. Non- Native commercial fishing began in the 1880's. In addition, under the Glacier Bay National Park General Management Plan, put into place in 1984, commercial fishing was allowed. Why has the Park Service suddenly now determined that there is some threat to Park resources? Both the salmon and crab fisheries found off the coast of Alaska and in Glacier Bay National Park, even in Federal waters, are managed by the State of Alaska not the Federal government. There is no resource problem in these fisheries or within the boundaries of the Park. The halibut resource in this area is managed through an international treaty and scientists with both the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the International Halibut Commission have found that there is no problem with the halibut resource in this area. In 1990, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance sued the National Park Service claiming that commercial fishing was statutorily prohibited within the Park. In March 1997, the Federal appeals court (U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) ruled that commercial fishing was not statutorily prohibited in the Park, except for in wilderness areas. If there is no resource problem within the Glacier Bay National Park boundaries, then commercial and subsistence fishing activities should not be prohibited by broad National Park Service policies drafted in Washington, D.C. The determination banning commercial and subsistence fishing within Glacier Bay National Park made no sense and was a political decision that will take away the livelihood of a large number of fishermen and will affect the well being of a number of communities which rely on the fishing industry. A ban on commercial fishing will affect not only fishermen, but will also have a huge effect on processing companies including a Native owned and operated processing plant in Kake, which buys much of its seafood from vessels which fish in Glacier Bay. A ban on commercial fishing in Glacier Bay will affect 416 crew and permit holders from Gustavus, Elfin Cove, Hoonah, and Pelican and affect employment opportunities for 613 employed in the seafood industry in these four towns alone. This ban will have a huge economic effect on this region. All of the fishing operations in the Park boundaries are small businesses--there are no large fishing vessels fishing in the Park and no factory trawlers fish here. Last year, a group of stakeholders including commercial fishing industry representatives, Alaskan Natives, local processing companies, local and national environmental representatives, the State of Alaska, and Park Service personnel met to work out details of an agreement which would allow commercial fishing to continue. The stakeholders had not come to a resolution and because there was no resolution, language was put in the Interior Appropriations legislation to prevent the National Park Service from publishing final rules until the stakeholder group could reach an agreement; however, the National Park Service and national environmental groups made this a national environmental priority and prevented the stakeholder process from concluding. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will reverse this unjust and unscientific National Park Service policy and allow commercial and subsistence fishing to continue in the non-wilderness waters of Glacier Bay National Park. It clarifies that the State of Alaska will continue to manage marine fishery resources within the Park's boundaries. It will also provide compensation to those who have been displaced by any closures within the Park or by actions of any Federal agency which interferes with any person legally fishing in Park waters. Even with commercial fisheries operating in the Park, Glacier Bay National Park was the number one destination in the National Park Service system last year. Commercial fishing poses no threat to the ``park experience'' and in fact many visitors consider seeing fishing vessels as a positive experience in the Park. Mr. Speaker, there is no fishery resource problem in the Park and there is no justification for a complete closure of Glacier Bay National Park to commercial or subsistence fishing. This legislation will right a wrong and continue to allow these practices to continue in Glacier Bay National Park in a well managed and sustainable manner.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today, on behalf of myself and 126 cosponsors I am introducing the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. Last Congress, this bill, known as H.R. 901, passed the House by a vote of 236-191. I am confident that this Congress will pass the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. H.R. 901 will: (1) prevent the Executive Branch from using World Heritage Site, Biosphere Reserve, and RAMSAR designations to guide domestic land use policies without consulting Congress, (2) restore meaningful Congressional oversight of these programs, (3) protect the rights of owners on non-federal lands adjacent to or intermixed with these land reserves, and (4) protect our domestic land use decision- making process from international interference. United Nations' land designations, such as UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, currently take place without the approval of Congress and virtually no Congressional oversight. The Constitutional power of Congress ``to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States'' cannot be bargained away by the President in a Treaty. International land use designations, such as the Biosphere Reserve program, also enable the Executive Branch to implement international treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, without ratification by the United States Senate. For example, a prime objective of the biosphere reserve program is to create a national network of biosphere reserves that will implement Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Biosphere Reserve program is not authorized by a single U.S. law nor is it even governed by an international treaty. That is wrong. Executive branch appointees cannot and should not do things that the law does not authorize. Congress must act to keep international commitments from interfering with Constitutional rights, such as the right to own property, guaranteed all American citizens. Our system may be messy at times, but it is designed to protect rights that Americans value, rights which are only a dream for citizens of many other countries. Otherwise, the rights of our citizens and the boundary between public land managed by the government and private property can be too easily ignored. The public and local governments are almost never consulted about creating World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves. Designation efforts are almost always driven by unelected federal bureaucrats. Despite claims to the contrary by proponents of these programs, World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves face strong local opposition. So that everyone understands, my concern is that the United States Congress--and therefore the people of the United States--have been left out of the domestic process to designate Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage sites. This legislation restores the Constitutional role of Congress in governing lands belonging to the United States thereby making the people of this country relevant in this process. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act requires that Congress approve international land designations in the United States on a case by case basis, because according to the United States Constitution, Congress possesses the ultimate decision-making power over lands belonging to the people of the United States.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask this Congress to restore to our citizens their basic constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment of our United States Constitution and to ask Congress to insure that the rural areas of our country are treated fairly. On Wednesday, February 3, 1999 I chaired a hearing of the Committee on Resources on the impacts of the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota airport expansion on one of our premier national wildlife refuges, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge is home to a broad range of wildlife species which deserve every bit as much protection as do the species that live in other national refuges, including in Alaska refuges such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Species living in this refuge include threatened bald eagles, 35 mammal species, 23 reptile and amphibian species, and 97 species of birds including Tundra Swans migrating all the way from Alaska. The new runway expansion will cause so much noise and disturbance to visitors that most of the facilities under the path of the runway will have to be relocated. In fact, the refuge will be so impacted by the noise, that the FAA has agreed to pay the Fish and Wildlife Service over $20 million to compensate them for the ``taking'' of their property by virtue of the noise and the impact on visitors to the refuge. Yet, even with this level of disturbance, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the FAA found that the wildlife would not be disturbed so much that the airport expansion should be stopped. They also found no impact on the threatened bald eagle and no need for the protections of the Endangered Species Act in this case. They found that the wildlife in the refuge would adjust to the noise. They found that there is little scientific evidence that wildlife will be seriously harmed by over 5,000 takeoffs and landings per month at less than 2,000 feet above these important migratory bird breeding, feeding and resting areas. In fact, over 2,000 flights will be at less than 500 feet above ground level. I am not surprised that the Fish and Wildlife Service found that wildlife habituates to human noise and disturbance. Most of us know that wildlife adjusts to human presence and in some cases actually thrive. The abundant deer, bird, and fox populations in the highly developed northeastern United States can attest to that. Certainly, I would agree that our airports must be safe and that human life and safety come first. However, how many times have the Members of this Congress been told by the Clinton Administration that important safety projects cannot go forward because it might and I stress, might, impact wildlife? This excuse has been used many times in Alaska to oppose vital public safety and health projects without any scientific justification. I know that wildlife and humans can coexist. In the coastal plain of Alaska, oil production and caribou have coexisted and the caribou population has increased. I have a picture in my office that illustrates that point beautifully. It shows a large herd of caribou peacefully resting and grazing in the shadow of a large oil drilling rig on Alaska's north slope. Yet some Members of Congress, including some who have agreed to allow this airport expansion in Minnesota, have introduced legislation that would preclude most human activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by designating that area as a permanent wilderness. I guess they believe that wildlife in Alaska can't adjust to human activities, but wildlife in Minnesota can. In addition, the airport commission, by taxing passengers flying through Minneapolis, will pay over $20 million in compensation for the lost use of the refuge lands. The 5th Amendment of the Constitution protects private property when it must be used by the public. The Clinton Administration has consistently threatened to veto good bills that have been introduced which would have reduced the burden on private property owners when they attempt to seek compensation for their lost property from the U.S. government. The Clinton Administration and the Clinton Justice Department have made the process so expensive, so time consuming, so lenghty and so difficult that only the wealthiest landowners have any hope of obtaining the compensation guaranteed by the 5th Amendment. Yet, the Fish and Wildlife Service demanded, and received compensation for the impacts on the refuge without having to file a lawsuit or even threatening a lawsuit. I want to make it clear that I support our refuges. I sponsored the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act in 1997, which is now the law of the land. I want refuges to be places where wildlife can thrive and I want them accessible to the public. I support adequate funding so that our refuges can be open to the public. I agree that refuges and wildlife should not be used to stop needed projects and development in nearby communities. But let's do away with the double standard--one for the rural west and another for the rest of the country. Let's also insure that private property owners get the same fair treatment that the Fish and Wildlife Service got with respect to the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. Let's enforce the 5th Amendment and compensate private property owners when the government must use their land for public purposes. What's good for the government is even better for the people.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I enclose for publication in the Congressional Record the rules of the Committee on Resources, adopted by voice vote on January 19, 1999, a quorum being present. Rules for the Committee on Resources U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress Adopted January 19, 1999 rule 1. rules of the house; vice chairmen (a) Applicability of House Rules. (1) The Rules of the House of Representatives, so far as they are applicable, are the rules of the Committee and its Subcommittees. (2) Each Subcommittee is part of the Committee and is subject to the authority, direction and rules of the Committee. References in these rules to ``Committee'' and ``Chairman'' shall apply to each Subcommittee and its Chairman wherever applicable. (3) House Rule XI is incorporated and made a part of the rules of the Committee to the extent applicable. (b) Vice Chairmen.--Unless inconsistent with other rules, the Chairman shall appoint a Vice Chairman of the Committee and Vice Chairmen of each of the Subcommittees. If the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee is not present at any meeting of the Committee or Subcommittee, as the case may be, the Vice Chairman shall preside. If the Vice Chairman is not present, the ranking Member of the Majority party on the Committee or Subcommittee who is present shall preside at that meeting. rule 2. meetings in general (a) Scheduled Meetings.--The Committee shall meet at 11 a.m. on the first Wednesday of each month that the House is in session, unless that meeting is canceled by the Chairman. The Committee shall also meet at the call of the Chairman subject to advance notice to all Members of the Committee. Special meetings shall be called and convened by the Chairman as provided in clause 2(c)(1) of House Rule XI. Any Committee meeting or hearing that conflicts with a party caucus, conference, or similar party meeting shall be rescheduled at the discretion of the Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member. The Committee may not sit during a joint session of the House and Senate or during a recess when a joint meeting of the House and Senate is in progress. (b) Open Meetings.--Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, and each hearing of the Committee or a Subcommittee shall be open to the public, except as provided by clause 2(g) of House Rule