Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise reluctantly, trying to be calm. This is an outrage. The gentleman from New York has never been to Alaska, never been to Chugach, and now he is telling the American native people of Alaska that they are wrong; they have no rights. The Forest Service is correct and the Wilderness Society is correct. Mr. HINCHEY: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am not yielding to the gentleman at all, period. I will tell him that right now. Just sit down.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am not yielding. I am telling the gentleman now that this is a deal this Congress made in 1971 to the Chugach native people. They had to go to court. In 1982, they had a decision from the court that said, yes, they had a right to 78,000 acres of land and a right of easement and it should be granted to them by, and shall be granted by the Forest Service. And not through the delta, by the way. South of the delta to the Martin River. Nowhere near it. And that is what the court said should be done. The Forest Service, because they did not like that decision, as an agency have drug their feet again and again. And why did the corporation back away from the Memorandum of Understanding? Because the Forest Service said we do not have the money to do the studies for the right-of-way. So they did the studies. They paid for it. Forest Service did it, but the native corporation paid for it. Now they say they have got a Memorandum of Understanding and we are going to bring this to a conclusion by December 1. Let me read the gentleman the last page. It says nonenforceable. Nothing herein shall be construed as committing and obligating the United States Forest Service or the United States. So what this tells me, after we go through this whole thing, this whole understanding, that the Forest Service, because they have not done it since 1982, they are going to say, forget it, American natives. We do not care what Congress has said. We are going to do what we want to do. That is how we are going to conduct our business. Congress does not count. I had a 500 foot right-of-way, yes, because in Alaska it takes a little more room to build a highway, in that terrain and with the climatic challenges, than it does in the State of New York. But the corporation said they will never have a road wider than a standard road. It will be a two-lane road. It will have public access. And, in fact, the property will revert back to the Forest Service when they are done using it. Now, the mention of coal being sold to Korea, as if it is an evil thing to sell their own property. For the gentleman's information, they are not going to mine that coal. What they want to do is develop some timber. Yes, they want to do that as their right. So I am going to suggest that the gentleman's amendment is mischievous. It, in fact, is evil, because he is going against the intent of this Congress and the American native people that owned this land long before he was born. In fact, the gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself. What he is trying to do to these people is really wrong. * * * He is going back on the word of this Congress against the first citizens of this great Nation. It was their land, and the gentleman wants to take away their right that this Congress gave them under an act. That just blows my mind, that someone from New York State, that has never been there, has never seen this area, never talked to the people can, in fact, promote something that has been given to him by one of the wilderness associations that promotes its ill will in this capital every day. No honesty, no direct influence at all, other than the fact that they think this is wrong. I am ashamed, in fact, to see an amendment like this against the people of the great State of Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I inquire, what words are being struck? What words? Just to say he wants to strike the words, what words?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Can the gentleman answer me that?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. What words is the gentleman asking be struck?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I think the amendment was; I was not referring to the gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I am not debating that. I am debating the comment that we are cutting the last rain forest. We have about now left in that forest, about, get this, 11 million acres of rain forest that will not be touched. Nobody takes that into credit.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the reason I asked that question, the gentleman said we are cutting the last rain forest down. Does the gentleman know how many acres are left, of 17 million acres that are available to even think about harvesting?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Does the gentleman have any idea what size the Tongass Forest is?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I was referring to the amendment itself as it is written. It strikes me it was really due to these American natives. If I am referring to the gentleman, I apologize for that. I will apologize for that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I think, in fact, it is immoral, yes. I do not think it is corrupt.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I did, and I apologize for that. I will withdraw the words if they are that offensive.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. There is no market because you have no timber.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

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, this amendment is a component of a broad effort in Alaska to resolve a long running debate over subsistence hunting and fishing. This amendment affects no other State. It concerns only Alaska. My amendment extends until October 1, 2000, a current moratorium on a Federal takeover of Alaska's fish and game resources. However, the extension of the moratorium is effective only if the State of Alaska adopts a constitutional amendment to resolve the subsistence debate. If a constitutional amendment is not in place by December 1, 1998, the moratorium does not extend under this amendment. Now the State of Alaska has until election day to decide whether to amend its Constitution. I am hopeful my State can come to a resolution in time. But I strongly believe my amendment is necessary to forestall and prevent a Federal takeover while the State proceeds in this effort. A Federal moratorium is necessary because Federal control of Alaska fish and game would be devastating to the wildlife, and especially the people of Alaska. A Federal takeover is not my choice, and should not be Alaska's choice either. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of my amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman we had the discussion on this issue in the committee last year and the year before. We had this discussion, and if I remember correctly, the gentleman at that time opposed any movement of any bill. Is that correct?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The form. The gentleman opposed it.