Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 3164, the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, which was introduced by our colleague, Jim Saxton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans. The purpose of the bill is to make much-needed improvements in the U.S. nautical charting program. The United States, and especially the State of Alaska, is dependent on marine transportation. However, every day large ships traverse 40,000 square miles of U.S. waterways that have shallow waters, known obstacles, and obsolete or inadequate charts. The vast majority of these critical areas are in Alaska. At last year's funding level, it will take more than 30 years to update the charts in Alaska alone. In the meantime, we are entrusting a significant portion of the Nation's oil supply, the safety of fishermen and cruise ship passengers, and the health of the marine environment to inadequate charts. This situation is not acceptable. H.R. 3164 will help to correct this problem. First, it authorizes increased funding for nautical charting. Second, it will increase the use of private survey contractors to supply data used in producing U.S. charts. This will greatly increase the number of ships and other resources that can be used to reduce the backlog as quickly as possible. We cannot afford to wait any longer to correct the nautical charting backlog. H.R. 3164 is an important contribution to fixing this problem, and I urge all of you to support it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 992, the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act. This bill would simplify the court procedures when a case is brought by a private property owner to protect their legal and civil rights as guaranteed in the 5th amendment of the United States Constitution. This is a bill that is sorely needed. As chairman of the Committee on Resources, we have documented in our hearings the many cases where governments assert the right to set aside private lands for the protection of wildlife. When a landowner wants to sell land and the government pays for the land, that is legal and an acceptable manner for the government to protect wildlife. However, as is happening more frequently, the government sometimes finds it inconvenient to find the funds to buy the land, so they designate it as habitat for an endangered species. When that happens, landowners find that they cannot use their land. In the last two years, under extreme pressure from the Republican Congress, the government is beginning a process to allow landowners to use land designated as habitat, but only at a very high cost to landowners. When landowners cannot afford to go to court to protect their legal and civil rights, the government can use pressure to take the land from the landowner. We need to give landowners a more level playing field. We need to insure that going to court is not so expensive that only the biggest and richest landowners can afford to protect their rights. A case in point is the Headwaters Forest in California. For years the government tried to use various forestry laws and the ESA to force the landowner off a portion of its land. The landowner filed a takings suit in the court of claims and now the government has come to the bargaining table and offering to pay for the property. This would not have happened if this landowner had not been a large, wealthy corporation with the resources to fight a long and an expensive court battle. Now some environmentalists are arguing that this bill would increase the number of Federal lawsuits. Some environmentalists are now in the business of filing lawsuits. In the last ten years, environmentalists have received over ten million dollars in payments from the Federal Treasury for filing Endangered Species Act lawsuits. I believe many of these lawsuits are frivolous and an abuse of the courts, and their numbers are increasing dramatically. For environmentalists to argue against allowing average citizens to sue at the same time they are making a living off their lawsuits in hypocrisy of the highest order. I have a list of environmentalists who have received payments for lawsuits and would ask that it be entered into the Record with my testimony. Let's insure that the smallest and poorest landowner can have the same rights as the biggest corporation or well financed environmental groups. Lets pass H.R. 992 and protect our constitutional rights.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute to the Solomon amendment. For those that are listening to this great debate, in order to help the public know about what Congress has been doing about Puerto Rico for the past 4 years, all hearings, testimony, reports, amendments and the bill can be found on the Committee on Resources' home page at www.house.gov/resources/. I have just read an editorial in the Washington Times that said there were no hearings on this legislation. We have spent 4 years having hearings and input from everybody participating in this legislation. To have a leading newspaper be that irresponsible is no call for true journalism in this great Nation of ours. Talk about propaganda. It is wrong when a leading newspaper can, in fact, promote something that is incorrect to the general public. So remember, www.house.gov/resources/ to hear the history of how this came to the floor today.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I make a suggestion to all my good friends. Why do we not begin the debate, general debate, and then let us work out the timeframe of the amendments that will be offered.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing the amendment of the gentleman from New York under 1 hour of the rule. The time should be divided equally between the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) 30 minutes and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 30 minutes, yielding 15 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana; is that correct?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of my colleagues that participated in the debate. They have worked from 10 o'clock this morning until the night on this historical moment. Much has been said about this bill. A lot of it true; some of it not so true. But I would ask Members in your hearts to think about one thing for one moment. We are being asked to re-vote on an amendment that was offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). And if Members defeat the Solomon amendment, they are left with the language in the bill. Keep that in mind. Mr. Chairman, I started this process over 4 years ago. I have had the hearings. I have done it the right way. I want to thank the leadership on my side of the aisle and the leadership on that side of the aisle for allowing this debate to begin. This is just one small step, as I said earlier in the day. This is one small step to bring justice to America and to the Puerto Rican people. I believe it is crucially important as we go into the year 2000. Mr. Chairman, I think it is the best thing we can do for democracy and for this great Nation. I thank you for the indulgence. I gave my word. I gave my commitment that we would bring this bill to the floor for America and the Puerto Rican people. This is the legislative process. This is how this House should work. Not behind closed doors, not by secret meetings, but open debate, discussing the merits, the cons and the pros of legislation that decides the destiny of this great Nation. I am asking my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Burton-Miller-Young bill as they voted before. I am asking my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), my good friend, as he asked you to do. I am asking them to vote yes on final passage so we can begin this venture into future generations.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Pro forma amendments, move to strike the last word and speak on the bill itself. Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. There will be an opportunity to close on the whole bill after the amendments are voted on. We can move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman mean to close on the whole bill?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of information being disseminated by members of this committee that this is a stacked deck against Commonwealth. I would respectfully ask them to read the bill. In fact, it enhances the Commonwealth position. I am a little bit concerned that the type of information being displayed and disseminated by other members of this House to those that did vote in favor of the Young- Miller-McCollum-Burton amendment ought to understand that this bill has been carefully crafted contrary to what people may say, and only the Congress has the right to define what Commonwealth is. Only the Congress. And so, Mr. Chairman, those who will be watching this debate on television should reconsider some of the information they have received in the very few minutes since the last vote. I just ask Members to do that as they watch this debate, to understand that we have crafted this bill very balanced and very straightforward. Those who say the bill has not seriously considered commonwealth, look at the original text. I did not be even include commonwealth in it. But because supporters of commonwealth came to me, we wrote with the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) a definition that does give them advantage. I would just like to suggest that we stick to the script.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The only question I have, what other States required that in the title or in the text of the statehood act? Were there any other States that ever required that?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This is not necessary, except only in the case where the plebiscite voted for statehood and they made the application to the Congress, the Congress votes, there is a transition stage, this goes back, and they have to reach the 75 percent?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That does not apply to the second stage?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This does not apply to the plebiscite that will be taken in the first stage?

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask the question of the gentleman, if I understand the gentleman correctly, he has modified his amendment from the original text where it only applies to the admission stage; is that correct?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Congress is given the responsibility to determine the civil rights and status of the inhabitants of Puerto Rico under the Treaty of Paris. I have the Treaty of Paris in front of me. I do not want to get into a great debate with my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, but Congress extended U.S. sovereignty to Puerto Rico and U.S. nationality to its residents. Consequently, I oppose the amendment, and I think that we ought to have a vote on the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused, because we have heard a lot of debate today about the Congress forcing people to do things, and I am afraid that what this will do is put the pressure on two groups to have the vote within 90 days. To my knowledge, this never happened in any other case in the United States if there was not a majority. In fact, there have been other areas that did not have a majority, and they had to wait and wait and wait until they did it again. I am a little confused why it is necessary to do this on this bill. It is very clear in my bill, it says you have to have a majority. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) will offer an amendment that I will not support that wants a super majority. This says we are going to have a vote on the two top ones in 90 days. This adds confusion to the bill and is not necessary. I reluctantly oppose the amendment. I just heard about it, and the gentleman talked to me a moment ago, and I do not really know what it is going to try to accomplish, so I do oppose the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The hour is getting late and it gets more difficult to participate. I oppose this amendment, as Puerto Rico is not a nation. This bill will enable Puerto Rico to become a nation as a separate sovereignty if a majority of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico vote to be independent. This provision is potentially confusing and should not be accepted, and I oppose the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules. There will be an amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr). I understand that will be debated. But I would suggest that everybody will have at least an hour if they wish to go to dinner or go to the office to do some work, and then after 8 o'clock all holds are barred and we hope to bring this to finalization by 9 o'clock. Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I do so reluctantly, although my good friend, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), and I have been working very close. But I thought about this after the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) testified before the committee, and I tried to put myself in place of a young man or young woman who had to, either for economical reasons or other reasons, had to go to the United States, because they are citizens now by statute, had to go to the United States to get employment and to work. This is a very serious system where we may set forth here an independent nation. I would like to know, I would like to participate, because I am still a citizen of Puerto Rico although I have gone to the United States. I would like to know if it becomes a State then everything is equal, or it remains the original commonwealth that it is now. But more than that we have to understand, these persons have a role to play because they were born on the island. They were born on the island. Keep that in mind. They had not left the island other than for economic reasons or for family, but they were born on the island. I will not support grandchildren, aunts, uncles and all the rest of them because they are citizens of the United States, because they were born here, in the United States. But I think it is imperative that we allow that individual who for some reason had to leave the island, as beautiful as it is, and now he is being asked to not make a decision, not participate in a decision that will affect his or her life. After many hours of debate and discussion with myself, and that sometimes gets awful boring, I decided in favor of the Serrano amendment. I want to compliment him for offering it. I am going to urge the gentleman from Puerto Rico who has been the horse in this whole program to be very careful in what he offers, and if he offers something, to please not ask for a vote on it. Because what will happen in the long run, people are going to be tired, and we never know what might happen. Let us say we do what is correct for the Puerto Rican people today. Although we can voice our opinion, let us keep this to the minimum of mechanical efforts to make sure this bill comes to fruition and a vote tonight.