Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been a torture to get to the floor, primarily because of two issues that came under my jurisdiction, the Headwaters Forest acquisition of $250 million, and the New World Mine acquisition of $65 million. I agreed to this position of the Headwaters authorization in this bill because of the gentleman from California, [Mr. Frank Riggs]. The gentleman from California, [Mr. Riggs], did an outstanding job conveying the fact that there has been a war in the Headwaters area for about 10 years, and it is time to solve this problem. So I considered this a very good point to solve the problem of the Headwaters, and remember, the President asked for this. We have given it to him, as we should. The big reason I worked on the New World Mine is because of the gentleman from Montana, [Mr. Rick Hill], who is a member of my committee. The gentleman from Montana, [Mr. Hill], argued for months that Montana was going to lose 300 rural jobs and lose revenues because of the buyout the administration agreed to. I believe, very frankly, that the mine would have gone ahead. But the gentleman from Montana has done an excellent job protecting Montana and providing jobs in his district. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, we have heard some rumblings that the extremist fringes of the President's advisers may recommend vetoing this bill. If that occurs, I think we should send the President a clean bill, I mean strip everything out of it, send him down a bill with none of the so-called extras, including the money he wanted for the project I just spoke of. So I will suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this conference report is a good conference report; tremendously hard to do, a tremendous effort put forth by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Yates], and the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Regula]. I want to compliment them in their work, but especially these, the gentleman from California, [Mr. Riggs], and the gentleman from Montana, [Mr. Rick Hill].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns in OCS matters, particularly with respect to the Gulf of Mexico bordering his State of Florida. I agree that leasing moratoria, such as in this conference report, are not a fully satisfactory way to address our policy for oil and natural gas exploration and development in the OCS. As chairman of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, I would like to remind my colleagues of the considerable contribution that oil and gas from the OCS makes toward meeting our Nation's energy needs. Therefore, I am interested in a thorough review of the provisions of H.R. 180, and other bills which would authorize permanent closures of portions of the Outer Continental Shelf, in order to weigh the benefits of oil and gas development versus the potential risks to coastal and shelf resources. I assure the gentleman that the Committee on Resources will hold a hearing on this issue during the next session of Congress.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would like to say that I rise in support of this rule and this bill. This is of great interest to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. There is a lot in this bill I do not necessarily agree with, either, but this is the work of what I call compromise and working with different factions. I believe this is the best we can do. There are some parts of it in which I may not agree with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], who has done a yeoman's job, but he also has some parts that he does not agree with me. However, this is a good piece of legislation that should be passed. I urge our colleagues to understand one thing. If this does not pass, a lot of things that are in there will not be available when we go back to the table. I think it is the right thing to do. We should do it. I compliment the gentleman working on it.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1534, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1997. This bill would streamline the court procedures when a case is brought by a private property owner to protect their legal and civil rights as guaranteed in the fifth amendment of the U.S. 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 2 years, under extreme pressure from this 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 ensure 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 10 years, environmentalists have received over $10 million 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 is 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 ensure that the smallest and poorest landowner can have the same rights as the biggest corporation or the environmental groups. Let's pass H.R. 1534 and protect our constitutional rights.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to restate what has been said very eloquently by the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], and my good friend, the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. We cannot have it both ways. We must have sound forest management and we must have young trees growing today. I remember when there was the old saying ``plant a tree today for tomorrow,'' and we have forgotten that. Many people now want the old trees, the constant dying old trees, which contribute very little to mankind. They will either burn or they will die from beetle kill and they will stand and they do nothing to clean the air. All this concurrent resolution says is we say it is time for us to have sound management, scientific management of our new forests; to plant those trees, to harvest the older trees and have these forests clean up our air.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], subcommittee chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In December, representatives of 150 nations will gather in Kyoto, Japan, to sign a successor treaty to the United Nations 1992 framework convention on climate change. Today, as we anticipate this important event, we will debate a nonbinding measure putting the House on record as supporting proper management of our Nation's forests to maximize the reduction of greenhouse gases, among other important objectives. This resolution is similar to the Byrd-Hagel resolution passed by the Senate earlier this year that put them on record opposing any treaty that would cause serious economic harm to the United States. Everyone agrees that we must have clean environment, but we must do it in a way that does not impair or harm our economy. This resolution represents the fact we can have both a healthy environment and a vibrant economy. By the Clinton-Gore administration's own economic model, the effect of mandatory reductions of greenhouse gases would be devastating to this economy of ours. The United States has an obligation to defend the rights of people who inhabit our planet. It seems that officials representing the United States in the climate change treaty negotiations have lost sight of that duty. Science has proven to us that carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, can be taken out of the atmosphere by properly managing our forests. Carbon dioxide is kept out of the atmosphere by harvesting the forest before it begins to decompose or burn, thus storing the carbon in wood products that are environmentally friendly, as well as providing an economic benefit to society. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which may commit the United States to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, could lead to enormous burdens and costs on the American people, the economy, and our way of life. The key issue is whether the Clinton-Gore administration will commit the United States to mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide. Mandatory reductions will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and will cost many Americans their jobs. There are alternatives to mandatory reductions of carbon emissions. The alternative we bring before the Congress today is to properly manage our forests in order to take from the atmosphere carbon dioxide. This means using the controls on greenhouse gases that Mother Nature gives to us rather than controls that Government mandates for us to follow. For that reason, we would move to agree on House Concurrent Resolution 151 and urge our colleagues to give it their full support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 151) expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should manage its public domain national forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere among many other objectives and that the United States should serve as an example and as a world leader in actively managing its public domain national forests in a manner that substantially reduces the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 1787, I rise in support of this legislation to create an Asian elephant conservation fund. This measure is modeled after the highly successful African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. It will authorize up to $5 million per year to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior to fund various projects to conserve the African elephant. This flagship species of the Asian continent is in grave danger of extinction. According to international experts, there are less than 45,000 Asian elephants living in the wild. On a daily basis, these animals face the loss of their forest habitat, poachers who kill them for their bones, hide, ivory, and meat, capture for use in Burma's timber industry, and conflicts between elephants and man. While Asian elephants are found in 13 countries in South and Southeast Asia, nearly half of the wild population reside in India. Unless immediate steps are taken to help conserve this species, it will continue to disappear from its historic habitat. By enacting this legislation, it is my hope that projects will be funded to update census figures, assist in antipoaching efforts, translocate highly endangered elephants, and educate the public on why it is important to protect Asian elephants. This small but critical investment of U.S. taxpayer money will be matched by private funds and will significantly improve the likelihood that wild Asian elephants will exist in the 21st century. We should not allow this magnificent animal to disappear from this planet. H.R. 1787 will not solve all of the problems facing the Asian elephant but it is a positive step in the right direction. I urge an aye vote on the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, presently there is no formal international agreement defining a biosphere reserve--no treaty, no convention, no compact, no protocol--not one. Nor is there any domestic legislation authorizing and implementing the biosphere reserve program--none whatsoever. A biosphere reserve is an ambiguous concept in the field of international relations and lacks any legal definition in U.S. law. Forty-seven biosphere reserves have been created in the United States with virtually no congressional oversight, no hearings, and no legislative authority. Congress is not notified when a biosphere reserve nomination is under consideration--nor is there any requirement to do so. At a hearing held in March 1995 by the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, Congressman Nethercutt asked witnesses from the National Park Service, ``Are there any more biosphere reserves to be designated at this time that you know of?'' Mr. Kennedy, then Director of the Park Service replied, ``No sir.'' Yet, we now know that: Plans were well underway to designate the Ozark Highlands Biosphere Reserve and that the National Park Service was a prime force behind this effort. The National Park Service applied for a grant in late 1994 or early 1995 from the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program--approved the following May--for ``Elevation of Isle Royale Biosphere Reserve to Fully Functional Status.'' According to the grant description, the project would develop a Lake Superior protected areas directory, and this would be the first U.S. step toward designation of additional protected areas and community partnerships in the Lake Superior binational region. In other words, this grant was for a study to expand the Isle Royale Biosphere Reserve. Expansion of the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve to include 11 counties in West Virginia was--and still is--under consideration. The current system for implementing these programs has eaten away at the power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its constitutional power to make the laws that govern lands belonging to the United States. The public and local governments are never consulted about creating biosphere reserves. On October 7, 1997, during debate on H.R. 901, ``The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act,'' opponents kept saying that biosphere reserves were designated at the request of local communities. They seem to believe that if they keep repeating the mantra that ``biosphere reserves are created at the request of local communities'' often enough, then somehow it will prove to be true. The Committee on Resources has now held three hearings on this issue and has yet to find one example where a biosphere reserve designation was requested by a broad-based cross-section of either the public or local officials. On the contrary, the committee has found that biosphere reserve designation efforts are almost always driven by Federal agencies and often face strong local opposition whether in New York, Arkansas, New Mexico, or Alaska. Once again, biosphere reserves are designated with little or no input from the public or local government. They are very unpopular. In the few cases where the local citizenry has become aware of a pending biosphere reserve designation, the designation has been strongly opposed. Proposed biosphere reserve nominations for the Catskill Mountains in New York, the Ozark Mountains in Arkansas and Missouri, and for Voyageurs National Park and Boundary Waters Wilderness in Minnesota were defeated by an aroused local citizenry. The Alaska and Colorado State Legislatures have passed resolutions supporting H.R. 901, and the Kentucky senate passed a resolution opposing the biosphere reserve program, particularly in Kentucky. I would like to include these resolutions in the Record. I also wish to include in the Record a recent column, entitled ``Protected Global Soil?,'' which appeared recently in the Washington Times. I urge my colleagues to read the resolutions and this important commentary. A Resolution--in the Legislature of the State of Alaska Relating to supporting the ``American Land Sovereignty Protection Act.'' Be it resolved by the legislature of the State of Alaska: Whereas, the United Nations has designated 67 sites in the United States as ``World Heritage Sites'' or ``Biosphere Reserves,'' which altogether are about equal in size to the State of Colorado, the eighth largest state; and Whereas, art. IV, sec. 3, United States Constitution, provides that the United States Congress shall make all needed regulations governing lands belonging to the United States; and Whereas, many of the United Nations' designations include private property inholdings and contemplate ``buffer zones'' of adjacent land; and Whereas, some international land designations such as those under the United States Biosphere Reserve Program and the Man and Biosphere Program of the United Nations Scientific, Educational, and Culture Organization operate under independent national committees such as the United States National Man and Biosphere Committee that have no legislative directives or authorization from the Congress, and Whereas, these international designations as presently handled are an open invitation to the international community to interfere in domestic economies and land use decisions; and Whereas, local citizens and public officials concerned about job creation and resource based economies usually have no say in the designation of land near their homes for inclusion in an international land use program; and Whereas, former Assistant Secretary of the Interior George T. Frampton, Jr., and the President used the fact that Yellowstone National Park had been designated as a ``World Heritage Site'' as justification for intervening in the environmental impact statement process and blocking possible development of an underground mine on private land in Montana outside of the park; and Whereas, a recent designation of a portion of Kamchatka as a ``World Heritage Site'' was followed immediately by efforts from environmental groups to block investment insurance for development projects on Kamchatka that are supported by the local communities; and Whereas, environmental groups and the National Park Service have been working to establish an International Park, a World Heritage Site, and a marine Biosphere Reserve covering parts of western Alaska, eastern Russia, and the Bering Sea; and Whereas, as occurred in Montana, such designations could be used to block development projects on state and private land in western Alaska; and Whereas, foreign companies and countries could use such international designations in western Alaska to block economic development that they perceive as competition; and Whereas, animal rights activists could use such international designations to generate pressure to harass or block harvesting of marine mammals by Alaska Natives; and Whereas, such international designations could be used to harass or block any commercial activity, including pipelines, railroads, and power transmission lines; and Whereas, the President and the executive branch of the United States have, by Executive Order and other agreements, implemented these designations without approval by the Congress, and Whereas, actions by the President in applying international agreements to lands owned by the United States may circumvent the Congress; and Whereas, Congressman Don Young introduced House Resolution No. 901 in the 105th Congress entitled the ``American Lands Sovereignty Protection Act of 1997'' that required the explicit approval of the Congress prior to restricting any use of United States land under international agreements; be it Resolved, that the Alaska State Legislature supports the ``American Lands Sovereignty Protection Act'' that reaffirms the constitutional authority of the Congress as the elected representatives of the people over the federally owned land of the United States.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam 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 House Concurrent Resolution 151, the concurrent resolution just agreed to.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Doug Phillips of Anchorage, AK, who participated in CIVITAS at Bosnia and Herzegovina from August 1 through August 17, 1997. This intensive program is designated to train teachers from throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina with materials and methods developed to educate for democracy. Mr. Phillips was part of a team of 20 American educators who were assigned to 16 locations throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the Republika Srpska; the American teamed with 18 teachers from the Council of Europe in nine of these sites. This education for democracy program reached 550 teachers from both entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The summer training program was developed by the Center for Civic Education as part of a major civic education initiative in Bosnia and Herzegovina supported by the U.S. Information Agency and the U.S. Department of Education and built on a program begun in 1996. The U.S. Information Service in Sarajevo provided valuable assistance to the program. The goals of the program are to provide teachers with the tools necessary to help prepare students and their communities for competent and reasonable citizenship, including participation in elections and other opportunities to take part in the political life of their communities. Achieving this goal will contribute to the reconstitution of a sense of community, cooperation, tolerance, and support for democracy and human rights in this war torn area. I am also pleased to announce that the curricular materials being used for the program in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been adapted from the ``we the people * * * the citizens and the Constitution, foundations of democracy,'' and the project citizen programs, which are supported by Congress and used in schools throughout the United States. Initial reports evaluating the summer program indicate the materials-- selected and adapted by educators from Bosnia and Herzegovina--and teaching methods were enthusiastically received and will be adapted for use in classrooms in both entities of the country. Mr. Phillips is the social studies program coordinator for the Anchorage public schools. He also serves as the state coordinator for the ``we the people * * * the citizens and the Constitution'' program in Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend Doug Phillips for his dedication and commitment during the CIVITAS at Bosnia and Herzegovina summer training program. His work is helping to achieve the overall objective of building democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I just listened to the previous speaker speak, and since 1943, there was an Effigy Mounds National Monument by Mr. Truman of 1,481 acres; Russell Cave National Monument, 310 acres by President Kennedy; Buck Island Reef National Monument, 850 acres by Mr. Kennedy; Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Monument, 19,236 acres historical; Marble Canyon National Monument, 26,000 scientific, by Mr. Johnson; 1978, and the reason I am speaking, the Alaska Monuments, 56 million acres; and then, of course, the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument, 1,700,000 acres. Both of those, the Alaska one and the Escalante, were for political purposes only and that is all. We talk about robber barons. What about the coal deposits in that area that are now set aside so that people of every day can benefit from them? It is ironic that there are some other people at that time also interested in coal in foreign countries. This was used for political purposes only. There was no consultation, even with Mr. Orton, who was one of their colleagues. He got shot in the foot, in the head, and the back by his President for the environmental community. The bill we have before us today is a bill that will work. Fifty thousand acres is bigger than any other ones, than the political ones in Utah and Alaska. The true monuments, the true antiquities acts, have been applied with less acreage than is in this bill. This is a fairness bill. This is about if there is that much threat to an area, it can be saved by the President. If it is larger than that, and God help us, it never will be larger than that, they can come to the Congress. I am surprised the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] wants to give away the authority of this Congress, because under this Constitution, only this Congress can designate and classify lands. The gentleman also said, we can come back and undo what they did in Escalante. With this President, who are they kidding? It will never get signed into law. Do my colleagues know what they did to me in Alaska? After 56 million acres, they came back with Mo Udall, bless his heart, John Seiberling, a few others I can mention, and they set aside 147 million acres of land, took it away from the people of Alaska, took it away from the people of America, and put it in little classified areas so that only a few and the elite can get to see. This is not what the Antiquities Act is all about. I am suggesting, respectfully, if we really want to save the Antiquities Act, if we really want to make it work, then we ought to take and adopt this bill. It is a fairness bill. It is a bill that does allow the President, by the stroke of a pen, to set aside 50,000 acres. If he wants more, he has to come back to us. And that is our role, and that is what we should be doing. This is a good bill, and I urge a ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this thing with great interest. If my colleagues read the bill, it is a very simple and very good bill. It limits the President's ability. Up to or below 50,000 acres, he can do anything he wants to do. If we read the Antiquities Act, it was never meant to be used as Jimmy Carter used it when they set aside 87 million acres in my State as a national monument. It was never meant to set Escalante aside. That was never the intent of the Antiquities Act. It was to save the Statue of Liberty or some historical house or something that was being threatened by, in fact, outside encroachment. The most interesting thing I hear today is this body, especially that side, is willing to let the President run this country by himself when the Constitution says we have the authority, and only the Congress of the United States, to set aside and designate lands. I am not about to elect a king. He may think he is a king, but I say he is just a President and he has to answer to this Congress. This gentleman from Utah puts it very clearly, that we now say, all right, sir, Mr. President, if there is a Statue of Liberty or a Washington Monument or Mount Vernon being threatened, he can declare that a national monument if they are not already. But if there is anything larger than 50,000 acres, which is bigger than the gentleman's district, then he has to come back to the Congress. And what is wrong with letting the Congress do the job instead of just letting the President do the job? But more than Escalante, I want to tell my colleagues a little thing about Escalante. No one was consulted in the State of Utah. The Governor was not; our colleague was not. In fact, he was washed down the drain by this President on behalf of the environmental community. Washed out of this Congress. He was defeated because this President did not have the decency to communicate with those elected close by. And by the way, it is not a monument. It is actually an area that is basically of little value other than the coal. It is ironic to me this large massive amount of coal is now off limits. The second thing is there is private land involved here, 200,000 acres of land owned by the State of Utah, that is surrounded by, now, this monument. There are private land holdings within the monument that are no longer of any value. It is a taking without compensation. We are trying to solve a problem that this President has abused; that Jimmy Carter abused. It is a bill that should be passed, and I would suggest, respectfully, let us go with the amendments that have been offered by the gentleman from Utah; let us pass this legislation; let us put, I suggest, Congress back in the role of selecting the lands that should be a monument.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 131 is a resolution that recognizes the importance of our oceans and the fact that 1998 has been internationally declared the ``Year of the Ocean.'' As the Congressman for all Alaska, I am keenly aware of how vital the oceans are to my constituents. With the largest coastline in the Nation of 6,640 miles, Alaskan waters contain some of the richest and most valuable fishing grounds in the world. Many Alaskan towns are connected to the rest of the State only by watercraft, and many Alaskan Natives depend on fish and marine mammals for their subsistence. I strongly support efforts to focus attention on these bodies of water, which comprise nearly three-quarters of the Earth's surface. While remarkably we know little about many of the ocean's resources, in the future we are likely to grow increasingly dependent on the energy, food, and mineral resources that exist there. During the past 3 years, the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans has conducted valuable hearings on the importance of our fishery resources, the ocean disposal of radioactive materials, the impact of offshore mineral production, and the need to update nautical charts. In fact, we have been successful in convincing the appropriators that accurate charts are essential to the maritime community and that adequate funding is necessary. The United States has always been a fishing nation, and these resources have provided protein to millions of Americans. It is crucial that our world's fisheries be properly managed and that effective conservation measures be enforced. By focusing attention on this issue, House Concurrent Resolution 131 serves an important purpose. I compliment the authors for highlighting the need to promote sound stewardship of the oceans and their living marine resources. I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 131.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2233, the Coral Reef Conservation Act, a bill introduced by our colleagues Jim Saxton and Neil Abercrombie. While there may be only a few scattered corals in Alaska, coral reefs represent a new frontier source for medicines and lifesaving products. In addition, they provide natural protection for coastlines from high waves, storm surges, coastal erosion, and accompanying threats to human life and property. Furthermore, coral reefs are particularly important in generating tourism, and they contain some of the world's most productive marine habitats. These reefs make a real contribution to the economies where they are located. This bill is a positive effort to protect our Nation's coral reefs, and I am confident that the Department of Commerce will effectively manage the Coral Reef Conservation Fund.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, 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 have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1460, the bill just passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. And it would be a big deal in Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1948 is the result of several months of work on a land exchange proposal to help the City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska, to develop new economic opportunities. Sitka is located in southeast Alaska, and is not accessible by road. Its major source of year-round jobs for several decades was a pulp mill which shut down in 1993. The land for the pulp mill site was originally granted to the Alaska Pulp Corporation in 1960. However, the Federal Government retained a reversionary interest in it. This means that the United States may take ownership of the site if there is no timber processing on it for 5 consecutive years. With the mill closure, the property cannot be used for anything other than timber processing, even though it is one of the best available locations for new economic development in Sitka. The closure has several severe effects on the local economy. Year- round jobs were lost, the tax rolls took a hit, and people moved out of the city, to name a few. Sitka has taken a number of steps to revitalize the community. An important component of this effort is to reuse the pulp mill land in order to offset the job losses. Since the Federal reversionary interest clouds the ownership status of the land, the site cannot be put to productive use. H.R. 1948 takes care of this problem through a land exchange between the company and the United States. Under the legislation, the Federal reverter interest in the pulp mill will be removed. In exchange, APC will convey to the United States a spectacular inholding it holds on Hood Bay, within Admiralty Island National Monument. The Hood Bay property is a prime parcel of land that the Forest Service seeks to acquire, and it will be incorporated into the wilderness. Finally, the bill also conveys a portion of the mill site land to the city of Sitka, which currently has an easement on the property for its hydro project and water supply system. The Committee on Resources held a hearing on this legislation during the August recess. Major concerns were raised and resolved. The result is a fair exchange which benefits Sitka as well as Admiralty Island National Monument. The committee ordered H.R. 1948 reported with an amendment on September 10, 1997, by a unanimous voice vote. The bill is in the best interests of the Federal Government and of Sitka. I look forward to its passing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. I am extremely pleased that hope springs eternal. Just do not be too hopeful. Fifty-four acres is a lot of land, in my mind. But it is a good bill.

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 the legislation just considered.