Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1948) to provide for the exchange of lands within Admiralty Island National Monument, and for other purposes, as amended.

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, this is a Democrat bill, I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. I am sure the gentleman is going to ask for a vote, too. The legislation by the delegate from Guam, H.R. 1460, will change existing Federal law to permit the Government of Guam to elect a delegate by other than separate ballot. The bill, as reported unanimously by the Committee on Resources, is being amended at my urging to continue a crucial program for certain small communities in the former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands which were affected by the United States nuclear testing. As the current authorization expires at the end of this fiscal year, it is essential to take action to permit the continuance of this necessary program. As H.R. 1460 is consistent with increasing local self-government both in Guam and in the small atoll communities in the former U.S.- administered trust territory, and does not result in any adverse budgetary impact, I would urge my colleagues to adopt the measure. This is a good piece of legislation. I congratulate the gentleman from Guam for introducing the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1460) to allow for election of the Delegate from Guam by other than separate ballot, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], if I may, if he would like to speak on our favored bill. He was not here. But if he wants to speak on something else, that is fine, too. After all, he is a senior Member of this House and I bow to his wisdom and maturity. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on June 3 the House passed H.R. 1420 by a vote of 407 to 1. They approved the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. This measure is the result of 3 years of hard work by the Committee on Resources, the minority and majority. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and myself and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and other people were involved. We conducted seven hearings and three markups on ways to improve our National Wildlife Refuge System. It is the culmination of successful negotiations between members of the committee, the administration, hunting and conservation and environmental groups. The other body has now overwhelmingly approved the amended version of H.R. 1420. The three differences in the legislation include an expanded definition of the term ``compatible use'' to mean ``a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge''; a requirement that the Secretary monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge; and a clarification requiring existing rights-of-way within refuges. I have carefully reviewed these changes and find them acceptable. By approving this measure today, we will conclude the legislative process and send the bill to the President of the United States. By so doing, I am convinced we have enacted an organic act for our 509 wildlife refuge units that will serve our Nation well in the 21st century. In the final analysis, this is a fine piece of conservation legislation that is true to the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt, and it reaffirms the National Wildlife System Act of 1966. Before closing, again I would like to mention the people that have participated in this extraordinary effort: My good friend, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, who was one of the fathers of the Wildlife Refuge Act; the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Jim Saxton, the chairman of the subcommittee; the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. John Tanner; and the gentleman from California, Mr. Duke Cunningham. I would like to recognize and express my appreciation to Secretary Bruce Babbitt; Majority Leader Trent Lott; the ranking minority member, the gentleman from California, Mr. George Miller, who cosponsored this bill; the leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; and all the conservation and environmental and hunting organizations supporting this effort. Together we have been successful in crafting a bill that will effectively conserve and manage our fish and wildlife for the future, while allowing millions of Americans to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation within our refuge system. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1420. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1420) to amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to improve the management of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution along with Speaker Gingrich, Mrs. Chenoweth, chairman of the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Herger, and Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Pombo, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Sessions Mrs. Smith of Washington, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Cunningham, Mrs. Cubin Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Doolittle Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Schaffer of Colorado, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Radanovich expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should manage its public domain national forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Global warming has been an issue of great debate and discussion in Congress. Whether you believe human induced global climate change is occurring or not, this resolution deserves the support of everyone. Science has proven to us that carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas can be taken out of the atmosphere by allowing a young vibrant forest to absorb carbon through photosynthesis. It is stored as wood. Carbon dioxide can also be 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. In December of this year, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which may commit to the United States to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, is expected to be signed in Kyoto, Japan. The ramifications of this treaty could be enormous for 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 mean it will cost you $8 more each time you fill your gas tank. Mandatory reductions mean your home heating bill will increase by 50 percent. Mandatory reductions will cost taxpayers millions of dollars and will cost many Americans their jobs. There are alternatives to mandatory reductions of carbon emissions. One alternative is to manage our public forests better in order to extract from the atmosphere and store more carbon dioxide than we currently do. This means using the controls on greenhouse gasses that mother nature gives to us rather than control that Government mandates us to follow. With this resolution, we send a message to the Clinton-Gore administration. Use mother nature's way of cleaning the atmosphere. Manage our forests to improve the environment. Don't simply impose still more Government controls on our lives. We must send a message to the Clinton-Gore administration that the Federal Government itself should take the lead in taking steps to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By managing our public domain national forests to minimize additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere we will improve our air quality, the health of our Nation's forests and set an example for other nations' as the world prepares for the negotiations in Kyoto, Japan.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on August 20, 1997, the Comptroller General issued decision letter B-277719 concluding that section 108, of the paragraph entitled ``General Provisions--Department of the Interior'', Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 is permanent law. Section 108 states that: ``No final rule or regulation of any agency of the Federal Government pertaining to the recognition, management, or validity of a right-of- way pursuant to Revised Statute 2477 (43 U.S.C. 932) shall take effect unless expressly authorized by an Act of Congress subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act.'' This letter was issued in response to a request by 30 Members of Congress and resolves the question of permanency of this important provision. I ask that a copy of the letter dated July 29, 1997, requesting a decision from the Comptroller General on the permanence of section 108 and Decision Letter B-277719 be printed in the Congressional Record. July 29, 1997. James F. Hinchman Acting Comptroller General of the United States, General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Hinchman: The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (P.L. 104-208) contains the following section under the heading ``General Provisions'' in Title I--Department of the Interior: ``Sec. 108. No final rule or regulation of any agency of the Federal Government pertaining to the recognition, management, or validity of a right-of-way pursuant to Revised Statute 2477 (43 U.S.C. 932) shall take effect unless expressly authorized by an Act of Congress subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act.'' We emphatically believe that Section 108 was intended by Congress to be a provision of permanent law and we seek your expedited consideration of this question and a letter decision on the issue. Time is of the essence. Out of an excess of caution, several of the undersigned Members of the House urged inclusion of this language in H.R. 2107, the current Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, which will soon be considered by the Senate and possibly by a conference committee. We are concerned that re-enactment of this provision could inadvertently give rise to erroneous inference that Congress does not consider the provision permanent. 32 Comp. Gen. 11 (1952); 36 Comp. Gen. 434 (1956). Please note that Sec. 108 contains the phrase ``subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act'' which clearly is intended to have effect beyond the fiscal year covered by the bill. Words substantially similar to this phrase previously have been recognized as words of futurity. 65 Comp. Gen. 588 (1986). Any characterization of this phrase as only a modifier of the words ``an Act of Congress'' would reduce the phrase to mere surplusage because there is no Act of Congress enacted prior to or on the date of enactment of Sec. 108 that expressly authorizes regulations pursuant to R.S. 2477. Therefore, enactment of any such authorization is necessarily subsequent to the date of enactment of Sec. 108. The phrase is meaningless if it is interpreted solely as a temporal limitation on the three words immediately preceding it. ``Constructions that do not give effect to all of the words of a statute must be avoided . . .'' 70 Comp. Gen. at 354 (citing 2 N. Singer, Sutherlands Statutory Construction Sec. 33.02 (4th ed. 1984)). Clearly, Sec. 108 contains sufficient words of futurity to indicate that it is a permanent law. The legislative history of Sec. 108 and related predecessor provisions is both relevant and illuminating. 65 Comp. Gen. 588 (1986). The language that ultimately became Sec. 108 was taken intact from a legislative bill, S. 1425, as reported to the Senate by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on May 9, 1996. The language of S. 1425 was included in the Senate version of the FY 1997 Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill at the request of the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Ranking Republican Member of the Committee on Appropriations and its Subcommittee on Interior. Also relevant is limitation of funds language concerning the same subject matter that was enacted for FY 1996 by the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-135): ``Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or expended by the Secretary of the Interior for developing, promulgating, and thereafter implementing a rule concerning rights-of-way under section 2477 of the Revised Statutes.'' Subsequently, the same limitation of funds language was included in H.R. 3662, the House version of the FY 1997 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, which passed the House on June 20, 1996. The conference committee considered the House's limitation of funds approach but ultimately adopted the Senate's permanent language taken from S. 1425 for inclusion in P.L. 104-208. This clearly indicates that Congress considered and rejected a temporary provision in favor of a permanent one. 36 Comp. Gen. 434 (1956). Another factor indicating that Sec. 108 is permanent law is the fact that it is contained in a paragraph under the heading ``General Provisions, Department of the Interior'' but applies by its own terms to ``any agency of the Federal Government'' As a factual matter, Sec. 108 applies to the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, which administers land subject to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, and any other federal agency that administers reservations from the public lands, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The other 13 sections under the ``General provisions, Department of the Interior'' heading apply exclusively to the Department of the Interior. Therefore, Sec. 108 is sufficiently unrelated to the title of the Act in which it appears to support the conclusion that was intended to be permanent. B-214058, February 1, 1984. In conclusion, it is overwhelmingly clear from a plain reading of Sec. 108, the presence of words of futurity, its legislative history and the legislative history of related provisions, and its relationship to the rest of Act that this provision is permanent law. We would greatly appreciate your immediate attention to this question and a reply at your earliest convenience. Conrad Burns, Orrin Hatch, Robert F. Bennett, Larry E. Craig, Frank H. Murkowski, Ted Stevens, U.S. Senate. Don Young, Bob Smith, James V. Hansen, Joe Skeen, Jerry Lewis, Bob Stump, Charles H. Taylor, Helen Chenoweth, Richard Pombo, John T. Doolittle, Barbara Cubin, George P. Radanovich, Doc Hastings, Wally Herger, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Bob Schaffer, Ron Packard, Jim Kolbe, Jim Gibbons, J. D. Hayworth, Michael D. Crapo, George R. Nethercutt, Jr., John E. Ensign, Chris Cannon, House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided amendment to restrict the ability of the Agency for International Development [AID] to fund the CAMPFIRE program [Communal Area Management Programme For Indigenous Resources]. While I am not normally an advocate of foreign aid, CAMPFIRE has been one of the most successful programs ever funded by the Agency for International Development. In fact, it has been so successful that the program, which started in Zimbabwe, has been adopted by other African countries, including Botswana, Namibia, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia. What is the CAMPFIRE program? In short, it is an initiative to improve the standard of living among Africa's poorest rural farmers by giving them an economic stake in the wildlife resources of their country. Under CAMPFIRE, villagers receive a direct economic benefit from their wildlife and, therefore, a powerful incentive to conserve those resources. In some rural areas, CAMPFIRE provides up to 90 percent of the money villagers use to build and maintain their homes, hospitals, and schools. Without CAMPFIRE, many Africans and numerous wildlife species, including elephants, face a bleak future. Under the CAMPFIRE program, a village receives a percentage of the money collected from the proceeds from wildlife management. For instance, if a sport hunter wants to shoot a Cape buffalo or an African elephant, it will cost him thousands of dollars. Prior to CAMPFIRE, all this money went directly to the central government in Harare. Today, a significant percentage of those funds remains at the local level and the villagers themselves, in a democratic process, decide how this money will be spent. This is the essence of the CAMPFIRE program is local control of wildlife and financial incentives, which result in effective conservation programs. The CAMPFIRE program is strongly supported by not only the Clinton administration but also such major conservation organizations as the African Wildlife Foundation, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, International Union for Conservation of Nature, National Wildlife Federation, Safari Club International, the World Wildlife Fund, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. These entities enthusiastically support this program because they recognize that: Seven million people in Southern Africa have directly benefited from programs like CAMPFIRE. In Zimbabwe, 5,000 to 10,000 jobs have been created and 33 percent of the land in that country is now devoted to wildlife management. The population of African elephants has increased in Zimbabwe from 45,000 to more than 66,000 today and poaching in CAMPFIRE areas has been stopped. The number of households participating in CAMPFIRE has grown from 9,000 in 1989 to about 105,000 in 1995. The number of elephants shot in CAMPFIRE areas has decreased since its introduction from 300 per year to 130 in 1996. Our Nation's support of the CAMPFIRE program allows thousands of people to improve their livelihoods, to provide education and the most basic health care for their children, and to effectively manage their wildlife resources. In addition, it encourages the growth of democratic ideals. It is not a coincidence that elephant populations have increased under CAMPFIRE, and it would be a terrible mistake to end AID's essential investment in this innovative program. In the final analysis, CAMPFIRE and programs like it are Africa's best hope for conserving its wildlife resources and providing its population with a bright future. I urge a no vote on the Fox/Miller amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 124 to respond to what I call goon squad tactics taken by Canadian fishermen on the weekend of July 19, 1997. Canadian fishermen, frustrated with their Government's effort to resolve Pacific Salmon Treaty disputes, further escalated the salmon strife by illegally blockading the M/V Malaspina, an Alaskan ferry, in Prince Rupert, British Columbia. What I find most reprehensible, is the failure of the Canadian Government to enforce a court order to end the blockade. Innocent passengers were held hostage while the Government of Canada turned a blind eye. This isn't the first time the Government of Canada has condoned illegal actions. In 1994, 258 United States fishermen were unfairly charged an illegal transit fee by the Canadian Government to transit from Washington to Alaska through the Inside Passage. U.S. fishermen have only two choices when traveling from Washington to Alaska. The safe route is through the Inside Passage, while the alternate is traveling in the treacherous waters of the Pacific Ocean. This illegal fee forced U.S. vessels to either risk their safety or be illegally fined. In 3 years, the Canadian Government or its citizens have purposefully ignored and violated international law and harassed United States citizens. How many times are we supposed to put up with Canada's disregard for international law? House Concurrent Resolution 124 asks the President to use all necessary and appropriate means to compel the Government of Canada to prevent any further illegal actions. Mr. Speaker, Canada's past actions are serious and I would hope that Congress and the administration can work together to develop and implement measures to help protect the interests of the United States with respect to the Pacific salmon fishery. The United States should not tolerate threats to those interests from the action or inaction of a foreign government or its citizens.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the King Cove Health and Safety Act of 1997. This legislation will for the first time provide residents of King Cove, AK, with a safe form of access to and from their community. Specifically, the legislation grants a right- of-way across certain Federal land in exchange for acquisition by the United States of land containing prime habitat owned by a Native corporation. Surface transportation made possible through the right-of- way will connect the city of King Cove, which has an ill-equipped airport, with Cold Bay, which has a modern, 24-hour all-weather airport and the State's third-largest runway. King Cove, AK, is a remote community on the western end of the Alaska Peninsula, with a population of about 900. Most residents are of Aleut descent and have lived in the community long before Federal ownership of the surrounding area. Unfortunately, the only modes of transportation to and from this fishing community are by air and sea through some of the most extreme--and deadly--weather and topographic conditions in the world. Weather conditions permitting, travel is done by small aircraft from King Cove's tiny dirt landing strip with no navigational aids to Cold Bay's modern facility, just 20 miles away. Because King Cove's landing strip is surrounded by mountains and experiences some of the harshest wind, snow, and dense fog found anywhere, residents do not have safely reliable transportation linking them with the modern airport facility in Cold Bay, from which access to the rest of the State and lower 48 States is available. People in King Cove are literally trapped in their community for days at a time during poor weather, and the risk of adverse conditions is present year round. There have been several fatal accidents in the corridor between King Cove and Cold Bay. Even an attempted medivac during a life-and-death situation resulted in an accident, killing all aboard the aircraft. These accidents alone point to a need for a road between the cities. In carrying out the land exchange, the bill specifically directs that the Secretary of Interior and the Aleutians East Borough, the municipal government representing King Cove and Cold Bay, to develop terms and conditions on use of the right-of-way to protect the lands and resources affected. This will assure that public and private interests in the lands surrounding the area are protected. In addition, the land acquired by the United States under the exchange is very high quality and maintains the quality of the public's resources. In summary, this bill opens the way to safe, cost-effective access to King Cove and benefits the public, and it is my intent to move this legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. This is a classic example of overreaction by Congress. This is curing a sprained ankle with a sledgehammer. The gentleman from Oklahoma is trying to solve a problem that exists in a very few instances. I am told that a few Indian businesses are selling large amounts of tobacco and motor fuels without collecting State and local sales and excise taxes. I can appreciate how this gives a competitive advantage to a few Indian businesses. I will support legislation which will straighten out this problem to the satisfaction of the States and local communities as well as the tribes. However, I cannot support this amendment because it would place a limitation on appropriated funds that will adversely affect all Indian tribes. Most lands being taken into trust have nothing whatsoever to do with taxes or commercial businesses. Most lands being taken into trust are small home sites which lie within an existing Indian reservation, parcels of nontrust land scattered from one end of a reservation to the other. Out west this is a very common land ownership pattern and is called checkerboarded land ownership. Administering these checkerboarded lands is a nightmare both for the States and the tribes. Let me point out that small parcels of Indian land are still going out of trust every year. As a matter of fact, more land is going out of trust each year than is being taken into trust. In 1996, for example, 130,000 acres of land went out of trust and only 55,000 acres were taken into trust. For decades the Interior Department has been trying to block up these checkerboard lands by taking back into trust those lands purchased by tribes which were originally part of a reservation and then went out of trust under the 1887 General Allotment Act. The effect of this amendment would be catastrophic for any Indian tribe which has spent years and years and thousands and thousands of dollars buying back their lands. In many instances, these lands purchased by tribes will have little value to anybody unless they are taken into trust. Tribes are doing this for reasonable, practical purposes. The Bureau of Indian Affairs operates law enforcement programs, road maintenance programs, environmental services programs, real estate services programs, water resources programs, and a large number of other programs which only apply to trust lands. Tribes want their members living on these lands to benefit from these programs. Trust status defines the jurisdictional powers exercised by a tribal government. It also defines the extent of State jurisdiction. It determines Federal criminal jurisdiction. The gentleman from Oklahoma wants to solve a commercial tax problem which many of the States have already solved. I am told that even the State of Oklahoma has worked out most of its tax problems with most of its tribes. This amendment, however, ignores all of these State solutions. Instead, this amendment would completely eliminate the Secretary of the Interior's ability to take any land into trust, in any State for any reason. Mr. Chairman, this sledgehammer approach is wrong and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, with a vote of 429 to 1, the House has overwhelmingly approved Representative Wally Herger's bill, H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997. While Representative Herger introduced the bill and the bill had bipartisan support, it really belongs to the Quincy Library Group, which is a coalition of local environmental group leaders, local timber firms, local business people, local government officials, and local labor union leaders. So that everyone knows what the Quincy Library Group agreement is, I ask unanimous consent to insert a copy of the agreement immediately following my remarks. The bill was overwhelmingly approved because of Mr. Herger's bipartisan approach and because it is solution-oriented. It resolves forest conflict instead of promoting it. The bill embodies a new way of thinking about the Nation's forestry problems, the solutions for which come from the people who live in communities within our public forests. Thus, it draws on the community wisdom that our Government is supposed to be about. Our Nation is a government of the people because the people give us their wisdom. Never in my years of serving as Alaska's only Congressman in this House have I seen such overwhelming support for a forestry bill and I truly believe that this level of enthusiasm results from the fact that everyone wins with the collaborative approach that the bipartisan sponsors and supporters have taken on this measure. We did not come to the floor today with 429 votes. We would have probably received around 270 votes by my count on the Young substitute to H.R. 858, but that did not deter the sponsors of the bill and me from making further accommodations in the spirit that the Quincy Library Group agreement. We wanted to make people comfortable. We made accommodations to Representative Miller, the ranking member of the Committee on Resources and a person who I have grown to respect as a friend. We made many accommodations that Representative Miller brought to us from the administration, which over the years has often supported the Quincy Library Group. Before that Mrs. Chenoweth made some 50 changes to the bill in the subcommittee and in the full committee, many in response to administration and interest group concerns, before the bill was reported. I asked Senator Feinstein, the lead on this issue in the other body for her recommendations and I incorporated those recommendations into my manager's amendment. Because some modifications were made here on the floor, I want to explain them. I want to explain how the final Young substitute that we just agreed to differs from the Young substitute that appeared in the Record as amendment No. 1. I also want to explain some of the major amendments that were adopted in the committee and subcommittee. The substance of the bill is Section 2. Section 2(a) is simply the definition of the Quincy Library Group agreement, which forms the basis of the bill. My amendment No. 1 and the final product agreed to by the House included clarifications that the library group agreement is for ecologic and economic health of lands and communities. This is a community stability proposal, which by its nature concerns ecologic health of the land and economic health of the communities. These are mutually exclusive and the Quincy plan integrates them. Ecologic health and economic health is what sustainable development is all about. In subsection (b), the Young substitute basically requires implementation of the Quincy Library Group plan and, in particular, a cornerstone of the plan that is referenced in subsection (d) involving strategic fuelbreaks and group selection harvests. In subsection (b) where we direct the Quincy program, we added a proviso that required one environmental impact statement. We also added a requirement that the environmental impact statement be completed within 200 days of enactment. The Young amendment No. 1 contained a subsection (i) that was mostly removed because we added the single EIS in subsection (b) at Mr. Miller's urging. However, I want to be clear that my substitute would have provided for a total of five EIS's over the course of the pilot project, one for the entire 5-year program including the first year's site-specific segment of the program and one site-specific EIS for each subsequent year's program. Mr. Miller requested that I remove that provision and do only one EIS. We agreed to a 200-day timeframe for the EIS. The Quincy group has waited long enough for their consensus to reach the ground. This means that within 200 days after enactment, the program will be implemented. We made no changes from my substitute, amendment No. 1, in subsection (b)(2) where the pilot project area is explained. The total acreage of the national forests that the pilot project covers is about 2.5 million acres. However, one key to the Quincy proposal is that fuelbreaks and other subsection (d) activities are only eligible for part of that 2.5 million acre area. Specifically those activities will be carried out on lands that are ``Available for Group Selection'' as identified on the QLG map. This is a cornerstone of the agreement because the land base was essentially that which would leave the roadless areas out of areas that would receive fuelbreak, thinning, group selection, and other silviculture treatments under the QLG plan. ``Available for Group Selection'' area is about 1.6 million acres. Areas outside of the ``Available for Group Selection'' were essentially those recommended over the years for protection by local environmental groups that are participants in the Quincy Library Group and by national environmental groups. My original substitute, amendment No. 1, would have gone the extra mile to ensure that the areas outside of those that are ``Available for Group Selection''--the roadless areas for which environmental groups have long sought protection--would not be eligible for subsection (d) fuelbreaks, would not be eligible for any road building, and would not be eligible for any timber harvesting activities. The provision that would have done this was subsection (i)(5)(A)(i). This would have ensured that while the pilot project was being implemented or eligible to be implemented on the ground, the ``Off Base'' and ``Deferred'' land areas (essentially the roadless areas) would be ineligible for timber harvests, road building, and subsection (d) activities. That was my proposal in amendment No. 1, but Mr. Miller required that it be removed, which in my view may lessen the protection of the roadless areas. Subsection (c)(1), which removes spotted owl habitat from eligibility for harvest stayed in the compromise version. So did the riparian protection that was added in full committee. I might add that the riparian protection is straight from the Clinton Northwest Forest Plan, which was composed by scientists including the ex-chief of the Forest Service, Dr. Jack Ward Thomas. Personally, I think that this riparian protection may be too stringent, but it is part of the Quincy Library Group agreement and part of existing law that the Quincy group wants to follow. That is why it is in my substitute. It is part of the deal. Mr. Miller asked that I remove the provision that would have allowed more funding to be recommended and provided for riparian restoration projects, which I believe are an important part of the Quincy Library Group Agreement. The provision, subsection (c)(3), was removed. The Quincy group's plan envisioned compliance with laws that ensured proper harvesting techniques and ensured forest standards would be met for management activities like fuelbreak construction. Nevertheless, we added a proviso that ensured that the resource management activities would be implemented to the extent consistent with the Federal laws that apply to such activities. This would included the interim guidelines for the spotted owl. Should final guidelines for the owl become effective, they would apply instead. This change makes the requirement of subsection (d) no less of a requirement than it was before. It simply means that in meeting the requirement of subsection (d)(1) and (2), for example, that the laws that guide good forest management and other applicable laws that would guide forest management activities apply to the carrying out the activities. The change does not make subsection (d) hollow. Now for subsection (d). It requires fuelbreaks on not less than 40,000 acres and not more than 60,000 acres within the pilot project area, meaning the ``Available for Group Selection'' area. This is a key to the Quincy plan because it will improve the ecology of the forest and the stability of the communities economically. Economic stability will improve because a more stable supply of timber will be available through the fuelbreak, thinning, and group selection requirements of subsection (d). People will work. The bill is not cast in terms of a particular volume of timber that is required to be harvested. Rather the bill requires acreage harvest for things like fuelbreaks and group selections, which might be part of a fuelbreak. The range of 40,000 to 60,000 acres was selected based on scientific information. The committee report explains that point. Even if 60,000 acres are treated with fuelbreaks and thinning each year it would take nearly 30 years to treat the entire land base that is ``Available for Group Selection'' under the Quincy plan. Because there were allegations that the bill would allow too much harvesting, the committee added a maximum acreage of harvests 70,000 per year. While I do not think that too much of the group selection would be done outside of the fuelbreak system, 70,000 acres was selected because it would allow 60,000 acres of fuelbreaks plus some group selection. Mr. Miller, Mr. Herger, and I agreed on new language concerning riparian management that was added to subsection (d). Mr. Miller pointed out that riparian management is an important part of the Quincy Library Group agreement. While I believe my amendment No. 1 addressed riparian management by including the SAT guidelines for subsection (d) activities, we added some of the language suggested by Mr. Miller and modified by me. My modification to that language ties the riparian management into the SAT guidelines required for timber activities in riparian areas. Thus, under the SAT guidelines, there may be watershed assessments and watershed work that then opens the possibility of management of riparian areas. Flexibility that is needed if there is funding available for such activities. That is why we tied that new subsection (d) proviso on riparian management to the new subsection (f)(7) which ensures that amounts that are available for subsection (d)(1) and (d)(2) activities will remain available for those activities and not be transferred into subsection (d)(4) activities. In short, we wanted to ensure that riparian management, which may be very expensive, does not cut short the ability to achieve the critical fuelbreak and group selection work that will ultimately provide more revenue that could be directed by the appropriations committee to important riparian management or restoration efforts under (d)(4). Subsection (e) simply requires cost effectiveness, something that is often missing in government. Cost effectiveness, means efficiency, not shoddy work or shortcuts on environmental protection. We removed subsection (f) in the Young Amendment No. 1 at the request of the administration and Mr. Miller. This will not affect implementation of the Quincy pilot project because other multiple use activities will be positively affected by implementation of the Quincy pilot project. For example, wildlife habitat will improve because it will not burn as readily or as badly. In our funding subsection we specified that normal reprogramming guidelines must be followed to shift funds if they ordinarily could not be used for the purpose described. We wanted to provide maximum flexibility for the Forest Service to use existing accounts to cover QLG activities. So that the funds now spent for timber sales will be shifted into timber activities associated with fuelbreaks, group selection, individual tree selection to meet the requirements of subsection (d). My substitute also included a proviso that ensures that the amount of overhead and general administration will not be too high. We wanted the money to reach the ground and implement QLG projects. We also did not want other multiple use activities, for example grazing, to suffer a loss of funds in order to implement the requirements in the bill. At the request of the junior Senator from California, Mr. Herger and I agreed to add a provision that directly authorized funds to be appropriated to carry out the pilot project. Regarding subsection (g) of my new substitute agreed to by the House, the term of the pilot project will be at least 5 years. This is necessary because it is a critical component of the Quincy Library Group's agreement of stability for a 5-year period. While we want the normal forest planning process to deal with evaluating the incorporation of the subsection (d) and possibly other components of the Quincy agreement into the plan, there is a great need for community and economic stability for the near term of 5 years. This is so that investment decisions can be made, the timber supply that results from fuel removal will be stabilized, and the pilot project can be carried out over enough of a time period to evaluate the results from a scientific standpoint. This balance is consistent with the goals of the National Forest Management Act and principles of sustainable development which seeks to ensure economic and ecologic balance. Concerning subsection (i), we left the proviso that requires the environmental impact statement is to be prepared in consultation with the QLG, thus ensuring that there are open lines of communication between the Forest Service and the QLG in designing the subsection (d) activities and so there are no FACA problems. We also left the proviso that ensures contracting flexibility. Regarding the new subsection (i) in our compromise, it is the same as subsection (j) of the Young amendment No. 1. It requires the planning process to evaluate the Quincy subsection (d) requirements, the land allocations, and the other features of the Quincy plan. It then allows the plan to be amended or revised. Reporting requirements of new subsection (j) and (k) are critical. They will allow us to evaluate performance from a fiscal standpoint and from an ecologic standpoint with reference to the goals of the Quincy agreement and the pilot project. My substitute and the House-passed bill switched the subsection (k) report to begin at the midpoint of the pilot project. That is because we wanted to make sure that the information provided in the report would begin to be available as the land management plan revision or amendment was being developed under new subsection (i). My amendment No. 1 and the House-passed bill also specifically included watershed monitoring as an aspect of the science- based assessment. Finally, the new subsection (l) was a proviso included by Mr. Herger and myself at the request of Members of the House and the junior Senator from California and to address a concern identified by the chairwoman of the Council on Environmental Quality. This proviso ensures that pilot project is not exempt from any Federal environmental law, which is consistent with the QLG agreement and H.R. 858 as introduced. We specifically chose the word ``exempt'' to ensure that the provisions in the bill have a meaning and, as a subsequently passed law, overlay the current law. Thus, the fuelbreak and group selection requirements of subsection (d) are indeed requirements, not meaningless abstractions that do not produce the desired results of enhanced ecologic conditions and community stability due to a consistent and larger, but quite sustainable, supply of timber from the ``Available for Group Selection'' acreage. Adding the explicit statement simply solidified the fact that the pilot project will not be exempt from Federal environmental laws. Thus, standard and guidelines for harvesting trees will apply, as will procedural laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, which will govern the subsection (b)(1) environmental impact statement for the project. I add some closing thoughts. First, this bill was designed for the Quincy plan. It is the right mix for the Quincy situation. It is needed to get the agency focused on implementing the plan on the ground. Other community-based forest plans may need their own mix of provisions in law to get their particular plan off of the ground or they may need no provisions in law. It is my hope that the Forest Service can accommodate future plans like the Quincy plan, but I will not be shy about supporting similar calls for legislation where it is necessary. Second, I think that because we have a consensus here on the Quincy plan itself and now on the bill, that it gives us something to watch--a test case--to see how well our environmental laws really work and whether and how they may need to be changed. If the Quincy plan ends up working out in terms of implementation, we may need to evaluate ways to make similar plans easier to implement. If the implementation of the new Quincy Library law and the plan still end up in gridlock, then perhaps it sets the stage to look even deeper for more fundamental changes in the underlying forestry law and restructure it to foster constructive compromise instead of continual conflict. Last, I thank the 429 Members of the House who overwhelmingly supported this bill. I want to especially thank Representative Wally Herger for introducing the bill and working on it with his usual enthusiasm. I also thank Vic Fazio, who was the cosponsor of the bill from the beginning and helped to put together the compromise today. He worked closely with Representative Herger, Representative Chenoweth, and Mr. Miller on our compromise that went down to the wire. I think that we ended up with a very good bill. It is a model for the future and a model for solving problems. Most of all I want to thank the members of the Quincy Library Group for staying together and doing what they knew was right for the environment and their community.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], the author of the bill, from the area which is directly affected.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 858, the Clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the action the House has just taken.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of business in House Resolution 180 be modified so that it shall be in order for Mr. Young of Alaska to offer the amendment now at the desk in lieu of the amendment numbered 2 in the Congressional Record by Mr. Miller of California, and that the amendment be considered under the same terms as would otherwise be applied to amendment No. 2.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I can only urge a ``yes'' on my amendment and a ``yes'' on final passage of the legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be modified by the form I have at the desk.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], the author of this legislation, to speak not only on the amendment but to the bill itself.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].