[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       COMPENSATION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS--NOT GOVERNMENT!

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 11, 1999

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

                          ____________________